The Southern Baptists have uncovered the gay agenda

[shereads]

The icon of Southern Baptist evangelism when I was growing up was Billy Graham. Recently I read an interview with him in Newsweek, and was surprised to hear that he disavows the divisiveness of today's politically active evangelical Christians. He didn't exactly come out and say he's in favor of gay marriage - He's Billy Graham, after all - but he said he's saddened to see evangelism used to push people away rather than bringing them closer to God.

I'm reminded of Nixon who, like Billy Graham, seems almost liberal compared to today's right wing. The article hinted that Graham's son, who will take over the "Crusades" after his father's final appearance this week, is more likely to mix his preaching with politics. That's where the smart money is this millennium.

 

[Dar~]

I am a bible bearing southern baptist and I endorse this thread.






























*snicker*

 

[oggbashan]

Tolerance and reasonable attitudes are not newsworthy.

A church leader who mentions Matthew vii 3, or quotes Shakespeare King Henry VI Part II, Act 3, sc iii line 31 and says 'Gay people are people too' is unlikely to be widely reported.

Og
















Matthew vii 3:
Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considereth not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Shakespeare King Henry VI Part II, Act 3, sc iii line 31:
Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all,

 

[shereads]

Tolerance and reasonable attitudes are not newsworthy.

A church leader who mentions Matthew vii 3, or quotes Shakespeare King Henry VI Part II, Act 3, sc iii line 31 and says 'Gay people are people too' is unlikely to be widely reported.

Og

True, and he also isn't likely to care that he's not widely reported. As a peacemaker, he's inherently non-aggresssive.

That's why U.S. liberals, as a group, don't compete well in the modern political world. We need a Karl Rove, but if we had one he wouldn't be one of us.

[/threadjack]

Yur point is well taken, Og. Christianity doesn't necessarily equal bigotry. But the people who've been shrewd enough to recruit evangelical ministers to political activism are not peacemakers, they are Karl Rove. A marketing genius without a conscience. A lot of us believed, when the anti-gay-marriage amendment to the U.S. constitution was first mentioned early in the 2004 presidential campaign, that it was a cynical (but effective) strategic move having little to do with the passage of such an amendment. It was intended to fuel support for the Republican party among conservative churches, by forcing Democratic candidates to state publicly that they were against the amendment (and implicityly part of "the gay agenda.") It worked beautifuly. While one party sought to register a record number of new young voters, the other was quietly filling voter rolls with members of evangelical churches. It didn't take millions in TV advertising; Sunday morning sermons did the work. Churches without anti-gay bigotry weren't motivated to become an arm of either political party. I wonder if they could have been?

Rove's genius is that he works behind the scenes far in advance of a campaign, tossing out little news tid-bits to see what stirs some controversy. He probably has nothing against gay marriage, but would have been just as happy to have his candidate propose an anti-topless-sunbathing amendment if it showed signs of motivating enough new voters.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

A lot of us believed, when the anti-gay-marriage amendment to the U.S. constitution was first mentioned early in the 2004 presidential campaign, that it was a cynical (but effective) strategic move having little to do with the passage of such an amendment. It was intended to fuel support for the Republican party among conservative churches, by forcing Democratic candidates to state publicly that they were against the amendment (and implicityly part of "the gay agenda.") It worked beautifuly. While one party sought to register a record number of new young voters, the other was quietly filling voter rolls with members of evangelical churches.

I find it odd that, looking back, no one seems to remember that it was a Democratic judge that brought this topic into the mainstream. I'm not arguing the validity of your statement otherwise, and yes, it did work wonders, again because of fear.

As for the gay agenda? I haven't finished the first copy, and you're already releasing the fifth Edition? I thought it was women who exercised their right to constantly change their minds? Rely on the dykes my ass!









Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I seem to remember hearing a Muslim say something much like this not too long ago, and for some strange reason some people here didn't agree with him.

Cat

Funny what differences fear can make. It seems none of us here are afraid of "The Gay Agenda," but with recent terrorists acts around the world, Muslims are still scaring the shit out of some people.

Q_C

 

[rgraham666]

"Evil will always be stronger than Good because Good is stupid." Black Helmet in Spaceballs

 

[Quiet_Cool]

"Evil will always be stronger than Good because Good is stupid." Black Helmet in Spaceballs

Nice...

This having been said, I won't bother quoting Lenin.

Q_C

 

[SeaCat]

Funny what differences fear can make. It seems none of us here are afraid of "The Gay Agenda," but with recent terrorists acts around the world, Muslims are still scaring the shit out of some people.

Q_C

The only people who scare me are the fanatics who are willing to hurt other people because their views are different.

Cat

 

[Quiet_Cool]

The only people who scare me are the fanatics who are willing to hurt other people because their views are different.

Cat

Agreed, but the point remains...

Q_C

 

[SeaCat]

Agreed, but the point remains...

Q_C

Ahhhh but what is the point? That we should fear people because they are different than us? That they feel or believe differently than us? Or is the point that some people try to twist these differences into something they believe we must fear and/or loath for their own purposes?

Cat

 

[Guest]

. . . Or is the point that some people try to twist these differences into something they believe we must fear and/or loath for their own purposes?

Cat

Well said.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Ahhhh but what is the point? That we should fear people because they are different than us? That they feel or believe differently than us? Or is the point that some people try to twist these differences into something they believe we must fear and/or loath for their own purposes?

Cat

The last part, but not necessarily exactly as you stated it. It's not that people try to twis things, it's that they generalize, and those generalizations tend to lead to unfair judgments, in this case, fear is the result. For some, fear of Muslims, for others, fear of "The Gay Agenda." Both generalizations that lead to unnecessary fear.

Q_C