"Christian" leader says they cannot co-exist with gays

"Assault on Christians Exposes Homosexual Movement's 'Violent Heart'"

March 4, 2005 (Agape Press)- Police in one Wisconsin city are being asked to look into the alleged assault of two Christians who claim they were attacked while sharing a biblical message about homosexuality.

Earlier this week, two member of Wisconsin Christians United (WCU) were in Burlington distributing a brochure titled "Homosexuality: The Truth." After leaving literature at homes throughout the city, the pair stood on a busy street, holding signs which read "Homosexuality is Sin" and "Christ Can Set You Free." After a short time, a car with two individuals stopped near the picketers. According to eyewitnesses, one of the car's occupants approached the picketers yelling obscenities. Then the man allegedly began assaulting the Christians.

Ralph Ovadal, director of WCU, says this is not the first time his group has seen what he calls "this very, very violent heart of the homosexual movement." Despite the ugliness of that exhibition, he feels there is a certain benefit to be gained from such confrontations.

"There's an awful lot of people that are deceiving themselves," Ovadal says, "thinking on this particular issue we can strike a happy balance, and we can coexist with both sides in this thing, and we can all be happy and just get on with life -- and it's just not true."

http://headlines.agapepress.org/users/worthynews/worthynews2.asp

edited to put "Christian" in quotation marks. Any resemblance to my Christian friends at DU is ....well, non-existant.

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

You want to be confrontational, then expect to be confronted.
Action, and reaction.

What the heck did they expect?

Too f'ing bad for them.
They sound like Who Would Jesus Hate? Pseudo-Christians anyways, no matter their signs.

Fortunately, I only live by the smart-ass comment.

I do not think it is any funnier when fundies get assaulted than it is when gays do. It is a rule of violence, not a rule of law. I do not approve of intolerance either. If gays are just as intolerant of fundies as fundies are of gays, then that is an endorsement of intolerance itself, isn't it? Kind of like saying we are against slavery, not because it is wrong, but because 'our' side are the slaves.

to folks who express hatred towards them and want to deny their civil and human rights? I can appreciate that reacting with violence crosses numerous lines, but to expect a gay person to be sympathetic to someone who is openly hostile to their existence is unreasonable. That's like saying because Klan members are supposed to show tolerance for Blacks, Blacks should reciprocate by being tolerant of the KKK.

And hell, compared to the treatment they receive from fundies, gays are pretty damn tolerant of them. How often do gays picket outside fundamentalist churches and hand out literature telling fundies how fucked up they are?

going to blast this all over faux but nothing about the gay man who was beaten and hanging onto his life. :(

Blame would deal with the rightness or wrongness of their actions.
I'm just pointing out if they are acting in a confrontational manner, they surely will elicit confrontation; therefore they should not be surprised. Societal physics, let's call it.

Should they have been attacked? No.
But then issuing a statement that they 'can't live with gays' is just stepping up that confrontational aspect. It's unwise unless they want this to escalate even more, therefore I have no sympathy for them as it takes two to play a game.

In Feb of 2003 I went to an anti-war protest. There were people there with signs that said "a village in Texas is missing its idiot" and other signs that a Bush supporter might find incendiary. (I thought it was kinda counter-productive too, since I was there to protest an unnecessary war, and would like to welcome any members of RAW (Republicans Against War - a group I imagine might exist even if there are only three members or so) who might want to protest with us.) I had no sign, since I am not a sign maker. I was going to bring my trumpet and play taps to foreshadow the coming slaughter, but it was so damned cold that day that I gave up on the idea. Someone did give me a sign half-way through which said: "what would Jesus bomb?" which I was very happy to carry.
Anyway, our protest could have been attacked, either by folice or by counter-protesters. I could have been attacked by fundies on my way back to my rental car. I would not expect any decent person, whether Republican or Democrat or fundy or hippie to write that off as mere "societal physics" if such an incident had happened. Nor to say:
"What the heck did they expect?

Too f'ing bad for them."

These "Christians" are going about it the wrong way. Jesus didn't go out to people and try to convert them. He loved them and cared about them and was their friend. Jesus is rolling in his grave with these nazi's.

Why can't those evil gays just let them hurl their hate unchallenged?

between "unchallenged" and "without physically assaulting them". If the car that had stopped had simply called them names I would have been fully on their side, but if the fundies were holding up signs with legal slogans on them and their opponents assaulted them then on this occasion the fundies were in the right and their opponents were in the wrong.

