zealotinagate
I've been doing so much thinking since zealotina sleuthed me out and posted on my blog. her pseudonym of choice was anonymous. mine was, gratielady. like, grating on your nerves.I've posted comments on christian blogs maybe two or three times. why didn't I exercise restraint? because I felt compelled to comment? I know better.
Each time I have, it’s been under a pseudonym to maintain my anonymity and avoid this very confrontation.
I write about things that are uncomfortable and insight reactions. I do hope to shift perspective and open people's minds, no doubt about it. (update) and, when I'm confronted, I meet those confrontations head-on. but, this blog, this particular confrontation, it’s going to start a war of words. the below is only going to fall on deaf ears, and sadly, no change will occur from this exchange, so I ask myself, what good will come from this and hope that someone proves me wrong.
I also don’t want to exercise intolerance. That’s not me. but, that is the crux of this issue. Below is a blanket statement about my political views and the overall subject of intolerance, which also speaks to much of what anonymous wrote. you will find what anonymous wrote below, unedited as per her request.
so, here goes.
my problem with fundamentalists is their complete and total lack of regard for choices that differ from their own. they want church and state merged. they want biblical law to dictate federal and state laws. I don’t understand their fervent level of intolerance because it seems to go against the very essence of Christianity.
yes, I have my causes: freedom of speech. equality for all humans under the constitution. Gay marriage. stem cell research. a woman's right to choice. socialized healthcare. Protecting immigration. safeguarding equal opportunity for minorities (which, by the way, calling non-whites and women minorities is so wrong on every level, I can't even tell you).
back to the issues at hand.
I don’t understand how homosexuals enjoying the same right to marriage that heterosexual Christians enjoy is an infringement on their freedoms. I fail to see how my abortion will impact the birth of their children. And, I cannot, for the life of me figure out why if we both have the same remote control, I can flip from Jan Crouch to Dexter, but they can’t find their way back to the way of the master. I’m flabbergasted as to why if we can stop the people we love from suffering through parkinsons, alzheimer’s, spinal chord injuries and possibly cancer, we wouldn’t want to do that.
why am I less American for not supporting the war when in fact my opposition is the most American thing I can do. it doesn’t mean I don’t support the soldiers, on the contrary. One of my best friends did a tour of iraq after graduating from westpoint.
I am disgusted with the bush administration. I find their actions deplorable. I am ashamed of them and the choices they’ve made for this country. That doesn’t make me anti-american and it doesn’t mean I don’t love this country because I do.
The great divide as I see it is that I don’t want to infringe on the christian lifestyle. They should live their lives as they see fit and make choices for their families that make sense for them. if they want to congregate and speak out against me for living my life my way, I accept that. It would be anti-american of me not to. If they don’t want to come to my plays, they don’t have to. If they don’t want to read my work or my blog, they shouldn’t. if they choose to birth a hundred babies, they should knock themselves out and UP until the cows come home. It is none of my damn business. it would be presumptuous and constitutionally sinful of me to exhibit intolerance against these choices. Yet, I am not granted the same level of acceptance or tolerance. Why?
I come from a long lineage of proud jews. judaism isn’t just a religion, it is very much a culture. How I celebrate the holidays and the frequency that I go to temple doesn’t make me any less or any more of a jew than any other jew. My relationship with god is very private and very real. How I worship and dish with god is not something I need to share with anyone or wear on my shirtsleeve as an affirmation of that relationship.
Even if I was religiously opposed to homosexuality, which I’m not, I wouldn’t impose my religious beliefs on a nation. I would not try to take government action against them.
My cousin is a lesbian. It’s upsetting to me that someone could compare her being born homosexual to being a pedophile, dope fiend or a shoe salesman. Nobody would choose to be a homosexual. It is something that is wired into their DNA just like zealotina was wired hetero. There is no gray area.
Treating homosexuals as second class citizens and discriminating against them, which is exactly what is happening by limiting their freedoms under the constitution is dangerous. What group will be discriminated against next? Interracial couples. Latinos who marry jews. People with blue eyes who impregnate people with brown eyes. Please explain to me how discriminating against, and eliminating equal rights from homosexuals isn’t traveling down a very treacherous path.
