Feed on Posts or Comments 28 November 2014

Christianity Johnson on 26 Oct 2008 04:03 pm

How Christians use extortion to spread their bigotry

An amazing article:

Calif. gay marriage ban backers target businesses

In case you do not live in California: On the November ballot in California there is an initiative called Proposition 8. The purpose of Prop 8 is to eliminate the right of two people to enter into a same-sex marriage, which is currently legal in California. The Proposition reads:

PROPOSITION 8

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The organization that created the proposition and is collecting money to promote it is called ProtectMarriage.com. This organization is basically a front for Christian/Mormon fundamentalist groups.

The organization opposing the proposition is Equality California (see also NoOnProp8.com).

Many people and large organizations have made donations to NoOnProp8.com, as described in this article:

Opponents of gay marriage ban ride wave of donations

Flush with nearly $11 million raised through 17,000 donations during the first 21/2 weeks of October, Equality California (noonprop8.com) has pulled even and possibly surpassed the lead committee supporting Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage.com. And that doesn’t include more than $3 million in big donations this week from the likes of Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and filmmaker George Lucas.

Friday, the No on 8 campaign also picked up the support of Apple Corp., which said it would make a $100,000 donation. The two sides in the tight, emotional race are on a pace to collectively spend well over $60 million by Election Day.

So how does protectmarriage.com respond to this development? By “loving your enemy?” Of course not. Protectmarriage.com turns to extortion. According to the article:

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.

This form of extortion is ridiculous. And the notion expressed in the letter is so absurd that only the bigotry inherent in Christianity could conceive of it. The fact that one donates to NoOnProp8.com does not mean that he or she opposes traditional marriage. It means that he or she opposes the bigotry inherent in Christianity.

It also makes you wonder how often Christians use this form of extortion. For example, “If you do not donate money to this church, we will publicize that your business is anti-Christian.” In a heavily Christian community, you would have no recourse to this kind of shakedown. It probably happens thousands of times every day.

If you are a Christian who is beginning to recognize the bigotry inherent in Christianity and who finds yourself repulsed by it, you may wish to consider rationality instead. This web site can help:

- Whywontgodhealamputees.com

28 Responses to “How Christians use extortion to spread their bigotry”

  1. on 26 Oct 2008 at 7:26 pm 1.AB said …

    What a silly sight/site. I live in California, and support the measure. I came upon your silly blog via your more even more hilarious proof of no God page. Man, do you have a chip on your shoulder. You seem so angry that you make serious logical errors that even a school child could point out. Reminds me of those folks who think the Titantic could not have sunk because icebergs move, like ice cubes in bath tube. Ergo…iceberg would move when Titantic hit it..ergo, a conspiracy! Suggest you get a grip on relality first…then inquire about existence of God. You have a lot of mental cleaning up before you can possible “get it”. Best of luck (and God Bless you (and the USA).

  2. on 26 Oct 2008 at 8:12 pm 2.Hermes said …

    If you’ve got intellegence and not just invective, join me on the forums. I’ll be glad to see who’s got the bigger lobes.

  3. on 26 Oct 2008 at 8:15 pm 3.Hermes said …

    What I can’t understand is why some people feel obliged to meddle in other people’s business? Oh yeah! Got to spread the hate.

    SteveK – If you agree with this Prop 8, what is your justification?

  4. on 26 Oct 2008 at 11:18 pm 4.SteveK said …

    SteveK – If you agree with this Prop 8, what is your justification?

    A short post here won’t do it justice so I will summarize. This will no doubt bring up questions. I may or may not have time to answer them.

    1) ultimately it’s a moral and religious issue for me, but I don’t need these to formulate a sound argument in favor of the proposition.

    2) the courts created same sex marriage, not the voters so in my mind same sex marriage is not the result of the will of the people…yet.

    3) it’s a redefinition of the term ‘marriage’. Words mean things and that word is already taken to mean a hetero union. I have no problem if they want to adopt a new word. Opponents don’t want another word because they won’t get the same reaction from society and government.

    If you think that’s a weak argument then how about we redefine ‘immediate family’ to include any group of people that feels like they are an immediate family? Why not stop the discrimination there? Also, we have the word ‘parent’ and we have ‘legal guardian’. Why not stop the hate and call everyone a parent? It’s because words mean things.

