Saturday, March 08, 2014

Let's yell and stamp our feet!

I'm going to comment on some statements by a blogger who consider himself to be a "gay Christian":
I've been noticing some rather harsh and disturbing language coming from so-called "Christians" on-line when referring to LGBTQ advocates: one of their favorite terms for such is "homo fascist." (Never mind that Jesus would never use such language toward LGBTQ persons -- He certainly didn't use demeaning and derogatory terms when encountering socially-despised lepers, tax collectors, or prostitutes.) A fascist regime is an oppressive, dictatorial and controlling system, whereby the rights of others are taken from them. One might suggest, then, that those who use "homo fascist" language are actually Christian fascists. 

i) To begin with, the Bible, including the NT, uses harsh language for certain groups. For instance, read what Jude has to say about false teachers.

Likewise, Rev 22:15 probably refers to homosexuals as "dogs." Cf. D. Aune, Revelation 17-22 (Word 1998), 1222-23. That's not a term of endearment. 

ii) Homofascist is analogous to other popular coinages like ecofascist and Islamofascist. 

Using language such as "homo fascist" is any notion other than merciful. After all, LGBTQ advocates do not comprise a fascist regime; they are not vying to take away the rights of anyone -- they are merely fighting for equal rights, to be treated with dignity and honor, and not be treated as objects of discrimination. They are fighting legislation that seeks to prejudice others against LGBTQ persons, unfairly discriminate against LGBTQ persons, or mistreat LGBTQ persons. 

Actually, they are fighting to criminalize Christian expression as hate speech. 

I don't mind confessing how disturbed I am lately by the silence of most conservative Christian bloggers with regard to the harassment, bullying, and violence that is being perpetrated by angry, fearful, hate-filled heterosexuals toward gay people throughout the world -- especially in places like Russia, Uganda, Nigeria, IndiaIran and Iraq. These same conservatives, so I see on their blogs, don't mind arguing over end-times views, or the present White House administration, or Obamacare, or liberals, or "the sin of homosexuality" and gay marriage, even calling gay rights activists "homo fascists"; but ask these same conservatives for even a semblance of compassion toward the violence of gays and all one hears is silence. I want to know why. 

i) There's a lot to sort out here. By my count, the blogger uses "bullying" three times in the same post. However, public school policies against "bullying" are typically euphemistic code language to make boys conform to feminist behavioral norms. This is part of the "war on boys," documented by writers like Helen Smith and Christina Hoff Sommers. An all-out assault on masculinity and heteronormativity. That's not to condone genuine bullying, but it's used to mask a radical agenda.

Indeed, it turns teachers and principals into thugs who bully normal male students.

ii) Let's also make allowance for the epidemic of fake hate crimes. That's a political tactic.

iii) Let's keep in mind the link between sodomy and child prostitution in the Third World. For instance, I've read about affluent homosexuals in the West who skirt age of consent laws by flying to Third-World brothels stocked with underage boys. So cracking down on homosexual activity in the Third World is, in part, a way of cracking down on child prostitution (not to mention child pornography). To that extent it's a good thing. There's a side to the story which this blogger is ignoring.

iv) Then there's the link between homosexuality and the AIDS epidemic in Africa and India. Because it's politically incorrect to connect the two, that linkage has been underreported in Third World countries.  Curbing homosexual activity is, in part, an effort to curb the incidence of AIDS, which includes the innocent victims of homosexually or bisexually active men (i.e. infected wives, babies, child prostitutes).  Once again, that's a side of the story which this blogger is ignoring. 

v) There's also the question of what's to be accomplished by speaking out against what happens to homosexuals in Russia, Iran, &c. Is this just to give the speaker a sense of moral satisfaction? He had a chance to vent his disapproval? For an evangelical American or Canadian blogger to denounce what happens in Russia, Iran, &c., is totally ineffectual. That's a feel-good gesture with zero effect on the offending regime.

By contrast, when evangelical bloggers comment on domestic policy in their own countries, they are trying to make a difference. Likewise, you have some evangelical bloggers in the US and the UK who comment on each other's culture wars, not because they can directly influence what another country does, but because these are parallel situations, and so the arguments are applicable to the blogger's own country even if he's commenting on another country. 

vi) Apropos (i), can anything really be done to change social policy in countries like Russia and Iran? Theoretically, there are only two options. 

a) You can invade the country, topple the regime, install an occupation gov't or puppet gov't to impose a different rule of law. But that's clearly not feasible in this situation. Indeed, we tried that in Iraq. Remember the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer? Not exactly a signal success. 

b) You can impose economic sanctions on the offending regime. Again, though, that's not feasible. 

To begin with, effective sanctions require the coordinated support of other countries. But when some of the world's worst regimes sit on the UN security council or UN commission on human rights, any resolution will either be vetoed or toothless.

Moreover, trade with larger countries is too lucrative for sanctions to be enforced. 


  1. Steve,

    You've given me much to think about, so I do appreciate the challenge. I may have to go back into the post and either correct or properly contextualize a few statements. Just know that I read your post as a healthy corrective and am not offended.

  2. > disturbing language coming from so-called "Christians"

    In a perfect world, nobody would resort to the hyperbolic rhetoric complained about here to make arguments for their view of things..
    But.. Guess what? (You know the answer)

    If those on the right use such harsh wording, it's generally in response to the fighting talk of the other side, which includes terms like, "Bigot," Racist," "Homophobe," "Anti-Science," "Anti-Choice," an so on, ad nauseum.

    One of the most astounding rhetorical tacks I've seen taken lately is the comparison of religious liberty to Jim Crow. Sure, that'll win us over.

  3. Indeed, among the reasons for the strong push-back by actual Christians (regenerate believers) against the vocal, well-organized, and culturally influential homosexual lobby and their apologists (which includes false-prophets crying "peace, peace!") is the relentless efforts of the latter to muzzle the Gospel, and silence the truth.

    Christians are called (commanded) to defend the faith, taking every thought captive to Christ while pulling down demonic strongholds and exposing the unfruitful works of darkness to the light.

    It's highly ironic that those who attack the faithful witness of the church to the Gospel that was delivered unto the saints once for all would turn around and cry "foul" and accuse those who defend the truth of "bullying".

    To me it seems analogous to Hitler whining about Churchill's hurtful speeches and stinging rebukes even as the Luftwaffe was bombing England to rubble.