A David Gunn Moment

When I heard of the shooting last week at the Family Research Council by Floyd Corkins, a pro-homosexuality activist who hated the FRC's views on same-sex “marriage,” my first thought was, “The Right finally has its David Gunn moment.”

David Gunn was the first abortionist to be shot and killed by a pro-life activist, in an attack that destroyed the image of the entire pro-life movement as a peaceful group—despite the fact that many pro-life organizations immediately denounced the shooting and all violence against those who kill babies for a living. The abortion lobby took full advantage of the shooting, fighting for the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinics Act (signed into law by Bill Clinton), which destroyed the free speech rights of pro-life Americans who wanted to engage in peaceful speech at abortion mills and offer less violent alternatives to women seeking a resolution to an unplanned pregnancy. And ever afterward, they have smeared all pro-life Americans as deranged, violent people.

Will conservatives do the same in the wake of the shooting of the FRC security guard? I doubt it. I think they will simply be relieved that the truth is finally coming out—that they have endured many death threats, harassment, and lawsuits by militant homosexuals and the groups that represent them, simply because many Americans don't wish to be forced to support their views, or believe that the goals of homosexual activists, if implemented, would deeply damage America.

I think the public's eyes were partially opened to the vicious way that these groups treat those who simply disagree with them during the Chik-fil-A debacle. Now, in the wake of the FRC shooting, America's eyes are fully opened—or would be, if a panicked national press were not struggling to suppress this story because it doesn't fit the storyline of intolerant Christians persecuting homosexuals.


Ok, Jason, that's why I said something, I wasn't sure. I wanted clarity, and I appreciate receiving it. Thanks.
Anthony, that particular point was simply to say that most people would be willing to ignore other sins in that particular situation. It said nothing about comparison in other ways.
Anthony that particular comment was pointing out the stereotypical vices of soldiers which are not considered reasons to deny honorable burial. Sorry if you didn't catch the point.

The point was that Westboro's disrupted military funerals which are a debt of honor by citizens.
"But it might also be a form of bigotry for gays and their allies to dismiss the decency and sincerity of all Christians because of the words and actions of a misguided minority."
-They dismiss the decency and sincerity you all possess because they are blinded by those who spread hate and fire and brimstone. Conservatives are just as guilty of this - instead of seeing that allies like me can still engage in friendly discussion with folks like you, they cluster gays and those of us who support them together as "radicals" with an agenda. And yes, there are many of those. But no one seems willing to take the time and actually get to know those of us - on both sides - who are willing to act peacefully rather than hatefully. I'm glad I did - I've met some pretty cool people on here 8-)

I'm glad that most, if not all of you, understand where I'm coming from to an extent when it comes to the people I care about. If you think I'm this defensive when it comes to my friends (especially my closest and best friends), you should see me when it comes to my family. Family is sacred to me, and I can be just as irrate, angry, loud, and "in-your-face" as some might call it. It may not be "Christ-like", but I can't help it if I act out of love and loyalty. Thanks for seeing my point-of-view, Kevin. I usually close out of BP/PFM with more of a smile on my face than when I first opened the page.
LeeQuod and Jason
I've actually never have had a problem with admitting that I'm wrong...I'll fight to the death if I believe I'm right, but I'll always be the first to admit when I'm incorrect. Your praise is flattering, and I thank you for brightening an already great day, but I don't feel I deserve it.

Moving on...I've been continuously reading more and more articles lately that threats of violence are still being carried out against LGBT citizens. Matthew's appears to be the last to be as publicized as it was, but in other countries and still here at home, it continues. And it makes me sorrowful, to say the least. But threats are still made, even if they aren't carried out, they need not be made in the first place.

What happened to you and at different churches is absolutely deplorable, and I feel it's probably retaliation for their feelings of being discriminated against and ridiculed for their sexuality by those who haven't met kind souls like yourself. Regardless, no matter which side it happens on, it's still wrong on so many levels. I was raised in "Little Vatican City" (my subdivision surrounded our largest Catholic church) when my parents and I moved into our first house, and during my work for the Kerry/Edwards campaign I sported many liberal bumperstickers on my car. Needless to say, my car saw it's fair share of egg stains and key marks. Yuck. In regards to gays staging hoaxes, I'm sure it's happened, I'm not going to dispute that, but many different kinds of people can do harm that way, not just LGBTs. Instigated violence in general, I think we can agree, is deplorable in and of itself.

I am very highly doubtful that any of my friends would feel such a way, Lee, and I know them all very well. Many of them share the same views on violence that I do. They don't like the views conservatives take on SSM/rights, just as I don't, but no one wants anyone to be sent to the gallows or the guilotine (sp?).


I really really hope that wasn't a comparison of homosexuality/homosexuals to drunkards, prostitutes, and pillagers. I've had a wonderful but also very tiresome and long day and the last thing I want right now is to get upset and worked up. That sort of comparison is horrid and will only make me sick. Keep in mind, these are the people I love, care for, and stand up for. Of course, as I've pointed out, I'm always willing to admit that I'm wrong. I'm also rather groggy and in need of a nap before closing work tonight.
I've made the point here in the past that the tone and hypocrisy of some Christians has been less than helpful, and so I understand the feelings of your friends, Anthony. But it might also be a form of bigotry for gays and their allies to dismiss the decency and sincerity of all Christians because of the words and actions of a misguided minority.

The bullying you describe is deplorable. Childhood shouldn't be ruined for any reason, and I'm glad we've taken steps in a better direction. Now it's a matter of getting it right.

