Saturday, August 18, 2007

Can the Muslims Conquer America?

There has been a lot of discussion in the blogs this week about this, and it has led me to understand something about the political atmosphere that had never actually sunk in before.

Let's start it with this exchange between Naomi Wolf and Melanie Morgan on Hardball the other day:
Wolf: It gets back to what I was saying earlier about the nature of lying. Let's not forget that they got us into this war on the basis of a series of lies.... This weaving out of lies was a pretext for an invasion that served their own political purposes. In the wake of the invasion, they were able to terrify the American people, subjugate the American people, drive through a series of laws that dismantled key checks and balances, allowed overreaching executive power, and completely eviscerated what the founders set in place, thus weakening America.

Morgan: Keep attacking, keep attacking Naomi, because you're going to look great in a burka. You're going to look super in a burka.

Some people thought that was a kind of strange response. I think it was a strange response, like Ms. Morgan was listening to a different conversation or something. A burka? Weren't we just talking about lying? How did she get to burkas from there?

To some people this makes sense, and I guess I'm slow but I'm just beginning to comprehend the magnitude of it. There was a recent statement by writer Roger Simon on the conservative site Pajamas Media, in a piece titled Gay marriage and the war on terror. Part of it:
I never cease to be amazed – and perhaps it is my own myopia – that my former colleagues on the Left can be blind to this situation. They act as if the threat is not real and is only a blip caused by a post 9/11 overreaction by George Bush, thus ignoring virtually all of Western history since the year 800, not to mention the overwhelming demographic changes of recent decades. (John Edwards – interestingly an opponent of gay marriage - recently called the “War on Terror” a bumper sticker. At least, he’s consistent.) The very people most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law – gays, women, freethinkers - are often the very people least likely to defend themselves against it.

Again, this strikes me as bizarre thinking. Do these people actually think that Muslims are going to conquer America?

Well, yes, apparently that's what they're afraid of.

Glenn Greenwald is a well-respected blogger at Salon who perfectly summarized the situation:
Every now and then, it is worth noting that substantial portions of the right-wing political movement in the United States -- the Pajamas Media/right-wing-blogosphere/Fox News/Michelle Malkin/Rush-Limbaugh-listener strain -- actually believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us. And then we will have to be Muslims and "our women" will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an actual fear that they have -- not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.

And their key political beliefs -- from Iraq to Iran to executive power and surveillance theories at home -- are animated by the belief that all of this is going to happen. The Republican presidential primary is, for much of the "base," a search for who will be the toughest and strongest in protecting us from the Islamic invasion -- a term that is not figurative or symbolic, but literal: the formidable effort by Islamic radicals to invade the U.S. and take over our institutions and dismantle our government and force us to submit to Islamic rule or else be killed.

I have never thought about this before, but of course that's what's going on. There are people who really think that this country is in actual danger of being conquered by Muslims.

I don't know how you're supposed to reason with that.

25 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Jim.

It is called
1) nuclear power in Iran.
2) suitcase bombs available from Russia from the cold war and
3) constant vote downs on of the strategic anti-missle defense (star-wars) by the democratic sides of congress.

and shall we mention the anti-wire tapping of the democratic left.
(personally I DON't CARE what they listen to of my conversations if it helps them keep my kids safe).


Ok, so those were talking points, I am not quite sure where we stand on anti ballistic and nuclear missles. I hope we are further than I think.

So, yes, if Iran becomes a nuclear power, we are in danger.

"Constant Vigilance" my friend - or didn't you read that book ...
theresa

August 18, 2007 10:56 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

So Theresa, tell me, how does this fear of Muslim conquest connect with prejudice against gay people? Is there a single belief underlying both, or are these unrelated thoughts? Like, is homosexuality morally wrong because ... it helps the terrorists somehow?

JimK

August 18, 2007 11:03 PM  
Anonymous RT said...

I dont think the "right" fears an Islamic invasion. They just rightfully fear continued attacks against America by Islamic groups, and they resent the Left constantly trying to throw a wrench in our plans to prevent it.

And there's not a lot of differences between the Islamist's anti-American propaganda and the left's campaign talking points.

Of the Islamists dont plan a frontal assault on the west, their looking to plant the seeds for a demographic coup a few generations down the road. They are well on that path in Western Europe. There are already large areas of the UK and France that are Muslim controlled.

