BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Christian Fundamentalists and Free Speech

  
 
Foust is SO authentic
20:58 / 11.08.04
I frequent another forum called Theology Web, populated by a decent mix of worldviews.

In this thread, fundie Christian salvationfound complains yet again that the free speech rights of Christians are being violated in various areas, most notably homosexuality.

He linked to a fundie news site that contained an article about a mother recieving a court order to keep her young daughter away from "homophobic" matereal.

From the article:

A Christian legal expert warns that a Colorado judge’s order to a Christian mother to avoid exposing her 8-year-old daughter to “homophobic” religious teaching could lead to more abuses.

A Colorado court on April, 28, 2003, told Dr. Cheryl Clark to desist from sharing her faith’s teaching on homosexuality with her daughter, and also awarded shared parenting to Clark’s former lesbian partner, Dr. Elsey McLeod. McLeod has no biological relationship with the child. . . .

The materials that Justice John Coughlin of the District Court of the City and County of Denver deemed “homophobic” were from Focus on the Family and Promise Keepers, two Christian ministries devoted to strengthening families.

“The order restricting the religious instruction of the daughter violates the natural mother’s constitutional rights to direct the religious training of her children,” Staver said. “The order forbids the mother from exposing her daughter to anything ‘homophobic.’ It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision a judge finding the mother in contempt of court for merely teaching her daughter about the Biblical truths on homosexuality.”

Clark, whose attorney, James Rouse, appealed the order on June 11, left the relationship with McLeod and became a Christian. McLeod remains a practicing lesbian. . . .

“It is not a stretch of the imagination to realize that if this case is left unchallenged, Dr. Clark could be found in contempt of court for simply allowing her daughter to sit next to her in church if the preacher discusses sexual purity,” he said.


“This is only the tip of the iceberg. The outcome of this case will be felt far beyond custody issues,” Staver continued. “This case will have a bearing on the freedom of Christian schools to teach the Biblical view of homosexuality and receive vouchers. Many issues surrounding the Boy Scouts are rooted in these principles. What pastors can say in the pulpit is at stake here, and even whether certain Biblical passages are seen as ‘hate speech’ as we have seen in Canada.”

And there's one other case I'd like to bring up. A few years back in Saskatchewan, a man was charged with violating the Human Rights Code because he had a bumper stick on his car that had Bible verses against homosexuality on it. The court's decision is here.

In this case, the bumper sticker was pretty obnoxious - it also had a picture of two men holding hands, with the circle/slash symbol superimposed.

In both cases, a Christian found themselves restricted in what they could teach or display.

How far is a Biblical literalist allowed to go? Understand that you won't convince many they are wrong concerning their interpretation of the verses.

While I'm very much sympathetic to gay rights, just about everyone I associated with is a fundie Christian - I used to be one, after all. They all believe "homosexuality is wrong" -- it can be difficult to get a more specific statement than that out of them.

Should Christians - like my friends - be restricted when they make statements about homosexuality and sin? Especially since I'm sure most Christians would loudly condemn violence or active discrimination against gays.
 
 
LykeX
00:32 / 12.08.04
First off, there's a big difference between "homosexuality is wrong, you shouldn't do it" and "homosexuality is wrong and if you do it we'll kill you"
The first is fully acceptable, although I disagree. The second is clearly criminal.
I do believe that people should be able to think and say any kind of idiotic drivel they want without being punished for it, and I don't think you can justify having the state decide what people can tell their children. That's a nasty sliding slope that I would be very concerned about going down.
With the exception of directly hateful, slanderous statements, I don't think you can stop a parent from messing up their children. I wish there was a way, but I don't see any.
I don't know what kind of "homophobic" material it was, but it would have to be very bad before I'd support that ruling.
With regard to the bumper sticker: It's his car, and unless he advocates the use of violence to stop two men from holding hands, I don't think you could ban that either.

However, one thing is what you're allowed to do, another is what is polite, respectful and decent. If you drive around with a bumper sticker like that, expect to hear for it, expect to find a gay porn mag in your mailbox, expect someone driving around with a bumper sticker saying "Jesus Sucks Satan's C***" or something similar (and expect them to write out that word in full)

I think it's simply ordinary politeness to not give your opinion to someone unless they show some sort of interest. If someone asks you "what do you think of homosexuality" then fine, go ahead.
If you walk up to two men holding hands and say "don't you know that homosexuality is a sin", don't be surprised if they get a little upset. Or if they beat the crap out of you. You've asked for it.
If you don't want to see two men kissing, don't look.

So basically, I'm against legal restrictions, because it could leads us to a very bad place, and because, deep down, it won't really help. I'm for healthy doses of common sense and respect. If you don't show respect for other, you won't get any either. I suspec that's why fundamentalists get slammed so hard.
 
 
40%
13:26 / 15.08.04
This site, which is arguably no less biased than the ‘fundie’ site, raises question marks as to whether Cheryl Clark has any more right to be the child’s parent than McLeod:

They adopted the girl in 1995 and won a joint custody order from a Denver judge in 1996.

Adopted, eh? So does Clark have any “biological relationship with the child”?

Another collection of random quotes

From the above link:

But the Rev. Phil Campbell of the Park Hill Congregational Church said that Dr. Clark's First Amendment rights should take a back seat to what he called "the best interests of the child."
"I believe those interests supersede one parent's freedom to practice her religion," said Mr. Campbell, who heads the Colorado Clergy for Equality in Marriage, which backs homosexual "marriage."

