“Changing the Face of the Culture Wars: Are You Sitting Idly By?” Comments, Page 1

Just click to return to the article “Changing the Face of the Culture Wars: Are You Sitting Idly By?”.

18 Comments (6 Discussion Threads) on “Changing the Face of the Culture Wars: Are You Sitting Idly By?”

  1. Yes to all you said. Plus, I try hard to make seemingly innocuous, yet leading, statements to those people who might sit idly by or be on the fence in these issues. That way perhaps they will not feel uncomfortable stretching their own beliefs.

  2. Dr. Hook, do you believe the comments you quoted in your article (“I’m so glad you don’t support the queers” and “I support your company, because your company hates the gays”) are representative of the general population who showed support for Chick-fil-A on August? If so, I think you’ve sorely misunderstood those whom you disagree with. Many simply showed support for a private business being targeted (and discriminated against, by the publicly-elected mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco) because of the owner’s values. Many hold long-standing, biblically-based personal convictions about what marriage should be, but would never wish harm or malice upon a gay person.

    How do you define tolerance? What about the man who bullied an innocent Chick-fil-A worker on camera in the drive through? What about Floyd Corkins, who recently entered the Family Research Council building (with a symbolic bag of Chick-fil-A sandwiches and a loaded weapon) and shot the security guard (in an attempt to gain access to harm those anti gay marriage “hate groups” you speak of)? Is the DC Center for the LGBT Community also a hate group because Corkins, who is being treated as a “domestic terrorist,” volunteered there? You paint a very negative picture of those you disagree with, and gloss over the grievances of LGBT activists who are just as “intolerant.”

    Maybe you have never treated a patient, like myself, who has suffered tremendous psychological wounds at the hands of gay family members who confused me, bruised my self-esteem, lied to me, made me feel inferior, put me in risky situations, and valued their own devices over my relationship. My point is that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot – tolerance is a two-way street. I feel no hatred toward anyone in the gay community, and I wish everyone the freedom to live as he or she pleases. However, there is minority community, of which I am a part, that has had personal experience with homosexual relationships as a child, and is worse off for it – is it intolerant of me to want more civil discussion before institutionalizing something that a majority of the country voted against just one decade ago?

    Can you grant that not all (or even a majority) of those who oppose same-sex marriage are hateful, sign-wielding fundamentalists who call people names? Or are you so “rigidly intolerant” as to believe that anyone who opposes openly homosexual conduct in the Boy Scouts is “evil or dysfunctional?”

    If tolerance is defined as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own,” this article is intolerant of Judeo-Christian belief systems.

    1. D – I don’t know if the comments I quoted were representative of the thousands who showed up that day but I sure hope not! I am aware that many mistakenly believed that they were showing support for free speech but this incident was never about that. Dan Cathy is free to say and do whatever he wants. However, by not patronizing his business, I too am exercising my rights. That is not discrimination. Similarly, Chick-fil-A was not discriminated against by the three mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. By its very definition, discrimination requires action and the mayors were only grandstanding. They have no legal ability to prevent Chick-fil-A restaurants from opening up in their cities.

      Unfortunately, bad behavior is not limited to a certain group of people. Abusive behavior and rudeness occurs across people of all races, genders and sexual orientation. I agree that the man who bullied that poor Chick-fil-A employee was a complete embarrassment and I am appalled to hear about what Floyd Corkins did. However, the actions of one individual cannot define a whole group. The Southern Poverty Law Center defines hate groups as those that “… have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” Thus, the whole group has to have as its mission goals that are harmful to an entire class of people.

      I have no problem with people being against gay marriage per se. What I object to is the refusal to permit gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I also object to the exclusion of particular groups of people in various organizations for no other reason than bigotry. For example, I think the Boys Scout should allow openly gay individuals but I have no problem with them not including girls.

      One of the issues I have with the people who oppose gay marriage and support the Boy Scout exclusion is that they want to limit the rights of a certain group of people based on their religious principles. Our Constitution includes a very purposeful separation of church and state so that religious beliefs cannot dictate the behavior and rights of others who do not agree. And while I do not think that everyone who opposes these things is “evil or dysfunctional,” I do believe they are being discriminatory and I am against that.

