I'm not sure this is worth commenting on:
In both of Hays' critiques (link/link), he seeks to justify the core of my complaint on the silence of conservative Christian bloggers on gay violence
You mean, silent about fake hate crimes?
To the extent that we should break our silence, it should be to condemn the strategy of using fake hate crimes as a ruse to leverage a totalitarian change in social policy. First create a string of fake hate crimes, then use that false premise to justify a crackdown on the nonexistent perpetrators. Homosexual activists are resorting to false flag operations to foment an oppressive solution to a manufactured crisis.
But fake hate crimes are no indication that genuine hate crimes are not occurring.
How many layers of fake hate crimes am I supposed to peel away in search of a genuine hate crime at the bottom of the pile? If homosexual activists deliberately obscure the true situation, then it's hardly incumbent on me to sort through their pack of lies. Why doesn't Birch call on his confreres to dispel the smoke and mirrors?
Moreover, what about Christian so-called "persecution" in the U.S.?
Notice the combined use of scare quotes as well as the adjective "so-called."
Certainly we can find not even one fake source of Christian persecution among conservative Christians, right? Wrong.
He erects a straw man, then proceeds to burn it. There are several criteria he ignores:
i) Are we dealing with isolated incidents, or a pattern? In the case of fake hate crimes, these form a strategic pattern.
ii) What's the source of information? For instance, I quoted from The Advocate to document one of my key contentions. That's a leading LGBT magazine. Yet the columnist admitted that the Matthew Shepard case wasn't really a hate crime, even though the liberal media and the LGBT community continued to milk it as if it was for the political capital. Coming from a source that's in the tank for the LGBT community, that's a pretty damning admission. Concessions from hostile sources are a strong form of evidence. Compare that to Billy's sources, which he uses to prove "the lies perpetuated by these conservatives."
He quotes a leftwing columnist (Susie Madrak), writing for a leftwing rag (Crooks and Liars). How reliable is that?
If that's not bad enough, consider her lead-in: "There are so many lying, hypocritical fundamentalists, why, I can hardly keep track of them all."
Yes, that certainly instills confidence in her objectivity.
To top it off, she had to amend her original allegation:
CORRECTION: Gordon Klingenschmitt has supplied documentation that states he received an honorable discharge, so I've removed the headline that stated otherwise. My apologies for getting it wrong.
Yet that's one of Billy's sources. Here's another source he cites:
As Right Wing Watch has reported, this is not the first time Starnes has been caught pushing poorly sourced stories claiming religious discrimination.
Ah, yes, Right Wing Watch: an arm of People for the American Way. Kinda like getting your Jewish history from Stormfront.org
Here's yet another one of Billy's sources:
Fred Clark is a…liberal, tree-hugging, pro-choice, pro-GLBT, peacenik, commie, evolutionist.
Now if that's not impartial, I don't know what is.
Reaching even further into the barrel, if possible, Billy rounds out with:
Recently, in Ohio, conservative Christians staged fake arrests at their churches "as a prelude to an upcoming production at the Akron Civic Theatre." (link) Ohio.com reports: "The goal of the dramatization is to make people more aware of what it takes for pastors to defend the Christian faith beyond preaching on Sundays."
But, of course, that's not a fake hate crime. There's no intention to deceive. Compare that to this:
iii) Finally, comparative statistics need to take into account the relative size of the respective groups. Comparing a larger number of fake hate crimes for a smaller group over against a smaller number of fake hate crimes for a larger group. Is this reported at a disproportionate rate? If so, that also distinguishes isolated incidents from a strategic pattern.
Now, according to Hays, because of the lies perpetuated by these conservatives, they have "shot their credibility."
Actually, I'd say Birch has shot his credibility (assuming he had any to begin with).
The false allegations remind me of a "discussion" I had recently with a homosexual activist online that claimed that Paul accused all homosexuals of all the crimes listed in Romans 1 (you can't make this stuff up). So, apparently, Paul thought all homosexuals were guilty of first-degree murder. I merely pointed out the ridiculous abuse of language that is and pointed out parallel texts that clearly show he's talking a pattern of fallen human behavior, but I couldn't help but think about these phony allegations against Christians as proof that there is a deep-strand of dishonesty, both intellectual and just straight up lying, in the gay rights movement, and the socially liberal movement in general.
ReplyDeleteThe most compelling thing they seem to have are fictional narratives of Christian abuse of their poor, innocent opponents. This repeats itself in virtually every debate: From gay rights to creationism. These debates are portrayed as battles between ignorant fundies and their enlightened free thinking opponents. This narrative is fueled by strategic deception. It's enough to make one believe in some kind of conspiracy theory if one were tempted by such speculation.
1. There's more physical violence against Christians in the world today than physical violence against homosexuals. That's probably true percentage-wise as well by the strict numbers. So, you can't say the greater numbers of violent crimes against Christians is due to there being more Christians than homosexuals. Which means, I think Christians should talk that much more about Christian persecution that's going on around the world than homosexual persecution.
ReplyDelete2. I think Christians are more likely to be discriminated against in a clear cut way in terms of the law than homosexuals. At least in many 1st world countries.
3. Though, it "might" be the case that homosexual are mocked more than Christians percentage-wise in some 1st world countries (e.g. the U.S.A.), so what? That's part of life. When I was young mocking and ridicule was something to be expected and dealt with by everybody from everybody (including family members and relatives!!!). Nowadays, people are so sensitive and effeminate. Homosexuals need to stop chanting protest slogans and develop thicker skin. They need to learn the age old children's retort, "Sticks and stones may break my bones. But words will never hurt me." Of course, technically words can hurt. Slander and libel can have various ramifications (e.g. financially etc.). But they need not hurt people's emotions. They can only do so if people allow it to. I suspect many (not all) homosexuals have a very childish emotional life. It's been often said:
"You are not who you think you are. Nor are you who others think you are. You are who you think other people think you are (i.e. your perception of other people's perception of you)." I don't know to what degree there's truth in that statement. Nevertheless, I believe homosexuals are overly obsessed with their image. For the Christian, it's sufficient that he or she is accepted by God the Father on account of the finished work of Jesus Christ. God's perception of oneself is more important than people's perception.