WUI (Writing under the influence)

It must have been a coincidence, of course. But it's strangely eerie that the same week when I get banned from a mailing list because I dared defend Christians from rather hateful and misguided attacks the cross that hang over the altar in my church gets stolen.

Again, the two events are completely unrelated because they happened in the wrong order. The cross was stolen on Sunday and I got banned on Wednesday.

The circumstances surrounding the theft are very strange. It's hard to explain what happened by blaming the homeless guy who wasn't carrying anything when he ran away. Also, "the job" would have been very difficult for just one person. It's difficult to imagine that somebody would have done this as a prank. So what could it be? Anti-Christianism?

WCCHD is a Yahoo mailing list that I subscribed to before the November election to see what the local socialist were up to. I never posted to the list because I didn't want to be banned for my "radical" views.

Until Wednesday when the following post ended up in my e-mail box.

From the public policy point of view, Anglo-American law has settled the notion that the State has an interest in marriage which gives it the obligation to umpire those relationships. First, the State is benefitted [sic] when individuals are "taken off the streets" so to speak by becoming part of a co-nurturing family. Second, the State is benefitted when "family" takes over the job of securing and nurturing the spouses, relieving the State or the rest of society of that burden. Third, of course, the State is benefitted because the "family" takes over the job of securing and nurturing any children that might be part of the family.

Similar State interests give the State the obligation to provide umpire rules for all other human relationships: shareholder/corporate and partnership relations.

Thus, it is not exceptional for us to view the interest of the State in providing umpire rules for same-sex marital relationships in exactly the same manner. There is no compelling reason for the State to ignore only one out of the myriad human relationships. The overt reason for this deliberate refusal of the State to recognize and umpire same-sex marital relationships is religious objection from a small, ignorant, fringe element, namely fundamentalist Christians.

I found the ideas in the post wrong on many levels, as many others posted to that list, but this time the offensive (and factually false) remarks directed toward Christians made me replied as follows:

11 states passed measures defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Many of those states were blue states. Oregon was one of them. It's not about religion. If you want to win this battle you have to use secular arguments only. You did just fine until you blamed a small group of people for majority opinion. I would expect more from a member of WCCHD.

Measure 36 results:
YES 1,028,546 NO 787,556.

Oregon has the fewest religious people in the country. How can you explain these numbers?

I buy only one argument you listed below: children need stable families. I posit that the state has no interest in the other two.

My reply generated two more posts. One, from the author of the original post.

This is a typical response from the fringe lunatic Christian right wing.

This couldn't have been more funnier considering that, although I do frequent a Christian church and try to adhere to some of its teachings, my reason doesn't come from the Bible which I have not read (yet).

And then came this.

As this is a email list for people who are in accord with the Mission and goals of WCCHD you will be respectfully removed from this list. [...] please be aware that I am familiar with your positions on many issues. I hope you are able to find others groups which will welcome your presence.

Which generated this happy post.

Delightful response. I hope that finally puts him in his place. You go girl!!

What place? A gulag?

So I wonder, living in the state with fewest church-goers, can hate for Christians generate hateful actions in addition to hateful words?

The other side is convinced that hate crimes against the groups they want to "protect" are result of hateful propaganda spewed every day on AM radio (is Air-America included?) Can this work both ways? No, it's impossible.