There are lots of qualifiers that you can put on this - that physical attacks by fundamentalists on gays are almost certainly more common than the reverse, that the argument I advance is a purely ad hominem one and completely case-specific, that carrying plaquards with the slogan "homosexuality is a sin" is immoral, and doubtless half a dozen other equaly valid ones, but nevertheless the fundamentalists were within their rights, and their opponents weren't, and should be condemned for this just as much as someone who assaults someone proclaiming "homosexuality is not a sin".

Whether or not a means of propagating a message is legitimate has nothing to do with whether the message is right or wrong. The good guys have to play by the rules too, or they stop being the good guys.

Those good fundies did not say that they were attacked by homosexuals.
Perhaps they were attacked by some very intolerant Christians or perhaps they are all related to that nutjob Phil Parlock who pinched his little daughter to make her cry so he could blame it on the Dems.
Please come join the cynic group here at DU, Donald. Reasoned thinking does not work in this black is white, up is down Bushcoworld.

:bounce:

I misread the original post as saying that the men commiting the assault were homosexual, rather than part of "the homosexual movement".

Please note that in no way am I defening the fundamentalists, I'm just saying that the man who attacked them was wrong. Whether or not he was gay has nothing to do with that; he still didn't have the right to resort to force.

And I already pride myself on my cynicism! - I would argue that it's more cynical to argue that someone who is disagrees with
"homosexuality is a sin" can nevertheless on this occasion be in the wrong than it is to argue that we should side with the good guys no matter what? I may not be right, but I am cynical, dammit, and I'll fight any man who says otherwise!

Was there a physical assault at all?
I flat-out doubt it!
If a car full of yelling homos stops, is is assault?

One man's Verbal "assault" is another mans'free-speech.

What kind of "assault" weas this?

it from the other side.

If I stand on a street corner with a sign that says:

YOUR WIFE IS A WHORE AND YOUR MARRIAGE IS A JOKE!

Well, you better greet with me stern but tempered words... or you are part of the problem my friend.

If you do that to me then I might call the police, or I might call you names, or I might well just ignore you and take comfort in my moral superiority in doing so (although that's a much more valid solution in the face of one man saying "YOUR WIFE IS A WHORE AND YOUR MARRIAGE IS A JOKE!" than it is in the face of a large and powerful group saying "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN"), but I most definately would not and should not respond by physically assaulting you.

"Stern but tempered" would be good if I could manage it, but I would certainly not condemn anyone who chose not to remain tempered, provided they didn't resort to physical assault (or to breaking the law).

If I did respond by attacking you physically then I would indeed be "part of the problem", as you put it. Resorting to force in anger is always a mistake.

with their horrible "literature". They have no right to invade my privacy anymore than a telemarketer does. None of thenm have tried to approach me on the street, altho I see them bothering others. Maybe it is my facial expression that keeps them away. These are very sick and vicious people.

And I have no qualms about telling them so in as strong language as I see fit, but I don't think it's reasonable to physically assault them.

...on, Christian fundamentalists against gays, patriotism against peace advocates, in the case of social security young against social security recipients. Stir up emotions and passions, eliminate common sense dialog and compromise, ram through the neo-conservative agenda.

Ralph Ovadal, director of WCU, says this is not the first time his group has seen what he calls "this very, very violent heart of the homosexual movement." Despite the ugliness of that exhibition, he feels there is a certain benefit to be gained from such confrontations.

Sounds like a BushCrimeNazi Inc./PNAC plan.


Good gawd, this is getting just too sick. :puke:

"Very, very violent hearts" you know. Lynne Cheney would say "they are NOT good people." :eyes:

Oh, wait--they're not REAL Christians. They're Radical Fundamentalists.

Christ do? Yeah!

These so-called "christians" are using His name to further their agenda..whatever the fuck that is? It ain't spiritual, though.

And then put in all the killings and rapes and inconsistencies in the Bible. Point out how obsessed Christians are with homosexuality, ("As a man thinketh, so he is"). Finish it with information about 12 step groups that help people get over this type of indoctrination.

I wonder what they would think if groups of us handed these pamphlets out after Sunday Church services?

for what they are. Christians my ass.

Who has directed documentaries such as Roger & Me, Fahrenheit 9-11, and Bowling for Columbine. Since the mainstream media isn't doing their job, he's the most high-profile truthteller in the U.S.

hypocrisy. These people need to get the log out of their own eye, before they cast stones at others.... in fact, they should never cast stones at anyone.