    4) prior to the court ruling, there was nothing preventing same sex couples from living the same life as a married couple. If there is/was a problem with same sex couples getting equal rights under the law then I’d rather they go after the equal rights problem and not fight to change the definition of traditional marriage.

  5. on 26 Oct 2008 at 11:50 pm 5.Anonymous said …

    AB said You seem so angry that you make serious logical errors that even a school child could point out. Funny how you point out not a single logical error. If they are so serious, why not show a few?

  6. on 26 Oct 2008 at 11:53 pm 6.Hermes said …

    SteveK: Brown vs. Board of education; the voters didn’t desegregate schools, judges did.

    Additionally; why do you care what others do? Where is your dog in this fight?

  7. on 27 Oct 2008 at 3:40 am 7.SteveK said …

    Additionally; why do you care what others do? Where is your dog in this fight?

    Why do you care? You seem only to care about what I’m doing to people other than yourself. Unless you are gay, that is.

    Anyway, I told you about my dog in the previous comment.

  8. on 27 Oct 2008 at 3:44 am 8.SteveK said …

    Hermes,
    There is nothing preventing same sex couples from living the same life as a married couple so tell me why there is a dog fight to begin with?

  9. on 27 Oct 2008 at 9:58 am 9.Hermes said …

    “Why do you care? You seem only to care about what I’m doing to people other than yourself. Unless you are gay, that is.”

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Martin_Niemoeller.jpg/800px-Martin_Niemoeller.jpg

    “Anyway, I told you about my dog in the previous comment.”

    Still clear as mud.

  10. on 27 Oct 2008 at 9:59 am 10.Hermes said …

    “There is nothing preventing same sex couples from living the same life as a married couple so tell me why there is a dog fight to begin with?”

    How does it pick your pocket or break your leg how they live?

  11. on 27 Oct 2008 at 11:35 am 11.Anon said …

    Mormons Have Donated 40% of Funds for Anti-Gay Marriage Prop 8 in California

  12. on 27 Oct 2008 at 11:52 am 12.Hermes said …

    Thanks for the link!

  13. on 27 Oct 2008 at 11:55 am 13.Hermes said …

    Oh, the irony, it burns;

    ———————
    … “If you change the definition and have no moral standard, then honestly what is wrong with polygamy?” Wildmon asked. “On what basis do you deny three men getting married, or a man with five wives?”

    Wildmon is lying, of course. The Bible does not teach that “marriage is between one man and one woman.” Quite the opposite. Polygamy was practiced by Abraham, the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and by both King David and King Solomon, among others. …
    ———————

    (from Anon’s linked article.)

  14. on 27 Oct 2008 at 1:42 pm 14.SteveK said …

    Still clear as mud.

    I’m sorry to hear that.

    How does it pick your pocket or break your leg how they live?

    Again, they can live their life EXACTLY as a married couple prior to any of this.

    If the legally sanctioned redefinition of terms is OK with you then perhaps you’d support some of these ballot initiatives.

    - astrology/homeopathy to be legally recognized as Science

    - with consent of the individual, whites to be legally recognized as african american and vise verse

    - with consent of the individual, humans to be legally recognized as plants/animals.

    - with consent of the individual, children to be legally recognized as adults and vise verse.

    - with consent of the individual, males to be legally recognized as female and vise verse.

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

  15. on 27 Oct 2008 at 1:57 pm 15.Hermes said …

    “Again, they can live their life EXACTLY as a married couple prior to any of this.”

    Then why care about a title?

    Where is the impact to you or others?

    As for the list of examples, do you want to go over them one-by-one, or can we keep focused?

  16. on 27 Oct 2008 at 2:04 pm 16.Hermes said …

    SteveK, I didn’t notice a reply to the Pastor Martin Niemöller poem First they came…;

    “When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.”

    Does this make sense you on a moral level?

  17. on 27 Oct 2008 at 3:52 pm 17.SteveK said …

    SteveK, I didn’t notice a reply to the Pastor Martin Niemöller poem

    I did reply by saying they can live EXACTLY like married couples therefore the poem doesn’t apply. There is nobody in need of protecting because there is NO discrimination. EVERY adult has the equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

    The banning of same-sex marriage would also apply to EVERYONE without exception. Nobody would be allowed to marry a person of the same gender. Once again, no discrimination.

