It began with shouts—foul and violent verbal attacks. Then the assaults became physical. Rioters threw hot coffee on people and began shoving them. One thug yanked a cross out of a woman’s arms and stomped on it. Another grabbed a woman’s Bible, struck her on the head with it, knocked her to the ground, and kicked her. Others engaged in sexual exhibitionism.
This was the vicious aftermath of the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex “marriage.” The attacks were perpetrated by homosexuals angry that voters had passed the measure. They directed the worst of their venom at Mormons, who played an active role in passing the law. It was thug politics at its worst—and believe me, I’ve seen the worst.
When I watched the violence on television, memories came back of earlier generations of thugs: Bull Conner, who, with the help of brutal cops, used violence and intimidation to chase African Americans out of the public square. Or roving gangs of Nazi brownshirts who ruled the streets of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power. Do opponents of Proposition 8 who attacked Mormons and their churches think they’re any better than Bull Conner, or nicer than Nazi thugs? I don’t.
Decent Americans, no matter how they feel about Proposition 8, should be outraged over attempts to frighten and punish those who have every right to speak out—and every right to vote!
When it became clear that Mormons were being singled out for punishment, religious leaders of every stripe, including me, signed our names to a full-page ad in the New York Times sponsored by the esteemed Becket Fund. It was titled “No Mob Veto.” The signatories included Nathan Diament, Alveda King, William Donahue, and Roger Scruton.
And we pointed out that while we disagree on many issues—including Proposition 8—“nevertheless, we’re united,” we wrote, “in this: The violence and intimidation being directed against the . . . ‘Mormon’ church and other religious organizations—and even against individual believers—simply because they supported Proposition 8, is an outrage that must stop.”
When people of faith enter the public square, they should not consider themselves immune from criticism. But “there’s a world of difference,” we wrote, “between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission.”
Most despicable of all are those who excused the threats and violence as merely “demonstrations” that “got out of hand.” Hogwash! In many cases, the so-called “demonstrations” were nothing more than mobs who sought “not to persuade but to intimidate.” When hooligans mail white powder to terrorize a place of worship, responsible voices need to speak out loudly and clearly.
And that is why, we concluded, “Despite our fundamental disagreements with one another . . . we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship—Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever—from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve.” We also are committed to “exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason.”
I hope others will join us—especially those who claim to support civil rights. Will they condemn the attacks, will they remain silent, or—ugliest of all—will they excuse the violence?
From BreakPoint®, December 15, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
Hi everyone! The Christian Post now has a Facebook page that you can join to show your friends what you're reading and to also get your friends engaged in your Christian news discussions! Check it out and spread the word! http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Christian-Post/41093998634
Mike wrote: "Forgiven: From RI, now live in MD. After Prop 8 passed there were nationwide protests, unfortunately, the media doesn't have much interest in showing the peaceful protests."
Yikes, small world! RI born and breed! Yeah, peaceful protests don't tend to be news worthy......I wonder if we'll ever not have doom and gloom news reporting.
Forgiven: From RI, now live in MD. After Prop 8 passed there were nationwide protests, unfortunately, the media doesn't have much interest in showing the peaceful protests.
Mike22685 wrote: "When I protested for marriage equality in RI"
Are you from RI now living in CA?
Bokovel, that's because being gay isn't a sinful act, having relations with someone other than your spouse is. We don't want special treatment or special laws, but we do want legal protection which we need and deserve (we have been specifically targeted for many years for brutal hate crimes, and stricter legislation has scared many from continuing. Take the case of Matthew Shepard, for example.)
DP, we don't really have a "gay leader" the way churches have pastors. I can tell you that when Prop 8 protests were formed around my area, we stressed civil protests over and over again. When I protested for marriage equality in RI, we stood there with signs and did not say a single word, but we had "Christians" shouting obscenities at us. The tide goes both ways, and certainly neither is effective in proving a point.
abhodim, I guess you figured out why the issue was so important to those leaders in California? When was the last time that people across the nation looked to Wisconsin for leadership in trends? I agree with you about living in the Midwest, though.
The question of gay arriage was voted on in our state (Wisconsin) a couple of years ago. Very low key. Typical avenues. Commercials (about three-to-one in support of gay-marriage). Letters to the editor (my personal correspondence with the local editor revealed two things, a sincere desire by the editorial staff to cull out the really nasty letters, and a method called batching, where one group chooses key editions to flood the paper with letters supporting one side. Every side got his/her opportunity to voice his/her concerns. Churches held opportunities to explain the Christian concept of marriage, but insisted each one must vote his/her conscience. In the end, the gay-marriage proposal lost about 40 to 60%. A few letters of protest followed but Colson's idea of civil democracy was adhered to.
Perhaps what made California's Prop 8 different was the state's celeb power. Media took tie to promote one side heavily. I recall the night before the election I was at the dentist getting a new crown (mercifully, a double shot of Novacaine). The Ellen Degeneres show was on, and she was having a field day condemning all Neanderthals that would support Prop 8. Imagine battling the groupthink of her audience by standing up and speaking out against homosexiality. (So dumb, only a caveman would do it). Taking in the show explained to me the seriousness of this culture war, and gave e pause to thank God I am only a bland Mid-westerner who somehow could calmly debate this same matter and vote.
And nobody got brow-beaten.
"It is unfair of Mr. Colson to speak as if this is the official tactic of the gay community,"
Many things are attributed to the "Christian community" or the "African-American community" all of which are only representative of a few people.
