Tuesday, October 19, 2010


The following was inspired by the comments that were left on my recent post, "Censored." 

Let me start by saying...I don't know what Richard B., TruthForce, ManitouMon said or did to stir everyone up; I really never followed that situation...and every time it was alluded to, I thought "how inane; what a silly and insipid disagreement."  I don't care if those three people are one and the same; all I know is that I agreed with Richard B. and many of the comments he left on The Pulpit.
Barna turns a deaf ear to outright anti-Christian hate speech, yet sees fit to delete, censor and silence opposing voices. Talk about a hypocrite. Bigots are intolerant; autocrats silence dissent. Those truly seeking tolerance must tolerate. I want to better understand; I want people to tell me what they think, and discourse with me and the other readers of my blog; because of this, the comments on my blog are unmoderated and unfiltered. I rue the day that I am provoked to censor a comment...and expect to be tested on this.  Oh well; I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.

"...if you are not a Christian, it is too easy to assume that you are an ANTI-Christian rather than simply non-Christian."

Let's see how this reads with a little bit of substitution:  If you are not gay, it is too easy to assume that you are an ANTI-gay rather than simply non-gay.

It works both ways.  I guess I don't understand why anyone would assume anti- or non-; after all, didn't we learn in elementary school that to assume makes an ass out of you and me? You can't look at a person and make presumptions about their faith or their sexuality, so I try to never make assumptions about either.

The Pulpit purports to discuss religious and spiritual matters, both of which fascinate me...yet day in and day out, Mark Barna's posts concern homosexual matters, with the result of provoking both non-religious and anti-Christian sentiment. I disagree that Barna has been neutral concerning religion; he's written very supportive articles concerning Wiccan paganism and Islam, for instance. But the truth is that many people of all faiths consider homosexuality to be aberrant, including Muslims, Scientologists, atheists (who believe in nothing); even Wiccans prefer not to include homosexuals in their fertility rituals. So why does Barna persist in singling out and mocking Christianity for its tenets? Isn't that bullying?

And here's a question that's come to mind as I've written this: so much ridicule is made of Christian fundamentalism; what, pray tell, are the fundamentals of homosexuality?

God loves us all, regardless of our faults and foibles. But when it comes to Barna, there's not a "world of difference between anti and non" -- rather, both are facets of his general Godlessness and special, pointed hatred for Christianity. All Christians are accused, all Christians are to blame...though some more than others. It's plain that Barna is "non-Christian"...but he's not stupid, either; he knows what he's doing. His continued, backhanded besmirchment of the Christian faith does not merely "imply an active work against Christianity" -- it IS one.

When I researched the Enrique Chagoya story and saw that Michael de Yoanna (longtime writer for the LGBT mouthpiece The Colorado Springs Independent) was one of the first to have written about it, I knew there had to be a pro-gay/anti-Christian hot-button hotline somewhere -- and Barna's dialed into it. Indeed, the Independent seems much more up his alley; but if Barna insists on providing the Gazette's gay point of view, then he should be given a different forum to do so, and the Gazette should find a thicker-skinned, more open-minded, and less biased writer for it's religion column.

Sign me up.

No comments:

Post a Comment