    Then why care about a title?

    Please ask that same question to the people against the ban since they can already
    a) live like married couples, and
    b) marry a person of the opposite sex

    The legal force behind such a title is pointless unless it gives them something they *rightfully* deserve under the law.

    Where is the impact to you or others?

    Since same sex couples can already live like married couples the primary impact is socially and educationally. It remains to be seen if some kind of ‘minority’ status advantage would be given to the group.

    Still, who cares, right? Would legally classifying Astrology or Homeopathy as science impact you? The impact would be in the same areas (social, education, equal status) and only a few would take advantage of this legal change. Is there a valid argument against giving them this title?

  18. on 27 Oct 2008 at 7:20 pm 18.Hermes said …

    “I did reply by saying they can live EXACTLY like married couples therefore the poem doesn’t apply. There is nobody in need of protecting because there is NO discrimination. EVERY adult has the equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.”

    If that were the case, then there is no issue … neither you nor they should be concerned. Yet, you both are. Why?

    More importantly, why does your opinion on the matter trump their opinion on the matter? So far, I see no reason to deny them anything.

    “minority status”: Last time I heard homosexuals talk about this issue, they wanted equality not minority status.

    As for the other issues, we can handle them item by item … do you want to handle them as well? If not, bringing them up doesn’t help since they aren’t analogous to the case at hand.

  19. on 27 Oct 2008 at 8:49 pm 19.Hermes said …

    John Armstrong of http://www.godvsthebible.com has a good video on the subject of this blog post;

    Skeptic Bible Study: Gay Bashing Bible
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PXS6dfxht4

    Summary “Why does love become “evil” when the body parts are similar?”.

    John addresses the objection that his summary may be seen as simplistic, and he shows why that is not the case and that it is accurate providing evidence from Christians themselves to support his summary.

  20. on 27 Oct 2008 at 9:13 pm 20.SteveK said …

    Yet, you both are. Why?

    I’ve explained it repeatedly so I won’t bother to do it again.

    So far, I see no reason to deny them anything.

    I’ve given reasons, you just don’t like them – which is fine. The fact remains that NO discrimination is occuring since no couple *needs* a government sanctioned license to live the life of a married couple.

  21. on 27 Oct 2008 at 9:19 pm 21.Hermes said …

    SteveK, I’d spend more time on your reasons and why they are incredibly thin if this were a forum post. It’s not … so I won’t.

  22. on 27 Oct 2008 at 10:10 pm 22.SteveK said …

    I’d like to hear your thick reasons for legally recognizing same sex marriage but not allowing Intelligent Design Theory to be legally recognized as Science.

  23. on 27 Oct 2008 at 11:39 pm 23.Hermes said …

    “I’d like to hear your thick reasons for legally recognizing same sex marriage but not allowing Intelligent Design Theory to be legally recognized as Science. ”

    That would take a while. Time I’d dedicate to a forum post, but not someone else’s blog.

  24. on 28 Oct 2008 at 1:09 am 24.SteveK said …

    but not someone else’s blog

    Why, is it your forum?

  25. on 28 Oct 2008 at 1:11 am 25.SteveK said …

    If you want, go ahead and put your response on the forum and I’ll read it.

  26. on 28 Oct 2008 at 9:05 am 26.Hermes said …

    Why, is it your forum?

    I thought I mentioned this before; blogs go stale fast, forum threads can remain active much longer (if the conversation continues).

  27. on 28 Oct 2008 at 9:06 am 27.Hermes said …

    If you want, go ahead and put your response on the forum and I’ll read it.

    What’s the use if you’re not going to comment on it?

  28. on 28 Oct 2008 at 1:28 pm 28.Hermes said …

    SteveK: New thread posted on the forums;

    For SteveK: Same sex marriage and ID as science…

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2054

    ————

    SteveK said …

    I’d like to hear your thick reasons for legally recognizing same sex marriage but not allowing Intelligent Design Theory to be legally recognized as Science.

    Source: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=249#comment-15622

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply