Those Awful Christians
I get a lot of comments and emails with statements like these:
1. "Lining up early for your pink triangle... good boy." 2. "Fascism is running amok . . . You're the typical American: Dumb, unsophisticated, ignorant, stupid, evil and fascist." 3. "I'm sitting here trying to imagine one reason why any rational gay man would be a republican...? Conservatives are trying and are going to take away homosexual's rights." 4. "Conservative Christians don’t tend to grasp the concept of personal liberty." 5. "It's a shame (you're) too stupid to realize that when the extreme right has its way, (you'll) just be another number in their sick "Christian" gulag." 6. "I just worry that our reaction now begins to mirror the late 1920's and early 1930's in Germany. "
My first reaction is laughter. My second reaction is to post my own response to the Chicken Littles of the Left who are positively sanguine over Palestinians firing rocket-launchers at Israeli school-buses, yet can manage to get themselves all worked up into screeching echo-chambers of paranoia over the supposed dangers of Western, post-WW1 Christianity.
I, myself, am not a Christian, but I was born and raised in a fundamentalist, Protestant household, so I know the basic tenets pretty well. Christians may believe in the inherent sin of mankind, but they also subscribe to the notion that individual worth is valued at such a premium that their God sacrificed himself, enduring unbelievable and torturous physical agony, to save their souls (hence, The Passion). In growing up surrounded by Christians, and in my dealings with them in my adult life, it's become clear to me that (more often than not) Christians adhere to the "all are precious in His sight" philosophy, which fuels their interest in participating in political activity -- not because they desire to rule the world, but because they're genuinely concerned about the moral health and spiritual well-being of the societies in which they live and function.
Which is why attempting to equate Christianity with WW2 Nazis or Russian totalitarianism reveals an ignorance of such breadth and magnitude as to be, quite simply, astonishing. Nazi testimony regarding the period of WW2 reveals a deep contempt for Christianity within the Nazi Party. Nazi totalitarianism demanded that all religious activity conform to the desires of Nazi leadership, Christian churches were forced to accept the racist doctrines of Nazism under threat of imprisonment in concentration camps, and the Gestapo monitored Christian clergy and congregations for any semblance of dissent with Nazi policies. And while much is made of the alleged "silence" of Pius XII during the Nazi persecution of the Jews, little is mentioned regarding the systematic persecution that Catholics and Christians underwent at the hands of the Nazis.
The clergy, hierarchy and Vatican were vilified by the Nazi leadership as poisoners of German blood, race-death merchants, race-swamp promoters, race contaminators, race-chaos merchants, obscurantists or "men of shadows," sorcerers of Rome, and, referring to the Jewish roots of Christianity, as advocates of perverted "Orientalism." Catholic newspapers were banned, Jesus was portrayed an an unwitting tool of Jewish world conspirators, brown shirt gangs broke up meetings of Christian trade unions and the Catholic Center Party, thousands of Catholic Center Party supporters were placed in concentration camps, and while the Catholic Church found it necessary to enter into an agreement with Hitler's government (which has been regarded as a move of "necessary evil" in order to protect as many of their members as possible from persecution and torture at the hands of what was then recognized throughout Europe as a legitimate governmental body), Catholic schools and trade unions were still dismantled, clergy members imprisoned, and threats, bribes, brutal nighttime interrogations and nervous breakdowns were reported along with stories of priests thrown out of windows, children arrested, families imprisoned and thousands of believers denied employment with the State unless they renounced their religion.
Christians were also tortured, imprisoned and murdered in Bolshevik Russia, whose revolutionaries sought the establishment of an atheistic state along with a warlike communism, which led to the formation of the Soviet Union, where educational functions of the Church were completely abolished, churches and church properties were confiscated by the government, Christian clergy were imprisoned and tortured, and an estimated hundreds of thousands of Christians were murdered, imprisoned or driven from their homes for political reasons. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the celebration of Christmas was prohibited, while then and afterward an extensive propaganda campaign was undertaken to convince the citizenry (especially the children and youth) not to become believers, with the church consistently portrayed by the government as corrupt, hypocritical and otherwise evil. Stalin (the darling of the 60's radical left) starved, imprisoned and murdered tens of millions of people, including the Jews, Catholics and Orthodox believers whom he labeled as "enemies of the state" and had systematically wiped out.
To all the liberals who flail about, blathering stupidly about the Christians and their Gulags, I have this to say: Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin and Pol Pot are responsible for the extermination of hundreds of millions, and none of these men were Christians. It can be argued, actually, that all of them were actively anti-Christian, yet, somehow, the new Left deliberately floats the notion that George Bush and the Conservative Christians are the ones to fear; that somehow it's the members of a distinctly reformed and now comfortably modernized religious belief system that are the ones who are going to toss everybody in the clink and throw away the key.
