"Fundamentalism"

Disciple, as with many "new style" fundamentalist Christians, has filled his pages with claims of love for his fellow humans. From such people you frequently hear the mantra

Yet, when you start to dig a little deeper you uncover prejudice in it's all too familiar and ugly form. Scott's initially sugar-coated words, quotes from the Bible, his recourse to fraudulent research and his self-delusional claims of open-mindedness are here for you all to read. With each communication the core of bigotry in Scott becomes a little clearer.

You may be wondering why Grant bothered. Well, views such as Scott's are not uncommonly heard. Indeed, fundamentalist Christianity seems obsessed with homosexuality. It is from such well-funded and pathological organisations that most of the organised attacks on the individual lives of gay men and women arise - be it hysterical campaigns to persecute gay teachers, vicious campaigns to deny gays equal access to the law (such as Colorado's Amendment 2 initiative) or resistance to gay men and women seeking to have their relationships recognised equally under the law.

Despite Scott's protest to the contrary, his language is littered with the anti-gay rhetoric all too familiar to anyone who has spent even a little time examining the homophobic Religious Right. He may not be connected formally to any such organisation, but he is certainly doing their bidding. We decided to post this exchange to allow some of our straight readers to see the sort of opinions Grant and Dale are up against - remembering too that the following communications are with someone who is educated and doesn't appear to be a socio-path.

Thankfully the majority of Christians do not hold the same extreme religious views as Scott and his fellow travellers. It is these Christians that we call upon to tackle the issue of fundamentalism and bigotry within their churches.

On this, it is worth noting that Scott is a member of a Southern Baptist church and that this organisation has a long record of opposing moves to end many forms of discrimination.

One needs only recall the Southern Baptists campaigns against black civil rights during the 1950's and 1960's to see that the struggle against anti-gay attitudes within the church is but one part of a historic change. The organisation has recently made a formal apology for it's racism, but this does not alter the fact the group actively campaigned firstly against black marriages and then against inter-racial marriages on the basis of "religious morality". It is not often remembered today that at one time marriages between blacks were not legally recognised by several US States or that it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry - up until 1967 (!) in the case of Virginia with a judge in that particular series of trials openly referring to Biblical precedence to justify his racism.

(Let's hope it will not likewise take 40 years, but one wonders what the Southern Baptists will say in apology to gay men and women sometime in the future.)

Without perhaps knowing it (and here we will give Scott the benefit of the doubt and simply assume he is ignorant rather than a deliberate mouthpiece for such hateful groups) Scott is involved in an extremist political movement that is anti-social, anti-libertarian, narrow-minded and intolerant and - dare we say it - ungodly. Ungodly because ultimately any fundamentalist religious movement places it's own interpretation of religious artifacts above humanity itself. There is a name for such a thing, and it's called idolatry.

As you read the following exchanges you may note a tendency by Scott to avoid addressing his views in anything other than unsupported religious opinion. When given evidence to the contrary he does not seek to address it on it's own terms, but rather to simply reword his (now challenged) opinion.

Such circular debate - sadly - is merely indicative of poor education and does Scott no credit.

Scott's views are contrary to both the overwhelming body of evidence and common-sense. If all else fails, readers are invited to think of Scott's opinions in terms of our relationship to one another and our relationships with our families, friends and society as a whole. We are gay. In terms of what we want for our lives we would be termed homosexual activists by the Religious Right. Yet we don't fit the picture Scott would have people believe about gays - showing his opinions up as the prejudice-based sterotype they are.

Tellingly, you will also note that Scott in his second reply wildly jumps to the conclusion that Grant is gay; despite Grant carefully not giving cause for any such notion throughout his emails. Perhaps Scott assumes that anyone who isn't anti-gay must therefore be gay? He is welcome to discuss this with the majority of our close friends who are straight (as far as we can see!)

Let's not pray for it - that's far too sectarian - but instead let's all hope that as he advances in years life will present Scott with the opportunity to both live and learn about the wonderful creation called humanity - wonderful, regardless of how or who made it that way.

And let's hope Scott takes up these opportunities.

---

A side-note: Scott's choice of pseudonym - disciple - is interesting and may indicate he has not read thoroughly the very Bible he purports to follow.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 (that is, words attributed directly to Jesus).

Does Scott really feel this way about other people and himself? If he does we can perhaps understand why he has chosen to single out a particular group of people to demonise for their perceived faults. One wonders what opinions he would have held 40 years ago as a "good Southern Baptist".

---