San Francisco is the tolerance capital of America, except when it comes to Christianity.
Over 25,000 Christian youth gathered in AT&T Park in San Francisco for a Teen Mania event. Event organizer, Ron Luce said the event was designed to inspire a “reverse rebellion” against teen influencers such as MTV and MySpace.
But the city’s Board of Supervisors felt this was an “act of provocation” by an “anti-gay,” “anti-choice” organization attempting to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”
Let’s see exactly how tolerant – Assemblyman Mark Leno told those protesting the “facist mega-pep rally” that although Christians were outnumbered in San Francisco, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting and they should get out of San Francisco.”
Here’s where we turn Andrew Sullivan’s question around to him and those with similar views. If you say you are for tolerance and accepting of other views, why protest this group? Why pass city resolutions condemning a Christian youth rally?
What would Sullivan do if a Christian politician spoke at a protest of a gay event in the South and said, that although gays are outnumbered in the South, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting and they should get out of the South?”
HT: Ace, who reminds readers of some things of which San Francisco liberal politicians are tolerant.
UPDATE: I’m not the only one who found “tolerant” San Francisco asking a Christain group to leave. The always conservative-rag The San Francisco Chronicle highlights many of the same points I made in their aptly titled editorial: Intolerant City.
Aaron,
You're kidding, right? Those kids and their leaders are precisely the ones who would vote to restrict the rights of gays given half a chance. There is no reason that San Francisco should have to come out in support of a group that believes that gays are hellbound and that all expressions of sexuality are deviant.
Further, I think anybody could make a very reasonable argument that most of country says precisely this to gays at every opportunity. See: gay adoption bans, gay marriage bans, attempted sodomy bans, etcetera. This is once again the absurd notion of Christian persecution – "Oh my gosh, they didn't roll out the red carpets for gay-hating Christians. What next, what next, how unfair can it get for Christians?" Until gays are offered fair and equal treatment throughout the country, I can certainly understand aggressive Christians being offered similar treatment in gay bastions.
For the record, I think that this sort of thing is bad for our country, but of course, (some) Christians started this with their hateful intolerant ways. Gays are simply responding.
This has created an interesting conversation about reverse intolerance.
The main purpose of this organization has very little to do with the homosexuality, abortion or any other political issue. It's purpose is to encourage kids to refuse to give in to media and peer pressure. To stay off Drugs, Alcohol, and permiscuos sexual relationships.
I think the City is falling into the If Jerry and Pat are for it, we are against it trap.
Sam, Based on the elections over the last year or two, a pretty big majority of americans are in favor of restricting rights to homosexuals. These kid's can't even vote. This was not a political rally. It was a prayer and worship meeting. The protests where totally mis-directed.
It is interesting how little the media has said about the actual content of the meeting. Since it was televised, I am sure that all of the political rhetoric would be all over the media if it where there.
Sam, there was no request nor expectation that San Fran would "roll out the red carpet" for the Christian rally. There should be an expectation that a government entity would never single out a religious group for official goverment criticism, which is exactly what happened. If this were done to a Muslim demonstration, the ACLU would have a conniption fit.
Let's drop the canard that conservative Christians believe "all expressions of sexuality are deviant". That's just not true. Furthermore, it is not hatred of gays to disagree with them over whether the definition of marriage is open to alteration.
Oops, that's "government", of course.
I never said this was Christian persecution. I don't believe it was, but I do think it illustrates the hypocrisy of the "tolerance" movement which is intolerant of what they define as "intolerance."
Put Leno's words in the mouths of a Christian city councilman in Jackson, MS about a gay event. Would you not post about how horrible he was? Of course you would because it is unacceptable for a government official to say a certain type of people are not welcome there.
Of course you say that people have been doing essentially that, but that is the difference. You say it is "essentially" the same thing, which as always means it is up to interpretation. No one has actually said such a thing about gay people because it would not be, forgive the word, tolerated. That politician would become the next Trent Lott, banished from leadership, if not their career, for saying something like that.
