Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Phelps Strikes Again

My friend Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (nee Operation: Truth), has forwarded this blog posting to me, with the hope of getting it noticed by people. Paul and Anthony Lappe (of GNN) and I had the Rev. Fred Phelps on the air when I produced a couple of their fill-in stints on the Mike Malloy Show on Air America Radio, to discuss precisely this issue.

The issue, in short, is that Phelps and his fag-hating friends, show up at the funerals of KIA Americans and, in essence, applaud the deaths. They do so because they view America's military casualties as divine retribution for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Which, as we all know, God hates.

Paul, I believe, abhors Phelps for his message, his lack of respect, his insanity and the pain he inflicts on friends and kin already in pain. I'm with Paul on all of this.

But I also think Phelps has something to teach us -- and, specifically, to teach Christians. I've written before that I find Phelps to be among the most logical and consistent Christians. What his actions ought to do is challenge current Christians to assess why they don't endorse Phelps. Do they disagree that the Bible condemns homosexuality? Well, then they're nuts, because the Bible is clear as day that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of, y'know, the Lord.

The only way modern-day, sophisticated Christians can dismiss Phelps is if they're willing to say that the Bible is open to interpretation. And once you've said that, you've taken a massive leap -- and you should recognize that you've done so. Because, if you don't accept the Bible as the literal word of your god, then you might as well file it on the bookshelf with any other cafeteria-style parable that helps you -- and acknowledge that you've elevated reason above faith (because reason, after all, is the tool you use to interpret the Bible), and see where that elevation takes you.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think anyone who protests ANYTHING at a FUNERAL is a horrible person, no matter what his message. But here's a question: Why are words like "hateful" used by liberals to describe anyone who vocalizes views that oppose liberal points of view and agendas? If I think homosexuality is wrong, and I say so (i.e. express my point of view), why am I "hateful?" If liberals oppose people's desire to own guns, they're apparently "not hateful." If liberals support abortion rights, they're apparently "not hateful."

So, I just want to get this straight. When liberals vocally oppose something, they're simply correct and trying to fix the world.

But if others vocally oppose something they don't like, those protesters are "hateful."

Hmmm. I guess it's like, when I oppose affirmative action, or when I say that we should stop ILLEGAL aliens from pouring across our borders, I'm a "racist," right? Those feelings of mine, if I express them, mean I'm a hateful racists.

But when liberals vocally express THEIR views, they're just really smart.

Yeah. And WE'RE the closed-minded ones. Okay.

Petty Larseny said...

I think when someone names their web site "God hates fags," it's fair to assert hatred.

Ol' Zeb said...

Hey Anonymous!

I'm not calling you hateful -- I'm calling you closed minded.

You. Not all "conservatives" or NeoCons. Just you.

I try not to apply a generalization to any group. That's kind of lazy. Each individual paints with his or her own brush. Some wide, some narrow. Just because you claim to have a position in illegal immigration does not make you a racist. That would be painting with a wide and indiscriminate brush. Unfair to you, unfair to the merits of the discussion. I do not know if you are angry or smart, bitter or foolish; I assert that you, sir, are too lazy to make your argument.

Sharpen your point and come back -- folks here will be ready to discuss the finer points of issues with you.

Anonymous said...

<< I think when someone names their web site "God hates fags," it's fair to assert hatred. >>

And you, sir, are quite filled with hate, yourself. Just read your blog. You don't have to use the word "hate" to clearly be filled with it. YOU are as strident and hateful as those you oppose. What... you think because you have a good vobulary and because your friends agree with you, it masks your hate? You show it weekly. Hate is hate, no matter how articulately it's expressed.

Think about it.

Anonymous said...

<< I'm not calling you hateful -- I'm calling you closed minded. >>

Yes. Since I disagree with most of what you stand for, I'm "closed minded." Of course. I supppose I should learn from you... since you're so "open-minded" to conservative ideas, right? Yes, thank you for being so willing to hear and consider our points of view.

Ol' Zeb said...

No, disagreeing with me make you "different."

For fear of this degenerating into a Pythonic satire let's be attempt to be clearer: Sticking to gross generalizations about ANY group's values or motives reveals one as being closed-minded.

Barry Goldwater was neither hateful nor closed-minded.

Ann Coulter is both hateful and closed minded.

I choose not to confuse ideology with temperment.

Anonymous said...

Why did you chose "Ol' Zeb?" Was "OI' Stupid" taken?

Newer Post Older Post Home