      You bring up an interesting point about when tolerance should be exercised. I am not tolerant about racism, sexism, heterosexism and other prejudicial and discriminatory beliefs nor do I think I should be. As long as someone’s beliefs are not harmful toward others, I try to be tolerant.

      One of the interesting and troubling aspects of religious belief is that much depends on one’s interpretation. Thus, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree that my article is intolerant of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I believe it was very representative of them.

  3. D. Tucker, I am sorry that you were sexually abused (I am surmising that from your comments) by a male (men?). That is not about homosexuality though. That is pedophilia. Pedophiles are 97-98% heterosexual, which is a higher number than their representation in the general population when compared to homosexuals. It is a horrific thing and happens way too often and leaves life long scars.

    When a powerful group, such as Christians are compared with the LGBT’s groups (and they are not one homogenous group, just as Christians are not one homogenous group) it’s a disingenious comparison, in terms of power, political pull, and civil rights. I am bothered when Christians feel discriminated against when others don’t follow their religious beliefs. Many say they don’t hurt LGBT people, but they DO judge the sinner and see the “sin” of being born homosexual as greater than being born as a heterosexual sinner? Many say they are friends with and love LGBT individuals, but do they really? That is, do they really love in the way Jesus loved? Do they celebrate when that person has found someone to love? Even if they disagree with gay marriage, are they on the frontlines fighting against hate crimes towards LGBT people (as one example) or just see violence as a consequence of their “incorrect” sexuality? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt it. Now that would show me true Christian love. Most are happy to celebrate their “Christian beliefs” by getting in line at Chik Fil A, but how many are following the greatest commandment, day to day? You talk about the majority voting against gay marriage, but “the majority” have voted againt equality for blacks, for women and for many other minority groups in the past. Might doesn’t make right! The same excuses and similar bible texts that were used to defend racism are now being used to defend homophobia and heterosexism. Many churches and Christians have realized this and openly welcome ALL sexualities. I think being against equal rights for LGBT people is about fear, but most people are in huge denial about this common feeling.

  4. Dr. Hook, thank you for your response. Just as you are appalled to hear about what Floyd Corkins did, I am appalled at the behavior of those so-called “Christians” who attack, belittle, bully, or otherwise harass gay people. Unfortunately, these people make the most noise (and get all the media attention). Just as you said, “the actions of one individual cannot define a whole group.” Neither can the actions of a small (albeit loud) right-wing political extremist group define an entire faith community. You will never hear much about the many Christians who seek to genuinely love and quietly serve others (yes, including gay people). That just doesn’t make for entertaining news…

    You said, “Chick-fil-A was not discriminated against.” Many people disagree with you – even the ACLU (which is very active in LGBT legal issues) states that “Mr. Cathy may have a pretty strong claim under the First Amendment that he is a victim of viewpoint discrimination by a government official.” The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, and other newspapers across the country have expressed similar concerns over the mayors’ “empty threats” – even though they disagree with Cathy’s personal views – because of a mayor’s role and direct influence upon local businesses.

    You also said, “Our Constitution includes a very purposeful separation of church and state so that religious beliefs cannot dictate the behavior and rights of others who do not agree.” This is not accurate for two reasons: 1) The constitution does include the “separation of church and state.” Nowhere does it say that church and state must be separate… This concept originated with presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. 2) You are mistaken as to the intent of this concept – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist presented evidence that “the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference.” So while it’s true that separation logically needs to exist, your claim is backwards – the First Amendment is arguably intended to foster religious freedom first, while also enabling protections against the establishment of a state-run religion (many early British North American colonists had fled persecution in Europe, including hangings and burnings at the stake, because of their religious conversions).

  5. Dr. Kuhn, thank you for your response, also. I am sorry if my comments were unclear, but I was not sexually abused – the abuse was emotional, but homosexual individuals were unfortunately at the center of my family’s cycles of dysfunction (I mean that as a factual statement, not a lifestyle judgment). My anecdote was simply intended to counter what I felt was a general mischaracterization (“businesses and groups that are soul-destroying”). I’m simply pointing out that soul destroyers live in both camps.