Matt,
You will find that Sam and other pro-gay apologists can not stop using the "hate" accusation, even though I tried to clarify in What is hate?. I think in part, they are just being dumb, but also, I think they are really trying to get us to see our often derisive and belligerent attitude towards gays. Xians need to work on their superior attitude, even if they maintain their disagreement.
Sam also makes a good point – if we have to choose between keeping kids in the foster system and giving them to a gay couple for adoption, what do we do? If we refuse to give them to the gay couple, are we sacrificing the kids on the altar of politics? Or is this really a case of needing to stand on principle to head off worse problems?
And suzanne asks the good question that liberals need to answer – is their intolerance of xianity hypocrisy, or are they doing something akin to resisting the KKK?
And if xians are intolerant of "moral deviance", are they being judgmental and unjust, or are they doing something akin to resisting the promotion of promiscuity?
Seeker, Aaron, Matthew (in no particular order),
1. I won't drop the canard that there are (some) Christians who are deeply opposed to sexuality outside of the boundaries of the Bible. There are, in fact, many who are deeply opposed to all things sexual. See: the entire history of Christianity.
2. Nor will I apologize for what SanFran has done. The majority of the country votes against gays all the time, making homosexuals the whipping posts of politicians, religious leaders, and the like. SanFran says, hey, they're all welcome here. And people that don't like gays aren't.
The fact is that you're being hypocrites by expecting better treatment of Christians than gays. I have no problem with Christians being treated badly if gays are going to be treated in far worse ways far more often. Christians who expect good treatment while refusing to defend others who are subjected to awful treatment is hypocrisy at its very worst.
3. Oh gosh Seeker, you posted about how it isn't hatred? I've written it before, and I'll write it again, but for a person who once said that gays are "lucky" that they aren't routinely killed in the United States to lecture others about what is and is not hate is positively absurd.
4. Finally, the gay marriage debate is about hatred of gays. It is strange, I know, but I've met very few people who know, like and love gays that oppose gay marriage. I've met a great number of people who never have to look gays in the face when they're proclaiming that they're terrible parents, that they'd ruin marriage (which straights, of course, did long ago), and so forth.
There are, in fact, many who are deeply opposed to all things sexual. See: the entire history of Christianity.
If you want to base all of your arguments on past abuses and modern fringe groups, go ahead. But they don't apply to the majority of modern evangelicals, and weaken any of your arguments regarding current political sex-related stuff. Most evangelicos are fine with sex within marriage, and there are NONE that I know of that think sex itself is bad or dirty. Only extreme lesbians feel that way about hetero sex ;p
SanFran says, hey, they're all welcome here. And people that don't like gays aren't.
The fact is that you're being hypocrites by expecting better treatment of Christians than gays.
So first of all, xians preach love, but not universal tolerance of sin like liberals do. So while liberals should be bound to their 100% inclusive theology (and don't), xians have no such theology, so in being discerning, xians are not being hypocritical. But those advocating extreme tolerance but selectively practicing it are.
Christians who expect good treatment while refusing to defend others who are subjected to awful treatment is hypocrisy at its very worst.
Christians defend the rights of the unborn, who aren't xian, and as mentioned, were very involved in abolition. But just because they don't defend your pet communities doesn't make them hypocritical, nor does being self-interested (protecting xians) make them self-centered any more than the NAACP is selfish.
But unfortunately, homosexuals make it hard for xians to defend against, say, Muslims, because even though we believe that should be treated humanely and fairly, we have to also reconcile the fact that we also find their behavior improper. We have no such dilemma with the unborn.
for a person who once said that gays are "lucky" that they aren't routinely killed in the United States to lecture others about what is and is not hate is positively absurd.
You keep changing what I said – you interpreted it as "lucky" to put your spin on it. I said they should be grateful for the freedoms they do have, in light of the fact that they live a morally questionable lifestyle. The fact that they have freedom to be gay without legal persecution or sanction should be appreciated, but it is not. You call that hatred. But "you keep using that word – I don't think that word means whta you think it means."
