An Exchange with a Homosexual Man
Upset with my Hate Crimes Article
From:
W
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:15 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: Let Pass a Hate Crimes Bill and Invite Your Own
Oppression
I... I'm shocked. I
thought, for a while, that you were a rational conservative: debating
the side of traditional interpretation because that was honestly how you
read the Biblical passages. But now all I can see in your messages about
this Bill is Fear. You aren't looking at any evidence, not looking at
the future with trust in God. You are speaking irrationally (by
definition) out of Fear. I am deeply disappointed.
I know that you don't hate homosexuals, but it is suddenly so very clear
that you Fear us. Why? Do you not trust God? Do you not see the evidence
that your fear is completely unfounded?
What evidence? (First, please understand that I am *not* actually making
a comparison between you and these terrorists, nor am I comparing
homosexuality to race, but only holding them up as an example for my
point.) The federal and state laws against racial hatred have been in
force for quite some time, yet the KKK not only exists, but is allowed
to voice it's opinions, hold meetings and demonstrations, bring court
cases to further their beliefs. They are not forced to include blacks in
their official ranks, nor Jews. And they are an extremist group bent on
the establishment of evil subjugation of all non-whites! If *they* can
survive, full of evil as they are and with no sympathizers in the major
government offices, surely conservative churches will survive this hate
crimes bill and surely it too will be kept in check by the other laws
governing the freedoms you so deeply fear loosing.
Fear destroys people Rob. When you fear, you will either run away (and
be destroyed yourself) or you will try to destroy others. Frank
Herbert's "Dune" says it very well:
"I must not fear. Fear is the little Death that brings total
oblivion. I will face my fear. I will allow it to pass over me and
through me, and when I turn to see Fear's path, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain." (Litany Against Fear)
And the Bible concurs "Do not be afraid" is the constant chant of every
angel sent to man. "Hope and Love" is the chant of the risen Christ.
Stop cowering and lashing out like a wounded animal! You give the lie to
your other arguments this way. Stand up boldly and move forward until
you see fit to stop, but don't act in fear, but in love, and you will be
guided into the truth we all seek by the Holy Spirit.
Love ins Christ,
~W
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:15 PM
To: 'W
Subject: RE: Let Pass a Hate Crimes Bill and Invite Your Own
Oppression
Hi W.,
Don't get
excited. You have misread things.
First, I am
not paralyzed with fear. But neither am I a masochist that enjoys pain
or a sadist that enjoys watching fellow believers being pained. The
disciples slept a sleep of ignorance at Gethsemane; Jesus, knowing full
well what was coming, was sweating bullets but fortifying himself in
prayer. Not that what’s coming is equivalent but I think you get my
basic point.
Second, all
that I’m saying is that Christians should wake up to the fact that
ensconcing “sexual orientation” in federal law as the equivalent of race
and sex will lead to a severe attenuation of their rights if they
publicly make known their opposition to homosexual practice. It is
astonishing to me how unnecessarily hyper-reactive your comments are.
Christians who are opposed to societal validation of homosexual practice
would be fools not to oppose strongly legislation that would lead to
their own, and their children's, oppression.
If you are
not aware of the extent to which a KKK member—by the way a very
disreputable group (my children, incidentally, are of 40% African
descent)—has his role in civil society severely attenuated then you have
lived a rather sheltered life. Of course even an organization like that
can survive; but it gets no entrance into “good society.” You couldn’t
teach at a single accredited institution in the U.S. for example, or
hold a ‘white-collar’ job in the public sector, etc. and be a known
member of the Klu Klux Klan. You couldn’t be accepted into any reputable
college. You think that an adoption agency would be charged with
discrimination if they refused Klu Klux Klan members adoption rights?
You have been legally established as a bigot. It’s codified in the law.
I’m shocked
that you are so unaware of developments that have already taken place in
Canada and Europe as regards the issue of “sexual orientation
regulations.” Are you unaware, for example, of the man in Canada who was
suspended without pay as a teacher simply for writing a “letter to the
editor,” outside of the workplace, that tried to make a case against
endorsement of homosexual practice? And that the British Columbia
Supreme Court went further in ruling that persons in ‘white-collar’
professions could have their employment terminated if they engage in
“discriminatory” speech or practice toward gays and lesbians even
outside the workplace? Or have you not heard of the federal judge in
Colorado who ruled that an ex-lesbian mother could not say anything
negative about homosexual practice to her young daughter because it
would corrupt her opinion of her lesbian ex-partner who was granted full
joint custody?
Until you
read more widely on the subject we can’t get anywhere in discussing it.
Read, for example,
http://www.narth.com/docs/PrivilegeofSpeechClausen090.pdf
(from a Vanderbilt scholarly journal about developments
in Canada) and
also an article of mine at
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchFalseWitness.pdf
(pp. 10-18); and
Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda:
Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 2003).
Lastly,
will you
sign a notarized statement saying that
you will pay the court costs and loss of income for me over the next ten
years if I find myself facing legal action or loss of employment that
might come from codifying “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in
the legal system as a specially protected category?
I love you in Christ as a brother but you
are incredibly naďve about the politics of the matter.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
W.
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:13 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: Let Pass a Hate Crimes Bill and Invite Your Own
Oppression
I did rant a bit more
than I was trying to, and I'm sorry for that. And I may very well be a
bit step or two more removed from the details of this Bill than you are.
However, I do know something. I live in Massachusetts, and we have had
orientation as a part of our hate crime legislation for years now. Yes
there have been a few cases of it being abused, but our churches are
still free to make their moral decisions without fear of repercussions.
The vast majority of cases brought under these laws are decided on
weather or not actual harmful discrimination has occurred; things even
you would agree was wrong.
Bringing Canada into the discussion is almost laughable, as they have a
long history of ruling against the church and against free speech that
counters the majority. The US does not. Heck, even the ACLU would come
to your aid if you asked them the right way if you lost your job because
of your views!
And that's where I see your fear: your lack of trust. You are not
paralyzed by fear, you are blinded by it, blinded from seeing the things
that protect you as being strong enough. You and I disagree strongly on
the theology around homosexuality, yet both of us still has the right to
hold our views and discuss them, and all but the most virulent activists
would agree. The Catholic Church still has the right not to admit women
to the priesthood despite a huge difference in pay the office
represents. Their right to their religious view and their right to act
upon it is preserved.
Why are you so afraid that yours will not also be preserved?
Love in Christ,
~W.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:01 PM
To: 'W.
Subject: RE: Let Pass a Hate Crimes Bill and Invite Your Own
Oppression
W.,
I think you
may have the statement about my alleged blindness backwards.
Your
analogy about women is wholly misplaced because the church doesn’t
declare that being a woman is sin. Even when traditionalist churches
insist on male leadership they are careful to insist that this does not
reflect on some inferiority of personhood. Being a woman is not in the
first instance an impulse to do something that God strongly forbids. But
the church does declare, fairly vigorously, that homosexual desire is a
sinful impulse and the conduct arising from it an egregious violation of
God’s will. That places the church’s position in a very different
head-on collision with the state than does the women’s issue. Even in
Canada and Europe traditionalists on women’s roles in the church have
never been charged with inciting to violence. But that charge has been
made with regard to statements against homosexual practice. How can you
claim not to know this?
In
Philadelphia Christians attending a “gay rally” and holding signs
calling on people to repent of homosexual practice were arrested and
charged with a felony that, had the prosecutor had his way, would have
resulted in over 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine for each. Do you
ever recall a traditionalist on women’s issues facing such? I don’t but
perhaps you can enlighten me here.
Are there
any accredited institutions of higher learning in this country
that have a policy against hiring women as teachers? I’m not aware of
any. But there are many such Christian institutions that forbid the
hiring of any engaged in immoral sexual activity, including homosexual
practice. And you think that such institutions will never have their
accreditation jeopardized by the establishment of “sexual orientation”
as a specially protected category? That federally funded student loans
won’t be at risk for Christian institutions that have faculty teaching
that homosexual practice is highly immoral?
I’ve never
heard in this country of instances where traditionalists as regards
women’s roles in the church and marriage have been fired from their
place of employment for expressing views on the subject. Have you? And
yet persons in the United States have been fired for expressing views
against homosexual practice. Your comment that analogies from Canada are
laughable is, frankly, itself laughable. Of course there are differences
between Canada and the U.S. But in the case of Canada we are not talking
about something as foreign as old Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. You
suggest that the idea of someone here being fired for making allegedly
discriminating remarks about homosexual persons outside the workplace
could never happen. And yet there is the case of Matt Barber being fired
from an insurance agency in America for just such a thing. A number of
other cases exist where employees who have protested “coming out”
celebrations in the workplace have been fired for their alleged
bigotry.
There
certainly have been cases of abuse in Massachusetts—try the massive
indoctrination of public school children that reservation about
homosexual practice is tantamount to bigotry and racism. Try to get a
job as a public school teacher in most Massachusetts school districts if
you are known to have expressed opposition to homosexual practice.
Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts are defunct. Christians
refusing to license gay couples for marriage are fired.
You seem to
adopt the erroneous view that Christians are cloistered in protective
separatist enclaves, where we will all be safe from laws that codify our
views as bigotry. Yet we work in the secular world, usually send our
children to secular schools and go to secular colleges and universities
(or at least Christian institutions that are accredited). When the law
stamps us as virulent bigots, it has the effect of attenuating our
freedoms in the secular realm.
On this
issue the ACLU would not come to my defense as regards employment
issues. Name me one case where the ACLU has defended the ongoing
employment of a Klu Klux Klan member fired from a professional
white-collar position. They would protect my right to protest but not my
right to express allegedly “discriminating” views as an ongoing employee
of a particular company.
I noticed
you said nothing about signing a document paying for my legal defense.
How about it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? You
are absolutely convinced that none of the things that I predict will
happen will, in fact, happen. So what have you got to lose? Are you
afraid? Do you have the trust in God to sign such a notarized document?
I’m waiting….
Blessings
to you,
Rob