Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: LGBT campaign after Prop 8 called a “campaign of violence”
Pam Spaulding reports that The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (an organization that hosted Mitt Romney last year and gave him an award) is putting together an ad calling the LGBT response to Prop 8 a “campaign of violence.” Spaulding states that the ad will feature the delivery of “white powder” to a church.
We all know from the lead up to the election that anti-gay groups are not above lying in their advertising. It was, in fact, a key part of their strategy to win the popular vote on gay marriage in California. But this campaign of violence charge seems like a different tactic altogether.
The Becket Fund plays the victim often on its website. Interestingly, it allies itself with Islam and Rastafarianism – two religions that have actually seen real discrimination in the United States as well as abroad. In one breath it supports a UN resolution protecting the freedom to practice religious beliefs worldwide and in another condemns the removal of the plaque charging God with the protection of Kentucky.
Does that make them haters or heroes?
Freedom of religion is a sacred (not to play on words) right and a fundamental part of the American Constitution. There is even court sanctioned room for religious expression in many functions of American government. Internationally, freedom of religion needs protecting. Look to Uzbekistan or Iraq to see the kind of violence people undergo in order to practice traditions that are integral to their person.
But freedom to love? That one, the Becket Fund does not support.
You can pray to Allah and they will be tolerant. You can believe that the Christian God is nothing more than a myth and they will still stand up and defend you. But if you violate one minor part of the Christian bible they will call you a violent mob and work actively to deny you civil rights.
This ad campaign and the work of the Becket Fund present an interesting juxtaposition. At the end of the day, you’re either for freedom or against (to borrow from the Bush administration’s lingo). Which side of the line are you on Becket?
Religion is the single biggest impediment to human and civil rights in the world. If those whores actually gave a damn about liberty, they would drive their inbred selves off of a cliff.
When a far greater portion of the world has been brainwashed into utterly ridiculous mythologies and the sane/intelligent people are the ones who are ostracized - it’s no wonder the world is the way it is today. Whatever “God” is, has certainly nothing to do with religion. That is merely an extension of man’s ego.
Has the white powder case been solved yet? If it turns out that the powder was sent by some crazy christians with a martyr complex, the Becket Fund might be in the interesting position of calling themselves violent. This whole venture might just come back to bite them (not that I’m complaining).
Radical Realist, truer words have never been spoken.
The act of sending white powder (non-toxic as it may have been) to the Mormon Temples for the purpose of terrifying the people who are there and sending the message that someone wants them dead is in my book an act of terrorism. I think whoever did it should be put in prison for a very long time.
Is the person(s) who did it part of our community? We may never know. But to not personally acknowledge given the timing that it may likely be a member(s) of our community is a bit narrow minded, I think.
The acts of vandalism were also wrong and shouldn’t have happened.
Non-violent civil disobedience, protesting, pressuring representatives, boycotts, other creative non-violent tactics = super cool & ultimately effective.
Vandalism & pulling a cross out of crazy lady’s hand and destroying it = not cool & totally counter productive.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think we’re a bunch of violent goons like The Becket Fund would have people believe - but I also think we should acknowledge that there have been a handful of violent incidences and try to nip them in the bud.
I would be really, really cautious about condemning other queers for how they take action. Don’t do it unless it’s absolutely necessary. We’re going to be condemned from the outside enough as it is.
Taking the old lady’s cross out of her hands and stomping on it was heat of the moment and not premeditated, and that old lady is as much to blame for inciting it. That was played repeatedly on FOX.
People are going to do extreme things when they don’t feel the gay rights movement at large is doing enough, fast enough. And we really aren’t. There will be chaos as long as we’re disorganized. I think it’s been getting more organized just in the past month though.
Regardless of what we do or have done, we’re always going to be slandered as intolerant, violent, “religious bigot” etc. So my question is, why don’t we just dispense with the kumbaya bullsh*t and burn some Mormon temples down with the people locked inside?