I don’t believe abortion is murder, it’s stopping a process. I believe every woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion should be safe and legal for all women, including minors, in every state of the united states. There are so many young girls who get pregnant and can’t tell their parents. They get back alley abortions or kill themselves. far too many women die without the choice. And, if anyone thinks it’s an easy choice to make, they are sadly mistaken. It’s a painful, difficult decision to make that no woman enters into lightly.
There are many interpretations of the bible, both in the new and old testaments. The bible that I was raised on did not teach intolerance and did not describe or reference homosexuality in a negative light, much less a sin. The bible that zealot Christians read seems a hell of a lot different from the bible that moderate Christians read. In fact, not one of the new testament interpretations that I’ve read holds a candle to jesus’ actual philosophies. He was a humanitarian for god sakes. what the fundamentalists do in his name on a governmental level is a travesty and so not what he was about.
I would never back pedal. I meant to quote the constitution. It just so happens that one of my favorite, often repeated quotes is written in the declaration of independence and in my zeal to comment, I mistakenly quoted the DOI.
We live in a democracy and it’s not based on god’s law even if god-isms are peppered throughout the constitution and the declaration of independence. none of that means that federal and state laws should be governed by anyone’s interpretation of the bible.
I’m not a product of secular press, secular rhetoric or secular movements. I was educated abroad and in this country. I went to college and had the opportunity to study anything I wanted to, and did. I think of myself as a well-rounded person. I do not impose my views on others, personally or on a governmental level and I seek the same respect. You don’t get the privilege of deciding what’s appropriate for me. I do. you can’t tell me what to read, to write, or how to live my life. my choices do not infringe on your life choices in any way, shape or form. They are just different. No more. no less. Why can’t you accept that?
This is reminiscent of a disagreement I had with one of my now favorite bloggers who I wont mention because I don’t think she’d appreciate being dragged into this. It was a homeschooling debate. She homeschools her kids. From everything I had read, I was very opposed to homeschooling. We threw down, yo. But, I learned a lot from her and I respect her decision. She’s one of the smartest people I’ve ever read. Though I wouldn’t choose to homeschool my kids, I appreciate and respect her decision to do so. I also have a greater awareness about the concept itself, and the choice that she made. We found a middle ground.
but, here’s the difference, zealotina, we won’t. we will never see eye to eye because you will never accept mine and others choices. You will always seek to impose your views on a federal and state level. And, not a day in my life will go by when I can even fathom what that notion and drive to achieve that would feel like. To me, all of that is heartbreaking.
------
below are zealotina's comments exactly as she wrote them per her request
Dear Katie Schwartz, gratielady or whatever other non de plume you’re using today, I’ve read the other blog entry on the book, The Marketing of Evil, as well as your comments on her blog and have several comments and questions regarding your comments. Before I begin though, let me ask if you read the following note on her sidebar, “Please note: All original written material, photographs, recipes and tutorials on this blog are the sole property of the author and may not be used without express written permission.” I would point out that you have violated her rights by posting direct quotes from her blog (you seem to be quite the proponent of rights). There is no valid excuse for this, so don’t bother with a feeble answer.
Regarding her spelling of homosexual and other words in this fashion, h*m*s*xual. It keeps her website from popping up when those who are seeking porno or other aberrant websites run a web search. It’s a common practice by many who don’t want to attract any undue traffic.
Now lets move on to the subject of your response to her book review. I will list your comments in (( and )) for clarification. ((living in a democracy, which america "is" supposed to be)) America has never been a democracy. As the other woman pointed out, we live in a republic.
((you have the right to live your life by god's law and I have the right not to. a woman's reproductive rights, homosexuality & gay marriage, freedom of speech, your right to homeschool and my right to send my children to a public school, these are all fundamental aspects of a thriving democracy.)) As far as, “a woman's reproductive rights, homosexuality & gay marriage” being fundamental aspects, if by this you mean fundamental rights, I would have to disagree. Because they are laws does not mean that they are right. Keep in mind that slave ownership and the refusal of a woman’s right to vote were also once laws. That didn’t make them right. They may currently exist as a right, but that is still subject to change.
