Last Friday and Saturday, March 24-25, a fellow named Ron Luce and his Texas-based organization Teen Mania held a big old evangelical Christian youth rally at the AT&T Park in San Francisco. They had something like 25,000 folks there as part of a "reverse rebellion" tour. He wants to turn loose a bunch of new youth ministers to help the homeless, evangelize for Christ, and so on. Typical Christian stuff.
But daring to be a basic Christian in San Francisco seems to be unacceptable to many of the locals. There were all kinds of counter-demonstrations protesting their presence in the city. Why, they're just a fascist pep rally of hate! According to Assemblyman Mark Leno "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."
Yeah, okay fine. I would tend to think that protesting such a group is just silly. Of all the things to protest, nice Christian kids wanting to help poor folks and pass out Bibles would seem to be low on the list. But hey, it's a free country, and our Constitution guarantees them the right to protest for or against whatever they want.
However, that same First Amendment also guarantees freedom of religion, and anti-Christians clearly crossed a line with an official government condemnation. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
The full text of the resolution does not seem to be readily available, but here's what's on the San Francisco city website:
060371 [Condemning upcoming rally to be held by anti-abortion groups in front of City Hall on Friday, March 24, 2006] Supervisors Ammiano, Ma, Maxwell, Daly, Peskin, Mirkarimi
Resolution condemning upcoming rally to be held by anti-abortion groups in front of City Hall on Friday, March 24, 2006.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
It's good to see that someone in the States has the sense to understand when a 2x4 is needed...
2 - Al Barger
Ruvy buddy, in your part of the globe, you need 2x4s with nails in them.
3 - Arch Conservative
Just another blatant example of the far left "do as i say and not as i do and you are not entitlerd to free speech unless you agree with me" school of thought.
Is anyone who isn't a member of this school really surprised?
4 - JP
Now I don't agree with the official condemnation, but they are anti-choice and anti-gay, are they not AC?
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
You know, guys, the Israeli mass media isn't all that different from the SF board of stupidvisors. They just don't lean over so far to the "PC" end of things. Here you're free so long as you agree with the government. Eventually the Shabak will get down to the little fish like me, I suppose.
Four guys with clubs in the middle of the night - the usual routine...
6 - Dave Nalle
Remember, these are the same fascists who tried to ban all handguns within the city.
Dave
7 - JP
As opposed to the nutjobs who want us to be able to fire at will when "threatened", Dave?
8 - Arch Conservative
Anti-choice is a semantic trick used to lessen the harsh reality infanticide int his country and yes they are against it.
They also don't approve of the gay lifestyle.
But what does that have to do with the far left hypocrites who only believe free speeech is for them?
9 - Christopher Rose
Archie, there are hypocrites, criminals and nut jobs right across the political spectrum.
Dave: Banning handguns within a city limits is fascist? My political compass must be seriously rusty!
10 - grumpY!
yes the board of supervisors was acting in a rude and arguably arbitrary manner. that said, the 1st amendment lets you yell from a soapbox, but it does not assure you of having physical access to a particular soapbox, meaning the city is within its rights to lease out meeting space as it sees fit. nor does the 1st amendment preclude local noise ordinances etc.
the statements of the board do not constitute an attempt to impose religious values. so in fact the same 1st amendment can be used in their defense as well as theirs.
11 - RedTard
"the statements of the board do not constitute an attempt to impose religious values."
Could atheism be considered a religion? I think the whole movement is very similiar to religion and could be considered a religious value.
I don't want the government pushing any religion, including atheism, on me.
12 - Arch Conservative
That's true about there being hypocrites on all sides of the political spectrum Christopher but the far left has mainstreamed it on thier side. There is no room for anyone who isn't a colossal hypocrite in far left groups like ACLU, World Can't Wait, Code Pink, NOW, and Answer.
Not too mention that these are the people who claim to be among the planet's most tolerant but they shout down anyone who doesn't agree with them and label them with slurs like "racist" or "homophobe."
13 - Christopher Rose
Archie: If you want me to take you and your ideas seriously, we need to define some terms.
Let's start with the ACLU, as it's the only one of the organisations you name. I'm not going to say it's perfect (let's face it, few human constructs are) but to try to paint it as far left is simply either fatuous or deceptive. You can pick which one!
14 - Mark Saleski
like the often repeated "liberal media, liberal media, liberal media", the idea that the aclu is "far left" for more complex than people would have you believe.
somebody recently posted (in comments) a whole list of conservative/religious organizations defended by the aclu.
15 - JP
Arch, people who do not tolerate the gay lifestyle are often afraid of it, hence the term "homophobe." Use of that term does not indicate intolerance.
Similarly, anti-choice is not a semantic trick, it is simply correctly framing the debate. The far right considers its opponents "pro-abortion" as if they're all running around hoping the number of abortions goes up; sensible people recognize they are advocating that the choice be left up to the individual rather than the government. Therefore "anti-choice" is merely an accurate description.
