The Oglet
one of the nasty, papist hitler youth I am foisting upon the world has been down in kentucky at a evil Catholic training camp. She spent a good portion of the week tearing the roof off a couple homes and relaying shingles, hanging and taping drywall, and seeing to it that a few people have a warm dry place to live, evil little Catholic that she is. Of course she spent evenings singing evil Christian songs around the campfires made of the corpses of abortion clinic doctors and planning the murder of gays everywhere. I am unspeakably proud of her.
Well,, that’s certainly what some people would have you think. The mission trips are one way where the small C church does good in it’s community, but without the big C Church these activities would be impossible. The mission trips are also a way to teach teenagers the difference between the small c church and the big C Church. It’s handier to have people live in houses than it is to have them live in piles of leaves on the ground, as it is handier to have a church in which the Church can worship than it is to carry an altar into a field every sunday and stand around in the tall grass getting chiggers. (Sorry, chegroes)
No, none of the Oglet’s classmates- just like none of the members of the big C Church have the slightest interest in harming anyone- it is anathema to membership in the big C Church, by definition. This specifically includes gay people, a fact lost on the anti-Christian bigots.
The left- and the “gay marriage” and “Gay rights” advocates preach “Tolerance” but what they really mean is “You have to tolerate us no matter what we want to do, no matter how anathema to you it is, and we get our way, all the time”
I prefer to avoid tolerance, and, like all people who try to be good Christians, I try to act like a good Christian, and to teach my child to do the same.
Of course there are those who are just sure that being a good Christian means you must HATE gays. That must be true, because it’s what they think.
Well, if that’s what it means, I’m not a good Christian, because I work very hard not to hate anyone. It isn’t often easy, but I certainly have never hated anyone based on what kind of things they want to do with their wobbly dangly bits. I have done some pretty unusual things with my wobbly dangly bits myself.
There are also those who are just sure that being a good Christian means you must want to prevent gays from being happy and having loving wonderful relatinships with one another. That must be true, because it’s what they think.
Well, if that’s what that means, I’m not a good Christian, because I know that the commitment that people make between one another is the only one that is important, and the “wedding” is just pomp and circumstance. Gay people can make that commitment to one another, and of course any time anyone makes a solid commitment to another person be it as friends, lovers, or, hell, even roommates, that is a very good thing. I am a proponent of people making solid commitments to one another, when that commitment is based on love and respect. And I don’t care if the person you make that commitment to is a different sex, the same sex, or a bedridden invalid in an oxygen tent.
There are also those who are just sure that being a good Christian means you must want to prevent gays from any type of marriage. That must be true, because it’s what they think.
That really makes me a horrible Christian, because on this blog and in real life I have stated that if a gay couple wants to get married, I am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, and I will marry them (to each other) myself. I have this certificate here for one reason, and that reason was to marry my gay cousin to her significant other. Unfortunately my cousin died of cancer before that could happen. I certainly understand the desire for a couple to have a visual and public display of their love for one another, and there is nothing I wouldn’t do to help accomodate those people. BTW, the small c church insists that this action condemns me to eternal torment. Ah, well, it wouldn’t be the first sin I committed that would. Not even this week.
Then there are some that say Christians are anxious to deny the rights of survivorship, medical next of kin, etc. etc. etc. to Gays.
Damn. I am a HORRIBLE Christian. I have stated here and in person to anyone who asked that I am shoulder to shoulder with anyone fighting for those rights-and not just for gays, but for old people who have chosen to live together to help one another, for roomates who have nobody else in the world. For people whose lives have been solitary and who have only a few non relative people they trust. Those rights SHOULD be the law, because the way those laws are written is archaic and stupid.
SO I’m for sure going to hell, because not only do I not have any inclination to do any of those things, I am training my child not to have any inclination to do any of those things. We had Easter dinner every year with my gay cousin and her life partner because we were the only place they could go and be accepted. They hid easter eggs for the Oglet when she was very small.
All of the above bullshit about what Christians are supposed to be like is the manufactured outrage generated by radicals in the gay community that has been bought hook line and sinker by the people who worship holy sacred Tolerance- without a moments thought to the fact that some of that ‘Tolerance’ ought to be directed to the people whose religious freedom will be damaged by legal intervention into the issue. Problem is, radicals in the gay community are the ones being heard, and not the two otters in Wrigleyville with the really cute apartment and the powder blue Jetta who go to St Josaphat every Sunday and squeeze each other’s hands tightly during the Lords Prayer.