((one of the beautiful aspects of the constitution is freedom of religion. you have the right to be a christian. I have the right to be a jew.)) Question…..are you Jewish by birth or do you actually practice the Jewish faith? If you are only Jewish by birth then some of your secular remarks are understandable. If you practice the Jewish faith, then I see some glaring contradictions. How would you justify homosexual behavior when the Torah, specifically the book of Leviticus prohibits homosexuality? How would you justify abortion when God teaches in the Torah, this time in Exodus, that you shall not murder? Would you please clarify?
(( my religion and your religion should not govern this nation. laws should not be written based on god's law. they should be written based on the constitution.)) Do some research on our founding fathers and you’ll find that the majority of them based our Constitution as well as our laws upon the Ten Commandments. In fact you’ll find depictions of the Ten Commandments throughout the architecture of the House and Senate as well as other government buildings.
(( my best friend is gay. if we're all god's creatures, god in his infinite wisdom created him that way.)) Your logic here doesn’t make sense. If your friend was a pedophile, a dope fiend or a shoe salesman, it doesn’t mean that God made him that way. It was a choice that he/she made. You may be working off of the theory that gayness is genetic. It is no more genetic than the propensity to become a shoe salesman.
(( he should be entitled to the same freedoms that you and I are. he should be able to marry his lover. by doing so, he isn't infringing on our rights under the constitution.)) He is infringing upon our Constitutional rights. In this case we are talking about our state constitution, (I know that you do or did recently live in California) not the federal constitution. We, the people, spoke and voted on our state’s constitution. This constitution describes marriage as being between one man and one woman. You may disagree with it and want to change it, but until that happens, same-sex marriage is an infringement upon our state constitution.
(( have you read the declaration of independence? please read this, it's quite beautiful: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")) Who created these equal men or endowed them with certain unalienable Rights? Their Creator (with a capital “C”). This is just one of numerous references to God in our government documents. (( that is the scripture that governs the united states of america and all I’m saying is that has to be respected.)) I shouldn’t need to tell you this, but…that is not scripture. It’s a portion of the Declaration of Independence.
((that’s something that zealot Christians forget and it’s very important to remember.)) What is a zealot Christian?? If you mean someone who follows their faith and seeks after the heart of God. Someone who walks their talk and seeks to help others in their walk with our Lord, then I guess you’ve described the other blogger pretty well.
((the separation of church and state is vital to this country's preservation.)) In short…There is no “separation of church and state” in the U.S. Constitution. This is the product of the ACLU pressing their secular progressive agenda through the court system. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the Federal government cannot establish a national religion and that the government cannot interfere with a person’s religious practices. If you’ll read through history (not today’s secular history books that remove all mention of religion) you’ll find numerous instances where our presidents have called for national days of prayer and fasting and national days of thanksgiving. The session of the House and Senate have nearly always and are even today, opened with prayer. God, the Creator, is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and openly spoken of by Presidents and politicians since our nation was conceived. BTW…if you’re going to show your readers exactly what you posted on the other blog, at least quote yourself accurately.
Below is the actual quote from the other blog, followed by what you told your readers you said. ACTUAL QUOTE: “have you read the declaration of independence? please read this, it's quite beautiful: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
“ CONTRIVED QUOTE: “have you read the first amendment? please read it, it's quite beautiful: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances Were you trying to back-peddle on your use of the reference to “Creator?”
Comments
In my experience, it's pointless arguing with people like that-- their arguments are self-referential. However, you responded beautifully.
I'm at a loss, though, with these people regarding their inability to comprehend the very first sentence of the the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...."
It's brief, simple, to the point.
