Who knew that a bitter little throwaway post mocking the LOGO Democratic candidate forum would generate 206 comments, and counting? Don’t be alarmed; much of the content consists of the regular denizens of NoVA Townhall saying mean things to each other for no apparent reason.
I made a brief appearance way down the thread to correct some misinformation of the typical libelous Paul Cameron-derived variety (children must be protected from the “homosexuals,” etc.) posted by our erstwhile friend Jack. We’ve seen the kind of “medical” sources that those spreading this kind of nonsense cite – the only ones they have – and they do not merit refutation point-by-point. In fact, to engage in the exercise of dueling citations gives these pseudo-science outfits unearned credibility, something I won’t do. I’m sorry, but ideologically driven think tanks like NARTH, IMAPP, et al, are not the equivalent of the AMA, APA, or American Academy of Pediatrics, which take evidence-based positions. So after explaining why I was not going to play that game, I told Jack this:
The truth is that you would like for medical science to support your religion-based prejudices, and are angry that you can’t make it so.
You are lucky enough to live in a part of the world where you have religious liberty, and no one is trying to take away your right to have your religion-based prejudices. Just be grateful that you have that, and stop demanding that everyone celebrate your prejudice with you.
To which he responded with this. Please be warned that the first link goes to a graphic photo of the execution of two 16 year old human beings.
You are lucky to live in a part of the world that does not hang you or drop you from a high-dive platform into a dry pool.
Be grateful for that, and stop demanding that everyone endorse your depravity.
So, to recap: I said that Jack should be grateful that we have religious liberty, that he is free to believe whatever he likes about human sexuality as a matter of faith, but should not expect or demand that medical science provide empirical support for his belief.
He retorted by saying that I should be grateful that the Christian Nationalists who share his beliefs about human sexuality do not have enough power to demand my execution. Isn’t that nice?
Was it too harsh of me to remind Jack that no one is trying to take away his religious liberty, something that I assume we all value? Perhaps I was too snarky, and my essential point was missed as a result. In any case, matters of faith will have to be resolved within faith communities. These painful schisms are being driven by the same apparent conflict many people are experiencing between orthodoxy and the reality they can see with their own eyes. For some people, it’s easier to name that reality “Satan.”