It's puzzling how groups who consider themselves somehow "different" from "all the others on the wrong path" to be not only superior, but justified in comitting violence and acts of discrimination upon others. If they really want to protest, let 'em get serious like those who protested the Vietnam tragedy. Some were serious enough to set themselves on fire... talk about making a statement.

I was going to link one of those photos, but it is just too graphic for a Sunday morning here in these Newknighted States. It's all a very puzzling mess when this group of people feels the need to condemn and persecute that group of people. Rodney King did ask the perfect question.... and the answer apparently is no.

This too is puzzling.

a couple of hundred years ago. They made so much trouble in Britain that they were glad to get rid of them. They were mean suckers then and still are, in spite of all the propaganda through the years.

"Christian" violence?

Oh, wait, I forgot. They don't count. They're just gays... not a part of the fundy revolution.

I'm straight and I'm getting terrified. :scared:

How the hell would THEY know what the truth is about the subject? :shrug: No hetero can know anything about what being gay is like. They don't have a bit of experience in the matter, but are "experts" and know "the truth". :eyes: Fucking morons. I know very little about the bible (by choice), but I'd never presume to say I knew "the truth" about christianity. What fools. If their "christian warriors" want to push people around, they'd better be prepared to get pushed back. Pussies.

when they post it all over the damnned place.

they either beat the crap out of themselves and blamed it on some homosexuals in order to condemn them, or they were beating up on some homosexuals and they fought back and kicked thier prissy, trust fund asses

"they either beat the crap out of themselves and blamed it on some homosexuals in order to condemn them, or they were beating up on some homosexuals and they fought back and kicked thier prissy, trust fund asses."


I'm not quit ready to belive that gangs of the homosexual agenga are cruising around looking for Christians to assault.
I'm a homo. I've never once been invited to join up and assault Christians.

you'll be stomping skin heads 5 at a time

and you should just ride on by... I so wish I could see a tape of this... and the individuals "assaulting" the "Christians" (why didn't they just call them picketers... hmmm) would be shown to simply be defending themselves. Violent heart my ass... who has the violent heart? Those hypocritical "CHRISTIANS" in this country who unconditionally support our murdering president, that's who.

" 'thinking on this particular issue we can strike a happy balance, and we can coexist with both sides in this thing, and we can all be happy and just get on with life -- and it's just not true.' "

arent they out there trying to destroy all homosexuality? how the hell are you supposed to coexist in that situation?
please get on with life, i implore you crazy fundies.

" 'thinking on this particular issue we can strike a happy balance, and we can coexist with both sides in this thing, and we can all be happy and just get on with life -- and it's just not true.' "


Are they planning another genocide in the name of God? If they think they are going to rid this country of gays because they make them, "uncomfortable" they are in for a sorry ass-ed reality.

I'd role up my bi-sexual pant legs and fight in this one myself. Heck I bet there'd be a whole lot of straight people rolling up their pants too. If anyone needs to go it is those war mongers.

Russell Arthur Henderson, and Aaron McKinney, right, in
an Albany County Court in Laramie, Wyo., on Oct. 9, 1998,
where they were charged with the murder, kidnapping and robbery of gay University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, who was found tied to a wooden ranch fence a mile north of Laramie.




Romaine Patterson at the fence Matthew Shepard was tied to and left to die.

Thank you so much for posting it. Remembering Matthew.

a favor??

If they don't want to "co-exist" they can just cease to exist.

I and other GLBT persons are certainly not going to go away.

We would be perfectly happy to have EQUAL rights and be left to MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS without the intimidation and attacks of others.

If THEY can't tolerate that, then maybe it's time for THEM to exclude themselves by any means necessary, so we can be left to live our lives in peace.

Bunch of pansy-ass, loudmouth assholes desperately seeking martyrdom.

"Christians" have committed violence in the name of their religion, and then count all the times in history that groups of gay men have done the same in the name of homosexuality...

Interesting that no details are given about the Christians injuries, if any. The legal definition of assault can also include a threat to do someone harm, coupled with the present apparent ability to carry out the threat.

This story sets off my BS meter. If the picketing Christians were actually physically battered, I would think this publication would make a point of saying so. Instead, they use a legal term that can mean one thing to a lay person, but another thing in its legal context. It is possible the Christians were not touched at all, but that the man from the car yelled threats at them.

I'm not excusing the behavior of the man from the car either way, but the story just doesn't pass the smell test for me.

"Interesting that no details are given about the Christians injuries, if any. The legal definition of assault can also include a threat to do someone harm, coupled with the present apparent ability to carry out the threat."

Right! And no one was charged with assault.