Not bloody likely.
Throughout contemporary history, it's been the atheists, the communists and the anti-Christian/anti-religion forces who have been responsible for the destruction of entire societies and the rape, torture, starvation, imprisonment and murder of hundreds of millions, including the deliberate and systematic elimination of religious beliefs and believers (and don't even get me started on the bloody, tyrannical and repressive nature of Islamic theocracies, where, even today, just wearing the wrong clothing can get you beheaded in a public square), yet it's been the Christians and the traditionally Christian nations who have most often stood up to and cried out against oppression because of their firm grasp on individual worth, personal liberty and the value of the human soul.
If you think a Christian leader at the helm of a modern, prosperous and technologically progressive Christian nation is scary, then you obviously didn't pay much attention in History 101, because there's nothing scarier historically than a group of angry anti-Christians who want nothing more than to seize control of the reins of government . . . for the good of the people, of course.
Comments
This whole living in a theocracy thing is getting extremely tiresome. What planet are these people living on?
Posted by: Rachel | May 17, 2005 11:36 PM
I cannot for the life of me figure out where they get these bizarre theories of impending persecution. They have to take their shoes off at the airport before they get on a plane and suddenly they're, like, "Help, I'm being oppressed!"
Posted by: homocon | May 18, 2005 1:32 AM
Hey,guy - Of course they know most of the excellent history you recited. We have to keep in mind that most liberals/leftists don't want to persuade, or argue. They want to win, pure and simple. Arguing with them would be like arguing with Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao. We know that the Soviets knew the jig was up on their system during the Reagan administration; but, you didn't hear them saying "You know, [Reagan] might have something there about free markets and nuclear disarmament." Modern-day liberals want one thing and one thing only: power. Once they've established their plantation, they'll do for us what they think is best for us. KTM
Posted by: Keith Murphy | May 18, 2005 3:21 AM
4. "Conservative Christians don’t tend to grasp the concept of personal liberty."
OK, since you’ve quoted me in your petulant tirade, I’m going to officially state it-you’re a wiener.
I am not an irrational member of the Left who weeps for Palestinian terrorists. I am a person with a brain who understands the principles of political conservatism, and can understand clearly that the Republican party has largely abandoned them.
If you can refute that claim, then let’s see it. But if the best you can do is whimper and whine you’re no better than the lefties you castigate.
“they're genuinely concerned about the moral health and spiritual well-being of the societies in which they live and function”
Super, but that doesn’t mean that individual liberty and personal responsibility should be trumped by Christian paternalism (or socialist paternalism for that matter).
Christianity’s history, good or ill, is irrelevant. The fundamental point is that ideology-be it Focus on Family or Communism, has (no) legitimate claim to interfere in my personal life, with my private property, with my right to express myself.
“didn't pay much attention in History 101, because there's nothing scarier historically than a group of angry anti-Christians”
Why do you think there are only two options-Christians or anti-Christians? I’m not a Christian, but I’m not anti-Christian either. Binary thinking is beneath intelligent people and is part of the problem in American political dialogue.
__________________________
Homocon sez:
The history of Christianity is entirely relevant to the rebuttal of any argument that Christians are supposedly desirous of robbing the American citizenry of its liberties, an attitude which you yourself support when stating, "Conservative Christians don't tend to grasp the concept of personal liberty." You state no specific examples of the personal liberties of which conservative Christians have somehow deprived you (or anyone), which leads a reader to assume that you mean all, many or most personal liberties -- so you're either a whacko or just a sloppy writer, and I'm growing tired of both.
Claiming that "ideology-be it Focus on Family or Communism, has (no) legitimate claim to interfere in my personal life, with my private property, with my right to express myself" is fine and dandy as part of a rich fantasy life, but we don't live in a storybook utopia where anyone is free to say, do and act just as they wish, with no limits or controls by anyone, anything or any organization. We live under a system of rules, laws and regulations which strive to retain public order by attaching consequences to action -- for example, there's free-speech, but there are also slander and libel laws which impose damages for irresponsible statements and deliberately false allegations. As governments, organizations, social structures and even the fabric of law are founded upon ideology, it's impossible to exist in any society free from ideological restriction, and even restrictions on property rights (whether you like it or not), unless you're some Kaczynski acolyte in a shack out in the woods with a manifesto tucked under your mattress -- if so, well, there's no amount of reasoned debate that can be had.
The point is, choose the ideology that offers the least amount of restriction with the greatest amount of organization, structure and security. A Christian society, founded upon and fueled by reformed Christian principles, has proven, in comparison to other contemporary models, to be more in balance with the needs of a large populace required to live as peaceably as possible in closer and closer quarters, which is a valuable goal, especially considering our rapid globalization.