Yes, there is government-sanctioned religious symbology, religious language that has popped up here and there, but it probably shouldn't. We tolerate it. We are the ones tolerating them, not them us. Religion, as you said, is a deeply personal matter. They have the cart before the horse; they are trying to legislate their religious views onto us. When we, and the big bad ACLU are enforcing a separation of church and state, we are not imposing their views on them. We are keeping them from forcing theirs on us.
I don't understand why it's not enough for religious zealots to have an Amendment guaranteeing that the government can't interfere with their religion.
Regarding Presidents calling for national days of prayer, opening Congress with prayers, etc. Congress recently had a resolution praising America Ferrrara, the star of "Ugly Betty." You can have any kind of resolution you want, from lofty to absurd-- it means nothing and has no bearing on law and the Constitution.
By the way, the Declaration of Independence, while being a remarkable document and an important part of our history, has no legal status regarding our laws. It was simply the manifesto declaring that the United States was separating from Britain. It's the Constitution that calls the shots. The Declaration can talk about the "capital C" Creator all it wants, it's irrelevent.
The context of the Declaration definitely needs to be considered: Jefferson was trying to unite a very politically, culturally, economically and even geographically diverse group of men to come together and rebel against by far the most powerful country in the world. There are contradictions from the beginning-- Jefferson abhorred slavery, and would have preferred to ban slavery from the beginning, yet owned slaves himself. He was appealing to Maryland Catholics, Appalachian Protestants, Massachussetts bluebloods, businessmen, farmers-- people with complex and competing interests. The Declaration and the original Constitution are filled with contradictions.
Regarding gay marriage: if laws are passed against it, it'll be the first time there are laws limiting rights since laws after the civil war limiting the rights of African-Americans. Somehow the religious zealots don't see that. They see giving people rights that they and I take for granted as an offense to their values. I see it as homophobia.
These idi*ots are issued a set of dogm* when they're bo*n a*gain that represents their party l*ne on each and every sub*ect. While a*guing with them rarely, if ever, d*es any good, it feels almost as good as r*w o*al s*x.
Kisses and hugs, and not the silly (( A )) straight girl kind.
Anonymous C
To begin, please don’t give credit for my comments to the woman you refer to as “zealotina.” I’ve put some work into this and hate to have someone else given credit for my efforts. She won’t even see these blog entries unless I tell her where to find them.
Again I will reply with your comments in (( )). Oh….BTW…thank you for reposting my blog comments in their entirety.
((I've been doing so much thinking since zealotina sleuthed me out and posted on my blog. her pseudonym of choice was anonymous. mine was, gratielady))
Again, I am not your zealotina. I’ve identified myself as Mr. L. Your use of “gratielady” on her blog was no different than my use of “anonymous” or “Mr. L.” Neither your pseudonym nor mine identified who we actually are. They only gave us a term by which to address each other. No biggy here. It just seemed to bother one of your readers.
((Each time I have, it’s been under a pseudonym to maintain my anonymity and avoid this very confrontation.))
One of your January blog entry’s titled, “that katie sure is a sinner,” states, “for godsakes, I blog so much about the christian reich movement in this country and what do I have to show for it? not a god damned link from one christian blog calling me, offensive, a sinner, the devil's mistress, the devil's work, the anti-christ. bupkas. close your eyes. what do you see? precisely. NOTHING.
I am completely overlooked. I'm not asking for a world war here. BELIEVE ME. I'm just looking for some acknowledgment. I was in hell house for fuck sake. shouldn't that immediately qualify me?!””
If you wanted to avoid confrontation, why the complaint about a lack of recognition/response from Christians?
((I also don’t want to exercise intolerance. That’s not me))
Your kidding, right? Remember, I’ve read your blog.
((If they don’t want to read my work or my blog, they shouldn’t. …..It is none of my damn business. it would be presumptuous and constitutionally sinful of me to exhibit intolerance against these choices. Yet, I am not granted the same level of acceptance or tolerance. Why?))
