Coming anti-gay backlash has fired its warning shots

by smkovalinsky | August 29, 2009 at 06:36 am

472 views | 26 Recommendations | 20 comments

With the recent Now Public feature on Dr. Phil and his angering gays with his new anti-gay message , a story that journalist Wayne Bensen wrote for Huffington Post in July comes to mind. The recent alliance with NARTH by Dr. Phil and others is part of a larger cultural picture.
Bensen has much to say about recent "back lash" activity aimed at the gay community, and gives a warning of the shape of things to come. From "The Anti-Gay Violence to Come", published 7/30/09, Huffington Post:

As the wider culture becomes more accepting, homophobes are growing increasingly frustrated, which has led to bolder and more confrontational actions. Are anti-gay leaders egging on unstable followers to attack gay people or provoking gays to defend themselves so they can manufacture martyrdom and justify retaliation?. . .

Benson then goes on to speak of a certain Christian leader, who is subtly stirring up, Benson allleges, the members who are unstable, frustrated, and willing to listen to his speeches with "the third ear", heeding the call to violence hidden within the supposedly "non-violent" messages:

In a vacuum, such religious language may be viewed as a relatively benign rhetorical flourish. However, when followers are portrayed as holy warriors in a life and death struggle against a minority group that is falsely accused of working to undermine freedom of religion, the seeds of potential disaster are intentionally being sown.
In advertising his rally, Brown proclaimed that the "hour is urgent" and that Christians must "turn back the tide of homosexual activism." In a written statement following his intolerance invasion of Pride, Brown wrote, "Enough is enough to the destructive goals of gay activism... We say it stops in Charlotte."

Most alarming are these charlatans' deliberate perpetuation of paranoia by trumpeting alleged religious persecution that exists only in their warped minds. For example, in his statement Brown accused gay people of "trying to put Christians in the closet." And, he capped it off by saying that gay people are "tampering with the foundations of human society."

Brown tries to cover his tracks by sprinkling his apocalyptic rhetoric with calls for non-violence. Good orators, however, understand the principle of "layering" messages. If in one sentence you speak of violence and in the next of non-violence, the listener will almost always embrace the words that support his or her belief system.

Dr. Brown isn't naive and surely understands that the LGBT masses will not retreat into the closet unless events conspire to make coming out a blood sport. Short of extreme bullying and brutality he'll never accomplish his lost cause of "stopping" progress on gay rights in Charlotte.

Brown, of course, doesn't actually have to make an overt pitch for mayhem. Simply by inciting his flock he is setting the stage for future tragedy. It is time for Brown and his comrades to abort their increasingly hostile and combative tactics before it leads to more wanton death in the name of abundant life.

Source

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

albertacowpoke

at 07:17 on August 29th, 2009

Rhonda J Mangus

at 07:26 on August 29th, 2009

Excellent opinion piece, smkovalinsky! Thanks for posting!

smkovalinsky

at 07:29 on August 29th, 2009

Thank you, and thanks for calling this to mind with your excellent post of Dr. Phil. All part of a larger picture which needs to be watched.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 07:37 on August 29th, 2009

You are very welcome! For your readers, a link to my "excellent post":) Queers United urging boycott of Dr. Phil show.

Thanks again for expanding on this topic!

smkovalinsky

at 07:42 on August 29th, 2009

Yes, good idea to link it! And I have noticed many blogs angry at Dr. Phil, so it remains to be seen what he himself will make of the feedback he is receiving.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 08:12 on August 29th, 2009

According to this tweet, it is one month with no response from Dr. Phil.

smkovalinsky

at 08:16 on August 29th, 2009

Oh, thanks for that, I just went to it. . . Hmmmm, perhaps he is at a loss for words. ;)

Rhonda J Mangus

at 08:24 on August 29th, 2009

Dr. Phil, "at a loss for words"?:) I really don't know why he appears not to be directly responding. However, the shows referenced reveal that he is seemingly making statements. In other words, indirectly.

smkovalinsky

at 08:26 on August 29th, 2009

Yes, "at a loss for words" not too characteristic. ;) Oh, the indirect approach, hmmm....

Barry Artiste

at 08:34 on August 29th, 2009

Dr. Phil is nothing but a grandstanding Turd Burglar

Rory Cripps

at 09:04 on August 29th, 2009

A turd burglar? I've got to remember that one. LOL!

smkovalinsky

at 08:43 on August 29th, 2009

Ha! :)

lounsbury

at 13:34 on August 29th, 2009

In the article it says "Brown, of course, doesn't actually have to make an overt pitch for mayhem. Simply by inciting his flock he is setting the stage for future tragedy."

Increasingly I am seeing this mindset all over the Internet. Obama is indeed bringing about change, and as we grapple with whether or not these changes are in fact good ideas or not, we are hearing the steady drumbeat of a common theme... "do not speak against this or that, lest you be found guilty of stirring the pot".

I'm sorry, but the pot is being stirred by folks who are trying to introduce things into society that not everyone is happy about. If someone voices an opinion contrary to yours and other people get upset, whose fault is that? Both sides I would contend. One for stirring the pot to start with, and the other for firing back so to speak. It is as if people just want everyone to just agree with them, or else you're a bigot.

smkovalinsky

at 13:44 on August 29th, 2009

Yes, indeed, both sides are egging eachother on, both claiming to have the truth. Neither side has the whole truth; neither is in possession of the needed tools. I have felt for some time that both parties are falling short of the mark. Yes, "truth" is not static , nor can it be shoved down anyone's throat.