No, I am not interested in harming gays, the gay lifestyle, the way gays interact with one another, the way they care for one another, their legal rights of next of kin/survivoirship, whatever. Those things are not of Sexuality but of Humanity, and it is my opinion that people ought to treat one another Humanely. As it is the opinion of every single Christian I know- and I know a lot of those bastards.
And I also have no desire to “Shove the church down other people’s throats” at all. In fact, I am personally very anti-proselytizing. I would like to think, someday, that someone witnessed how I acted in person- the things I did, the things I do, the way I act, the way I raised my child, and think, “I might like to be more like that”. That’s probably pissing into the wind, for someone like me, but it is an admitted fantasy.
No, all I am interested in is the freedom I have-and the freedom of millions- billions of other people worldwide, not just in this country- to worship as they see fit, and not to have their small c churches harmed by the protestations or legal actions of- well, anyone. There are a lot of people seeking to do this, not just gays, but Gay Marriage being the law of the land is the knife blade in the back of the scallop, the thin edge of the wedge that destroys. Of course I’m crazy for thinking this, because “I met a gay guy once and he was awesome!” or “You’re one of those morons who has faith in a Sky God who collects souls”.
None of which is relevant to the discussion, of course.
Freedom is for everyone, not just for the people you approve of. My freedom of course ends where it does another harm, of course, and other’s freedoms end where they cause me harm. And so long as the number of people willing to harm my freedom to worship as i please is non zero, it requires me and others like me to be eternally vigilant. I consider it a badge of honor to be upbraided by the deliberately obtuse for doing so.
The people for whom the Oglet was doing what she was doing were mostly on welfare, though most were able bodied enough to help with the repairs. Several of the students and at least one of the chaperones are gay. At no point did the oglet think of any of those people- the other volunteers, the chaperones, the clients- as anything but- well, people.
One thing from the top of the post is certainly true; I am unspeakably proud.
19 comments Og | Uncategorized
Well said, and thanks to her for taking on the challenge!!!
Very well stated, Og.
Problem with those tolerancers, is that they use the “tolerance” thing as the nose under the tent….
…. then, they want to take it further, demanding that we have “acceptance” of that which were were formerly only asked to “tolerate”. But wait, there’s more!
…. then, they want to take it further, demanding that we “celebrate”, whatever “diversity” they represent. Special days, colored ribbons, the whole schmiel.
Oh, but they’re not done yet! Now, they want us to EMBRACE whatever perversion of the day/week/month they’re skippin’ round the Maypole about.
So, what it comes down to, is that they’re not satisfied with “tolerance”, (which is a grudging decision to not combat against a thing), but they want to outright demand compliance, of our hearts, minds and souls, to join them as outright CONVERTS those causes they extoll.
And yet, they dare call us the and proselytizers?
Beyond hypocritical, they are.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Let’s burn the tolerancers!!!!
Damn, I don’t do self-parody nearly as well as Og.
I don’t give a flip what any Church’s position is on gay marriage. Pro, con, they’re a-headed for Hell, whatever, here in the U.S., churches are free to have any sort of opinion or doctrine and that is how it should be, if you ask me.
But the rules of any church are not the laws of the land and (IMO) shouldn’t be. If a couple of gay people get a gummint license and marry, that’s up to them, the State and whoever they got to officiate. Anywhere I know of in the U.S., a church or individual cannot be compelled to officiate at a wedding — any wedding.
So don’t go telling me how your poor church is getting all beat up by gay people. It’s simply laughable. –From a historical perspective, the reverse is true.
Your arguments are, in fact, largely with the application of powers of the State; and many commenters seem to find the problem with them is not that the State has too much power but that it is not wielded on behalf of their beliefs. As long as that much power is there, there will be conflict over *how* to use it. The actual problem is that it exists at all.
Pretty much exactly what I expected to hear.
I hope that you can get to the light before your hatred eats you.
By the way: I don’t care that you don’t buy the post above, or that you consider it “self parody”. You can ask M.C., or Mr B, or Brigid, or Partner, or Rich, or anyone who has actually- you know, taken the time to get to know me, because they understand the post above is all me, all the time.
Funny thing about tolerance; when you tolerate something, you’re putting up with it despite the fact that whatever action or object you tolerate is considered “wrong”
When you tolerate something, you are in effect saying that you are willing to put up with x, y, or z despite the fact that it is wrong/evil/unnecessary, because correcting the wrong/evil/unnecessary thing would possibly cause more harm that just tolerating it.
