|
|||||||||||||
|
of the Family Research Council Critique by Punkerslut
Some time ago, I sent the below-linked, open letter to the Family Research Council, arguing against their philosophy that was anti-gay and anti-lesbian.
They did not respond, but for some reason, they thought it would be a good idea to sign me up for their mailing list. After receiving a few of these, I decided it would make sense to respond to some of the material they send to their members... Greetings, About one month ago, I had sent a letter to the Family Research Council, expressing my disagreement over some of your core ideals. After weeks of waiting, I felt almost disappointed that you never responded. But, you did seem to think it was a good idea to sign me up for your "Grassroots Alerts Newsletter." Anyway, if you think that I'm good enough to receive your letter, then I'm good enough to receive and respond to it. Your argument can be reduced down to this...
It seems that "force" is really the key concept that you're trying to put across here. Yes, the government uses force: it used force when it bombed a ghetto in Philadelphia to remove the organization "move," just like it used incendiary devices when demolishing the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco. The state is a very forceful entity; its entire premise is based on violence, coercion, and threats. But, at the same time, you come out with this statement, "Because of my training in the U.S. Marine Corps, I will never run from a fight." Actually, let me correct you there. Because of your training in the U.S. Marine Corps, you are ready to use force and violence against anyone around you just because you receive the order. Is there a contradiction here? At one point, you seem so offended that the government is using coercion and force; and, at the very next point, you sign the sheet that says, "I want to be the one helping them use force against people. I am the saint of war, not the prophet of cooperation." All of this "force" that you're theorizing does not compare to the force used against non-mainstream religions. The Waco Camp, for instance, is a clear example that our US government will kill men, women, and children for believing in the wrong god. Are you aware that Native Americans who use mushrooms, a sacrament of their religion, are imprisoned for decades and lifetimes? You must certainly know that we tell every child, through the pledge of allegiance or our currency, that we trust in a single god. If you doubt the killings of your government, go to YouTube and search for the video. And if you don't believe your own eyes, then there's nothing I can do for you. Ah, but now we come around the ENDA, a piece of national legislation that prohibits discrimination against people because of their sexual identity. You think they are going to: "Force a Christian bookstore to hire a man . . . who dresses in women's clothing?" Fifty years ago, the church's opposition to civil rights would have changed this sentence to: "Force a Christian bookstore to hire a man . . . who is black?" No, this law isn't going to make you hire black people, just because we have civil liberties in this nation; but, it will carry penalties for those who are proven in court to discriminate against others. The terror, the absolute fear, that black men were going to pop up everywhere, in our bars and our taverns, in our workplaces and our neighborhoods -- how eloquent that the religious movement moves forward by finding another group to discriminate against. We have seen, in our own streets and our own country, police dragging people out of apartments and homes -- pulling them into the street, and executing them on the road. This has happened for a million reasons: because they were black, they were gay, they were poor, they believed in the wrong religion, etc., etc.. The Prince of Peace trains his fellowship well; anyone who they meet that is different, they leave them in pieces. I'm not some conspiracy theorist; with the use of Wikileaks and YouTube, me and everyone else can find out about the US supporting Iraq in gassing the Kurdish people -- we can watch video of soldiers firing onto children. "ENDA should be called The Discrimination Against Christian Workers Act." It is simply a prohibition AGAINST discrimination. One of the examples brought up: "Jon and Elaine Huguenin, who were saddled with legal costs that could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars because they politely declined to take 'commitment ceremony' photos of two lesbians." Of course you had to rewrite this story to fit your purpose. Refusing someone a business service because they have a different race, religion, or sexual orientation is plain, simple discrimination. Why not form a tightly-knit ring of businesses that can drive gays and lesbians into all the poor-paying jobs, with the lowest quality food and housing? Also, the case against Jon and Elaine does not depend on the ENDA bill, which isn't even a law yet. Another example: "The Christian employees at Sandia National Laboratories, who were ordered to take down their family photos when homosexual co-workers complained that 'traditional family' images were demeaning." After researching this, I couldn't find anything but a bunch of Christian, right-wingers repeating -- word for word -- your claim about Sandia National Laboratories. Similarly, just like the other cases, this has nothing to do with the ENDA -- or, any bill, for that matter, which is not a law. You're baiting people; you cannot explain to them how people with a different lifestyle are bad, so you give them bad attributes yourself. Nobody believed in Racism just because they rationally considered themselves to have the supreme race; the KKK made their message by inciting the passions of the people -- telling crowds that Black men want their White women! Yes, those that you ancestors imprisoned, enslaved, and abused, those are the people who want to hurt you; those are the people who want to infiltrate your families, to threaten your communities, and to make you unsafe. It is a sad tactic. You're plenty offended by how a bill prohibiting discrimination will "force" you to do things. For instance, you may have a gay man as a co-worker. Oh, what brutal, uncompromising, unflinching force!!! Should I link you to the video of police shooting children in Waco or the one in Iraq? Should I suggest a book about CIA, ghost flights, where the government kidnaps and tortures civilians? Or, should I suggest a book about the lack of evidence and legality of Guantanamo Bay? But wait, everyone else get out of the line, because you have absolute proof that Christians are being forced and coerced. You're a man complaining about a splinter, when there's a child wrapping a tourniquet around his amputated leg. "Oh, how the government is forcing us..." You do realize that slavery still exists for millions of people, in South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, correct? You do realize that this is where your products for Wal-Mart come from -- that it is your government protecting and propping up those dictators -- that you live off of the labor of others, paying only their owners and not the workers. Yes, there is real violence, force, and coercion in this world. But I don't see you trying to stop it... I see you trying to convince people that gays and lesbians are the greatest threat to their liberty. I can only conclude that you have no genuine or real feelings about oppression or violence in general. It's only something to pull out when you want to incense a mob into fury over people who are different. I've read your letters; I only hope you read mine. I patiently await a response. Thank you... Sincerely,
|