Our human rights our civil rights as human beings are under attack. Slaves could and death row inmates can marry, but not gay people. Rights are not inalienable, they don’t fall out of the sky from God, rights are political and the only time we can secure them is when we are capable of fighting, killing and dying for them.
Voltaire said I might not believe in what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. That is a noble concept. But by the same token, we should fight for our rights just as vigorously as we fight for the rights of others. Killing is no more morally or ethically wrong, when it is in the “defense” of your country, then when it is in the defense of your rights. If someone tries to rape you or rob you, you have the right to kill to protect yourself. When more than 1,700 rights are at stake, we have just as much, if not more of a moral right to kill to keep those rights.
Gays and lesbians have NEVER worked to impede the rights of Mormons to the freedom to practice their own religion. But freedom of religion has a limit, when you force your religion upon others and limit their rights, you have no freedom of religion. Mormons and others who’ve supported and voted for Prop 8 deserve NO rights. If you try to carjack someone, and they put a bullet in your head, then it’s the carjacker who’s at fault. By the same token, if Mormons or Catholics of Blacks think they have the right to take away the rights of gays and lesbians, then they too should be dealt with accordingly.
If the right to vote gives someone the right to vote away someone else’s human rights. Then the right to bear arms gives that person whose rights were violated the right to kill the person responsible. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think Shari ought to read and discuss what Rodney Moore said.
”Rights are not inalienable, they don’t fall out of the sky from God, rights are political and the only time we can secure them is when we are capable of fighting, killing and dying for them.”’Gays and lesbians have NEVER worked to impede the rights of Mormons to the freedom to practice their own religion. But freedom of religion has a limit’”If the right to vote gives someone the right to vote away someone else’s human rights. Then the right to bear arms gives that person whose rights were violated the right to kill the person responsible. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.’
I actually believe more like Gandhi and MLK in peaceful civil disobedience, but NO MORE SILENCE…NO MORE ALLOWING Cult EVANGELISTS to dictate the way me, my friends and my family lives. My God says that is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
And we need to stop allowing the opposition to frame the debate. Does anyone have some money to make an ad? Oh, wait, I guess that would be the HRC.
My argument to exert non-violent pressure is not about kowtowing to those who would seek to stop us. I believe that we have to persistently and vigorously fight for our rights. And I think it’s a valid point that disorganization can lead to unintended violence, so I personally am very glad that we are getting better at organizing.
Historically women were accused of being violent and crazy when they were fighting for equal rights in this country. So I don’t think we need to cower to those pushing their religious point of view when they say that we are violent. That’s just empy rhetoric & as you say, Roger, they would call us that whether we’re violent or not. However, I don’t think that gives us license to do violence.
I don’t think that rights fall out of a sky — so why not do more? When women were fighting for rights, they were standing outside the capital for days on end with their protest, committed to do so until they got the right to vote, even in a time of war when it was considered shocking and offensive for them to be there. We had the big protests on November 15th and roughly 12,000 came out for it in Los Angeles - why didn’t we have 100,000? Why did we stick to this silly protest route around downtown where no one was there except us instead of taking it to the streets and stopping traffic where people were actually inconvienced?
That’s non-violent civil disobedience. Why are we playing so nice? I don’t know.
But moving from stopping traffic, getting in their faces with it and boycotting companies to being willing to do violence to people and destroying their property? That’s a leap.
And even if it is wasn’t morally wrong to do violence or destroy property, it’s against the constitution - the same constitution we believe is going to come to our salvation at the end with the separation of church & state. If they have to respect the part of it that they don’t like, we have to respect the part that says we can’t destroy their property. What’s good for the goose…
im amazed at what is going on in the country that is based on freedom and teh pursiut of happiness
wow i may be only 17 but i lear n more horrid things about what ther=y are doing to the LGBT communty every day
im astonished… just in utter disbelief