Take the attack on Rick Warren. It is full of lies by the pro-gay community. The point is that the thug politics from the gay community is real and it only takes a few high profile gay people or groups to warp peoples perception. In short, these gay thugs aren't doing you any favors with their behavior.
When abortion clinics were getting bombed in the name of Christianity many Christian leaders came out condemning it. It was called un-Christian behavior by respected leaders in the Christian community. When these thugs started representing the gay communities reputation the leaders did NOT come out condemning it. Their silence was taken as acceptance of thug politics. That is the problem.
Thomas wrote: "Or is there something more sinister involved in this alleged "curriculum" about same-sex marriage?"
Sinister? I guess it all depends on the motive to make it part of the circulumn. And it's not alleged, it is mandated in MA.
In New Mexico, a photographer has been fined by a non-elected board for declining to photograph a lesbian "marriage".
In Canada, a pastor has been fined by a non-elected board for writing a letter to the editor calling homosexuality an abomination.
The agenda you are asking about is to force Christians to call sin good, to support and to celebrate sinful behavior, to sacrifice our standards and beliefs to the idol of political correctness.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals..." 1 Cor 6:9, NASB.
The agenda is to take that out of the Bible, and out of our teaching.
Honest question: if the law in a particular state or country is that two people of the same-sex can marry, why shouldn't children learn that that's what the law is? I don't see any particular reason why they shouldn't.
Or is there something more sinister involved in this alleged "curriculum" about same-sex marriage?
We should be able to dialogue without trying to demonize or destroy. Why is the gay "sin" any worse than sins of adultry, greed, sloth, gluttony, etc of a heterosexual?
I think the problem is that gays demand special treatment for being gay and want society to condone their sinful behavior, e.g., gay marriage, hate crimes against gays, etc. Adulterers aren't looking for special treatment or acknowledgement. The sodomites need to go back in the closet where they belong. Hate the sin not the sinner comes from a letter St. Augustine wrote to the mother superior of a convent and is not in the bible. Incidently, this comes after the sinner has repented.
Yuck. I hope that the few homosexuals who did these things don't speak for the whole.
Mike22685,
Hope you enjoyed Christmas.
You wrote: "Prop 8 passed through much false propaganda, such as that all children would be forced to be taught about gay marriage."
Unfortunately, Massachusetts Public Schools have set this precedence requiring all children be taught about gay marriage. A parent does not have the right to request their child not be part of this ciriculumn and no notification is sent home and in one such case a father was been thrown in jail under a hate crime.
It seems that there may be too many unknowns that are driving fear and concern.
People just do not like to be told, "No." Individuals on both sides in this issue are displaying behaviors that just reinforce the worst of the stereotypes about them as groups. IF same sex relationships are sin, Christians are encouraged to "hate the sin, love the sinner." Jesus never turned anyone away or treated anyone disrespectfully - EXCEPT those who presented themselves as self-righteous and those who were "religious" but not people of faith (i.e. godly). We should be able to dialogue without trying to demonize or destroy. Why is the gay "sin" any worse than sins of adultry, greed, sloth, gluttony, etc of a heterosexual?
In an age when the "emergent church" is so focused on creating a welcoming environment for "seekers," I am amazed at the hate this particular issue generates - on both sides. It is emotional, gut-level and is often irrational bypassing the thinking required to legitimately deal with the issue.
For many gays, there IS a stigma, guilt associated with certain of their behaviors. Not all are in loving, committed relationships. Many want to use the same-sex marriage privilege as a blanket social acceptance and affirmation of ALL gay behaviors. That is just not reasonable or rationale or scriptural.
Neither side can just "agree to disagree" on this issue. It calls for resolution. However, before we get THERE we will have to engage is responsible dialogue, Christian love, and engage in much prayful seeking of the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the Will of God.
Clearly Prop 8 is a law that comes from a place of dislike and fear of the gay community, and the actions of those in the gay community who partake in violence should be condemned. It is unfair of Mr. Colson to speak as if this is the official tactic of the gay community, because I have been to many silent rallies which were must more effective in getting our point across. Prop 8 passed through much false propaganda, such as that all children would be forced to be taught about gay marriage. Once you make an issue about children (even though it has NOTHING to do with children) you will have people's attention. To me, that was thug politics, and those who claim to be people of God will someday pay for their lies.
you can take the man out of politics but you cant take politics out of the man.
apparently the political spirit that were personified by the workings of atwater are alive and well.....thank you.
Thomas,
No intentions of offense, and many apologies if some taken.
My point was based on viewing the gay movement's response to the passing of Prop 8. The grafitti, the angry looks on camera, the "H8" placards they carried, and the harrassment and belittleling comments aimed toward those who opposed them in this proposition presented to and passed by a Caliornia electorate.
How can one make the other side believe in the integrity of their movement if they display such moments of anger?
A simple question that requires oments of introspection.
What an absurd thing to say, abhodim. Are you claiming that blue's relative, or blue him/herself, engages in hate crimes?
Sorry Blue,
But to hear one speaking of hate crimes engaged in such acts of hatred, it cries hypocrisy. Extremism occurs on both sides of the political spectrum.
But it is okay for homophobic baptists to beat up my gay relative to the point where he is spitting blood, loosing teeth, breaking his fingers and internally bleeding; all the while the attackers' friends laugh. .... just not for gays to externally express their anger.
This is foulest of anti-gay propaganda, Mr. Colson, written specifically to whip up hatred and to rationalize cruelty against gay and lesbian people.
And it's a little hard to take coming from someone well known to have plotted to firebomb the offices of a political opponent.