The biggest threat they currently represent in America today is as a coveted voting block. Right now they only have one representative in Congress, a Democrat of course, but by projecting the current trends.... Islam is the fastest growing religion in America...there may come a day that they are in a position to enact legislation that reflects their Islamic values.

And as much as you, and I, have criticized Christian lawmakers in the past....just wait until you see what kind of homophobic legislation the Islamic caucus comes up with in the future.

August 19, 2007 1:58 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Wow! This is really quite enlightening.

Theresa, if you haven't noticed, and I don't suppose you have, a very Muslim country, Pakistan, not only has nukes but has exported them to such staunch allies as the North Koreans.

The Republican leadership is not afraid of a Muslim invasion; they just use that in classic fascist style to whip up their base. The top 1% of the electorate does not provide enough votes to elect Republicans in this country.

The others on this blog sound as if they really are quite happy defining this in religious terms, as a Christian-Muslim holy war. Very sad.

And anti-missile defense doesn't work, nor would it do anything against a suitcase bomb. Keep looking for your lost glasses under the lamppost -- invading the wrong country, attacking LGBT people to whip up the troops (hey, those Muslims will invade us because we accept homosexuality! -- it has been said on the right many times already) -- and we'll be more likely to be attacked again.

I'm currently in Israel and everyone with whom I've spoken, on the right as well as the left, hates Bush and the way America has lost its way in the world. And they, my dear, have been and still are on the front lines. My family in Haifa suffered under bombardment exactly one year ago. I wonder how you'd take it if Silver Spring were under attack. Probably use it as an excuse to impose martial law.

August 19, 2007 3:01 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Theresa says: "and shall we mention the anti-wire tapping of the democratic left.
(personally I DON't CARE what they listen to of my conversations if it helps them keep my kids safe).


I think this is telling, and Ive heard it before.

The "keep my kids safe" (no matter what) sentiment is perfectly legitimate, in theory. Except when it comes to the authoritarian mindset who's taught to believe whatever they're told, no matter how untrue.

It's one thing to blindly adhere to what "authority" says for personal safety, but in the context of one's love for one's children, that blind adherence to authority becomes insane.

The more "insane" love for their children they have (which I think any parent could identify with, whether progressive or conservative) the less time they have to actually stop and take an overview of the situation.

The most powerful love there is is one's love for one's children, it's non-negotiable, especially for mothers.

So if they're getting their information from propaganda to begin with, it's almost impossible to reach them with reason and facts if the lies of the propaganda confirm certainty of their children's safety.

August 19, 2007 5:37 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

The greatest threat posed by religious extremists in the Middle East is not to the sovereignty of the United States, but to the world economic order that has greatly benefitted most Americans since the end of World War II.

The Shah's regime fell because it was corrupt and brutal and created a context in which the reaction to it was most likely to be one rooted in religious fundamentalism -- a fundamentalism which not surprisingly is extremely hostile to the West.

Should similar elements take over in other countries with large oil reserves, the West might be in great economic jeopardy. On the other hand, Iran has not played the OPEC game any differently from our supposed friends (e.g., the Saudis, who enforce a different sect of fundamentalism, but are sufficiently hypocritical about it that they seem to be our friends, and will be our allies as long as it suits their perceived interests).

While we need to find ways to effectively navigate in this new world -- and the threat of terrorist attacks is most certainly present -- the simple-mindedness of this Administration has worsened, not improved, our prospects.

The bigger picture is that we must find ways to lessen our dependence on oil. Not only would this ameliorate the problems that may well eventually occur if Middle Eastern oil is used as an economic weapon against us, but it will also ameliorate that scary problems caused by global warming.

In 2008, we need to elect leaders who understand these things.

PS: The prospect of Naomi Wolfe in a burka silly, but the larger issue of the oppression of women and even worse oppression of gay people in fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East is significant. The question, however, is whether we do or do not have the capacity to make those conditions better -- and if we do have the capacity, what does that entail. The West defeated European Communism by containment and setting an example of a better way of life. That example may not be dispositive here, but it is instructive.

August 19, 2007 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

David S. Fishback says: "The question, however, is whether we do or do not have the capacity to make those conditions better -- and if we do have the capacity, what does that entail."