We learn from each other around here, even if we don't always agree. I respect your loyalty to your friends and your determination to make sure they are looked at as human beings. I think most of us here get that.
Anthony, as far as Robertson goes, I always felt that saying bad luck is a punishment is hubristic however tempting it is to invoke for sins far worse then mere unchastity:


We know that calamity SOMETIMES is a punishment because God said so. We cannot say always, and in any case it is against observable facts, because if we only go by Earthly events God must be as erratic as the Fair Folk.

As for Westboro, the people they were protesting were not just "gays"(or whatever vulgarity they preferred). They were dead soldiers who happened to be homosexual, just as others happen to be drunkards, and solicitors of prostitution, and others are pillagers. The laborer is worthy of his calling and a dignified funeral is the minumum payment for a rather nasty job.
Anthony, I'm very proud of you. It takes a lot of fortitude to publicly admit having been wrong.

Here are a couple of thoughts for you to ponder, and I'll be pondering them with you:

"they hold these views that all conservatives are scum."

We so often hear that anyone declaring about people that "all X are Y" is declaring that they are prejudiced, and ignorant at best or a horrible person at worst. (Imagine "all gays are . . .".) How much abuse is required before prejudice is excusable?

"People threaten gays with violence."

But wasn't the Matthew Sheperd case the last time anyone carried out such a threat? I'm reasonably certain it is, because otherwise we'd have heard days and days of media coverage. But gays have engaged in similar threats, and since at least the 1980s have damaged property, including churches, and at one point my car. And I know of cases where gays have claimed their property was damaged by those who hate them, but when the police investigated it turned out to be a hoax. I understand the siege mentality, but the evidence seems to point to violence from gays, not against them.

And I think Anne's point was that formerly gays committed violence against property, but now it's against people. That represents an escalation, with the tacit support of the media, to my mind, a step toward fascism. I wonder if your gay friends would like a society where anyone who opposed gay marriage was suddenly whisked off to the gulag, and their possessions confiscated.

But as I said, I'll be pondering all of this with you. I've been wrong many times myself.
...the problem isn't with people like you, Jason, Gina, LeeQuod, Rolley, etc. etc. with regards to hate. I don't believe any of you hate or despise anyone, I've gotten to know you many of you as kind and well-meaning; that part is blatantly obvious to me now. Gays (and those of us who support them) listen far too much to the people who advocate for the deaths of homosexuals and who preach hatred and negativity as opposed to the rest of you, who disapprove and "minister" to us but in a kinder, gentler, and more tactful manner. I'm one of those who used to think that even good citizens who oppose gay marriage and equal rights like you were hateful, angry, archaic people who imposed their "traditional" values on anyone like yourselves. I was wrong.

That doesn't mean, though, that everyone on the "anti" side of this issue can be like those associated with BP/PFM. I've had to stomp on many people who throw around derogatory words and phrases like "faggot" and "that's so gay", and who use angry and spiteful adjectives to describe LGBT citizens. I keep reading stories about children being picked on and bullied for either being gay or being perceived to be gay. People threaten gays with violence. I promise you everyone, this sort of thing happens all the time, and that's where the views of hate come into play. I don't blame the LGBT community for looking at conservatives as hateful people, and I'm afraid that if I convinced some of my gay friends to take a look at BP, they'd still feel the same way. We can thank Jerry Falwell ("AIDS is punishment"), Pat Robertson (blamed 9/11 on homosexuals), the Westboro Baptist Church (Why bother), etc. for that.

Sorry I took the long way around with this, but I read what Kevin said and I agree with him to an extent, but I also wanted to show you the other side's view and why they hold these views that all conservatives are scum. I know they aren't, but good luck convincing the gays of that.

You all have a special place in my heart. We may not agree on everything (particularly this subject), but I've learned some things from you and I must agree with something Jason Taylor once said: that is worthwhile ;) :)
I think part of what is ramping up emotions is the constant, irresponsible use of the word "hate." If people would read sites like this or hear conversations about homosexuality on Christian radio, they would be hard pressed to find hatred on display. It's completely illogical to say that disapproving of a person's actions equals hating that person. Does God hate us? Do parents hate their kids?
Well, Anthony, this article gives a Barna Research Group estimate of 20M members of house churches as of 2006:

Wikipedia says Barna now estimates 30M as of 2009.

To try to mosey back toward Anne's point, I wonder if organizations like PFM will cease working in offices, and work remotely instead - not for efficiency or cost savings, or any other reason than the safety of their employees.

I'm fascinated that those who kill abortionists are portrayed by the media as acting in concert with their ideological group, while those who attack pro-family supporters are portrayed as isolated extremists acting inconsistently and alone. (As Mark Steyn likes to say whenever another "lone wolf" terrorist kills while shouting "Allahu Ackbar", they're a member of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves, Local #257.)

So Anne has it exactly right (unsurprisingly) that this act didn't fit the narrative. With all the media scorn heaped on Chick-fil-A, it's difficult to portray the shooter as acting purely from his own delusions. Wiser to just ignore the story a much as possible.
Do you think the "home church" movement will grow, LeeQuod? I'm not a church-goer myself, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea...
Gunned down
I am doubtful that this shooting will result in a significant change, Anne. Christians are being killed and driven from their homes routinely in Islamic countries, but rarely is this mentioned in the media, and even then it's often called "sectarian violence" or somesuch, to at least partly blame the victims (as happened with FRC and SPLC).

I wonder if this kind of violence will eventually fuel the growth of the "home church" movement. Mass murder is more difficult when the targets meet only in small groups.
I watched NBC's news that day, and they covered it. But it certainly didn't get the day-after-day play that we have seen when an abortionist or abortion mill is attacked.

BreakPoint Blog