Conservative commits suicide following backlash for harassing a drag queen

[FireDragon76]

Zoii, the mistake you are making is believe that neo-fundamentalism really cares about effective persuasion. They don't. They are more motivated by the drama of confrontation, because it fulfills their expectations about being an oppressed, threatened underdog.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then extract that individual out of the equation if you like.

Then extract that individual out of the equation if you like. Does tactics like that though, protests, placards indicating people are wicked or going to hell, telling people that if they dont accept their beliefs they will burn in hell - does this work? Is there a better way to reach people?

But if we remove him from the equation, the whole scenario changes.

First you report this as a minor confrontation:

Apparently the conservatives disrupted the event and there was some minor confrontation.

And now you are saying you think this is happening?

Does tactics like that though, protests, placards indicating people are wicked or going to hell, telling people that if they dont accept their beliefs they will burn in hell - does this work?

Are you seriously trying to get us to believe that is the norm of what we, Christians or whoever, are teaching children to do, when in reality it represents a small portion of people if even that? And BTW, though you say at the start you aren't talking about any particular groups of people, that sounds an awful lot like you're targeting Christians.

I still don't think one poor soul who committed suicide, who was clearly unbalanced, is justification to revamp the education criteria. But now it seems you are under the impression there are other reasons to make changes, reasons that simply, and again, are not he norm at all, just more unbalanced people not worth making changes for.

 

[Zoii]

Zoii, the mistake you are making is believe that neo-fundamentalism really cares about effective persuasion. They don't. They are more motivated by the drama of confrontation, because it fulfills their expectations about being an oppressed, threatened underdog.

Well - confrontation as a strategy is used by all political persuasions from the extremes of right to the extremes of left, and everything in between. Right now we are seeing teenagers energised into marches directly challenging conservative thinking re climate change.

Confrontation is a strategy that can be used, that in hindsight may be adjudged as courageous and moral, or aggressive and immoral....It's a tricky thing, isn't it?

 

[Zoii]

But if we remove him from the equation, the whole scenario changes.

First you report this as a minor confrontation:



And now you are saying you think this is happening?



Are you seriously trying to get us to believe that is the norm of what we, Christians or whoever, are teaching children to do, when in reality it represents a small portion of people if even that? And BTW, though you say at the start you aren't talking about any particular groups of people, that sounds an awful lot like you're targeting Christians.

I still don't think one poor soul who committed suicide, who was clearly unbalanced, is justification to revamp the education criteria. But now it seems you are under the impression there are other reasons to make changes, reasons that simply, and again, are not he norm at all, just more unbalanced people not worth making changes for.

Kenny - youre losing the plot - please go back to the OP and just address the questions and not some side issue. I dont think anyone here, least of all me, considers the poor guy who killed himself - a norm. Please dont do that and return to the objective of the thread

 

[Larniavc]

Will this guy be in Hell now (as a suicide)?

 

[Zoii]

Will this guy be in Hell now (as a suicide)?

Its not an issue of concern for this thread and the answer to that will lie in your particular spiritual belief.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny - youre losing the plot - please go back to the OP and just address the questions and not some side issue. I dont think anyone here, least of all me, considers the poor guy who killed himself - a norm. Please dont do that and return to the objective of the thread

I did address the OP.

I know, I know, must be me that's the problem. When in reality I think I'm more in touch with what's going on here than you are, the very reason you chose to evade instead of addressing my post.

 

[raindog75]

I agree with FireDragon76. I tend to think that in these kinds of situations the focus/target of the protests, which I guess would be the library and perhaps the parents, are more of a prop than anything. If there was any real seriousness here, they would have either handled this in a different/quieter way where they actually took the time to engage with the library/parents, or perhaps simply found some altogether different and more productive use of their time. What they get instead is a bit of excitement, a bit of "standing up for Christ" against the secular culture, perhaps a bit of in-group bonding.

 

[Zoii]

I did address the OP.