    I must say that I find many of your other statements to be very loaded, full of over-generalizations and half-truths, and downright offensive to anyone who holds a Christian worldview and pursues the study of biblical theology. It you studied the Bible, you would know that a careful analysis of the biblical narrative absolutely condemns slavery as it occurred in America. And if you study history, you will learn that Abolitionists also cited the Bible in arguing for the freeing of slaves.

    I’m sorry you’ve never met any who exemplify Christ’s love – I wish you could encounter any of the Christians I fellowship with, as we really trying to make a difference in our community, and meeting physical and spiritual needs that no government-based social service ever could. I would respectfully ask you to not to ascribe the purely bigoted motives of some radical political groups to Christians as a whole. Though Christians are not perfect and have made major historical blunders, we STRIVE to confront injustice (despite your perception), and are not against “equal rights” because of fear.

    I never intended to imply that “might makes right.” I simply expressed the desire for more civil discussion first (namely because little thought has been given to protecting the rights of conscience of Christians if gay marriage were institutionalized). I agree with you that might doesn’t make right, though I reject the notion that gay marriage is right on par with race and gender as a civil rights issue (homophobia not an organized, relentless system of mainstream social and economic oppression that is based on obvious and permanent outward physical characteristics). If gay marriage is a civil rights issue, then so is religious freedom, as the number of hate murders because of religious beliefs is not far behind that of sexual orientation in America (and it’s far worse in many parts of the world, where it’s a crime to convert to Christianity, thanks to the state-dictated religion). And these TWO “civil rights” will conflict at times, so some would say you are simply siding with the one you agree with, not fighting for civil rights in general.

    1. D. Tucker, I am glad to hear you were not sexually abused. I am admitedly confused as to what you mean by, “homosexual individuals were unfortunately at the center of my family’s cycles of dysfunction.” I’m curious about you identifying their sexuality as the issue, vs. their gender, hair color, possible personality disorder, etc., I understand if this is a personal issue though and respect if you would rather not respond. Otherwise, I see no point in investing my time and energy in further discussion, in regards to the other parts of your responses. We are clearly not going to agree and thus it’s not a good use of my time to go in circles in regards to this issue. Have a great day!

  6. Dr. Kuhn,

    I tried to explain the context for that particular comment in that paragraph, but perhaps it was confusing. In any case, it’s a side issue when I’d rather discuss the actual message this blog post put forward.

    Had my earlier comment not been deleted (for a reason not spelled out anywhere in the comment instructions, terms of use, or privacy policy), perhaps you might better understand my position or where I am coming from. But I put a lot of thought into that response, which contained my main point – and I have no energy to do it again.

    1. It does seem that it would be more than fair for you to get an explanation of why it was removed. I enjoy reading on this site, but am not a writer, admin or otherwise involved.

    2. Yes, I now understand. I tried to post too many words at one time. It seems a little intense for a site that barely receives any comments at all, though. (I’m a long-time reader but a first-time participant.)

  7. D – First, I would have to say I agree with you the the mayors of the above-mentioned cities should not have threatened (emptily or not) to keep businesses out based on the owners’ stated beliefs. This is inappropriate unless those businesses can be shown to be breaking the law in same way. I believe Mr. Cathy’s statement was a personal belief and not a company-wide policy. At least, that is what I thought I read.

    However, the issue isn’t really about that. By making these comments publicly, Mr. Cathy cannot then complain when they are publicly refuted by customers. I am choosing not to go to Chick-Fil-A because I am making MY opinions known with my dollars. I do not want any of my money to go through Mr. Cathy to any organization that has as part of its goals the attempt to keep LGBT American citizens from enjoying legal rights and protections that other Americans take for granted. As it is Mr. Cathy’s right to state his beliefs, it is my right to disagree with him.

    I found it interesting that you classified Dr. Hook’s blog post as “intolerant” of Christian beliefs. The only thing she espoused was supporting organizations that work for positive solutions and not supporting (with dollars or enrollment) organizations that support discrimination. How is that intolerant? Just because she doesn’t hold the beliefs that you apparently do? I think you should re-read the blog and try to focus on what she said rather than the fact that she holds a differing viewpoint on this tricky issue.