Let’s say a homosexual person is seeking to enhance their life style. Let’s say they search the web and find a web site that provides the information they have been seeking and over time they appreciate the information provided on that web site. One day they log onto that web site and find a comment denigrating the homosexual life style and offering back-handed remarks about their life style. Wouldn’t they think, “What is this person doing here? Why don’t they go somewhere else if they have an issue with our life style? What a jerk!”
Now, what if the person was a Christian seeking to better their walk with the Lord. Let’s say they find a web site that provides the information they have been seeking to enhance their walk with the Lord and have come to appreciate the information given on that web site. One day they log onto that web site and find a comment denigrating the Christian life style and offering back handed remarks. You, Katie, are that person. “Every time you try to censor any individual’s freedom under the constitution, you could very well be censoring your right to freedom of religion one day, something you hold very dear to you. that’s something that zealot Christians forget and it’s very important to remember. “ Quoted from the woman’s blog you attacked. Yes, you attacked. You tried to infer that she was a zealot. Using the term in a derogatory manor, not as a compliment. So, I guess you ARE receiving the same level of tolerance that you have granted her and her readers.
((Nobody would choose to be a homosexual. It is something that is wired into their DNA just like zealotina was wired hetero.))
Let me say this again, since you weren’t listening the first time. I’ll use simple words so there’s no mistake. There is no, nada. zilch, nil, zero evidence that homosexuality is genetic. It IS a choice, whether made consciously or unconsciously. Until someone, someplace comes up with the DNA link, it remains a choice. Your homosexual friend was not “born” a homosexual. She was born a woman with all that entails.
((Treating homosexuals as second class citizens and discriminating against them, which is exactly what is happening by limiting their freedoms under the constitution is dangerous. What group will be discriminated against next? ))
First of all, homosexuals not being allowed to marry is not discrimination. Transsexuals, pedophiles and those into bestiality will all tell you they are genetically “wired” that way. Show me the genetics. If Johnny wants to marry a barn yard animal, because he loves it, should society acknowledge that as a right? If a pedophile wants to marry a 5 year old because he loves him, should society allow it? If Bill decides he wants to marry Betty, Bonnie and Belinda, should we allow it? So, why would we allow two guys or gals to marry each other. It’s not natural. The God you claim you worship HAS condemned homosexuality (I’ll cover that shortly), so either your not worshipping the God of the Jews or your not reading His word.
((I don’t believe abortion is murder, it’s stopping a process. ))
What process? You mean the process of life? The child in the womb is a living creature. It’s not viable, you may say. It cannot survive on it’s own. Well, neither can my 103 year old grandmother, but that certainly doesn’t give me the right to terminate her “process.” Viability has nothing to do with it. You may say that it hasn’t fully developed as a human being. Well, neither has a pre-pubescent child. They lack the body hair and other bodily developments of an adult. This doesn’t give me the right to terminate them. Just because the child in the womb doesn’t look like what you think it should look like to be human doesn’t mean it isn’t. You may say that I’m only removing a part of my body. It’s not a part of your body. It has a distinct genetic makeup, separate from yours. Why? Because it is a separate person. In half the cases the child is male, a completely different sex than you. You may say, “Mr. L., as a man you have no business telling a woman what she can or cannot due to her unborn child. Well, since approximately half of those aborted babies are male I can at least speak for them, as a man
((There are so many young girls who get pregnant and can’t tell their parents. They get back alley abortions or kill themselves. far too many women die without the choice.)
This is pure rhetoric, as you would say. The percentage of girls who would get back alley abortions or kill themselves is so minute as to not be a factor. “Far too many women die without the choice.” I’ll tell you that far too many women and men die because of the choice. I’m referring to those MILLIONS of children killed through abortion.
.
((The bible that I was raised on did not teach intolerance and did not describe or reference homosexuality in a negative light, much less a sin.))
Here, let me give you a few quotes from the Bible regarding God’s position on homosexuality. Please look them up to confirm that I‘m not changing what the scriptures say; (New King James translation)
Leviticus 18:22 (God speaking to Moses) “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13 (God speaking to Moses) “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them”
Sounds to me like God doesn’t care for the practice of homosexuality. If this offends you you’ll have to take it up with God, not me.