The contemporary Republican Party is in reaction to the extreme leftist bent of the new Democrats. Things will swing back into balance, but compromises will have to be made and new rules established -- until then, I find I'm more in tune politically and socially with conservative Christians (I never thought I'd hear myself say that) than other options presently offered, and I find it more than a little ridiculous to depict conservative Christianity as some movement hell-bent on robbing the people of their liberties.
FYI: there isn't much "intelligence" involved in calling someone a wiener . . . *sigh*
Posted by: Nathan | May 18, 2005 3:25 PM
Coming from a heterosexual, white, Christian, female Republican, I have never believed in "homosexual rights" (as one of the letters to you stated) or "women's rights" for that matter--everyone has the same rights as far as I'm concerned. They are called human rights, and we are born with them. By saying "homosexual" or "women's" rights you imply that they are above and beyond the scope of human rights. It's like hate crimes--aren't all crimes hate crimes?
All men are created equal--it's how you live your life that determines if you end up at the top or bottom. If everyone valued every human life as another human being, not a black human or gay human or woman human, we'd be better off.
Posted by: Noelle | May 18, 2005 6:03 PM
I guess it doesn't matter that I'm heterosexual, white, Christian or female based on my philosophy. See, we all do it!
Posted by: Noelle | May 18, 2005 6:25 PM
Not only did it take only fifteen words before the Leftist started calling you names, he even said "wiener."
Wiener!
Now, THAT'S funny!
Posted by: Scott | May 19, 2005 4:32 AM
Tell me about it.
It was impossible to take anything he said seriously after that.
Posted by: homocon | May 19, 2005 7:33 AM
Well, now . . . I find this a refreshing blog in that it actually represents many of the beliefs my partner and I hold dear. We are many things, just like everyone walking the planet (whether they know it or not). We pay our taxes, practice our faith, vote Republican (the vast majority of the time), love our country, etc. We are music fans, love sports, so on and so forth. Being gay is but one aspect of who and what we are. This obsession with all things gay is a fascinating and, quite frankly, silly exercise in identity politics. The Democrats don't get that. They view all people as having some unique characteristic requiring governmental protection, etc. Not this gay man!
Posted by: arkieconman | May 23, 2005 2:36 AM
I just stumbled across this blog tonight while looking for the site for the Log Cabin Republicans, and I have to say, wow. I've never seen an opinion stated so cogently, and with so much passion, as I just read.
As another gay conservative, I find it more than depressing that many in "our community" tend to try to force us into a certain ideology. More with the Left than anybody else, I see fervent closed-mindedness and busybody interference. Thank you so much for putting your views out there for all to see.
Lately the internet seems a lonely place indeed for those people who "missed the memo" on the correct way to think...
Posted by: Phillip | May 24, 2005 5:59 AM
Most of the remarks that you quote are by non-gays left-overs who are baffled that anyone else would find the 60's era idea that everything revolves around the 3 tenets for the cultural left: People of Color, Gay Sexual Liberation, Women's Lib.
I'm also a gay man, who like Homocon, finds the 70's era "Identity Politics" within the gay community to be tiresome. I'm glad that "Homocon" provides a voice for some of us who are proud of our lives, and our choices, and don't wish to denigrate the remarkable tradition of gay culture into a cultural-Marxist view of history of genocide and racism of what is the most tolerant and open society in the world for the vast majority of gay and lesbian citizens.
I am completely baffled at this alliance between the gay community and the secular materialists, or the anti-religionists on the extreme left that wish to destroy not only RELIGION, but the entire history of western-style political democracy.
The extreme left is very dangerous. I'd warn any gays that think that the this counter-cultural Left is any friend to gay people. If the Left was in control, most gays and lesbians would find that their social and community would be the subject of attack as extentions of materialism, male chauvanism, and western cultural imperialism. All of the great accomplishments and influence of gay culture on Western tradition would be destroyed and lost.
These folks who left these comments are enemies of the gay community, and it's about time that the gay community joins in the attack on them and everything they stand for.
Posted by: David | May 29, 2005 1:18 PM
Why do all of you assume that because we disagree with the Republican party, that we must be anti-religious socialists and communists? That's not true at all.
___________________
Homocon sez:
Ian, you live in Dublin, Ireland, right?. I'm sure you believe you have a very informed and nuanced view of American politics and society from across the Atlantic, but most of the people who read this blog live here, experience our social and governmental policies first-hand, and have a much clearer view of what people are saying and thinking in this country than you do.
Thanks for the input, though.
Posted by: Ian | June 12, 2005 10:57 PM