    Just one more comment: Speaking as a Christian, I’d be interested to hear where you found the statistics that state that LGBT people are discriminated against about the same amount as religious people, unless, of course, you’re talking about religions other than Christianity.

    1. Hi Julie,

      We’re in agreement about your first paragraph. :)

      Regarding your second paragraph: I’m not sure where any of that is coming from, as I have not made any claims otherwise. I fully support your right to disagree, boycott, etc.

      Regarding your third paragraph: Unfortunately, that’s not the only thing Dr. Hook espoused (if it were, I would not be so critical of her article).

      She made no distinction between individuals with Judeo-Christian belief systems – who cannot affirm homosexuality because of deeply-held, biblical religious convictions about sexuality and the purpose of marriage – and individuals who demonstrate unwarranted hatred or malice toward gay people. I don’t deny that bigotry is a real problem – but you can’t ascribe malicious motives and call it “hate” whenever someone won’t endorse your view of sexuality. That would be like me saying, “all gay rights activists want to murder Christians,” just because Floyd Corkins fit that description.

      Dr. Hook misrepresents the Bible narrative, touting its instruction of “love and tolerance” and ignoring the book of Romans completely when it comes to sexuality.

      She fails to clarify that people who showed up in support of Chick-fil-A did so for a wide number of expressed reasons (and that most people had nothing hateful to say, but rather spoke positively in support for free speech, business rights, personal beliefs, and biblical views of marriage).

      She quotes only the exremists (outliers) – when in fact, the majority of people who stood in those lines would have been horrified at those hateful quotes, too. It’s convenient for the author to find the “bad seed” in making her point, but it’s very misleading, given the disproportionate number of more compassionate sentiments available.

      What people seem to not understand is that religious freedom – including rights of conscience – is protected by the constitution, and there are times when sexual liberty is in conflict with religious liberty (see Ward v. Wilbanks, for example). Instead of validating this real tension, she simply chooses sides in the culture wars, and demonizes those with whom she disagrees. That’s why I called it intolerant.

      As to your last question (which doesn’t quite represent my statement above accurately): According the the FBI (http://1.usa.gov/uore0M), hate crimes that are motivated by religious bias rival hate crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias (both are near 20%) – and the majority of victims of religious persecution are of the Judeo-Christian faith. As for other parts of the world, religious persecution is even more rampant (bit.ly/iFXgxv and http://bit.ly/SC9AVW). My point in that comment was: “If gay marriage is a civil rights issue, then so is religious freedom.”

      Adjectives like “soul-destroying” simply evince the author’s own personal bias and prejudice – which does nothing to “change the face of the culture wars,” and is nothing to celebrate. To quote the author, “We could all use the change.”

  8. Julie, my response to your comment was deleted – AGAIN.

    [Various complaints about the commenting system have been deleted…]

    1. D. Tucker, your statement is incorrect. Your comment was held in the moderation queue by an automated system. It was not deleted.

      However, your subsequent response complaining about how your comment was deleted WAS edited.

      These comment forms are not provided to support extended meta commentary on the commenting system itself, nor are they provied to offer a personal platform to promote any one person’s agenda or beliefs or to make ad hominem attacks against authors or other commenters.

      Rather, they are provided to support civil, respectful, constructive debate on the content of individual posts themselves. Comments which keep to the spirit of that purpose are virtually never deleted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
 characters available

In accordance with our Privacy Policy, your email address will not be published with your comment or shared in any other way. Please do not SPAM. Comments which solicit personal advice, are rude or inflammatory, are not about this specific post, or are otherwise not in keeping with our Terms of Use may be deleted at our discretion. If you would like to make a comment or ask a question about something other than the subject matter of this post, please do get in touch directly.

Overseen by an international advisory board of distinguished academic faculty and mental health professionals with decades of clinical and research experience in the US, UK and Europe, CounsellingResource.com provides peer-reviewed mental health information you can trust. Our material is not intended as a substitute for direct consultation with a qualified mental health professional. CounsellingResource.com is accredited by the Health on the Net Foundation.

Copyright © 2002-2024. All Rights Reserved.