Conservative evangelical church service disrupted by homosexual anarchist group

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. “Jesus was gay,” they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

The whole story is here.

- end of initial entry -

Ken Hechtman, VFR’s leftist Canadian reader, provides a left-wing perspective on this story.

Kids today … I tell ya …

I used to know queer-anarchist kids like this 20 years ago, ran with some of them in New Orleans during the 1988 Republican Convention. We did a similar disruption of a Jerry Falwell event where we got out one step ahead of the cops and one of a Pat Robertson event where we didn’t. These kids want to be us and we don’t want to be them anymore.

It was a different time 20 years ago. Sodomy laws were still on the books. No effective treatment for AIDS existed, nobody seemed any too interested in finding one and the disease was wiping out the “Stonewall Generation.” Anti-gay TV evangelists had political clout, maybe not enough to become president but certainly enough to make presidents. The suicide rate from high-school fag-bashing was in the low five digits, comparable to the death rate in the Vietnam war.

Today, we are winning. Temporary setbacks like Prop 8 don’t change the overall trendline. We are winning. If I could ask these Bash Back kids one question, it would be this: “What do you want that we aren’t already winning by peaceful-legal means and how will kicking Christians when they’re down get it for you?”

The back-story to this incident makes my point as well as anything. How this particular church got on the anarchists’ radar in the first place was they’d set up a Halloween House of Horrors for church members to bring their children. The gimmick was the horrors in the house weren’t the typical Halloween ghosts and goblins. They were the real-life horrors of modern liberal society—graphic depictions of abortion and rape and child-molesting. Well, the effect on young children and their parents was exactly what you imagine it would be. There was an outcry and the church was forced to put a parental advisory on the house warning parents exactly what was inside. And this is how it’s supposed to work. The church backed down and it was their own people who made them do it.

Laura W. writes:

Ken Hechtman seems to believe there is some end point to homosexual activism and therefore there will come a day when homosexual activists can rest on their laurels. The truth is that the goal of normalizing homosexuality will never be achieved, even if the government were to offer every possible legal endorsement. There will always be new horizons to reach for and new exclusions to overcome. Same sex marriage will only bring a new series of challenges. The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate is itself the ultimate form of discrimination and will continue to foment anger.

Philip M. writes from England:

This would never have happened in a mosque. These perverts would have had more sense than to even try.

Some of the Christian men in this church should’ve given them the fight they were looking for. I’m sorry, but Christians today bring this on themselves because they will not defend themselves. Young Muslim men would run the risk of prison rather than allow their community to lose face in this way.

There used to be a saying—the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. People will only look on groups as having value if they can see that others have made sacrifices for it. If the men of this church thought it “wasn’t worth it” to get involved, then why should wavering agnostics ever think their church was “worth it” either?

Like all men who walk away from a fight telling themselves “it would have proved nothing,” there will be a small voice at the back of the heads of the men in the church today—“that is an excuse, I wimped out.” The women will have a similar feeling about their men. If I were a member of this church I would rather have feelings of anger and loss at the members who were imprisoned for standing up for their faith rather than the impotence of knowing that the men-folk watched their church and faith defiled in front of their wives and children. Adversity would have brought them together. Cowardice is rarely a force for unity.

But perhaps the prayers afterwards were “brave” in their forgiveness of these sick perverts?

Pathetic.

LA replies:

You make a powerful point. When I read the story, my first thought was that the congregation did the right thing. But now I’m not sure. The demonstrators, about twenty of them, were acting out, running around, disrupting the service, yelling, kissing, but were not doing anything physically violent or threatening. Resistance by the congregants would have turned the scene into an all-out violent mêlée, like a bar fight in a Hollywood Western.

Another factor is, these demonstrators are such disgusting human beings that there is a natural reaction of not wanting to have anything to do with them, including fighting them. They’re beneath fighting with.

However, if I put myself in my mind’s eye in that situation as a member of that congregation, I can’t imagine myself just sitting there quietly or ceding the place to the demonstrators.

Michael A. writes:

Last decade I was working at a community residence for homeless mentally-ill men. One of our residents, let’s call him G., a small, meek, mousy guy in his early thirties, was paid a number of visits by a former resident. Why, I no longer remember, but our resident was deeply distressed by these visits, and it was clear the former resident had harassment and intimidation as his goal.

One afternoon, G. & I were outside having a smoke. The intruder stopped by, the third time in as many days. He began to verbally insult G. I guess my presence had a strengthening effect, as G. verbally stood his ground, and began to ask why the former resident had been coming back to pick fights. No satisfactory answer was forthcoming, and the argument threatened to become physical.

Standing in the background, I had to decide: should I tell the intruder to leave, or should I let this situation develop further? As the situation played out, I noticed that G. was becoming bolder in his own defense. Not backing down and fleeing, as was his usual way, he became more confident. I made a quick judgment that the bully, like all bullies, was a coward at heart, and would back down if confronted with a real adversary. Besides, it was two against one, should it come to that.

G. raised his fists, and moved close to the bully. The bully quickly backed down, and left. In the two-plus years I worked there, he never showed up again.

For the next week or so, the change in G. was amazing. Up to then, his whole life had been one of abuse, fear, and disappointment, mostly at the hands of others. More self-assured and confident, he seemed a new man. This change did not last long, and he soon reverted back to his old self. But while it lasted, he was like a whole new man.

The way I handled the situation was not the way one is taught to handle conflict resolution in sociology classes. But this was the real world, not some role-play fantasy land inhabited by female academics and effeminate males (and most male social work students are effeminate). On occasion, one must stand one’s ground. Even if talk fails, and blows must be exchanged.

My point is this: Western man has had the luxury of not needing to defend his civilization, his way of life, his beliefs for a long time now. But times change, and we have foolishly let the barbarians in. Out for blood, they will do whatever it takes to win. Turning the other cheek, while noble, will not work if one’s adversaries are not hobbled by such quaint notions as fair play, honor, and Christian forgiveness.

We, as a civilization, really need to make a complete U-turn. The path we’re on will lead us straight off a cliff.

Mark Jaws writes:

I wonder if those white gay activists would dare to march against black churches – given the fact that 70% of blacks voted for Proposition 8. Well, at least these lefties are consistent in applying their hideously blatant double standard. They excuse black “bigotry” of all persuasions.

Just imagine, if we could ask one of these gay activists if they were planning to terrorize any black churches, I wonder what their response would be? Any guesses among the readership?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 12, 2008 07:59 PM | Send