-I agree, especially in regard to US foreign policy. I would ask what we can stop doing in order to ameliorate the situation.

The 'right' tends to interpret this acknowledgment of personal responsibility as a denial of danger, as opposed to what it is -- the focus on one's ability to minimize danger. In this case, the danger is described as the threat of terrorism.

The self-reflective nature of the question seems to be the enemy for them.

Given that we all fear fear, the communication rift is a damn shame. Which is a phrase that now means to me that something was unnecessary.

But isn't that the first rule of war, to divide and conquer? It would seem that politics and war are synonymous.

I was going to say: "But that's indicative of the conservative/authoritarian mindset," But instead of actually saying that, let's take a poll.

Do those of you who identify as conservative / authoritarian (you know what I mean, and you know who you are), think that to look at -- and take responsibility for -- BAD US foreign policy, is to deny the magnitude of the threat of terrorism?

August 19, 2007 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And anti-missile defense doesn't work, nor would it do anything against a suitcase bomb. Keep looking for your lost glasses under the lamppost -- invading the wrong country, attacking LGBT people to whip up the troops (hey, those Muslims will invade us because we accept homosexuality! -- it has been said on the right many times already) -- and we'll be more likely to be attacked again"

Anti-missle defense does work for missles coming from Iran, and HELLO, maybe we should protect our borders to help agaist the suitcase bomb scenario. We have a wide open southern border. So immediately, you make it a bit more difficult to carry a bomb across.

I agree with David, we should immediately pursure alternative energy sources - I read a statistic somewhere that France gets 75% of their energy from nuclear power. The US would have more nuclear power plants - but oh, yes, the left campaigned against those.

I am also dissapointed that Bush didn't use the 9/11 to push for alternative energy sources as a mandate.

Theresa

And do you think it is okay for people's freedom of religon to be stifled as happened here :


This short video shows a little sample of what can happen if the Senate passes S.1105, the "hate crimes" bill



Watch this unbelievable video and then forward it to others, especially your pastor. It is the story of what happened to a Christian couple when they said that homosexuality is a sin.

Click here to watch the video

http://www.afa.net/play/index.html

August 19, 2007 11:49 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Theresa writes:

"I agree with David, we should immediately pursure alternative energy sources - I read a statistic somewhere that France gets 75% of their energy from nuclear power. The US would have more nuclear power plants - but oh, yes, the left campaigned against those."

Given that we are stewards of this planet for future generations, I would be strongly in favor of expanding nuclear energy WHEN and IF we can figure out a way to safely deal with the waste material. But until that technology is developed, we must be very careful about such an expansion.

August 19, 2007 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

How interesting Theresa. The top story at the American Family Association website's homepage (www.afa.net) is about a church reneging at the last minute to conduct a funeral for a gay veteran. Looks like churches can still display intolerance and hate toward gays with no problem, even gay vets.

I wonder how much money AFA spent on that slick 10 minute production about the retired British couple compared to how many say dental appointments could have been paid for instead so there'd be no more 12 year old Diamonte Drivers dying due to dental infections.

Here's how the BBC reported the incident with British citizens, Joe and Helen Roberts.

"Christians accused of homophobia

The pair questioned Wyre Council's bid to improve equality


A retired couple were accused of being homophobic after they sent a letter to their local council objecting to what they saw as its pro-gay stance.

Joe Roberts 73, and his wife Helen, 68, of Fleetwood, Lancashire, wrote to Wyre Borough Council complaining at their bid to promote awareness of gay issues.

The devout Christians said the council was "pandering" to minority groups and said they felt discriminated against.

Police questioned the couple but decided no crime had been committed.

The pair had questioned the council's bid to improve equality, part of which would see gay lifestyle magazines distributed around staff areas.

Mr. Roberts had asked if the council would display Christian leaflets, and was told all applications would be considered, but nothing that would offend minority groups would be approved.

He said in his letter: "If gay people made the decision not to think gay, they would not act gay.

"Whatever they are giving their attention to will eventually mould them into its image."

A Lancashire Police spokesman said: "As a matter of routine, a police officer attended an address in Fleetwood to make further inquiries and to establish whether any crime had been or was likely to be committed.

"As a result of those inquiries, words of suitable advice were given and we will not be taking any further action.

