Count Four

An Unpopular Stance

There’s no other way to say this: I am openly hostile toward the churches in my city and their politics.

I am sick to death of all these out-of-district residents who drive in on Sundays to come to the “neighborhood” church, even though they abandoned the neighborhood long ago, and who insist upon having a say in “the neighborhood” that they fled. They illegally double park with impunity, blocking in actual residents and leaving those residents with virtually no recourse. They fight liquor licenses constantly, they make nuisances of themselves for any new business which does not specifically cater to their ideal of what should be done in the city, and claim a political mandate that just is not backed up by their numbers.

You see, the churches which represent these out-of-state folks continue to claim a large congregation and the resultant political sway that would come with such a flock, were those members actual district voters. But of course, despite plenty of proof outside the churches that the majority are from neighboring jurisdictions, they refuse to open up their rolls and show the numbers of real residents versus non-residents; to do so would be to admit how few residents attend their church, and show just how impotent they are at the ballot box.

And don’t even get me started on what a waste of taxable land many of these facilities represent in a city with a dearth of taxable land.

If these folks are so concerned about the neighborhood they should move back in and actually live here and deal with the issues which they seem to care so much about. If not, move the congregation out to where the flock actually lives and make room for something which might actually be useful.

Calling a Spade a Spade

Maggie Gallgher has a piece over on Yahoo Opinions in which she decries same-sex marriage proponents’ use of the term “bigot” to describe those who oppose such unions. She quotes Senator Brownback in his (correct) assessment of the situation:

Same-sex marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that understanding is likely to be controlling.

She then goes on to argue that:

[f]or the foreseeable future, Americans are going to live with some deep moral disagreements on the marriage issue. Conducting this debate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility would be a lot easier if gay marriage advocates stopped pretending that only fear, hatred or bigotry is at the root of these disagreements.

The only response I have for her there is to look to the propaganda from her own side first before condemning that coming from the other. “Bigot” is relatively easy when up against “disordered,” “morally corrupt,” and “disgusting,” to name a few of the terms fired off by opponents of anything related to same-sex relationships. Reasonable people may disagree on whether ‘marriage’ as a civil institution should be extended to same-sex couples (and, yes, to more than two persons of the same or opposite sexes), but when faced with rhetoric that denies the very humanity of the persons at issue, opponents of this change should not be shocked when proponents fire back with an equal amount of vitriol.