My BS meter is beeping too.

:eyes:

...... cannot coexist, eh? from the religion where its god/avatar/prophet was renowned for hanging out with society's outcasts, especially harlots, moneychangers, and others? they are about as christian as my sofa. except my sofa doesn't want to initiate social wars. mmm, i like my sofa better.

just rampin' up to a direct conflict, that's what these domestic "faux christian" terrorists are all about. and they have jesus hostage to boot...

My BS meter says fuck Ovadal and his ilk. These same fuckers assaulted Clinic Escorts years back.

And nothing says the alleged Assaulters were gay. Hell, I'm straight, and I would enjoy kicking this fundy's ass...

RL

I call bullshit too. At the least, I certainly won't merely take their word for it.

and no mention...

RL

and if the "christians" were assaulted, then the man who did it should go to jail.

That said, isn't it odd that Ovadal's picture of striking a balance and coexisting happily includes picket signs and flyers to try to convert the 'other side'

If there was really a physical assault, why were there no charges?

They really don't specify physical (which I agree would be totally wrong)... only that homosexuals are dark and violent all of a sudden, so who knows what really happened if anything!

I'll be happy to see them go, I can't stand obnoxious fucking fundamentalists.

This so-called "assault" smells to high heaven, if you'll pardon the "unholy" pun. :evilgrin:

came around knocking on doors looking for recruits? We need to wake up here - religious fundamentalism has never been about civil rights or a dedication to democratic ideals. It's always been about absolutism, unwavering dogma and no room for compromise.

What is most telling here is that these alleged "christians" expect constitutional protections for nothing more than their chosen lifestyle...while demanding that others be denied those for what they "claim" are the same reasons. To me, understanding that is step one in handling their fanaticism. Step two is to look carefully at their political goals, which include such tasty morsels as having "God Bless America" declared the National Hymn, a law passed allowing tax-exempt churches the right to politik at will, and opposition to any civil rights laws for gays.

Yes, they ARE hung up on a few bible verses, mostly because those are just about the only "sins" they feel they are safest about not generally committing. Their faith has never been about anything more than "saving" themselves - a truly selfish notion if you think about it at all. It's too bad those people who stopped the car didn't start grilling them about why they aren't helping the city's poor instead of trying to incite hatred - but I'm afraid that is exactly what these people are all about. Hating gay Americans is their leading industry - it's a moneymaker.

And it's time we DID start picketing their churches, start drowning out their rallies - maybe it's past time they get to experience the very kind of persecution they so readily advocate yet claim is thrust on them daily because "non-believers" or other christians don't embrace their religious correctness.

If they don't think Americans can co-exist, we have borders that I'd be happy to boot them across.

by harassing gays who didn't want to hear their shit with insulting signs and dishonest pamphlets. I don't think the fundies deserved to have their ass kicked, but incidents like this are MUCH MUCH rarer than the often-fatal gay-bashings that their hateful sermons give TACIT PERMISSION FOR.


Can you imagine if the gays had gone to their fundy church and stood in the parking lot with signs reading "Breeding is Sin", "Phallus can set you free", as well as pamphlets telling "The Truth About Fundamentalist Cults"? How friendly would the fundies have been then?

"Christians", and have frequently tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of their "Christian" brethren over minor theological differences among the various cults and sects.

I am not afraid of GLBT folks; and have never heard of insane roving bands of GLBT folks torturing and murdering people in gleeful hatefests like "Christians" have done so often.

But I am very afraid of these hate filled people who call themselves "Christians" and use Christianity as a vehicle for persecution, hatred, and violence; they are extremely deluded and dangerous. At this time, GLBT folks seem to be the primary target for their delusions and hatred.

So, who will be their next target? They seem to need to hate and persecute someone in order to justify their delusions of moral superiority.

I was sent to fundie churches for the first few years of my life. Even as a child , I observed how animated preachers became when they talked about Satan. But when it came to Jesus talk they were quite different. Satan was the one who really excited them. I do not believe in Satan as they see "him". They are the ones who represent their Satan. Mean, vindictive and controlling.

Does that mean that the Christians are going to commit suicided? I sure hope so.

Was Dennis Rader a devout actor? He tried to pass himself off as a "good christian" too..Didn't he?

IS SORTED OUT!!!

Is it me, or has the religious right been much more vocal about playing the role of victim. You hear about the attacks on christmas, on religious free speech, on displays of our "christian" heritage etc etc. This story is clearly an extreme example of a more general trend.

Sheesh.

and leave the country to people who care about each other?