In the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 in California establishing marriage as between one man and one woman, the gay activists are mobilizing for a multi-front fight. Already, a series of lawsuits is being filed and the California Supreme Court has already agreed to entertain the case-yet again. The most prominent attorney filing against Prop 8 is the ubiquitous Gloria Allred, who seems to attach herself to every controversial case in the stste. Other factions are vowing to put the gay marriage issue on the ballot yet again in 2010. All that is part of our legal and constitutional system. What is truly objectionable, however, are the massive attacks on Christian churches for their support of Prop 8. The Mormon Church, which gave huge financial support to the measure, has been singled out for special attention. The recent disruption of services at Mt Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9 by a group calling itself, "Bash Back" was especially outrageous. Demonstrators shouted, "Jesus was a homo". The pulpit was stormed, parts of the church were vandalized and worshippers confronted and intimidated. Believe it or not, no arrests were made. See details at:
http://www.afamichigan.org/2008/11/11/news-lansing-family-group-condemns-homosexual-activists-disruption-of-local-church/
My question is this; if gay activists and their supporters, specifically "Bash Back" are organizing disruptive actions against churches across the nation, is it time for the Justice Department to take a look?
I am in no way suggesting that the right to conduct legal demonstrations and protests be abridged. Yet, as we all know, many protests do get out of hand, become violent, and thus, cause police to make arrests. The violent and disruptive invasion of church services is a crime and should not be tolerated.
What appears to be shaping up is a nationwide wave of intimidation and disruption aimed at the American religious community. Diverse as they may be, most faiths are opposed to same-sex marriages. Many elements of the so-called gay community are singling out the religious communities for blame-and retaliation. If it turns out that this is a nation-wide, organized movement that crosses the line of legitimate protest, then it may be appropriate for the US Justice Department to launch an investigation. One possible way might be the RICO Statute.
The RICO Statute (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations-Chapter 96, Title 18 US Code 1961-68) was passed in 1970 to deal with interstate criminal organizations-in effect- Organized Crime. It also proved to be useful in the prosecution of large-scale drug trafficking organizations that were operating across state lines or internationally. It provides for enhanced penalties and has civil provisions as
well.
Since its passage, RICO has been applied to other organized forms of criminal activity. (There was also an unsuccessful attempt to apply RICO to abortion clinic protesters).
I should add that I am not an attorney, so I am not calling for the Justice Department to initiate a RICO investigation at this point. The disruptive actions of certain gay groups may simmer down as they concentrate on the legal avenues they can follow. I cannot even say with authority that RICO would be appropriate. That would have to be figured out by the Justice Department attorneys if the pattern of church harassment such as what happened in Lansing continues.
I do have a feeling, however, that this gay marriage issue and the backlash caused by Proposition 8 may be the start of a concentrated, organized and nation-wide campaign to target the faith communities. This group called "Bash Back" appears to have branches in Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Memphis, and a few other cities as well.
There are legal ways to protest outside churches, and in many cases, protesters outside churches have not crossed the line. However, if Lansing becomes part of a pattern, then I feel the Justice Department has a duty to protect churches from undue intimidation and harassment. Investigating "Bash Back" may be a good place to start.
But would an Obama Justice Department led by Eric Holder undertake such action if the situation continues and worsens?
Time will tell.
19 comments:
I don't condone violent protests, and everything should be done to deal with those who engage in that sort of a thing.
However, regarding the targeting of churches, I think that this is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. The hate and prejudice that the religious have put out in society for so long is coming right back at them.
And yeah, I know, not all religions preach hatred and intolerance - but far too many of them do.
Lance,
Of course there are examples of what you say, but I don't think it represents the majority of the religious community.
You are expecting the Obama administration to use RICO against the gays? Not on this plane of existence Gary.
It is one thing to use legal means to change a law, but another one to deny 1st Amendment rights to a whole group of people. When gay activists enter churches and disrupt their services with their protests, they are in effect denying the members of those churches their right to worship unhindered.
