Is it terrorism when a gay couple from Canada wishes simply to cross the border as a couple?
Concerned Women for America now labels them “domestic terrorists.”
CWFA appears to have stooped to a new low in the trivialization of terrorism.
However, a Google search finds countless examples of isolated gay or antigay threats of violence being counted as “terroristic.”
For example, on Sept. 2, Exodus described angry gay individuals’ death threats against Dr. Laura as “terrorist.”
At a glance, none of the examples found by Google seem (to me) nearly as trivial as CWFA’s desperate rant against gay foreigners.
But until dictionaries — and the public — opt for a more specific definition of “terrorist,” we are likely to see culture warriors continue to exploit and trivialize terrorism.
How long will it be, before the act of waking up is considered a terrorist threat by one’s rivals — or before cash-deprived gay and antigay culture warriors attempt to raid the federal antiterrorism budget?
Ah, the difference between terrorism, rebellion and protest is often in the eye of the beholder. My own view is that special budgets to fight terrorism might not be a good idea in the long run. As for homosexuality, well what do you expect? CWFA and Exodus both know that they can not justify their existence without resorting to fear mongering. If homosexuals are no better or worse than anyone else, have the same desire to find love, perhaps even settle down and get married then why on earth would they need to leave the “lifestyle”? What precisely makes the “lifestyle” in and of itself so sinful? They know that the answers to those questions will undo them.
It appears as though CWA has taken this article down. Can anyone else access it?
Brett
Courtesy of the Google cache:
CWFA’s article on gay ‘terrorists’>
Your activism assignment for the day: If you have a web site or belong to appropriately themed mailing lists, you may wish to circulate the link to the cached page, so that people are aware of exactly what CWFA is really thinking, despite what appears to be their attempt to hide that information. Alternately, you can direct people to XGW so they can read this for themselves.
The link is a long one, and if I posted it for all to see, it would wreck Michael’s page, so (in IE), right-click the link above and click “Copy Shortcut.” Then save it in a text file onto your computer and share it as you see fit, via web site, email, what have you.
What’s next for CWFA? People who choose not to go to church or who tithe less than 10 percent will be labeled terrorists too?
One more thought: Merriam Webster defines terrorists as groups that seek to coerce through the use of fear and violence. By that definition, Osama, Saddam, and George Bush can be seen fairly as terrorists. A couple trying to cross a border? That’s just ludicrous, even for the political Religious Right.
Thanks, Natalie.
samesexmarriage.ca, a Canadian site, includes an excerpt from the CWFA article in the couple’s written response to being barred entry.
I agree that this incident should be publicized.
Where’s a rock I can hide under? I don’t know which LaHaye is more embarassing, Beverley or Tim.
I understand why you would feel that way. Sane conservative Christians ought to stand up and speak out against these people and organizations tarnishing your (broad sense of the term) reputation and religion.
Rich needn’t feel alone in wanting to hide under a rock, nor do I hold him responsible for educating some reactionary fringe. That’s everyone’s job.
In addition to CWFA, there are a variety of gay, antigay, reactionary and radical groups that employ fear or the implied threat of violence against people or property. And they all get their support from somewhere.
Natalie says: ‘Sane conservative Christians ought to stand up and speak out against these people and organizations tarnishing your (broad sense of the term) reputation and religion.’
Well, don’t hold your breath waiting. Have been waiting for this to happen for many a moon. Yet to see it in any generally available venue. There are supposedly some critiques by conservative Christian hidden away in publications members of the general public will never, ever accidentally happen upon. But nowhere in any public place.
At least they don’t need to worry about being trampled by liberal Christians who, apart from Quakers and Unitarians, never criticize either.
Yes, it’s everyone’s job. Those of us who have been standing up and speaking out would love the company.
Here’s the problem: most of the loose cannons belong to parachurch organizations. Take Jimmy Swaggart as an example. When he was caught with a prostitute he got up, cried his crocodile tears, and then expected everyone to let him keep going. At the time, he belonged to the Assemblies of God. They met and said in essence, “Jimmy prove your repentance by quitting.” When he didn’t, they defrocked him. He then quit the denomination and he is still going (www.jsm.org). Or, take Fred Phelps as an example. His “church” consists of his extended family.
One of the downsides of American religious pluralism is there is no effective way of publically “punishing” bad behavior. They just set up shop across the street. Thus, we are left with the behind-the-scenes approach. Not surprisingly, this ends up being the Biblical approach — a gentle answer turns away wrath.
I realize that this is an emotionally unfulfilling answer particularly when we are dealing with people who treat you not as gently as they are being treated by us. Nevertheless, what I have found is that this models good behavior for them. This ends up being a good thing for them, us, and you.
Dale said:
If you want a public critique take a look at mine when I was an elder in a conservative denomination (February 2001). Since no good deed should go unpunished, note the rating. 🙂
THe Canadian couple was attempting to violate U.S. law. While I think CWA did the right thing in changing the article, many of the comments posted on this site are equally fraugt with, quite simply, bad logic and arguments. If you are going to make a point, make a point, and dont distort the facts.
This site claims to be “news and analysis” when really it is just a propaganda tool for the homosexual agenda. There are competant arguments for promoting freedom and equality…why aren’t you promoting those? Can’t you see, we are engaging in the same type of inflamitory rhetoric as CWA, only they had the good sense to revise it.