So when I’m told that I have to tolerate gay marriage, I’m being told that gay marriage is by definition wrong, but that not allowing it is more wrong that tolerating it.
You don’t tolerate things that are good. You don’t tolerate things that are beneficial. You tolerate things that are harmful, wrong, or evil.
I commend your willingness to beat your head against the wall…
My standard answer these days is: “I follow two laws: Matthew: 37-40”
But then I am apparently one of the rare people who seem to think that (among other things): what you do in your bedroom is between You, your partners, and (if you took an oath) your god. That oath, is between you and God. The state needs to get out of All such oaths. I don’t care if you are a Catholic, a Druid, or an Atheist. Why exactly is the state in the bedroom?
Good question, Acair. And it would tickle me no end if the state was in fact out of all such oaths.
Very thought provoking.
Why is the state in the bedroom?
That’s a different question than “Why should the state sanction (approve of and give tax breaks to) activity that a majority of it’s Citizens find wrong?”.
Do what you want, don’t force me to approve or subsidize.
So, all that “nasty, papist hitler youth I am foisting upon the world” wasn’t self-parody?
Look up the word “Sardonic”
Seriously, Og, where’s this “hate” you claim I have?
it oozes out of your every pore. You have grown so accustomed to it you don’t even know you’re doing it.
Do you even bother to read what I write or do you just dream up what you think I must be saying and respond to that?
You may have noticed that I respond specifically to each point that you make, in italics, directly below it. Is that not good enough for you?
I keep pointing out out, *we* *do* *not* *have* *a* *common* *frame* *of* *reference.*
Yes, we do. It’s called the english language. To say “We don’t have a frame of reference” is simply ludicrous, and a way of avoiding the consequences of what you say.
I don’t belive in gods or souls or sin. I have no faith any anything but what I observe and can infer. If find the idea of religion risible.
I have been very careful to avoid any specific notion of gods or souls or sin in this entire discussion. I wouldn’t want you to be able to claim “You don’t have any frame of reference”. This discussion is a purely political one, and the fact that involves the small-c church is merely incidental.
But I can see how others are affected by their relgion, in ways both good and bad, and there’s no question in my mind that most mainstream faiths — and no few of the nut cults — manage to do a whole lot of good in this world.
But they should not be allowed to dictate civil law, nor should civil law dictate to them.
Except where you deem it necesary because THE POPE! THE VATICAN!! TOO MUCH MONEY!!!
I’ve said this over and over, but you never hear it;
I hear every word you say, loud and clear. You on the other hand, when presented with specific examples of situations where gay activists are acting out against people of faith, simply brush them off. You don’t believe them, they’re not relevant, it’s not this country, its not important. Why are your statements valid and my citations not?
you keep wanting to paint me as someone who thinks you’re foolish, or hateful, or something.
Once again, you are talking about the Og in your head, not me.
I do not believe this of you and I am deeply hurt to be accused of it over and over.
I never accuse, I only observe. If my observations pain you, well, who smashes a mirror because it reflects things as they are? Only someone unwilling to accept what the mirror shows them.
I do think you have unfounded suspicions about some “gay agenda out to destroy Christianity.”
Give me one substantial reason why I should take your word over the thousands and thousands of examples of gay animosity toward the faithful? or do those simply not exist in your mind? You can’t wish things not so.
Considering that LGBT people can’t even work out a common weekend in June to celebrate their gay selves, considering that their own demographics anent church membership closely track those of the gen. pop., your assertions on this topic are not reality-based.
My assertions on this topic are the only reality based ones. Are you really naive enough to accept that because six people can’t decide when to have a party they can never all agree that they don’t want boiled rabbit served at the party? No, you are not naive. You are an apologist for a bunch of people acting out, and you are fine with them acting out because what they are acting out against is an institution you hate and fear.
Sorry. Freedom is for everyone, not just the people with chintz curtains.
No, Og; I’m fine with them acting out — that “freedom” thing you keep mentioning, remember? They have not picked anyone’s pocket or broken their leg
In your opinion.
and your words are all in anticipation of what MIGHT happen if the power of the State is wielded on their behalf.
Here’s a thoughtr: Why not make it impossible for the state to have anything to wield? I know, it’s crazy talk.
And yet you love a powerful Government and mock those who want to cut it down to size.
of course this is another one of your self-comforting lies; nothing could ever be further from the truth. It is the Og in your head talking, and not me.