Grace H

at 13:55 on August 29th, 2009

Good post. This trend though is both sad and alarming.

lounsbury

at 14:14 on August 29th, 2009

Why do you believe that truth is not static? Philosophically that is non sequitur (Latin for it does not follow). In order for that statement to be true, it would have to be an absolute truth.

I would contend that there is a truth of the matter and that some folks are confused about things, and others need to be left alone because they are living with the hand that God gave them. They need our support and love, not the back of our hand. That isn't to say that there aren't folks with unnatural appetites for sexual acts, and that's that. I am speaking of the leather and whips fetish folks, but do we not understand that as a personal choice and are more or less happy to just mind our own business and live and let live?

The militant gay community is not satisfied with live and let live, and the war they are waging has gotten loud because they feel as though it is a civil rights issue and are now printing T-Shirts that say things like "Gay is the new black". I floated that one past a few African Americans I am well acquainted with and lets just say that the response wasn't very positive.

The gay community wanted a fight and got one. That doesn't excuse how some folks react, overreact actually, but you have to expect these things when you start kicking people's chairs and refuse to allow a rational dialogue to happen. When you, not you personally I mean generally, start demanding that those who you disagree with shut up or else you will label them as intolerant, that is gasoline. The match is when folks actually meet and can't have rational discussions. Someone's gonna push, someone's gonna push back, and then you get what you get when you push and shove.

eastvanray

at 14:19 on August 29th, 2009

As I see it you can't strongly advocate on behlaf of a cause involving moral values without expecting a backlash. I am not religious and I am indifferent towards homosexuality so neither side of this debate really offends me but I am in the minority. If the gay lobby wants to push their agenda into areas where they know full well many will be offended then they should plan for that reaction in advance. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to push for the changes theu desire. As long as what they do is legal, both sides have the right to exercize their free speech in an attempt to convince policy makers and the public that their position is the correct one politically and socially.

smkovalinsky

at 14:57 on August 29th, 2009

Thank you, Grace. Well, louns, I could indeed swich over to the essentialist view and say truth is static. I am being Nietzshcean, post-Nietzsche! ;)--"wanted a fight and got one"---that is a fair judgment. Cannot take issue with it.

lounsbury

at 18:06 on August 29th, 2009

The truth can be relative, don't get me wrong. I might see something and love it, and you might hate it or vice versa. Moral truth is the argument. The question is, is moral truth relative? Again, I would say it can be, and as a Christian I can say that with full confidence.

The Apostles had a debate about 13 years after the birth of the church (the Day of Pentecost), and it revolved around rules. The Jewish believers were troubled by how some of the pagan converts were acting and it caused so much internal conflict that word got to the Apostles in Jerusalem of the dispute that broke out in Antioch (present day Syria). The Jewish followers of The Way (it's what the church was called then) all of the sudden had non-Jews in their synagogues, and it started a rift between the Jews who followed The Way, and those who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. The followers of the Way wanted to circumcise the new converts to The Way, and they objected. Who would want to have a circumcision as an adult, right?

Anyhow, the Jerusalem Council debated the matter and fought about it according to the Book of Acts, and at the end of the day they agreed that they shouldn't be circumcised and subject to Jewish law, but should keep 4 rules:

1) They couldn't drink blood, 2) they couldn't strangle the animal they wanted to eat, 3) they couldn't eat food offered as sacrifices to the gods, and 4) they had to keep themselves sexually pure.

This is off the top of my head, but that's the long and short of it.

Later on Paul reversed the ruling of the Jerusalem Council and said that they could eat meat offered to the gods as a sacrifice because he said the gods were not real, so it really wasn't a problem. he suggested that they not taunt those who still had an issue with it, but said it was okay and that the stronger brother was the one who could eat that meat. It was important because at the market place that meat was cheaper, and Paul saw nothing wrong eating food offered to wooden or stone objects.

The truth was relevant to the individual believer.

The truth of the matter though is that regardless of the relative truth, the truth was that it was not sinful. So, for Christians who understand this, the truth can be relative, and it can be static as you put it.

In regards to this debate I would weigh in with my belief is that homosexual acts are sin, but not necessarily people who struggle with that sin. When you start to mix in the possibility of a person being neither fully or wholly male or female, things get cloudy and to be honest I don't know what to say. Most often, that I've seen at least, gay people seem to display some degree of gender androgyny or confusion. I'm not God and am glad I'm not because to be perfectly honest I find it all very complicated and confusing, and I can't imagine how God would sort that all out. There are other folks who are just acting on sexual impulses no differently that folks into wife swapping, S&M or anything sexual fantasy, and I think that is a pretty clear case of just no.

I find the topic fascinating and very difficult to sort out, but I also think that most people don't like having debates with folks like myself. I usually get shouted down by both sides of the issue (gay activists and Christian fundamentalists), soother than long rants in comments like this, I rarely bring the subject up with friends.

smkovalinsky

at 14:58 on August 29th, 2009

Yes, eastvanray, backlash is presupposed. Our founding father, James Madison, said, "ambition will counteract ambition"; he really called it! Good comments, all! thanks ;)