I know, I know, must be me that's the problem. When in reality I think I'm more in touch with what's going on here than you are, the very reason you chose to evade instead of addressing my post.

Thats good you want to address the OP - start with discussing methodologies to get people to listen and not be alienated by religious strategies.

And if you want some encouragement - Yes we all think you are very in touch Kenny - very in touch. Now please stay with the OP

 

[Zoii]

I agree with FireDragon76. I tend to think that in these kinds of situations the focus/target of the protests, which I guess would be the library and perhaps the parents, are more of a prop than anything. If there was any real seriousness here, they would have either handled this in a different/quieter way where they actually took the time to engage with the library/parents, or perhaps simply found some altogether different and more productive use of their time. What they get instead is a bit of excitement, a bit of "standing up for Christ" against the secular culture, perhaps a bit of in-group bonding.

Thats a fair point. But while the bonding may be successful, is it likely they have drawn anyone to their cause - Or doesnt that matter - its not the intention.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And if you want some encouragement - Yes we all think you are very in touch Kenny - very in touch. Now please stay with the OP

Except I said "in touch with what was going on here", not in general as you indicate, so your little "encouragement" cut not only doesn't fit, but shows a definite mean streak. But that's ok, if you'd rather go that route instead of simply addressing my post, maybe, just maybe, some won't see through you.

 

[raindog75]

Well, the question for me I guess is whether our stated intents are necessarily our real motivations. It's hard to know for sure. I guess from what I've observed in the gospels, Jesus engaged in fellowship, often table fellowship, with those who were marginalized in the culture. We don't necessarily know how those conversations played out, but we do know that he engaged with tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. as people, not as categories or people simply to be protested. He also showed great compassion, particularly for those who in the culture that suffered some kind of rejection. It's hard for me to get my head around how we would have responded to this particular issue, but I do think it would start with engaging in conversation/fellowship, whether with the parents, drag queens, or library employees.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well - confrontation as a strategy is used by all political persuasions from the extremes of right to the extremes of left, and everything in between. Right now we are seeing teenagers energised into marches directly challenging conservative thinking re climate change.

Confrontation is a strategy that can be used, that in hindsight may be adjudged as courageous and moral, or aggressive and immoral....It's a tricky thing, isn't it?

But for Neo-Fundamentalism, confrontation is not a strategy as much as it is part of the religious ideology. Neo-Fundamentalists fully expect their strategy to fail and for them to be rejected. It's really quite nihilistic in this respect.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, the question for me I guess is whether our stated intents are necessarily our real motivations. It's hard to know for sure. I guess from what I've observed in the gospels, Jesus engaged in fellowship, often table fellowship, with those who were marginalized in the culture. We don't necessarily know how those conversations played out, but we do know that he engaged with tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. as people, not as categories or people simply to be protested. He also showed great compassion, particularly for those who in the culture that suffered some kind of rejection. It's hard for me to get my head around how we would have responded to this particular issue, but I do think it would start with engaging in conversation/fellowship, whether with the parents, drag queens, or library employees.

Agree, that in a table fellowship situation, this may have been handled differently by Jesus, as he calmly warned them they would go to hell if they didn't change ther ways, in those or so many words. But yes, it would be very interesting to see exactly how he would have handled it in that situation.

This was someone reading to children, and if Christ were there, I wonder if he would have just calmed them all down and essentially said exactly what the protestors were saying but in a calm way. Or would he have been enraged, turning over desks and whipping them?

 

[raindog75]

Or perhaps if the protesters were there, he'd tell them they were being hypocrites as he often did with the religious leaders of his day. You just never know...

 

[Kenny'sID]

Or perhaps if the protesters were there, he'd tell them they were being hypocrites as he often did with the religious leaders of his day. You just never know...

Depends on who the protestors were. So many variables and Crist would have been able to discern all of them

 

[Kenny'sID]

Zoii, the mistake you are making is believe that Neo-fundamentalism really cares about effective persuasion. They don't. They are more motivated by the drama of confrontation, because it fulfills their expectations about being an oppressed, threatened underdog.

