No, really, I'm above such silly things as hate

Back before the virus hit my computer I wrote about efforts of religious groups to get ads into major newspapers claiming the gay response to the Calif. marriage bans is a Campaign of Violence by gays against churches. One of those ads has now appeared in the New York Times. I'll let you read the blather for yourself.

However, I will note a couple things. The ad directs people to a website (no link from me) where they can sign a petition in support of a campaign to "expose and publicly shame anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry — against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason." The head of the organization that paid for the ads wrote, "This is a lesson America had to learn the hard way, overcoming bigotry against Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities, and we are committed to not letting the country forget it."

That left me wondering why they are concerned only with anti-religious bigotry? Might that be because they are on the receiving end? Shouldn't they be concerned with all bigotry?

The National Organization for Marriage (and certainly not for gay marriage) has also trumpeted the idea that gays are the real haters. They have started a campaign titled "Above the Hate" to make sure everyone knows the nasty things gays have been doing against religious minorities.

Along the way they make the same error of all bigots: the actions of a few are implied to describe the actions of the entire group. Yeah, some gay activists did some things that weren't nice (though most incidents attributed to gays have not been proven) but most gay protesters have been quite civil and respectful. In the nature of all bigoted screeds, the nasty things attributed to all gays are, of course, described in the most dramatic manner possible. Even if they have to lie (pardon me, "make stuff up" -- they certainly don't document their claims) to get their point across. But gays are the ones that get the label of anti-religious bigots.

There is a thorough dissection of the NOM claims at Fannie's Room (who is a blogger like me). I'll mention one of their claims. NOM wrote that gays created "Outrageous television ad campaigns crudely and deliberately designed to incite fear and hatred of a minority religious community." (emphasis added) Those last few words imply it is a fine thing to have created "outrageous television ad campaigns crudely and deliberately designed to incite fear and hatred of gays" as the Mormons did in getting the marriage ban passed.
http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2008/12/above-hate-below-propaganda.html

With reactions like this one might conclude (as several have) that our protests are effective.


I got a direct response to my previous posting on this topic from a very good friend. By discussing his note in this posting about religious intolerance I run the risk that you will conclude he is also religiously intolerant, which I want to emphatically state is not correct. He's as annoyed by religious intolerance as I am. I include his words (and my reactions to them) because they relate to the topic at hand. He wrote:

Your words betray a disrespect for real and powerful enemies. They come from an (understandable) anger but present a danger to yourself and your audience. It's despicable, self-destructive and unwise to bring

"numerous bombings of abortion providers and deaths of gays to hate crimes. And they accuse us of violence?"

into this discussion. I blame your commenter for that. I'm surprised you would broadcast this line without critiquing it.

Its despicable because (I'm pretty sure) the Mormon Church isn't a party to such things, directly or indirectly. Hate crimes are criminal incidents, often showing the perpetrator's mental illness. Attaching them to established churches discredits the gay community. Gays must attend to differences among a spectrum of enemies, for their own sanity and to divide and conquer.

Splitting a few hairs here: I don't know if the Mormon church had a hand in abortion bombings and I don't know how loudly they condemn the practice of abortion. My friend is right that I should not lump Mormons with abortion bombers without more evidence.

However, their disgust with gays is now documented (in spite of their claims that celibate gays are welcome in their churches) through the way they lied their way to victory in Calif. And it is also well documented (though I don't have a link) that religious condemnation of gays fuels hate crimes against gays, even if the mentally ill actually pull the trigger or light the fuse. The religious leaders, of course, hotly claim their speech had no influence at all and the actual events are isolated incidents from lone perpetrators.

Or to put it another way, the organization Soul Force says that one of their missions is to combat spiritual violence against gays.

So I may have been a bit broad in my linkage, but my comparison is not despicable.

Its self-destructive because it sets up an "eye for an eye" mentality. That creates the spiral of violence and misery we have seen for decades between Israel and the Palestinians --- it's lose lose for all.

Here I very much agree. And though I didn't carefully provide linkage to above statement, there is a section in that same posting that discusses the non-violent principles of Gandhi and King.

Its unwise because the violent, criminal, deadly few who prey on gays are really a small (but tragic and emotional) problem for the gay community and its allies. They can't make a real difference in the larger, historic fight. The cure for that problem is law enforcement (admittedly, also a problem).

In contrast, the Mormon Church is huge, global, persistent, wealthy and dangerous. Its a big problem, as are the evangelical sects, the traditional Catholic Church and some others. We need to see our enemies realistically. In this ugly view, we see entrenched, tradition-conserving morally-self-justified mega-religions that know how to get their messages out. They won't give up their power and go into a better future easily. Yes, in the longer run, these churches are destroying themselves by failing to adapt to modern times. But they won't disappear soon. And political climates run in cycles: backward, conservative powers are likely to wax and wane.

I think I lost something here. I shouldn't make the comparison I did because while perpetrators of hate crimes are deadly, the Mormon church is merely dangerous? Especially since the rhetoric from the Mormon church and its colleagues in this campaign (who only claim to be colleagues when up against gays) has been shown (see above) to inspire those perpetrators of hate crimes. If I did misunderstand you I'm sure you'll correct me.