10
« on: Yesterday at 01:01:02 PM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
So, who is responsible for the vandalism at the Focus on the Family facility, or do you consider that vandalism a justifiable expression of dissent to their positions? What about the arson and other vandalism at pro-life clinics and churches? Do you consider that vandalism acceptable pro-choice actions. Are those who have bitterly denounced pro-life positions and such clinics perhaps responsible for inciting those on the pro-choice side who have not rejected the use of violence.
I comment:
How many times do I have to say I oppose violence? I do not consider it acceptable, whether directed at gay clubs, or pro-life offices.
But – and we went down this well-rutted road following the murder of George Foreman and the subsequent unrest in some cities – people like us need to think about the frustration, the fear, and the attitudes of gay people who hear (whether or not it is said specifically) that they are a threat, that they are dangerous, that they are Satanic, that they are an abomination, that they can never form a true “family”, that they do not deserve the benefits of a conjugal union, that they should be denied the right to adopt a child, etc. etc. etc.
We should think whether the frustration and fear runs so strongly in some that they turn to violence; and even if Focus on the Family had not said the most hateful things, it is a well-known organization that opposes gay marriage.
Peter writes:
Do you think the conservative people who regularly post here and who reject same-sex marriage and uphold traditional sexual morality are partly to blame for violence against homosexuals?
I comment:
As said before, a lot depends upon the language used and what actions against gay people are addressed. Before my Lutheran denomination came to where it is now, we opposed gay marriage, but we also opposed civil discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Peter:
Do you think your anti-Trump rhetoric in this site is partly to blame for the riot at the Capitol?
Me:
Say what? The rioters were opposed to things that I favor, responding to their leader, a guy I oppose politically.
Peter:
And people upholding traditional morality are to blame for some non-binary person shooting up a gay nightclub. The whole “rhetoric inciting violence” thing only ever goes one way, which was my point. Focus on the Family was, in Charles’s estimation, partly the cause of the violence because of what they proclaim, which is largely in line with what Christianity has always proclaimed on the topic of family.
Me:
See above: That organization may have been a target of opportunity, perhaps for those responding to the more vicious language of the Texas “evangelical” pastors and some others.
Peter:
Hence my question— if they are to blame, are we conservatives in this forum culpable in the same way (allowing, of course, for the more limited exposure)?
Me:
Not in the same way. But we do know that some people will hear anti-gay or anti-Black or anti-immigrant words spoken at a “Level one” of discussion; and respond with more discussion. Then there are those who voice their anti-gay or anti-Black or anti-immigrant position in “Level 10” words, which sends a signal to those who want to respond with “Level 50” violence that they ought to do so.
Peter:
And if so, would it go the other way? Is Charles’s rhetoric then partly to blame for the actions of progressives who have not rejected violence or the actions of conservatives enraged by what he says?
Me:
I suppose that is a risk, although one so slight it’s hardly worth discussion. I think we could chart language from some of our top political leaders that is – without suggesting violence – designed to incite it. The “dog whistle” term is used. Most people don’t even hear the tweet, but those for whom it is intended leap up, snarl, bare the teeth and go into attack mode.
Show Posts