Of course she will – and does – deny it is hate, but doesn’t everyone who hates? Those who oppose and discriminate against gays and lesbians may be quite sincere, and it never looks from the inside like they’re doing a disservice. On the contrary, from the anti-gay mindset, they’re actually doing gays and lesbians a favor by telling them the truth and offering them a way out of their hideous lifestyles. To them, it’s love.
Iris Robinson, a Member of UK Parliament for the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, caused a furore last week when she claimed that homosexuals could become heterosexual through therapy. She described homosexuality as an “abomination” and in doing so provoked the ire of the gay community.
In the US, ex-gay therapist Warren Throckmorton had the sense at least to admit her words were “harsh” and came with “poor timing,” where in the UK Peter Ould sympathizes with Robinson, and instead condemns as witchhunters those who take offence:
[Robinson] dared to simply repeat what the Bible clearly says in Leviticus, that homosexual acts are abominable. What has followed is a “witch hunt” because she challenged the accepted public orthodoxy that same-sex attraction is something you are born with and that it can’t change.
In fact, Robinson’s ugly diatribe against gays went beyond “simply” repeating “what the Bible clearly says in Leviticus”:
I know [an abomination] it is something that God abhors, absolutely abhors … [Homosexuality is] so distasteful, so abhorrent …
When asked to expand on the meaning of “abomination,” she and presenter Stephen Nolan had the following exchange:
Nolan: Do you think for example that homosexuality is disgusting?
Robinson: Absolutely.
Nolan: Do you think that homosexuality should be loathed?
Robinson: Absolutely.
Nolan: Do you think it is right for people to have a physical disgust towards homosexuality?
Robinson: Absolutely.
Nolan: Does it make you nauseous?
Robinson: Yes.
Nolan: Do you think that it is something that is shamefully wicked and vile?
Robinson: Yes, of course it is, it’s an abomination. how much stronger a word can one use to describe what homosexuality is to the Lord Jesus Christ?
When taken to task for her inflammatory statements, Robinson later upped the stakes in offensiveness, saying:
Just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of christ, so can a homosexual … and if anyone takes issue they’re taking issue with the Word of God.
So we gays are on a par with murderers, but “there is a way to salvation through Christ if [we] give up what [we] do.”
There are two massive issues here. The first is the offensive and patronizing way in which Robinson addresses gays. At one point she sets gays apart from decent, moral citizens:
The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are believing Christians, and they have standards and morals.
Later on in the interview she is invited by a gay activist (who could not have been more peacable, frankly) to meet with gay men and women and in order to understand what they face. Robinson’s response is that she has no need to meet with gays because she has nothing to learn:
I don’t need to put my hand in a fire to know I’ll get burned. I understand about homosexuality.
Nolan presses her to reveal what she understands about the problems facing homosexuals, to which her response is to put the blame squarely at the feet of gays and lesbians themselves:
They are set apart from society because of their behaviour; and if you had watched the behaviour in the gay parade, I don’t think anyone would have been … enamoured by their behaviour, by their dress, by the outrageous things …
Prejudice and hatred are seemingly a side issue; gays are ostracized because of their own behaviour. Pardon my witch hunt, but Robinson did much more than “simply repeat” a Bible verse.
The second issue is how a person in public office (Robinson is not only an MP, but Spokesman [sic] for Health, Youth and Women in the Northern Ireland Assembly) can expect to be able to make public claims purely on the basis of a holy book. This was no minor aside; almost invariably Robinson appealed to the “Word of God” (the Bible) as justification, and barely tried to offer a rational argument:
What I said was scriptural. … Homosexuality … is an abomination. That is very clear, not just in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament. … [Homosexuality] is offensive to God; that’s why it’s in Scripture. … The Word of God teaches us that He made man and woman to be together and to procreate and to populate the Earth. … [The Bible is] the inspired Word of God. … All I know is that the Word of God is the infallible Word of God and He is very clear what He says. … I have a right not to be pilloried because I have a view that is taken from the Holy Bible. … I make no apology for what I said, because it’s the Word of God. … and if anyone takes issue they’re taking issue with the Word of God.
Incredible. How far would a politician expect to get claiming that her views were valid and true because they were clearly written in the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon? What would be the response to “I make no apology for what I said, because it’s in the Qu’ran”? How far in political life would “What I said agrees with the Book of Mormon” get a person? How far should such claims get a person?
