Conservative commits suicide following backlash for harassing a drag queen

[FireDragon76]

That's what I thought, although I don't know how you can have a a problem with a Christian feeling that way.

I have a problem with it because homophobia hurts people.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I have a problem with it because homophobia hurts people.

I hurts the homosexuals, no doubt.

 

[FireDragon76]

I hurts the homosexuals, no doubt.

And that's one reason among many I am opposed to Christian neo-fundamentalism.

 

[Kaon]

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

It would sound utterly ridiculous if you don't believe in something beyond this material world. That is why I, personally, don't try to "evangelize". Not everyone knows about the worlds beyond this one, many don't care, and the rest don't believe it. So, it has produced nothing but vanity - as all human activity produces. Why waste words on people who don't care?


Now, on the other hand, new and seasoned Christians tend to feel the need to mechanically change the world with their testimony and ministry. It usually takes some experience and trials to realize one should not "share" anything with anyone except the superficial - we plant the seed, not raise up the plant.

When people aren't receptive to what we think is the "truth," we (as humans) get the need to be validated. So, we do vain and ignorant things as per our race. It isn't too complex; the consequences of "evangelizing" to people who don't want to know or don't care can be detrimental to both parties.

Why are "monks, shamans, enlightened ones, mystics etc." hard to find and understand? Because they don't cast their pearls before swine, as it were. The average pedestrian human would likely commit suicide or die from fear if s/he were to be exposed to even 10% of the alleged "real" world. We like to be in control, and the idea that there are spirits running amok (even able to possess us), and the idea that "we didn't build this, and likely cannot build this" is what makes people uneasy about religion.


At the end of it all, it is vanity: religious evangelism and religious curiosity is vanity without a mind open enough to accept the possibilities that may be very real. Otherwise, we are just deluding ourselves, creating dogma, and acting out of defiant ego.

 

[Zoii]

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.

Well said

 

[Zoii]

It would sound utterly ridiculous if you don't believe in something beyond this material world. That is why I, personally, don't try to "evangelize". Not everyone knows about the worlds beyond this one, many don't care, and the rest don't believe it. So, it has produced nothing but vanity - as all human activity produces. Why waste words on people who don't care?


Now, on the other hand, new and seasoned Christians tend to feel the need to mechanically change the world with their testimony and ministry. It usually takes some experience and trials to realize one should not "share" anything with anyone except the superficial - we plant the seed, not raise up the plant.

When people aren't receptive to what we think is the "truth," we (as humans) get the need to be validated. So, we do vain and ignorant things as per our race. It isn't too complex; the consequences of "evangelizing" to people who don't want to know or don't care can be detrimental to both parties.

Why are "monks, shamans, enlightened ones, mystics etc." hard to find and understand? Because they don't cast their pearls before swine, as it were. The average pedestrian human would likely commit suicide or die from fear if s/he were to be exposed to even 10% of the alleged "real" world. We like to be in control, and the idea that there are spirits running amok (even able to possess us), and the idea that "we didn't build this, and likely cannot build this" is what makes people uneasy about religion.


At the end of it all, it is vanity: religious evangelism and religious curiosity is vanity without a mind open enough to accept the possibilities that may be very real. Otherwise, we are just deluding ourselves, creating dogma, and acting out of defiant ego.

Thanks that was a good reply

 

[Rhamiel]

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.

Child abuse is bad even if the parents “had no issue with it”

 

[Sistrin]

This is sad on many levels. It's really easy to not bother other people.

Then it should be easy for drag-queens to cease library exhibitions.

Drag-queen story time isn't about promoting reading or the love of books. It is about promoting drag-queens and all the associated hedonism they can manage to flaunt in front of the children. Did you guys even read the OP article? Diamond Good-Rim, seriously?

However to my direct point:

Drag Queen Teaches Toddlers How to 'Twerk' at Library Story Time

"In case you were under the impression that Drag Queen Story Hour was some sweet event where guys in dresses read cute stories to little children and then everyone goes home, think again. Videos keep surfacing of drag queens doing stripteases, rolling around on the floor with children, and now... twerking. Oh yes, twerking. In case you don't know what twerking is, there's an entire genre on YouTube that will enlighten you (or sully your soul with degeneracy, to be more accurate). Twerking, for the uninitiated is the simulation of sex in dance form. There's no other way to see it. I don't recommend looking it up, but if you must, don't say I didn't warn you. But this is what libraries think is okay for toddlers now. Welcome to Twerk Time, little ones!"

UK Drag Queen Teaches Children as Young as 3 How to Twerk

"EXETER — A video posted online shows a U.K. drag queen teaching children during a story time how to twerk, a squatted dance that involves shaking one’s behind in a sexually suggestive manner."

But this is standard leftist fare, targeting children for indoctrination into whatever ideological tenet the liberal/progressive crowd desires to impose on society at large. All while blaming "religion," of course.

 

[Sistrin]

Secondly - there are many great religious scholars, whose focus is more on the nature of spirituality and universal love...

Is there no boundary you would set for this 'universal' love?