Until you prove that is a fact I can only assume it is not.

And you are using a term other than your ususal there...can you please give us an example of someone who practices this Neo-fundamentalism. In the past it always seemed it was anyone who is against Homosexuality LGBwhatever or sexual weirdness should cover it. So do you still feel that's who practices it?

 

[FireDragon76]

Until you prove that is a fact I can only assume it is not.

And you are using a term other than your ususal there...can you please give us an example of someone who practices this Neo-fundamentalism. In the past it always seemed it was anyone who is against Homosexuality LGBwhatever or sexual weirdness should cover it. So do you still feel that's who practices it?

Neo-Fundamentalism = "American Evangelicalism".

Rejection of homosexuality is but one aspect of this religious ideology. More deeper issues are a literalistic hermeneutic, naive realist epistemology, and hostility towards modernity.

 

[Ronald]

Before I begin, allow me to exclude elements that we can all accept - That is:

• This site, and a large proportion of individuals (of all religious persuasions) do not condone homosexuality. Indeed many non-religious people revile homosexuality.
• Equally, there is an increasing proportion of individuals that have an opposing opinion. We all know that so please - DONT GET CHILDISH AND RESORT TO A " HOMOSEXUALS ARE BAD VS NO THEY ARE NOT" debate. We know one another's position so it doesn't need a debate for the one millionth time here.

This story is about a group of Australian conservatives (I do not know if they have a religious persuasion or not) who decided to go to a library event where a drag queen was reading a story to children.

NOW - Before you jump in and say ARGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH, the children attended with the full knowledge and consent of their parents who had no issue with it.

Apparently the conservatives disrupted the event and there was some minor confrontation. There was some backlash against those individuals and the principal instigator in particular.

This principal instigator later took his life. Testimonies about his character talked of the young man being a kind and thoughtful individual.

Whats this thread about? - Australia has seen several cases of this ilk. A very prominent sportsman was dismissed for reviling people he did not approve of on religious grounds. He was dismissed from his contract. Now there's this example.

My question is - Are those of religious persuasion, being adequately educated on how to "Sell" there religious message. How well are they being counselled. For when you weigh up the cost - What good was achieved by this young person - What good was achieved by the famous rugby player. What good has come out of it all - Indeed it'd seem that all that was gained was upset, anger, negatives. Was there a better way that would entice people to listen, instead of causing disharmony.

Head of Liberal National Club who mobbed drag queens reading to kids dies

I'm confused, this guy was a member if the "Liberal" National Club. That doesn't sound like a conservative club, ???
No matter what group, people who commit suicide usually act on their own, led by Satan, and can not be faithful to God, since that would be like saying to God, "I don't trust you with how my life is going, or whatever lessons I'm supposed to be learning, or that you are punishing me, so Ill end my life" Suicide is a lack of faith in God. It is a sin, "You shall not murder!" God gives life and he takes it away. It is not for us to decide.
And btw, it is the responsibility of parents to guide their children and in this generation, they are being misguided. Society has grown more liberal, allowing all sorts of behavior. Morality has been degraded. What was once taboo, has turned into a celebration, parading down the streets. People are confused about what sex they are and society accepts that they can change it.
Some Christians are learned and mature, some are not. Even non religious folks for thousands of years knew what was natural and unnatural, that male and female were purposed to join, be fruitful and multiply, and this applies to all life forms. This was God's purpose, this was His creation.
We need to hold unto God's righteousness and become Christ-like. We need to pray for others, not attack them, yet separate ourselves from evil. Evil is spreading , but so is good and the two will soon separate upon His return. He is sovereign - don't worry.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Rejection of homosexuality is but one aspect of this religious ideology. More deeper issues are a literalistic hermeneutic, naive realist epistemology, and hostility towards modernity.

That's what I thought, although I don't know how you can have a a problem with a Christian feeling that way. Those other things, you'll have to give examples before I can have any idea of what you are accusing.