Oh, that is so cynical. “Best interests of the child” is always a trump card in these situations, and a particularly nasty one in this case. Either side could argue that the other should put aside their concerns “in the best interests of the child”, except that if the fundies were to say that about the homosexuals, it would be seen for the loaded statement that it is. The implication is that the right to be homosexual is fundamental and important, whereas the right to practice religion is merely optional, a luxury to be enjoyed if it isn’t outweighed by other, more important concerns.

And this from a supposedly religious man himself? What is he playing at?

But at the end of the day, that’s just the statement that pissed me off the most. We could spend all day picking holes in anything that’s been said in this so-called debate. Until both sides stop being so arrogant and narrow minded and recognise that the other side’s concerns are actually, yknow, important, then the whole situation is fucked, and the best interests of the child, which really are the most important concern, are going to be pushed to the bottom of the pile.
 
 
Cat Chant
17:01 / 15.08.04
The implication is that the right to be homosexual is fundamental and important, whereas the right to practice religion is merely optional

That's interesting, and I'm going to have to think about it - thanks...

I disagree that that's exactly what's going on in this case, though (certainly that that's all that's going on in this case). I think it's possible to differentiate practicing religion - even teaching a child that "the Bible says homosexuality is wrong" - from exposing a child to homophobic material - after all, the Christian lawyer said It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision a judge finding the mother in contempt of court for merely teaching her daughter about the Biblical truths on homosexuality, not that this has already happened (as indeed it hasn't - is there a link to the offensive material that the court actually ruled on?): as in so many matters, what takes a Christian no stretch of the imagination to envision takes me quite a stretch .

There's also an asymmetry going on which I don't think your formulation above addresses, in that it's a co-parenting situation: one parent is teaching the child that the other parent is sinful and bad because of who she is, and that's not on. Not to bring in the 'best interests of the child', but I do think that if you commit to co-parent with someone, you have some sort of duty not to teach the child that the group to which that parent belongs is inferior.
 
 
Professor Silly
17:25 / 15.08.04
We've been hearing about this case for a while here in Colorado. The judge's decision comes not from a "equal-rights-for-homosexuality" argument but from a "equal-rights-for-parents" argument. The little Chinese girl has no biological relation to either woman, and the newly reborn Christian mommy went out of her way during the relationship in order to give her partner legal equal rights in parenting decisions.

Apparently in child custody cases judges often lay down rules preventing one parent from indoctrinating the child to hate the other parent. This is to prevent "mom" from telling junior that "dad" is evil and to not listen to a word he says...or "dad" telling little Susie that "mom" is a slut.

When asked in court about the situation the little girl told the judge that she loved both "mom" and "mommy"...and doesn't want to choose.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
02:21 / 16.08.04
Well that suggests to me that there's no precendent for the sliding slope argument to be used here beyond an extremely wild stretch of the imagination (thankfully. I hate the sliding slope argument). And that actually this really is in the best interests of the child.
 
 
TeN
20:39 / 16.08.04
"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited!...What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

Hahahahaha!

Personally, I like my shellfish.

And prohibiting prayer in public schools isn't censorship, it's seperation of church and state. It's not as if they won't let them pray on their own, it just can't be school regulated.

Oh yeah... and he spelled Utopia wrong.
Fundies... gotta love 'em!
 
 
diz
01:27 / 20.08.04
in the case of the adopted child of a former lesbian couple, i think it's perfectly acceptable for the judge to tell one parent not to tell their child that the other parent's sexual orientation is an abomination in the eyes of God.

as far as the rest of it... obviously, Christians do and should have the same rights as everyone else as far as free speech goes, but i'm more than a little irritated that the same organizations who lobby against free speech rights for everyone else are making such a big stink about this case. it's like Karla Faye Tucker and the death penalty, which is a necessary component of justice in the eyes of society and God for common criminals when they aren't born-again Christians, apparently, but an atrocity when committed against Christians.

i'm also a little sick of Christians playing the victim card, talking about how much they're discriminated against when they're the vast majority of the US population, or about how allowing other people to do things they don't approve of (like gay marriage) is somehow preventing them from practicing their religion.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:26 / 20.08.04
[sidebar - WARNING! PEDANTRY AHEAD!]

In fact, TeN, "Eutopia" is excatly the word our commentator wanted.

"Utopia," while commonly (mis)used to mean a perfect society, simply means "nowhere"—any nonexistent, imaginary place.

It's a value-neutral word in itself. There are varieties of utopia, bad and good, and each has its own word. "Dystopia" is the (pretty well-known) term for a bad imaginary society.

But less well-known is "Eutopia," with the prefix eu- as in eugenics, euphemism, etc.—meaning "good" or "improved"—to mean an imaginary society better than our own.

So the author is perfectly correct in his usage.
Dead wrong in his assertion, of course, but you knew that already.
 
 
TeN
00:07 / 21.08.04
Thank you very much Jack Fear. I knew that "Utopia" meant "no place," and that the word's common use originates from the book by Thomas Moore, but I had never heard the word "Eutopia" used before. Thank you for the vocabulary expansion.
 
  
Add Your Reply