 

[Paidiske]

I'm confused, this guy was a member if the "Liberal" National Club. That doesn't sound like a conservative club, ???

Confusingly, the Liberal party is Australia's more socially conservative major political party. The "liberal" in their name refers more to economic liberalism (free markets, small government type approach).

 

[Occams Barber]

The protestor was a gay atheist

Wilson Gavin, the protestor, was an openly gay, devout Catholic. As President of the University of Queensland Liberal National Club he was on the political right.

The 'Liberal' reference is confusing some US posters to this thread.

In Australia, Liberal (big 'L') is the name of the main conservative political party. 'Liberal National" refers to a Queensland coalition of two conservative political parties (Liberal and National).

Student found dead after viral video of him leading protest against ‘drag queen’ event for kids
OB
EDIT: See also post #113 above.
OB

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I don't condone driving people to suicide, but this kind of behaviour towards homosexuals, transsexuals and the likes heavily contributes to those groups higher than normal suicide rates. There's no justice in any of this, just oppression that backfired and killed a propably disturbed individual.

No one "drives" anyone to suicide. There is already a serious disturbance there.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm 55, lived on 4 continents, visited about 80 countries. I have never met a single Christian that has ever been even close to adequate when it comes to "selling" their message.

Not one.

Also, the difference between a story and a plot is that in a story events are only connected by chronology.

This article is a story.

It isn't our place to "sell" a message. Only to preach the Good News. The outcome isn't up to us.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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

Not for that reason, though we know nothing else about him. We do know from scripture that suicide itself is not the unforgivable sin.

 

[Gene2memE]

Even still, who, as recently as ten years ago, had ever heard of drag queens reading to children in public libraries? It would have sounded like a sick joke.

You're America, so you probably don't know this, but Dame Enda Everage (a parody of a Melbourne housewife turned socialite) has been an Australian household icon (and very popular in the UK as well) since the late 70s/early 1980s. Dame Edna is played by Barry Humphries, a man in drag.

Dame Edna even had a few shows for kids, including Christmas specials. The 90s Christmas specials ended up being replayed, A LOT, on Australian TV.

[Full disclosure here, Barry Humphries was a friend of my maternal grandparents (and a common guest at their dinner parties). They were also more than a little miffed when Dame Edna became so popular, as elements of the character were clearly based on Humphries' impersonation of my grandmother's sister.]

 

[Tanj]

It isn't our place to "sell" a message. Only to preach the Good News. The outcome isn't up to us.

Someone asked a question, I answered it. You think the question was wrong, tell that to the questioner.

 

[Occams Barber]

No one "drives" anyone to suicide. There is already a serious disturbance there.

It depends what you mean by "drive". I think it's possible to attack someone's self worth or damage their circumstances to the point where they may contemplate suicide although I have no data to back that view. You could argue, I suppose, that their vulnerability to attack was a "serious disturbance".

In legal terms there are cases where a person has been found guilty of something akin to involuntary manslaughter for encouraging a successful suicide.
Encouraging suicide or committing manslaughter?
OB

 

[Zoii]

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.

I have to disagree. I do not support your view that those who opt for suicide are driven by Satan, or that they are making a disparaging statement to the God they believe in. Its worthy of its own thread to discuss the cause and influences of suicide. But I wont comment further in this thread as its off-topic.

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

I see no evidence of a generation of misguided parents and wonder how you measure that. A society that's more liberal is, for many, a better society - so you must accept that your view is at odds with most of society.

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.

I believe this may be an expression of your view of homosexuality and transgenderism which I expressly stated in the OP to keep out of this thread. Please do not go off topic

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

Once again this is completely off-topic and at odds with what the OP expressly stated NOT to delve into. This thread is NOT for you to grandstand your feelings about LGBTI

I'm confused, this guy was a member if the "Liberal" National Club. That doesn't sound like a conservative club, ???

Yes - He was a member of the liberal national party which is the conservative right wing party.

 

[Zoii]

Is there no boundary you would set for this 'universal' love?

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are asking what scholars mean by it, then I'm loath to answer for great scholars because I dont think I have the skill-set. My own interpretation would be that it refers to a spirit that is benevolent and manifests in everything, including ironically, the malevolent.

I actually attended a lecture by a religious author talking on the history of religion starting back to caveman days. He described how the earliest religions made no separation between a God of good and a god of bad. It was one force that encompassed both. Christianity chooses to separate the two so that you have an entity of Good - ie God - and an entity of Bad ie Satan. He argued, how can you have a governing force, that doesn't affect both good and bad.

Anyway - Im a poor scholar at this so I think my best answer is to say; Im not the right person to answer the question

 

[raindog75]

It seems to me that as a Christian, the answer is pretty clearly, no, there shouldn't be any boundaries to our love. We're commanded to love our neighbors, all of them, whether we agree with their choices or not. Perhaps the intent was to ask what boundaries we should set with the ones we love as far as what behavior we will accept from them. That's more debatable. I would hope though, while we're considering that, that we're spending some quality time chipping away at the plank in our own eye.