"Hate crime is a very serious matter and all allegations must be investigated thoroughly."

A council spokeswoman added: "We received a telephone call and letter from Mr. and Mrs. Roberts.

"Some of the wording in the letter was clearly inappropriate and so it was decided to consult the police on suitable action." "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4555406.stm

August 19, 2007 1:45 PM  
Anonymous JN said...

"The US would have more nuclear power plants - but oh, yes, the left campaigned against those"

Evangelicals have seen the light and are joining people on the left who have long led the fight to protect the environment. "Creation care" is gaining more adherents every day.

http://careofcreation.org/home.cfm

Some faith leaders question the poisoning of the environment nuclear power plants cause. Nuclear energy may "burn" cleaner but the disposal of the waste leftover from its production is a huge problem, not one to be swept under the rug, or swept under Yucca Mountain either.

http://www.journeyonline.com.au/showArticle.php?categoryId=2&articleId=1149

August 19, 2007 2:21 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Those poor poor persecuted supremacists. And to think that not being charged with a hate crime could happen here. What a tragedy, (unlike being violently beaten to death just because you're gay).

August 19, 2007 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look, if I suggest that I want to display Christian literature at my own expense because I am uncomfortable with a non balanced viewpoint being presented, I shouldn't have to expect a visit from a police officer !

that's ridiculous.

That is violation of free speech, guy, which I thought you were in favor of protecting (only when it is speech you agree with, once again).

That's intimidation by the local cops, as was proved when the COUNCIL LOST IN COURT and HAD TO PAY LEGAL EXPENSES AND ISSUE AN APOLOGY.

IT'S CALLED FREEDOM OF RELIGON AND RELIGOUS SPEECH.

WHICH MEANS I CAN SIT HERE AND SAY THE BEHAVIOR IS WRONG ALL DAY LONG.

OR ARE YOU GOING TO SEND THE COPS TO MY HOUSE, TOO ?

THERESA

August 19, 2007 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JN -

Do you have a better suggestion than nuclear power plants ?

or gas or coal....

Obviously we need energy so if you have a another suggestion to reduce our dependence on middle east oil, sure would love to hear it.

the hypocrisy of the liberal loving cape codders who don't want the windmills in their backyard is rather astonishing.

August 19, 2007 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Theresa said look, if I suggest that I want to display Christian literature at my own expense because I am uncomfortable with a non balanced viewpoint being presented, I shouldn't have to expect a visit from a police officer !

that's ridiculous.

That is violation of free speech, guy, which I thought you were in favor of protecting (only when it is speech you agree with, once again).


Substitute "Wahhabi" for the term "Christian" and then tell us you still feel "that's ridiculous."

Jim asks Can the Muslims Conquer America?

I doubt it. I find it interesting that right wingers like Theresa fear a nuclear Iran might conquer America while other right wingers work to bring Muslims into the GOP because they believe doing so will help them conquer America.

GROVER NORQUIST'S STRANGE ALLIANCE WITH RADICAL ISLAM.
Fevered Pitch
by Franklin Foer

On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that "the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good." It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America's Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam's name.

Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn't unambiguously rejected it. To the president's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas "freedom fighters." Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list." And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, "America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come." Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush's new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, "I wish I had known before the event took place."

If the administration was caught unaware, it may be because they placed their trust in one of the right's most influential activists: Grover Norquist. As president of Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is best known for his tireless crusades against big government. But one of Norquist's lesser-known projects over the last few years has been bringing American Muslims into the Republican Party. And, as he usually does, Norquist has succeeded. According to several sources, Norquist helped orchestrate various post-September 11 events that brought together Muslim leaders and administration officials. "He worked with Muslim leaders to engineer [Bush]'s prominent visit to the Mosque," says the Arab-American pollster John Zogby, referring to the president's September 17 trip to the Islamic Center of Washington. Says Zogby, who counts Norquist among his clients, "Absolutely, he's central to the White House outreach." Indeed, when Jewish activists and terrorism experts complained about the Muslim invitees to Adam Goldman, who works in the White House public liaison's office, Goldman replied that Norquist had vouched for them. (Goldman denies this, but two separate sources say they heard him say it.) "Just like [administration officials] ask my advice on inviting religious figures to the White House," says Paul Weyrich, another top conservative activist, "they rely on Grover's help [with Muslims]."

