True bigotry should be discouraged
Dear Editor,
I wish to submit respectfully to the consideration of the reader a few thoughts concerning a recent column appearing in the Colonnade. Mr. Shreve is certainly entitled to express his political and social views whether I, or anyone else, happen to disagree with him; however, my respecting his right to his opinion does not mean that I cannot take issue with the general premise of his column. “A bigot’s guide to life: 2006 edition”.
As he asserts, true bigotry, especially under the guise of religious devotion, is an odious thing. It should be discouraged, and I believe if Mr. Shreve were to take a closer look at what the Christian faith teaches, he would see bigotry denounced in the ancient scriptures by none other than Christ himself. I concede his point that some of my fellow Christians, past and present, have attempted to justify personal prejudices with religious doctrine. However, Mr. Shreve errs on a number of points in his argument.
First, the Southern Baptist Convention, which he erroneously refers to as “the Southern Baptist Association” never voted (as he alleges) to “rid the church of gays.” However, the Convention, which is somewhat of a voluntary league amongst Southern Baptist Churches (and as such does not have final say over the decisions of local churches), did make it known where it stands with regard to openly gay clergy. It never forbade homosexual persons from entering Baptist Churches and being shown genuine Christ-like love and concern by Southern Baptists.
Second, he assumes that anyone who is opposed to the politicization of homosexuality is motivated by hatred or fear. This is a common assumption made by those advocating views similar to his. Some persons who oppose “gay marriage” and the like have their motivation in deep, personal family experiences rather than rage or what he calls “bible beating.” It is possible to take issue with the aims of the homosexual movement without religion ever entering the thought process.
Third, Mr. Shreve would do well to make a study of the development of marriage law in England, which is the source of our laws on marriage; such a study would be quite instructive on the “sanctity of marriage,” which he denounces as simply a construct invented to oppose homosexuals.
Mr. Shreve makes a number of sweeping statements concerning “conservative” Christians who in this modern era still hold the traditional view of sexuality. With such dismissive terms as “Bible beaters” and “religious zealots,” it seems that while lecturing us on the virtues of tolerance and the vices of bigotry, specifically with regard to the views one holds on homosexuality, he fails to extend the same tolerance to views radically different from his own held by many sincere persons of faith.
Furthermore, given the leftward political slant of Mr. Shreve’s columns, it would behoove the Colonnade in the interest of maintaining the perception of political neutrality to find and regularly publish the opinions of columnist with views contrary to Mr. Shreve’s.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Patrick Faulkner
Junior
Political Science
Posted by Colonnade Archives
on Feb 3 2006. Filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