People of faith are certainly entitled to a place at the table when it comes to politics, but they must come on the same basis as everyone else – with reasoned arguments, not with appeals to the authority of a holy book.
Witch hunt? No. Respect for equality, dignity and a sane, rational political process? Indeed.
Mrs Robinson claims to know Jesus. Many of us – when we’re not doing vile, loathsome, disgusting, nauseating and offensive things like loving our partners – also claim to know him and walk with him, listening to his words and learning from him. And we have a feeling, Mrs Robinson, that you have underestimated the love of Christ. Jesus might just love you (and us) more than you will know.
[Hat-tip to Emproph for inspiring the title!]
I think you’ll find that I’m raising the issue in the post of the marginalisation of Christian belief in the UK. You can cannot assume from that that I am in agreement with how Iris Robinson expressed herself nor her recommendations on what homosexuals should do.
I said that you sympathized with her and that you condemned her detractors as witch hunters, both of which are pretty obvious from your article.
If Robinson’s comments being criticized has anything to do with the “marginalisation of Christian belief in the UK,” you clearly believe she was expressing Christian beliefs, and you clearly believe that was why she was condemned. Otherwise, why bring it up? You can’t have your cake and eat it.
By labelling the controversy a “witch hunt” and holding up Robinson as an example of Christians being marginalised, you are simply downplaying yet another public display of egregious homophobia. We’ve been here before.
Very clearly the juxtaposition between myself and Warren that you present is intended to convey that I do not accept that ‘her words were “harsh” and came with “poor timing’. That is simply incorrect. Your misrepresentation of that fact does you no credit at all.
Robinson is a public servant so her appeals to the Bible or any religious text for justification of her views in setting public policy and as protection from criticism are entirely irrelevant. Christians whom her particular sect may find to be sinful or heretics, along with non-Christians, are also part of her constituency. Surely she isn’t trying to say that only those Christians who conform to her peculiar sect’s ideals are worthy of her representation and time? If she cannot carry out her duties for all of her constituents, she should resign her position and proselytize to her heart’s content. Free speech does not in any way, shape or form mean that she has the “right not to be pilloried”. She doesn’t have that ‘right’ nor do any of us. I’d say that this goes doubly for public servants who serve at the pleasure of the voters.
If her words were harsh and came with poor timing, I’m baffled why those who criticized her are labelled witch hunters, how the reaction was an example of marginalization of Christians, or how you can say she “dared simply to repeat” what the Bible says.
Take responsibility for your own words, Peter. Have a slice of gateau, or digest it, but don’t make a mess trying to do both at the same time.
Anyone is of course free to read your words in their original context, and decide for themselves what you meant:
I’m misrepresenting nothing. According to your own words, Iris Robinson was doing what the Scriptures demanded of her, she simply repeated the Bible, and when she justified herself, you declared that you “heartily agree.”
Now let’s concentrate on the issues and less on Peter trying to save face.
So where in that do I deny, as your juxtaposition implies, that I either think her words are not harsh or that I think she has poor timing? That is the issue at hand because that is how you have presented my comments with the way you wrote the sentence that has the link to my blog.
Mr Ould: I can never understand why it is so impossible for bigots to admit their bigotry. Why can’t you just be honest about it?
you say Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination. Quite apart from what the passages in question actually say, they also call for the death penalty. Are you advocating that for gay people who transgress? Or do you only get to quote the part you like.
Your bible also says the penalty for working on the sabbath is death. Yes or no? Or is it just another part of your book that you are willing to quote to further your political agenda.
And finally– your savior was quite clear on one topic– don’t think that you are here to judge– and somehow managed to avoid your favorite topic altogether.
try some exercises in honesty.
“I hate queers”.
“My religion tells me to hate queers, but we’ll call it love and hope no one notices.”
“My religion tells me to hate queers, but I’m too lazy and to self-absorbed with my issues to actually think about it and strive for some consistency.”
I DON’T WANT YOUR LOVE. you may think of it as love, but it has nothing to do with me. It’s all about you. Hate your own damn sins, and them if you have anything left over, you can tell me aobut mine.
Peter, I’m cutting you some slack since the OP does mention you, but it is important that you not repeat old habits and make this thread all about you and some imagined slight by Rattigan.
You had an opportunity in your own post to say if you thought Robinson’s words were “harsh or poorly timed,” or anything else which would suggest that you did not approve of them – you did not and instead affirmed what she said.
Throckmorton had the opportunity in his post to say that he thought those who disapproved of her words were “witch hunters” but he did not, and instead compared the situation to recent issues with Sally Kern, suggesting that “having the right [to say what she did] doesn’t make it right.”
