I've gone on a bit about the Daily Mail and Richard Littlejohn lately, so I've got a brand new target to unveil today. His name is Gerald and he likes churches and Sarah Palin. He also writes for the Daily Telegraph, and his latest blog entry is the amusingly-titled "If Sarah Palin's church was burned by arsonists, it is a warning to Christians". Let's take a look.
Gerald is worried, and understandably so. Some people have burned down a church. We don't know who, or why, but it was almost definitely probably gays or atheists. Maybe even gaytheists. And that's a problem, because there's a real chance that Christianity could lose the culture war that it started. And that would be, like, bad or something.
"The unexplained fire at Wasilla Bible Church in Wasilla, Alaska, where unsuccessful Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a member, has excited much speculation"
Indeed, all those dastardly speculators. First they tanked oil prices, now they're stirring up rumours about Christian-burning gays. Luckily, this is the Telegraph, and Gerald is above spec... Oh.
"The first point that has to be made is that arson has not yet been established... Even if it was an act of arson, private grudges and vendettas are not unknown among religious congregations."
Gerald began this piece with the titular thesis that if this was a case of arson, then it was a warning to Christians.
Gerald's argument survived approximately two paragraphs of Gerald's own writing.
"...the growing consensus is that arson has been committed and that it relates to Sarah Palin's candidature."
Before I continue, I want to give you some background about this church. They came to public attention during the U.S. election campaign for their efforts at "curing" homosexuals with the "Love Won Out" initiative. As support group PFLAG describe it: "Love Won Out, which claims to "cure" lesbian and gay people through prayer and spiritual guidance, has been cited as a harmful practice with long-term consequences for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth who are often forced to attend, against their will, by parents struggling to deal with a child's sexual orientation." (HT: Joe My God).
Now admittedly, PFLAG are not the most object source for this, so what does the science say? Well I could write a whole new article on this, but the take-home message is that at best conversion therapy is ineffective, and in fact it probably does harm to the patient. The American Counselling Association has a good overview here which links back to the scientific literature on the subject.
Alternatively, here's a helpful graphical representation of what happens when a this religious ritual is subjected to scientific scrutiny
So with that in mind, let's get back to Gerald.
"...the liberal media seized on this politically incorrect activity, demonising Wasilla Bible Church along with Palin."
It's political correctness gone mad. First they ban racism, then they try and stop churches abusing children. Seriously, it's amazing how often people hide their nasty little cultish practices under the cute little banner of "political incorrectness". This has nothing to do with PC, this is about an organization subjecting people to a "treatment" that is almost certainly harmful.
"...men and women who want to renounce homosexuality are just as entitled to seek help as those desiring to embrace it."
What I love about this is that he twists and tortures the logic to make it sound as if regulating dangerous treatments is actually an attack on customer choice. If I catch a sexually transmitted disease, then I'm entitled to visit a homeopathist, but if their treatment makes my penis fall off then they're still irresponsible pricks who should be shut down. Of course that wouldn't really happen - because homeopathic medicine is just tap water - but you get my drift.
"If - and it is still a big if - arson was committed by militant homosexuals or liberals ... then that is a phenomenon that should greatly concern the American public."
Any case of arson should concern people, but why should this concern people any more than the hundreds of hate crimes committed against Muslims each year, or the thousands of arson cases that were committed by people of all faiths?
"Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism is as unacceptable as that driven by militant Islam. If Wasilla Church was burned by arsonists making an ideological point, that is terrorism. Church burnings are historically associated with the filthy regime that defiled Spain from 1931 to 1939, or other communist dictatorships, not with modern pluralist society."
A quick aside: "jihad" essentially means struggle, which means that Gerald's first line actually reads "secular struggle against Christianity is unacceptable." Another example of a columnist throwing around foreign terms without actually understanding what they mean.
Ignorance aside, let's address the actual point. Firstly, there's no evidence that the attacks were anti-Christian. Indeed, they are far more likely to be anti-child-abuse. Admittedly I've neither gay nor American, but I don't think the gay community in America want to start a holy war - they just want their human rights respected. Secondly, it's hilarious to use the defense that we should be preserving a "modern pluralistic society" for a church that is so determined to eradicate one element of that.
Let me be clear, the burning of the church is wrong, period. But this portrayal of the innocent victim and the aggressive secularists is just nonsense - this situation consists of two sides who are effectively now taking the law into their own hands because of the utter failure of the relevant authorities to deal with the issue. Burnings must stop, but so must the cult "treatment".
"If what is suspected turns out to be true, the burning of Wasilla Bible Church is a metaphor for the onslaught against Christianity that aggressive secularism has mounted in Europe and which..."
There is no "secular onslaught" against Christianity. There are simply the voices of tens of millions of people who believe that they are capable of living good, decent and moral lives without the arbitrary and self-appointed moral guardians of the church condemning, demonizing and abusing them at every opportunity. And long may those voices be heard.
Well in the States - and quite possibly much of the rest of the world - church burnings are more readily associated with the KKK, who although pro-church in general tended to have a problem if the congregation was predominantly black.
Presumably Gerry would also be very much against the sort of militant Christian jihadism that leads to the murder of doctors performing a legal and necessary service.