I've met very few people who know, like and love gays that oppose gay marriage.
Then you haven't met me. I can honestly say that I have gay friends whom I like and love. But you might not understand loving people whom you disagree with.
the gay marriage debate is about hatred of gays
Yes, and the pro-choice debate is about the hatred of the unborn.
I, myself, would like to hear what was said at the rally before I judge. If it was just about spiritual issues (ie, prayer, etc), I'd have no problem. However, if it involved political issues (ie, gay rights, abortion), I'd agree with those who wanted it banned.
btw – I'm proudly intolerant of the intolerant. Sometimes reality is paradoxical.
And I'm intolerant of the undiscerning.
But you would want to kick a rally out of town because they disagree with your positions on abortion or gay rights? How egalitarian. What kind of fascist state do you want to create?
They have every right to be there. I mean, they're not marching through town flaunting their chaste lifestyle, wearing turtlenecks and chastity belts, are they?
Yes, that's right. If I lived in San Francisco – one of the few places in freedom's land where gay people can live openly without fear – and a bunch of fundie xianists came to town and expected to use publicly funded land to promote their pogrom against me, then, yes, I would want to run them out of town. Fuck 'em.
It's not just my "position"; it's ME they're after. The fascist state being created is not overt; it is a crypto-theocracy being presently constructed, brick by brick, by you theocons. You've got the presidency; you've got the Congress; you're getting the Judiciary. You've got a never-ending war as an excuse to extend your power over our private lives. But your needed a scapegoat. Therefore, you are on a jihad aimed at demonizing gays, scapegoating us for many of the problems YOU STRAIGHTS have created for yourselves. I've heard it directly from you, seeker, with Aaron's tacit approval.
And your little xian-jugend are just another brick in your wall.
I'm for religious freedom. I'm just not for religious hegemony and intolerance. An important part of religious freedom is the right to be free from religion if one so desires. I don't want your religion shoved down my throat.
btw: I direct your attention to my original post on this topic. I do NOT object to a religious rally if that is its purpose. I DO object if religion is being used as a cover for some kind of political agenda.
So let the xian kids have their party. I would also like to see atheist kids have a rally there as well. I'd also like to see atheist and gay kids join the Boy Scouts, but that's another topic.
So you are against political rallies of your opponents?
Louis – Oh, baloney. So religions are not allowed to hold any views that have political implications? And religious people aren't allowed to demonstrate in public if they hold political views, whether or not those views were expressed at a particular rally? What constitutes a "cover for some kind of political agenda", exactly? I imagine you in your infinite wisdom get to decide.
And you expect us to believe with a straight face that you are for religious freedom?
Seeker,
Why do we even have these debates? You're never going to change your beliefs – which closely mirror our friends in Iran – and I'm always going to believe in a vast majority of freedoms for human beings. Whereas I believe humans are capable of making their own decisions, you clearly don't. There's no point in us debating this.
And as for whoever said Christians don't hate sex, stop being ridiculous. Those opposed to sex outside of marriage, opposed to legal pornography, opposed to contraception, opposed to homosexuality, opposed to sexual behavior other than standard procreation, are people that CLEARLY hate sex. There is simply no other explanation for it.
seeker – I read your other post, and agreed with both your thoughts on hate and your points in the comments. I've thought about posting similarly before on my blog, but I may just link yours now.
Sam – 1) So drop it, then?
2) Married men and women have more and better (more enjoyable) sex than non-married people. There's no way to assert that such people even REMOTELY hate sex.
Those opposed to sex outside marriage, opposed to legal porn, opposed to contraception and opposed to homosexuality are people who simply believe that human sexuality is designed to be best enjoyed in a lifetime union of one man and one woman. That's a far cry from limiting it to "standard procreation". I suppose you think Christian couples only have sex when they want to have a baby!
If you think that way, then you are correct, our debates are useless.