And the church has a right, a moral duty to stand up and declare something is against their tenets and doctrines. That's what American churches have done since the founding of this nation. It was the American churches that were on the forefront in the fights: Against Slavery, Women's Right, and Civil Rights. And they did it by taking the moral high ground. This is their right.
If gays and lesbians don't like that, don't worship at those churches.
What is going to happen is that the "true" Christians are also going to be attacked, the ones who really try to live by the word of God and all that it implies (like, love your neighbor as you love yourself) and will be persecuted and hated. There will come a day when we will be afraid to stand up for our belief and have no one do defend us. Just as Jesus fortold, this is another sign of the times we live in.
Findalis,
Actually, when I first wrote this piece, my closing line was,
"never mind. I was just thinking out loud" instead of, "time will tell". may be I shouldn't have changed it.
Ingrid,
There are already many pockets in America who are afraid to stand for their beliefs. Universities, for example.
Of course there are examples of what you say, but I don't think it represents the majority of the religious community.
Just as the violent protesters don't represent the majority of those who protest Prop 8. I went to a couple of protests myself - no violence at either one.
Findalis wrote:
It was the American churches that were on the forefront in the fights: Against Slavery, Women's Right, and Civil Rights. And they did it by taking the moral high ground. This is their right.
Gotta love that revisionist history. While you may very well be right, it's a half-truth that you're telling. There were religious arguments FOR slavery and AGAINST the rights of women and men. Want me to cite some Bible verses? Or do you believe that there were no religious people in the South? The fact is that civil rights and the end of slavery happened IN SPITE of religion - not because of it. So sorry, the religious do not get to declare those are their moral victories. (After all, if religion was so good - why did these Christians own slaves and treat women and minorities like inferiors in the first place?)
And please, let's not start whining about how Christians are losing their rights in this country. Nobody's telling them who they can and cannot marry.
Ingrid/my mom wrote:
There will come a day when we will be afraid to stand up for our belief and have no one do defend us. Just as Jesus fortold, this is another sign of the times we live in.
Considering that those writings come from a time when Christians were lion meat, I'm pretty sure that's what it was referring to. Come on, I live in the liberal Bay Area and I can't swing a dead cat without hitting a church. Christianity is hardly hurting in this country.
I know that violent protests do not represent the majority of gays, just as the Black Panthers never represented anyone but themselves. It is the perception in the mind of Americans that count though.
Just as in the 60's many in the Silent Majority (Remember that phrase?) viewed the Civil Rights struggle by the Black Panthers and the Watts riots, today they are viewing gay rights through the actions of those who will not or cannot fight within legal means. This is being fueled by the media, who needs a "cause" to shout about now.
BTW, It isn't revisionist history, but historical fact that in the 18th and 19th centuries in America the church was the focal point in people's lives. With no TV, Radio, Internet, and limited newspapers, the church became the focal point for news, fellowship and activism.
While yes there were churches that were pro-slavery and anti-women's rights, if you look at the history of those movements you will find church men and women in the forefront. Why is that? Is it the moral obligation that their faith imposes on them? You cannot have such moral obligations without religion.
Most people believe that how American society is today is how it has always been. But up until the 1960's it was different. Americans then were more religious and patriotic. What changed us was the invention of television and the idea that the individual was the most important thing. We now worship greed and immorality. We have lost the innocence of those times and much of our national identity with it.
While yes there were churches that were pro-slavery and anti-women's rights, if you look at the history of those movements you will find church men and women in the forefront.
And if you look at the entire history of both slavery and the oppression of women's rights, you'll see that it was the Christians who perpetuated both. Again, how could these things even be that way in the first place if it wasn't for the influence of Christianity? And yet again, have you ever read The Bible? It condones slavery and treating women like they're second-class. I can find quotes if you want them. So, you don't get to claim that one, sorry.
Why is that? Is it the moral obligation that their faith imposes on them? You cannot have such moral obligations without religion.
Sorry, but that's horse-pucky. I don't have religion, and I don't believe in slavery or treating women as inferiors. Oh, and I also don't believe in treating gays as less than me as well. There are plenty of non-religious reasons for treating people well.