You will NOT understand what I write,
I do, very clearlyunderstand what you write. Absolutely, 100%. I reject it, which is another thing altogether. I reject it because of the evidence of my own eyes. no matter how plainly I put it; possibly you cannot.
I can, and do. You, on the other hand, refuse to listen, assuming everything I say is wrong or involves “God” in some way and is automatically tossed out with the spam. You confuse childish antics with actual harm.
Indeed! No childish antic has ever led to actual harm. But I consider the state forcing a church to marry against it’s will to be actual harm, and that has already happened.
Remember a day or two ago, when it was all “Nothing personal, we’re such pals?” We’re not. Not any more. I’m tired of having my words distorted.
I never once distorted your words, only responded to them or repeated them back to you. If you take away nothing from this, remember what I told you about the mirror.
I am neither petty nor insecure nor childish enough to break off a friendship because “He’s mean!!” Pascal and I , god bless him, have fought hammer and tongs, occasionally not speaking for months at a time. He is my friend, no matter what; nothing will change that. And nothing willchange the way I feel for you, and how much I hope life gives you all the things you need and most of the things you want. If you choose to despise me, get in line behind the others. I am as happy to be defined by my enemies as by my friends.
At least the Aztecs were happy to just hack out a man’s *heart.*
“So, what it comes down to, is that they’re not satisfied with “tolerance”, (which is a grudging decision to not combat against a thing), but they want to outright demand compliance, of our hearts, minds and souls, to join them as outright CONVERTS those causes they extoll.”
That paragraph is key……Look at the Military and see just how everything has progressed since DADT was rescinded. It’s not just tolerance that the .gov and DOD has required of its troops, it is acceptance and compliance with their way of life…..I could care less what anyone does in their bedroom, I have better things to worry about….Just don’t force me to accept it, agree to it, or condone it. (Which is what the State is doing)
You know, there’s a lot of noise made lately about “equal rights.” And those = sign stickers — to very cute. (I really love the ones made of bacon strips.) But what does it really mean? I mean, we DO already have equal rights. Any man — gay or straight — has the right to marry any woman — gay or straight — who’ll have him. And, this being addition, it is commutative. What’s the problem?
Now people might say, “You’re just being facetious! You know what they mean!” But, no. As Rush continually reminds us, WORDS MEAN THINGS. And in politics, religion, philosophy, life, and in the private recesses of your own fevered mind, discussion, debate — THOUGHT, even — happens within a dialectic, where the manipulation of symbols, which MEAN THINGS, is the sine a qua non. Definitions are vital to this process. And attempts to change the definitions, willy nilly, in an inorganic fashion amounts to lying to yourself. Distorting the dialectic. History teaches us that attempts to do this are almost always (and the “almost” is only there due to the principle that nothing is ever 100%) done with bad faith intent and nefarious purposes. Certainly, good faith intent should not require such heavy-handed tactics.
We should not be lying to ourselves and each other, especially not in public life.
Changing the particular definition of the verb “to marry” under consideration — not even by fiat, but by some sort of pique — is not on. At least, not with a persuasive reason to do so.
Ann Coulter made an excellent point some time ago when she said that, if you are going to overturn willy nilly thousands of years of practices, traditions, beliefs, etc. of the majority of this particular slice of humanity to benefit a minuscule minority, it is incumbent on those wishing the change to make their case. So far, that case has amounted to, “But we’re in lo-o-o-ove.” or “You HATE us!” or “Filthy christianist!” I have not heard adduced in any reasonable terms a good case for the change.
That alone ought to make any reasonable, thinking person dig in his heels and resist.
Give me a good reason and maybe I’ll think about it.
Meantime, the “We’re in love” thing or the “We need legal arrangements to protect the agreements between us and within our relationship” are all served and servable by other means than that overturning.
M
Several typos. I think they’re obvious. Take them as such.
M
Good posts; illuminating comments. Sorry they are straining friendships. I think I am starting to get it.
Let me try one. If I am free, then I am free to be an ignorant, racist, bigoted jerk; and to associate with other ignorant, racist, bigoted jerks. I am also free to enjoy (or suffer) the consequences of same. Anything else isn’t freedom.
You’re getting there Tony.
All excellent points, Mark.
More to follow on this subject soon.
Hope my hellions can be every bit as papist as yours. Adding you to my blogroll!
Cheers
Differ
‘Tolerance’ does not imply ‘Approval’.
Indeed.