But I am compelled to correct your constant stream of straw men, absolutist claims (see your last comment – "never…always…clearly…ridiculous…no other explanation"), and foregone conclusions, just so that OTHER people reading don't think your claims about christian belief, motivation, and goals are even close to true.
Your claim about sex, for instance, is similar to this argument:
"Because Christians are against campfires in very dry forest reserves, against letting children play with matches, and against smoking near flammable tanks of gas, they are CLEARLY against the use of fire – in fact, they probably are afraid of it!"
Christians are against the abuse of sex. And while xians are NOT busy making unsafe sex (i.e. promiscuity and homosexuality) illegal, you are out to make it accepted, government promoted practice, in the name of freedom!
"Look children, it's ok to smoke, just don't do it near the gas pump!" You err so much towards freedom you've forgotten about the dangers of abuse. In fact, you largely deny such dangers, or excuse human moral failing because you shy away from encouraging the development of virtue. In fact, in order to preserve freedom, you are willing to force everyone to agree to your value system by affirming the worth of all perspectives (with which you agree, btw, since you appear to be against polygamy), rather than allowing the govt to remain neutral, as I advocate.
In fact, the only virtue left on the left seems to be "tolerance" – a type of tolerance that knows no sin except that of intolerance. It's extreme, it's impractical, it's stoopid. Really stoopid.
For the millionth time Seeker, blowjobs and forest fires do not equate.
What I enjoy most about these debates Seeker is how you accuse me to strawmen, of being unfair, of lying. And then you turn around and do exactly the same thing, only it is okay when you do it. Why? No explanation – it just is.
You argue that I say tolerance is key. Wrong. You don't have to like blowjobs, tolerate them or accept them – you just have to find a way to function when other people get, give, and enjoy, blowjobs. It is absolutely absurd that you, and Matthew, believe that because you're happy engaging in your own sexual behaviors, well then certainly everyone else must be happy in the same way. Total f-ing nonsense. We live in a great big country with lots of different people who enjoy lots of different things. What's wrong with letting those people enjoy themselves, particularly if they're not hurting anybody else?
The answer is nothing. Nothing is wrong with that. And yet (some) Christians, who love sex so much that they believe in sex occaisonally in the missionary position – when you go to art museums, do you draw the line at paintings in colors other than red? – argue that American sexual expression ought to be restrained. Why? Because, apparently, a lack of moderation is a bad thing.
This is such nonsense. All I have ever argued is that adults should be free to make their own decisions, and that those decisions, as long as they don't victimize another person, should be legal. You and Matthew clearly believe otherwise.
What's wrong with letting those people enjoy themselves, particularly if they're not hurting anybody else?
Nothing. As I have continually stated, I have no desire to make homosexuality illegal (i.e. criminalized) via such things as sodomy laws. I expect government to remain neutral in such gray areas. But I also expect that government will not be in the business of condoning such questionable behaviors either.
When pro-gay groups go to Washington to force the law to recognize their perverse love, and teach it to our kids, then they are going beyond merely enjoying themselves to forcing their questionable lifestyle onto our culture. Polygamists, adulterers, pedophiles, beastialists, and the promiscuous will be right behind them in line trying to get official validation. I hate the slippery slope argument, but your "no victim" logic just isn't enough to keep polygamy, polyamory, and teen sex at bay. Like groups are doing in Canada, someone will just push to lower the age of consent, thereby lowering the victim threshold.
I'm not limiting freedom, but pro-gay marriage legislation pushers are abusing their freedom by contaminating our public affirmation of healthy norms, right, wrong, and virtue with their desire to promote homosexuality as normative.
Matt,
Cool, link away. I've been checking out your site too. I'm not in line with your position on illegal immigration, but i'll keep reading ;)
blowjobs and forest fires do not equate
I agree. But I'm not talking about blow jobs. I'm talking about promiscuity and homosexuality. Norming these is dangerous. I'm not for crimianlizing theses, just against condoning them with legislation and school textbooks.