Well quite.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I love it - if it's arson, then it's homosexual terrorists, if it's not arson, then it's just one of those things. If a gay club burns down... God's wrath?
"Church burnings are historically associated with the filthy regime that defiled Spain from 1931 to 1939"
Thank God for Franco!
What would they do if it was claimed that God told them to do it? I wouldn't blame the IPU myself - Palin was such a train wreck she probably cost the republicans the election. Or maybe that was just Dubya...
"Church burnings are historically associated with the filthy regime that defiled Spain from 1931 to 1939, or other communist dictatorships"
Far from being a dictatorship the "filthy regime" (it seems to really get his goat for some reason) was democratically elected. Unlike the regime of the nice Catholic Franco which overthrew it after 3 years of war with the help of Hitler and Mussolini.
The Republican government was anticlerical and there were some attacks on churches & priests, which isn't great, but the real violence didn't start until Franco started it. At which point all hell broke loose on both sidesk, but, that's what happens in wars.
The Republicans were never Communists either. They included Communists, but other people as well. Communist countries had a lot of influence because they were the only ones actually helping by sending weapons.
Thanks for the comment, I'm glad you brought it up. I was tempted to tackle that in the article but I didn't want to go off on a second big tangent. You're right - it's a bizarre piece of revisionism.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Well there were quite a few killings of clerics to be fair, but these were not in fact by the Spanish government but rather by various factions during this fractious time. The 1931 constitution did contain restrictions on the Catholic Church (as well as some other things like universal suffrage).
But what interests me is that 1931-1939 represents the Second Spanish Republic - a brief period of (relatively unstable) democracy (including a rightwing government 1934-1936) following dictatorship and ultimately ending in dictatorship after the civil war (1936-1939). And the one characteristic Warner takes from this period is that a few churches were burned, even as hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the civil war as a fascist dictator overthrew the democratically elected government.
No exactly a "modern pluralist society" either, fucking moron.
I'd question a few of your statements.
>Firstly, there's no evidence that the attacks were anti-Christian. Indeed, they are far more likely to be anti-child-abuse.
That's a strong statement. Any evidence?
>A quick aside: "jihad" essentially means struggle, which means that Gerald's first line actually reads "secular struggle against Christianity is unacceptable."
(I'll leave aside that the Islamic definition of "Jihad" can specifically include both a violent struggle and a struggle with yourself for inner-holiness.) Jihadism is not the same as jihad. I read "Jihadism" as "jihad" turned into an ideology or process.
>Another example of a columnist throwing around foreign terms without actually understanding what they mean."
Another example of a blogger misquoting columnists in order to have a go at them. Sigh. There's enough in that column to have a go at - why put this in?
>There is no "secular onslaught" against Christianity.
Ding! You've done it again.
He said:"Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism". Secularism is not the same as secular, either. Secularism is either an ideology or a movement seeking to forward that ideology. That's what he's referring to, and that's pretty much what we've got in some quarters.
>There are simply the voices of tens of millions of people who believe that they are capable of living good, decent and moral lives without the arbitrary and self-appointed moral guardians of the church condemning, demonizing and abusing them at every opportunity.
Sorry, but this straw man is so old that he's grown whiskers. Any particular church - or all of them? Would you include the ones who pioneered the fight for freedom of conscience in this country?
Most church leaders go out of their way to be clear that this is not the case, and have done so for decades. I'd also argue with "self-appointed", but that's one for another day.
>Firstly, there's no evidence that the attacks were anti-Christian. Indeed, they are far more likely to be anti-child-abuse.
That's a strong statement. Any evidence?
>A quick aside: "jihad" essentially means struggle, which means that Gerald's first line actually reads "secular struggle against Christianity is unacceptable."
(I'll leave aside that the Islamic definition of "Jihad" can specifically include both a violent struggle and a struggle with yourself for holiness.) Jihadism is not the same as jihad. I read "Jihadism" as "jihad" turned into an ideology or process.
>Another example of a columnist throwing around foreign terms without actually understanding what they mean."
Another example of a blogger misquoting columnists in order to have a go at them. Sigh. There's enough in that column to have a go at - why put this in?
>There is no "secular onslaught" against Christianity.
Ding! You've done it again.
He said:"Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism". Secularism is not the same as secular, either. Secularism is either an ideology or a movement seeking to forward that ideology. That's what he's referring to, and that's pretty much what we've got in some quarters.
>There are simply the voices of tens of millions of people who believe that they are capable of living good, decent and moral lives without the arbitrary and self-appointed moral guardians of the church condemning, demonizing and abusing them at every opportunity.
This straw man is so old that he's grown whiskers. Any particular church - or all of them? Would you include the ones who pioneered the fight for freedom of conscience in this country?
Most church leaders go out of their way to be clear that this is not the case, and have done so for decades. I'd also argue with "self-appointed", but that's one for another day.
In the UK at least, the demonising happens the other way every day.
> That's a strong statement. Any evidence?
The church was well known for child abuse. Other high-profile Christian churches haven't been attacked, and if you look at the FBI hate crime statistics for the last several years, the number of hate crimes against Christians is pretty tiny.