We poor mortals must glean our understanding of your positions from what you say, and so that is what Rattigan did. Your own words have been quoted, the entire post linked and your objections aired. Others can determine how accurately your position has been relayed, but let’s move on now to items of more substance.
Peter, I said exactly what I meant and meant exactly what I said. Throck said she was harsh and poorly timed. You said she was an example of Christians being marginalized, that you heartily agreed with her refusal to apologize, and that the dissenters were witchhunters. I don’t know how the contrast could be any clearer. You can’t rely on readers to know what you’re secretly thinking. You said quite clearly what you thought, and that’s what I addressed.
The obfuscation is getting tiresome.
Northern Ireland is one of the few countries in Western Europe which has still had problems during the modern era with the recognition of religious freedom in practice. Even during recent decades, discrimination and violence against both Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have been far from uncommon.
In a case where a Catholic has been attacked or even murdered – and God knows, there have been plenty such cases in Northern Ireland within living memory – how about a thoroughly sincere discourse on the pernicious errors and idolatries of “popery”, perhaps backed up with “proof texts” from Scripture, and coupled with an offer to put poor, benighted Roman Catholics in touch with a very lovely Protestant missionary who is expert at showing Catholics the falsity of their religion and converting them to the true Evangelical faith?
Such a reaction would be absolutely inappropriate, and it would be doubly inappropriate coming from a public servant, whatever his or her religious beliefs, no matter how deep the conviction with which they were held, and no matter how intense his or her abhorrence of Roman Catholic doctrines.
Irrespective of Mrs Robinson’s private religious beliefs – to which she is, of course, perfectly entitled – her public reaction to the brutalization of a gay man is similarly inappropriate, and she ought now to be considering her position.
None of Robinson’s words or tone should be surprising anyways. After all, she is a proud member of the party founded by that inveterate gasbag of hatred, Ian Paisley. One look at his website will show you where this is all coming from. Hint: it ain’t just gays that are objects of their twisted ‘affection’.
Interestingly, despite reading three comments from him, I have not seen Peter Ould make the following statement:
“I do in fact believe that Mrs. Robinson’s words were harsh and poorly timed.”
Rather than making a clear statement like the above, he has chosen to simply object to good faith inferences made by XGW and keep the exact details of his own opinion on the harshness and timing of Mrs. Robinson’s statements shrouded in uncertainty.
It would seem to me that the more logical and honest approach to the confusion at hand would be for Mr. Ould to put an end to the uncertainty with a concrete statement of his actual views on this question.
Why doesn’t Ould just leave us alone and be content with the “fact” that we’re simply lost, living in sin, not even trying to get close to G-d, and blame our reaction to him on that. It would save him so much energy.
As for their form of “love,” I completely agree. I can relate as a gay and a Jew. I recall a painful chapter in my life when I parted ways with a friend who held fast to the belief that all my relatives who had died in the Holocaust were now also burning in Hell. They went through living hell only to roast in eternal fire afterwards because they weren’t “saved.” For evangelical Christians seeking to convert gays and Jews alike, “love” is wanting them to abandon core parts of their being. “love” is steadfastly believing that no matter how much good a person does, they still end up in Hell on a cold theological technicality. That sounds a lot like “hate” to me – or, if it’s not “hate,” it’s certainly not “love.” And I believe that when people don’t know the difference between love and hate, that is the greatest tragedy in life.
Rude. Aggressive. Offensive. Ignorant. Insulting. Demeaning. Wrong-headed. Christian.
Peter O, try not to confuse — or defend — those words as synonyms. They’re not.
Her non-religious claptrap would have attracted the same outrage, and attracted the same calls about her obvious unsuitability to make decisions that effect to the lives of gay men and women regardless of her religious beliefs.
Take out the “Christian”, and we’re still left with the menace of her falsehoods.
Peter: on your blog, and here, you’ve now had several opportunities to clearly state that Robinson’s extraneous viewpoints and her aggressive way of stating them are highly offensive, demeaning to other people in society and unfounded in fact.
You plainly don’t want to make that statement. Duly noted.
This being the same Peter Ould who couldn’t even bring himself to repudiate Paul Cameron:
https://www.peter-ould.net/2008/02/11/god-gays-and-the-church/
Same bobbing and weaving. Same verbal gymnastics and innuendo. Are you ever going to grow an integrity bone, Peter?