Norquist denies being involved in "micromanaging the specifics" of White House meetings, but admits "I have been a long time advocate of outreach to the Muslim community." In fact, the record suggests that he has spent quite a lot of time promoting people openly sympathetic to Islamist terrorists. And it's starting to cause him problems. Weyrich, echoing other movement conservatives, says he is "not pleased" with Norquist's activity. According to one intelligence official who recently left the government, a number of counterterrorism agents at the FBI and CIA are "pissed as hell about the situation [in the White House] and pissed as hell about Grover." They should be. While nobody suggests that Norquist himself is soft on terrorism, his lobbying has helped provide radical Islamic groups--and their causes--a degree of legitimacy and access they assuredly do not deserve.

Norquist is one of the undisputed masters of Republican coalition building. And so it is no surprise that he has turned his attention to America's fast-growing Muslim population, which by some accounts now stands at seven million strong. (Although two other recent reports suggest it is less than three million.) "He's worked with [Rabbi Daniel] Lapin to bring Jews into the fold," says one Norquist associate. "That was an uphill effort. So he figured that he could turn Muslims into the obvious counterweight to the relationship between the Jews and Dems." In the last few years, Norquist has pursued a Republican-Muslim alliance with a two-track approach. With conservatives, he has emphasized that Muslims are a good demographic fit for the GOP: well-off and socially conservative. "American Muslims look like members of the Christian Coalition," he wrote in The American Spectator this summer. To Muslims, he has promised a sympathetic hearing for their causes. He has pushed Republican leaders to support a prohibition on the government's use of "secret evidence" in the deportation of suspected terrorists--an issue that jibes with Norquist's own anti-government agenda. And he has intimated that Muslim support for Republicans could change U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Appearing on a panel at a 1999 meeting of the American Muslim Alliance, alongside activists who complained about the "Zionist lobby" and Jewish "monopolizing" of Jerusalem, Norquist announced that "[t]oo many American politicians have been able to take their shots at Muslims and at Muslims countries..."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561786/posts

August 20, 2007 7:41 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Aunt Bea writes,

How interesting Theresa. The top story at the American Family Association website's homepage (www.afa.net) is about a church reneging at the last minute to conduct a funeral for a gay veteran. Looks like churches can still display intolerance and hate toward gays with no problem, even gay vets.

Have you read the article in The Dallas Morning News?

http://www.dallasnews.com
/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews
/stories/
081007dnmetgayfuneral.3617689.html

This "news" article is biased from the very first paragraph, which read,

An Arlington church volunteered to host a funeral Thursday, then reneged on the invitation when it became clear the dead man's homosexuality would be identified in the service.

yet it is clear that they did not "renege" as much as they simply withdrew or rescinded the offer when it was clear what their church would be hosting. Is that not within their right to do?

On the topic of this entry, "Can the Muslims Conquer America?"...well, they have done so with parts of Europe (in France, one out of every five is Muslim - but wait, the French Constitution establishes a secular state! lol...get enough Muslim voters and that can be easily changed). I think Muslims will have a much tougher time establishing themselves here because religion (of the moderate judeo-christian variety) is strong and well established here, quite unlike the secular vacuum that is much of Western Europe.

August 20, 2007 8:01 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Well Orin, I'm glad you can divine truth or bias from a newspaper article and that you somehow know the church "simply withdrew or rescinded the offer when it was clear what their church would be hosting." I have doubts that you really know what you think you know.

Here's a report from a source who does actually know something about how High Point Church handled Cecil Sinclair's funeral service arrangements.

Another side of the story of the gay man's funeral and High Point Church

Here's the story I wrote that ran Friday. Bottom line: The Arlington megachurch offered to host a funeral and then reneged. Read the story for the nuances (several) and details (many).

Cecil Sinclair's longtime partner is Paul Wagner. Mr. Wagner sent in a long comment to another post on this blog. It seemed to me his position deserved better play than the comments section:

I am the partner of Cecil Sinclair who passed. It is unfortunate that the church has decided to tell untruths in order to make themselves feel better, or make their side of the story into a saner response. Hopefully more of the truth will come out in future articles or investigations.