>"Jihadism"
...is not a word that has any real meaning. You interpreted it as "I read "Jihadism" as "jihad" turned into an ideology or process." I'm not claiming that he deliberately meant to say that secular struggles against Christianity, I'm just laughing at the irony, and the fact that another moronic columnist is throwing around terms that he doesn't understand with unintended consequences.
>"Another example of a blogger misquoting columnists in order to have a go at them."
No, I've quoted his precise words, and pointed out his ignorance in using them in such a way.
"Ding! He said:"Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism"
He actually said: "the onslaught against Christianity that aggressive secularism has mounted", which is what I was referring to.
"this straw man is so old that he's grown whiskers."
Except that it's not a straw man at all. Every day, Christians attack and persecute those who don't follow their own arbitrary moral beliefs. Hence we have the pathetic site of the Pope attacking homosexuals as some sort of abomination against humanity while then going on to give a message of "peace" to mankind.
As for Christians being "demonized", there seems to be a bit of a meme going around at the moment where any criticism of Christianity is seen as some sort of "persecution". I've no doubt that there are some irrational people out there who hate Christians, but I've seen nothing like the kind of vile hatred that Christian supporters and newspapers are pouring out against Muslims, and ultimately even if it were true, it in no way excuses Christian attitudes.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Hello again, Martin. I'm trying to keep this short, but it's not working. Glad you are running indented comments. Anyway:
>>That's a strong statement. Any evidence?
>The church was well known for child abuse.
With respect, without a citation that's not even hearsay. Can you provide a link to an authoritative report of child abuse at the Wasilla Assemblies of God church, or of a intervention by the authorities? If you can, I will concede the point. If not, both your statements look actionable.
>Other high-profile Christian churches haven't been attacked, and if you look at the FBI hate crime statistics for the last several years, the number of hate crimes against Christians is pretty tiny.
In the absence of evidence of child abuse at Sarah Palin's church (prev para), that would seem to imply that perhaps Sarah Palin *was* the distinguishing factor.
I'll add there that the Assemblies are not a flavour of church that I'm keen on, but I'd expect evidence for your "child abuse" statement.
>>"Jihadism"
>...is not a word that has any real meaning. You interpreted it as "I read "Jihadism" as "jihad" turned into an ideology or process."
Disagree, there are plenty of examples of the struggle against "The West" becoming an ideology, as indicated by the movement of "Jihadis" (choose your word, there are several) between different conflicts. There are also plenty of examples of the believed "rewards" for "martyrs" being a motivational factor.
>"Another example of a blogger misquoting columnists in order to have a go at them."
No, I've quoted his precise words, and pointed out his ignorance in using them in such a way.
>He actually said: "the onslaught against Christianity that aggressive secularism has mounted", which is what I was referring to.
My point - that you translated "secularism" to "secular" - still stands. The two are different. Most people who favour a secular state do not embrace the ideology.
>"this straw man is so old that he's grown whiskers."
>>Except that it's not a straw man at all. Every day, Christians attack and
>>persecute those who don't follow their own arbitrary moral beliefs.
I'd want to distinguish between "attack" and "persecute" - verbal critique is (obviously) fine (presumably you'd agree on that if you believe in free debate). I think "persecute" is perhaps too strong for what anybody can do in the UK.
>Hence we have the pathetic site of the Pope attacking homosexuals as some sort of abomination against humanity while then going on to give a message of "peace" to mankind.
I'm not convinced that he did. Have you read the text? In the original language rather than the inflammatory translation? Or did you just pick up on the meme? See, for example, Paul Vallely in the Independent:
"In fact, his end-of-year address to Vatican bureaucrats does not even mention homosexuality. There is nothing even about sexual orientation and certainly no attack on same-sex marriages."
It looks to me like the same effect that happened to Rowan Williams on the Right-wing blogs last year after his 2 line comment on US foreign policy in Emel magazine.
>As for Christians being "demonised", there seems to be a bit of a meme going around at the moment where any criticism of Christianity is seen as some sort of "persecution".
Have you not been reading the NSS website for the last decade? They routinely demonise anyone with a religion. One standard technique is to magick up Westboro Baptist church or Christian Voice and then imply that somebody (or everybody) else thinks the same way. The same thing happens regularly in articles on Comment-is-Free. For an example of a more general gratuitous attack in the press try:
Bishop makes serious comment on serious issue:
http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2008/06/moral-but-no-compass.html
David Aaronovitch largely ignores issue, attacks Bishop:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/ar...
(and attacks Muslims in passing, since you mention them.)
>but I've seen nothing like the kind of vile hatred that Christian supporters and newspapers are pouring out against Muslims, and ultimately even if it were true, it in no way excuses Christian attitudes.
Examples? And proof that they relate to general "Christians attitudes" rather than tiny splinter groups?
Rgds
Not sure I agree with you comments about the author misusing Jihad. He was using it as it is understood in English, which is perfectly proper. Whether that ties in with the word's original meaning in its original language is beside the point. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you. Bizarre article!
The church was well known for child abuse.What would they do if it was claimed that God told them to do it?
blueoo.com