Coo-coo cachoo, David! 😉
Quite the edifying extrapolation…:
And I appreciate it, it inspires compassion. God doesn’t judge, we judge ourselves-according to that standard. And to my chagrin, I have yet to fully realize that she has yet to recognize this.
The profound profound understanding that we are swimming in the presence of God
Mrs Robinson said:
Well I have a dilemma having been raised in Northern Ireland and being a believing Christian I happen to find myself gay.
However, try using the exact same response to what was happening in Northern Ireland through the troubles and when you realise that many of those involved in the conflict would also class themselves as Mrs Robinson did as believing Christians. Thin ice indeed that Iris is skating on.
Ms. Iris Robinson – The Word Of God asked you to BE SILENT, and DO NOT TEACH MEN. Failure to do that would be going against God too. So practice what you preach.
Mr. Peter Ould – since you feel the practice of Christian faith is being marginalized in Northern Ireland, surely you could ask Ms. Robinson to start a revolution by KEEPING QUIET. Or are you afraid of being a ‘witch hunter’ yourself?
Um, I don’t want to derail this thread, but seems to me that there’s a bit of ganging up going on against Peter O here. See the comment he made on Warren Throckmorton’s blog on this topic – if I’d seen it sooner I might not have held forth at such length on Peter’s blog. I’m sure Peter can speak for himself but even so…
in friendship, Blair
Hi, Blair. I can only speak for myself here.
Peter came here and chose to take maximum offence at what was a fair comparison of what he and Throckmorton said. Not what they privately thought, or might have been thinking and neglected to say, but what they were actually saying.
Rather than taking it on the chin and engaging in a reasonable dialogue about the issues, Peter made it all about him being misrepresented and the discussion quickly began to revolve around his attempts to absolve himself.
If he’s given a reasonable explanation how he can simultaneously decry what Robinson said as harsh and ill-timed AND describe her detractors as witchhunters, holding her up as an example of Christian belief being marginalized, I missed it. And if he’s explained why “sympathized” is an inaccurate description of the stance he expressed towards Iris Robinson in his initial comments, I missed that too.
Interestingly, when taken to task, Iris Robinson quickly forgot about the issues of homophobia, hatred and violence that she was initially asked to address, and turned the whole thing into an attempt to justify herself, complain about her detractors and defend her right to express her ostensibly Christian beliefs. (Never mind that she’d already been given the best part of an hour of airtime to express her beliefs practically uninterrupted.)
Emproph: You are my muse. 😀
So a gay person is a person, but if sexual, then they are a person in “the homosexual lifestyle”, bent for hell.
I find it affectually amusing that these zombie raging Christians who still have the mentality that the world is flat, wouldn’t at some point ask a gay person what we’re all about, and get educated. One does not have to go to a book to learn the sun is bright and yellow, or that the rain does fall, and the moon reflects white light. Why then must they think the only education about homosexuality is a few lines in a patriarical homophobic sexually uneducated manuscript.
By their own God given free will, these people leave all common sense at the door, ranting tirades like obnoxious drug induced banchies. God directed of course. They just can’t seem to contain their own self induced inner rage, so spill-overs happen on society much too much. We keep having to mop up after them. They just can’t seem to hear “no” we’re not going to change, because, we’re not supposed to. So, they get educated and calm down or fry. Ahh life on the D-List. So uncool.
I was walking down the beach and stopped into this hip shop. On the wall was a bumper sticker reading:
“Asshole is not just an adjective, it’s a lifestyle.”
Yes. I smirked. I even heard God laugh at that one.
What a witch this horrid woman is! There is nothing “christian” about her… just another homophobe using religion to justify her hate. She deserves everything she gets from the press… another Fred Phelps, only this one wears a dress!
@ Emproph Great title! I actually thought the article would be about Gene Robinson’s June bride quote and marriage.
@ Yuki Brilliant comment
@ Ms Robinson The “Word of God” as is popular to call it is a blasphemous statemtent for Christians. The Bible is repeatedly clear that Jesus is the Word of God and giving a title to a book that is attributed to God is to attribute divinity to something not divine. It’s called Bibliolatry. But Protestants are quite practiced at creating sound rooms and ignoring what their Scripture actually says.
Thank you Ephilei, I worked on it day and night for…
No seriously, I just alluded to the song in another thread. I believe my exact words were “Here’s to you Mrs. Robinson, for loving us like you love murderers.” Rattigan then ran with the song connection. His title, his credit.