First of all, let me start by stating that it was a member of the church who offered the use of their facility to us, on behalf of his brother who is/was a member of their congregation. I was introduced to this man as Cecil's partner. To my knowledge, this person at least was fully aware that we were living openly as a couple. This same member of the church, when were later advised that we could not use the facilities, on his own, with money from his own pocket, not church coffers, went and procured another facility for the funeral. The church did not do so.

At no time did a member of the church contact us to indicate that they had a problem with any part of the service we were planning. We never had contact with the minister or any of the administration. On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any homosexual references.


Much more after the jump.

Cecil's sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done.

These individuals went through all the other photos, which were pictures of family gatherings, birthday parties, vacations, etc. At no time was anything expressed to her or us that they had a disagreement with any of the other photos.

Cecil's brother Lee, who was the member of the church, asked that we include a call to prayer near the beginning of the services, as well as a call for salvation at the end. We immediately agreed to this because it meant so much to his brother personally. We even asked if they wanted to have their own minister conduct it, or if our officiator could. There was no objection raised, so we assumed that it was OK.

On Wednesday evening about 6pm, we received a call. The person on the line put Cecil's brother Lee, who is mentally impaired, onto the phone. Lee informed us that something had gone wrong, and then someone else got on the phone. That person informed us that a terrible string of errors was made, and that the service could no longer be held at their facility. We never spoke to the pastor nor anyone from his administration directly. It was all done through middlemen. When we requested to know why we could no longer use their facility, there was no answer. They simply stated a mistake was made.

Later that night, while we were scrambling to find another location, Cecil's niece called back to the church and demanded an explanation. It was at that time a very long string of excuses began to form. First she was told that it was because we were bringing in outside food, which they didn't allow.

Then we were told it was because there was construction going on nearby which they felt would be too obtrusive. We said we didn't think it would interfere. Then we were told it was because there was a scheduling conflict. When asked was other event was being held that was conflicting, the call was disconnected.

The remembrance we held for Cecil I felt was wonderful. We started with a brief welcome by the officiator. A song (For the Fallen) was sung. Cecil's obituary was read. We then played the video which was about 10 minutes long, showing him from childhood, graduation, his naval service, and family gatherings, especially those from his 46th birthday, which had just been on the 5th of July.

The officiator then read from personal family statements and remembrances of him. His mother, father, uncle and sister had all contributed personal insights into his life that they were not able to state themselves due to grief. A time was then allowed for individuals to come to the mike and offer their own personal remembrances of him. The chorale then sang another song (Amazing Grace). Closing remarks were made by the officiator and we then moved to the light meal that had been prepared. Meat and cheese sandwiches, cakes, and cookies. Only a small amount of this was offered by the church, most was either brought by family or friends.

To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues.

We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn't even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces.

Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided.

If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil's remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location.

I loved Cecil truly and deeply, and I am sorry that anyone considers a truly heartfelt, emotional, even spiritual connection to another human being to be sinful, simply because that love is between two people of the same sex.


http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/another_side_of_the_story_of_t.html

The same comment was also posted at BoxTurtle:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/08/11/639

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/08/10/635#comment-1590

August 20, 2007 11:45 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

Theresa,

You've read the Senate hate crimes bill, you're an American and are fully aware of your free speech rights and your rights to free expression of religion. You are correct, you can proclaim all day long that "the behaviors are wrong." You in fact can come to the events that we have for LGBT youth and hand out ex-gay flyers, or carry signs about HIV, hellfire, unisex bathrooms, anything your want, as long as you stay off of private property. I've been to very innocent, innocuous LGBT events with very radical, offensive protesters out on the sidewalk (to be fair, I've also seen pro-LGBT protesters who were very offensive too).

You know all these things. Your claim of potential oppression because of the hate crimes bill is either delusional or dishonest, and very inflammatory (but then again, I remember how you feel about civility when if involves fighting the queers). You should know better.

rrjr

August 20, 2007 5:19 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Aunt Bea writes,

Well Orin, I'm glad you can divine truth or bias from a newspaper article

It does not take the degree of a rocket scientist to figure out that the word renege is a loaded word...it is. That shows bias, and please don't offend my intelligence to pretend otherwise.


and that you somehow know the church "simply withdrew or rescinded the offer when it was clear what their church would be hosting."