And why is it that we're more religious than a lot of European countries and yet we have higher rates of murder, abortion, teen pregnancy, etc? Give me a break.
And as I've pointed out before, if religion was so good, then why was slavery and the oppression of women and minorities ever able to take hold in the first place?
Most people believe that how American society is today is how it has always been. But up until the 1960's it was different. Americans then were more religious and patriotic.
Can you not see the doublethink that's going on in your post? Much of the progress that we experienced regarding civil rights was post-1960s. So, according to you, during a time when we were less religious, people got more rights even though you need people to be religious in order to have equal rights.
Either way, I'm curious as to what you're basing this idea on in the first place. I know enough about history to know that it's more complicated than that.
What changed us was the invention of television and the idea that the individual was the most important thing. We now worship greed and immorality. We have lost the innocence of those times and much of our national identity with it.
Forgive me, but you lack perspective. I can find quotes from ancient Babylonians times that essentially say the same thing. People have always said that things were better in the past. I like it right here, not in the imaginary 1950s that never actually existed.
Lance,
I am sure that the majority of protesters are not violent. I think I made that clear in my post.
I also think you need to brush up on slavery. (You could start with my book on Papiamentu, heh, heh)
Slavery did not begin because of Christianity as you at least implied. It is true that Catholic priests sprinkled holy water on slaves as they were being put on the boats to the New World. Catholic missionaries also tried to convert them in the New World.
However, slavery existed in Africa long before the white man even discovered the continent. Black chieftains had their warriors captured members of other tribes and sold them to Arabs-later to Euros who had built forts on the West Coast (of Africa, of course).
Many of the abolitionists were Christians who opposed slavery for Christian reasons. Yes, Christians also owned slaves, but I would argue that they didn't know much about the message of Christ. Similarly, many so-called Christians supported segregation, but many led the fight to oppose it.
It was the Brits among the Europeans who first abolished slavery (1805, I think) and led the effort to intercept slave ships on the Atlantic.
Good point, Gary, and I didn't mean to imply that Christianity is to blame for slavery - mainly because I don't think that's true.
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't really credit it with ending slavery either. You're right, it existed long before Christianity took hold (Hey! I saw Spartacus, darnit!) I'll credit certain Christians with ending it, but I think that they did it out of their own good nature and not because of the teachings of their religion.
Because the fact does remain that there is nothing in the Bible that specifically condemns slavery. Of course, you could say that it's hard to reconcile the message of Jesus with slavery, and that's a valid point. (That whole "Golden Rule" or whatnot - which is what I referenced in one of my anti-Prop 8 signs)
Still, The Bible is sure to tell you not to wear clothing of mixed fabrics, but it never says "owning people is wrong."
So, you're right, it's wrong to blame Christianity for slavery. However, I'd be more impressed with the religion if it didn't take over 1500 years (give or take depending on whether you want to start with Christ's death or the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire) to finally figure out that it was wrong to own people.
And it took even longer for the Christian world to give women equal rights! Want to know which country (among others) gave women the right to vote before we did? Turkey! That's right - a Muslim country! (And no, I'm not going to credit Islam with equal rights either.)
Let's not forget, Lance that slavery has existed at one point or another, in one form or another in every corner of the world.
Pretty hard to make generalities about slavery.
Let's not forget, Lance that slavery has existed at one point or another, in one form or another in every corner of the world.
Pretty hard to make generalities about slavery.
Of course. I don't think that I was making generalities. I'm just saying that it's just as much of a fallacy to say that Christianity can be thanked for ending slavery as it is to say that Christianity caused slavery.
Like I said, if it was so great at focusing on human rights, why did it take 1500+ years to start turning things around?
Lance,
How did we go from gay marriage to slavery? Are we playing "straw man" again?
No. Red herring, maybe, but not straw man.
Anyway, I wasn't the one who brought it up.
Heh...I wonder if 100 years from now, religious types will take credit for gay marriage being made legal. (Because after all, there are some religious groups who are for it - I saw a church representing at the protest that I went to.)
You are correct, Lance. Findalis brought it up.
Just saw this cartoon, and it expresses how I feel rather well.
Post a Comment