Sam – Read back your previous comments. That certainly isn't all you've ever argued. I guess that's more your argument with seeker, anyway. You're getting closer to admitting that Christians enjoy sex, though. A couple more comments and you might get there.
seeker – thanks. I've been rather caustic over that, I'm afraid. I just wish that they would either change the quotas or enforce the law. I honestly don't care which. It does upset me to see the US flag flown upside down, though.
Sigh.
Pedophilia, especially, and beastiality as well involve the victimization of others Seeker. Stop pretending that either has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality. And again, homosexuality is normal. You don't think it's normal because you don't like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't normal.
And Matt, seriously, the push by (some) Christians against sex is documented and well-known. I wish you could acknowledge this hatred and own it – own the notion that the only good sex is had in married relationships. Preach to the world that they're sinners and deviants for enjoying allegedly abnormal sexual practices. Be open and honest with your opinion. I encourage this because if more Christians were honest about what they actually believe, there'd be a lot less support for Christians.
This arguement is way off topic.
The question is should our teens be encouraged to resist peer pressure?
Is there a problem with kids abstaining? I don't think so. This issue isn't about sex — It is about teen sex. It isn't about legislating against sex, it is about training teens to have the courage to live according to their own faith.
So because there are some Christians that you disagree with, it suddenly becomes rational that you should picket a bunch of junior high and high school kids as they pray and sing worship songs. It is comical, and you are making total fools of yourselves.
Josh,
How can't this be clear? Gays are used as whipping posts by Christian leaders nationwide, who routinely campaign against gays as if they're some sort of threat to America. In one city, in the entire country, politicians say "enough," and suddenly Christians are the victims of an unfair government? Please.
Sam,
The Gays are used as whipping posts by most americans, Christian or not. While there is a certain element within the Christian community that is outspoken on this issue, Most of us are not all that obsessed about it.
I do not see getting people to change their behavior through Legislation, Litigation, coercion or intimidation as having any value at all. The only repentance that has value is that driven by a love for God. I believe that the way to get people to change is by being a loving and caring person, and living according to my faith.
Most Churches do not engage in politics like you are implying that they do. The sermons that we here are usually focused on how we can change our own behavior to be more loving and disciplined people.
So my question remains. What Did the speakers say at the convention that is so objectionable? Does picketing and protesting a bunch of 14 year olds trying to resist the pressures to sleep around, drink, and do drugs make any sense?
Preach to the world that they're sinners and deviants for enjoying allegedly abnormal sexual practices.
Actually, scripture says that such sins are pleasureable for the moment, but in the end, they bring death. Death to relationships, death to the soul, and sometimes the body.
The simple fleshly pleasures of food and sex, designed by God for enjoyment, must be used with temperance, and within certain healthy guidelines, just like fire. In fact, scripture compares going to a prostitute with "taking fire to one's bosom".
Proverbs 6:26-28
For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a crust of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
You find such healthy caution restrictive. But fools always find wisdom hard to swallow.
The problem with all this is that it's totally irrelevant. What you xians do or think or believe is your business. The problem comes when you try to legislate your beliefs into law, thus forcing the rest of us to conform to your superstitions. seeker makes this quite clear when he dismisses equal protection for gay people as "perverse" and compares us to pedophiles, animal molesters, and other criminals. If you would just keep your nutty outlook inside your cult's buildings I wouldn't have any trouble at all with it. But when you try to force it down my throat using the gov't – well, then you become the enemy.
As to FCL: nice try. But there are many of us who don't want your religion and don't think that it is true. I'm pretty much agnostic in these matters, but one thing I do know: xianity is a crock. It's claims are a sham, as evidenced by its actions in history. It consists of unevidenced assertions and forced belief in dogmas which have little if any basis in fact. My experience of it is almost totally negative and I don't want it in my life. What bothers me is that xians compose some 70% or more of the population here and thus have the power to control my life against my will. It's scary. Though I believe in religious freedom, I also believe quite stongly that it should be kept OUT of politics. Only a free judiciary can protect us from religion's vile ways, but it is currently being subverted by the xianists who hope to establish a theocratic state. It's sickening.