The words "withdrew" or "rescinded" could have a modifier in front of them if that is needed, which in this case it appears that it is in order..."hastily".

I have doubts that you really know what you think you know.

Fair enough...and who is to say that the other side has not also misrepresented facts to make themselves appear in a more victimized light?

If this is indeed a "mega" church, then I suspect that there may be any number of decision makers, and that this was a contributing factor to the mishandling of this matter. That this church could not be honest about the reason does not speak well of the leadership of this church.

August 20, 2007 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Orin says: "and who is to say that the other side has not also misrepresented facts to make themselves appear in a more victimized light?"

More victimized than experiencing the death of their loved one? I didn't even think about that.

Given that perspective, who's to say what the true definition of lying is?

Rev Gary Simons had the opportunity to refute the accusations of lies and not only chose not to, but chose to joke about their listing on Google as a result of the FAMILY'S accusations.

"With all the negative e-mail we are receiving right now, it seems that the homosexual community, God bless them all, are very organized," said the Rev. Gary Simons...

"Before, when you type in 'Gary Simons' and 'High Point Church' in a Google search, you know, you could find us. But now, you really could find us."


So the FAMILY'S concern with lying = homosexual agenda. I'm not seeing the connection Orin.

August 21, 2007 6:24 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Theresa says: "IT'S CALLED FREEDOM OF RELIGON AND RELIGOUS SPEECH."

In a democracy it is. But considering that the AFA, FOTF, and all your other friends have a theocratic agenda, then it's called:

"Freedom of ONLY MY religion, and ONLY MY religious speech."

You defend democracy in the name of Supremacist theocracy and you really think we're not going to see through you pious facade?

If you truly believe that your freedom of religion includes the right to define other Americans as less than human – then you’ve crossed the line from religious freedom into anti-American treachery.

Not to mention the abject idiocy of thinking that just because a law is going to be abused that it should not exist. Do you really think that just because someone might be unjustly accused of murder that we should do away with laws against murder?

Heck, for that matter, any law could be abused. Do you think we should do away with ALL laws? Do you think that anarchy is the best method to govern a civilized society?

Of course you don’t, because you’re a flaming hypocrite. It’s only about the gays, or the enemy de jour according to the propaganda de jour that you eat sleep and breathe. If the AFA and Focus on the Family said the Earth was Flat, and the public schools wanted to teach – based on science – that the Earth was round, you’d be screaming religious discrimination about that too.

If you truly believe in religious discrimination, then you truly believe that God gave us a brain for a purpose. USE IT!

August 21, 2007 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

It does not take the degree of a rocket scientist to figure out that the word renege is a loaded word...it is. That shows bias, and please don't offend my intelligence to pretend otherwise.

Good grief Orin. Now you're spinning about vocabulary? Here, use your intelligence to ponder the word Reverend Gary Simons used to describe what his church had done with its offer to provide a venue for a dead gay vet's memorial service.

“The decision was made to retract the offer to host the memorial service. It is important to emphasize that this was not a funeral service for a body to be buried, but only a memorial service. Both Lee and his sister Kathleen were informed of the decision. The decision had nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sinclair was a veteran. High Point Church does now and has always supported our men and women in the military.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/longterm/stories/081307dnmetchurchfoloextra.2b04ed93.html

FYI, I don't think anybody thought they RETRACTED their offer because he was a vet, they RETRACTED their offer because he was gay.

Main Entry: re·tract
Function: verb
Pronunciation: ri-'trakt
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin retractus, past participle of retrahere -- more at RETREAT
transitive senses
1 : to draw back or in (cats retract their claws)
2 a : TAKE BACK , WITHDRAW (retract a confession) b : DISAVOW
intransitive senses
1 : to draw or pull back
2 : to recant or disavow something
synonym see ABJURE , RECEDE
- re·tract·able/-'trak-t&-b&l/ adjective

August 21, 2007 9:48 AM  
Anonymous JN said...

Anonymous said...
"JN -

Do you have a better suggestion than nuclear power plants ?

or gas or coal....

Obviously we need energy so if you have a another suggestion to reduce our dependence on middle east oil, sure would love to hear it.

the hypocrisy of the liberal loving cape codders who don't want the windmills in their backyard is rather astonishing."