Now let’s move on to the New Testament;
Romans 1:26,27 (Apostle Paul writing to the Christians in Rome) “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
I Corinthians 6:9 (Apostle Paul writing to the Christians in Corinth) “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…will inherit the kingdom of God.”
I Timothy 1:8-10 (Apostle Paul writing to Timothy) “…The law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners…for sodomites…”
Don‘t take this as preaching (though I know some of your readers will say that I am). I’m simply giving you the verses that you seem to be unable to find in the Bible. Do with them as you please.
((I would never back pedal. I meant to quote the constitution. It just so happens that one of my favorite, often repeated quotes is written in the declaration of independence and in my zeal to comment, I mistakenly quoted the DOI.))
Are you trying to tell me you hand typed all of that text into your original blog? I doubt that. It was all cut and paste from the other blog(except for the part you changed). If your going to lie about it, at least make it convincing.. Your readers should expect better.
((I do not impose my views on others, personally or on a governmental level and I seek the same respect. ))
Again, I’ve read the comments on your blog. Most of them are nothing but your views on others and I didn‘t find any showing of respect..
((you can’t tell me what to read, to write, or how to live my life.))
I’ve not told you how to live your life or what you can or cannot do, unless you‘ve misread something I‘ve written. I have not judged you or imposed anything on you. I have provided you with information to think upon. I’m just letting you know that when you poke your nose into areas where you want to stir stuff up, don’t be surprised when you get a little on you.
((but, here’s the difference, zealotina, we won’t. we will never see eye to eye because you will never accept mine and others choices. You will always seek to impose your views on a federal and state level))
The name, again, is Mr. L. If you want to converse with her I’ll be glad to let her know on her blog, but I really don’t think the two of you want that. Of course I don’t accept some of your choices and, likewise, you won’t accept some of my choices. I will continue to impose my views on a federal and state level, as will you, I’m sure. We do have common ground, believe it or not. I think the war in Iraq was a mistake and I’m not overly fond of the current administration. So let’s shake hands, accept each other’s differences and consider this one of life’s bumpy moments.
Mr. L.
what you don't understand, mr. l is that the liberal response is based on your imposition. if you would be willing to mind your own pot so to speak and accept that others choose not to live as you do, we wouldn't have an issue.
re: the post you mentioned, that katie sure is a sinner, was a joke. I was being sarcastic.
I'm over the moon that we agree on the iraq war and the current administration. that is great and that is common ground.
but, I must tell you, your disdain for homosexuals and comparison to pedophiles, I can't get past it. it just kills me. I wonder if you'd feel that way if you had a gay child.
my hope for you, mr. l, is that one day you will see it differently.
yeah, I know, I'm an idealistic, schmuck. I spose' it could be worse :)
it's been real that's for sure, mr. l!
And while there may be "no, nada. zilch, nil, zero evidence that homosexuality is genetic," similarly there is no evidence it is a choice. But just like with evolution, believers insist on putting the burden of proof on everyone else, yet don't feel they need to prove anything they're arguing.
you get that, right?
seriously, such a great point. so smart and insightful!
Listen Mr. L, if you think same-sex marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex. Why do you have to impose your beliefs on everyone? How on earth will letting two women marry affect you? To date, you have provided, in your words "no, nada, zilch, nil, zero evidence" that you would be harmed by this.
Orthodox Jews think it's wrong to eat bacon. Are they trying to take bacon away from everybody else? No. Want to know why? Because they mind their own damn business. I don't have a huge amount of love for the beliefs of Orthodox Jews - in fact I find many of their beliefs offensive. But I don't car e and I don't begrudge them a thing. Want to know why? Because they mind their own damn business and leave me to mine.
Why can't you do the same?
Also, as Creepy said, why do you need proof that sexuality is genetic? Where is your proof that it is a choice?
More importantly, who cares? Since when does the world owe you any justification for anyone's choices that affect no one but themselves?
Lastly, why don't you Kristians concentrate on emulating Jesus by relieving suffering instead of causing it?