I assume that Seekers motives and Sam’s are honorable. It’s just that they have gotten turned around by warped views of the Christian faith. Yes Seeker you are obsessed with homosexuality. This topic takes up a huge amount of your blog yet homosexuality is an orientation that exists among 5-10% of the population and an even lower proportion of practicing Christians. Given the amount of bandwidth you give this subject “obsession” seems a mild term. On top of this you offer sterile, facile biblical “analysis” which only serves to justify your prejudice and gives those like Sam all the ammunition they need.
Who do you exclude? In a conversation about Christian peacekeepers you wondered why more Christians did not protest their murders. Here is your hypothesis: “Is it because they were CHINOs (Christian in Name Only)? Was it because they were theologically or politically liberal?” How gracious of you. I mean they were only risking their lives in order to give witness to their faith. How milk-toast of them. What a bunch of pussies.
Who else do you exclude: Liberals of course? You state “While there are almost certainly people with faith in Christ in just about every denomination of xianity (and even in groups some consider cults, like the JWs or Mormons), in some denominations, there are probably greater percentages of xians in some churches than others (because a lot of liberal churches are mere social clubs that don’t really teach xianity), and the churches that actually nurture people in christian thinking and maturity are few. Even my last two churches did a poor job of it.” How insightful you are that you can determine that status of another’s faith. You should reread the parable of the wheat and the weeds before making such glib pronouncements.
But then you think highly of your ability to discern the true faithful from the faux, don’t you? I mean you stated the following “Actually, Jesus himself said that many on the day of judgement would call him “lord”, but he would deny them because they never actually had any intention of obeying him in this life. He also said that many go on the broad road to destruction and few find the way of life – that is, salvation through faith in his substitutionary work.” So let me get this straight; Jesus can make such a distinction so you Seeker also posses the same ability. WOW! Who knew?
In the end I am not here to question your commitment to Christ. I only question your understanding of the Gospel. I might suggest that your faith needs maturing. I agree with you that it is not unkind to point this out to fellow believers. This is why I am offering you a different more complete view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I will,of course offer my prayers that God will soften your heart. Does it need softening? In a word: yes. Your comments that “My attitude may need work. But I find also that in the battle of ideas, most people want xians to be, well, p*ssies. They want someone who will roll over and give in so that they can dominate the world of culture and ideas with secular, immoral ideas. They want someone who is nice. In fact, people wanted Jesus to be nice instead of GOOD… Too bad for you that not every xian is one of your milk-toast Jesus followers” shows your hardness to the Gospel as well as a misunderstanding of Christ’s role. I mean why didn’t he come down off the Cross like his tormentors taunted him to do? Why didn’t he kick some ass? Why didn’t he cut the other ear off in the garden? Why was he such a “pussy”. Maybe it was that he came to pour himself out for mankind, to be “dominated” by the culture. Yet in the end His love wins out precisely because of His sacrifice and His triumph over death. It is the way of the sacrifice not the sword that will carry the day for Christianity.
Ugh.
Seeker, this may be news to you, but everything brings death. Everything. Sinning or not.
And Josh R, of course the protests are ridiculous. But they wouldn't occur if (some) Christians weren't totally hostile toward gays. If Christians were loving and accepting and willing to acknowledge that not everyone either wants or needs to be a Christian, that people can be upstanding moral citizens without reading the Bible, that the law should protect everyone, not just the Christians who love marriage so much that their divorce rates are horrendously awful, then the protestors wouldn't have shown up. But the protestors protest the kids because the kids are seen as a threat.
(Some) Christians kids wouldn't be viewed that way if (some) Christians weren't a threat. But (some) Christians are a decided threat to gays. Seeker for instance. His ongoing hatred (love!) of gays is exactly the sort of thing that makes gays defensive and suspicious of child protesters.