I am no energy expert but I am aware that there are other sources for energy besides fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Some of our non-polluting, renewable sources for energy are wind, sun, moving water, biomass, and geothermal.

As a long time liberal Montgomery County resident, I'd love to put a windmill in my yard instead of paying Washington Gas and PEPCO every month. I've read that the majority of Massachusetts residents, and a smaller majority of Cape Cod residents supported the windmill project in Nantucket Sound but Romney had threatened to veto it. Obscene record profits were reaped by US energy companies while President Bush encouraged consumption.

An adminstration without its head stuck in Iraqi sand might spend only 10% of the tax dollars we're wasting in Iraq on research into innovative technologies to produce the energy we need from non-polluting, renewable sources.

August 22, 2007 6:16 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

Romney threatened to veto the windmill farm? Why in the world?

August 22, 2007 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wind farm project blasted
Governor urges halt at hearing by Army Corps
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | December 8, 2004

WEST YARMOUTH -- Governor Mitt Romney bluntly asked the US Army Corps of Engineers last night to stop working on the proposed Cape Cod wind farm, joining more than 1,200 people in a crammed and emotional hearing about the 130-turbine project.

Romney's comments were met with wide applause, but only minutes later, some in the audience at Mattacheese Middle School heckled Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly for similar comments. Willing to give Romney the floor but unwilling to listen to Reilly speak past the allotted two minutes, they cried out, ''Time's up" and ''Get off the stage."

''I asked the Army Corps of Engineers to defer further work on this project" until there is a comprehensive permitting system in place for new ocean projects, Romney said.

He has been a staunch opponent of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound on aesthetic grounds and has sought a federal moratorium on such projects. ''We cannot trash this extraordinary resource," he said.

As US Army Corps of Engineers officials began to listen to more than 200 people who signed up to give two-minute comments during the scheduled four-hour meeting, it was unclear how much public opinion would sway them when they make a final decision on the project early next year.

''It's not a beauty contest. We're looking for constructive comments," said Larry Rosenberg, chief of public affairs for the New England District of the Army Corps. He said the public comments overall have been split about evenly between opponents and supporters. Last night, however, sentiments against the plan easily overshone the support after 3 hours. The court cannot abide by Romney's request because it would violate federal policy, Rosenberg said.

The hearing was the second of four the federal agency plans for public comment on a massive draft report the corps issued last month about the project's possible environmental impact.

Reilly challenged the legal authority of the Army Corps to issue a permit. Meanwhile, the first few speakers -- along with a long line in the school hall waiting to give testimony to a stenographer -- gave a wide range of opinions.

''It would be a step forward in the right direction, rather than us relying on the Middle East for our oil," said Chris O'Malley, who waited to have his say.

Some opponents of the project spoke of aesthetics. George Chuckie Green, a Mashpee selectman and Wampanoag tribal member, said he was worried about age-old fishing grounds. ''It will change the ecology of the sound," he said during the hearing.

The Army Corps rarely vetoes a project on aesthetic grounds. And Corps officials do not necessarily take into consideration larger issues such as US dependence on fossil fuel.

Some speakers clearly had specific issues with the draft report. Regina Asmutis-Silvia, of the International Wildlife Coalition, said the Army Corps relied on a majority of right-whale data from the 1970s and she wanted more current information included. Meanwhile, more general support came from 140 members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. And Massachusetts Audubon called for the Army Corps to do a supplementary report looking more closely at bird issues.

The $770 million wind farm, proposed by Cape Wind Associates, would be the country's first offshore wind project. It was proposed more than three years ago.

Another public hearing is scheduled for tonight at 6, at Nantucket Community School, 10 Surfside Road (with registration to begin at 5); and on Dec. 16, a hearing is planned at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Room 10-250, 77 Massachusetts Ave., at 7 p.m. (with registration at 6). The Army Corps will accept written comments through Feb. 24. Comments can be sent by e-mail to wind.energy@usace.army.mil or mailed to the Cape Wind Energy Project EIS manager Karen K. Adams, US Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Regulatory Division, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, MA 01742-2751.

Globe correspondents Justin Rebello and Emma Stickgold contributed to this report. Beth Daley can be reached at bdaley@globe.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/12/08/wind_farm_project_blasted_boston_globe/

August 23, 2007 7:43 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home