And as for your question "But what does that have to do with the far left hypocrites who only believe free speeech is for them?" - notice I started by saying (#4) "Now I don't agree with the official condemnation, but..." -- I think this action by the board is indeed wrong, as they need to allow speech by all.
But the wording in the original post "by what it termed an 'anti-gay,' 'anti-choice' organization" implies that the group wasn't those things, and I'm suggesting that their descriptors were actually correct even though their method was overzealous.
16 - Al Barger
Grumpy (#10)- The Board of Supervisors do not have First Amendment RIGHTS, they have First Amendment LIMITS. It is a limit on government.
I'm sure these nice Christians were not breaking noise ordinances, or rioting. You know they weren't. Now, if this park or that city building are just not available for meetings or demonstrations from ANYONE, that would be one thing. But trying to squelch free religious expression like this is blatantly wrong. Even if you unreasonably insisted that they're a political rather than a religious group, that would STILL be against that same First Amendment.
We can probably do without phrases like "far left" and such. That's just way too broad a brush most of the time to be saying anything useful.
And yes Christopher, gun grabbing is fascist. Ultimately, owning guns is the practical basis of our freedom- our ability to resist the government if it slips its leash. That's why it's the Second Amendment, right there near the top of the list of specifically delineated freedoms. And JP there in #7- why is the word "threatened" in quotes? Do you wish to pretend that citizens do not in fact use guns to protect themselves?
The phrase "anti-gay" gets thrown at anyone who doesn't go along with the designated proper liberal agenda, but it's simply inaccurate. Now, Fred Phelps is anti-gay. He just hates queers. But real Christians who simply think that homosexual behavior is a sin are not the same. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is the common mantra. If they love the sinner, they're not anti-gay as such phrase is meant. Blanketly describing anyone who opposes the liberal gay agenda as a "homophobe" is even more inaccurate. It's just a cheap smear.
The "anti-choice" and "pro-choice" labels for abortion are pretty stilted terms. Opponents of abortion are generally not "anti-choice." They are, as they not entirely unreasonably see it, anti-killing babies- which is what abortion absolutely and inarguably does.
The label "anti-choice" is just a purposely stilted terminology to try to steal some yards on the field through semantic trickery. Why, they're just big mean fascists that want to take away our freedom- not good citizens with a legitimate concern.
17 - Arch Conservative
JP my point was that the far left claims to believe in free speech but whenever someone expresses speech they don't agree with they attack that other pseron and try to silence them as is the case in this incident. What the people protesting the evangelicals and the board condemning them were trying to do was raise thier voices louder in calling the evangelicals all kinds of names so that in effect it would negate the evangelicals free speech.
Liberals and hypocrisy go together like peanut butter and jelly.
It's the left's bread and butter. When someone dares speak out against them they swarm aand attack that person or persons and seek to stigmatize them so that their speech will either not be taken seriously or given the same leeway to be expressed.
18 - Jet in Columbus
Let's get real people. A group going into San Francisco waving bibles and preaching anti gay slogans. FOR GOD'S SAKE Let's talk sense-NOT legalities here.
It makes as much sense as Palistinians marching through Israel screaming anti Jewish slogans!!!
It's interesting that people living a lifestyle like Arch Conservative's immediately start self-righteously screaming arguments like "community standards" when it suits HIS purposes, but not when it's against something his conservative "LIFESTYLE" disapproves of.
What's your opinion of a Gay Pride parade taking a couple of hours to go down the main streeet where you live? Oh well that's different!
TAKE YOUR LIFESTYLE argument and cram it Arch. I DID NOT and DO NOT choose to live out my life being judged by closed-mind people like you, who preach that we're all child molesters and worthless to society. Why the hell would I CHOOSE the lifestyle you're so verbally and ignorantly sure of exists????
San Francisco has it's own community standards due to a huge gay population, just as Lynchburg Virginia does with Jerry Falwell.
Falwell said the gays trying to visit his campus were trying to provoke something. Oh well that makes it okay to ignore the 1st amendment, doesn't it?
...but that's only my opinion
19 - Al Barger
Yeah there, Jet. "It makes as much sense as Palistinians marching through Israel screaming anti Jewish slogans!!!"
To put this very mildly, you're UTTERLY lacking in perspective. The Christian group in San Francisco was there to talk evangelism and such what. Also, they are social conservatives who would be opposed to legally recognizing gay marriage. That's a difference of opinion.
Whereas, Palestinians generally want to KILL the Jews and wipe them off the map. There's maybe a slight difference there, don't ya think? Don't be such a drama queen.
20 - JP
Al, I think allowing gun use in public places to be lawful based on a judgment of threat is a perilous slope, that could lead to Death Wish type vigilante behavior that's unnecessary. Defending one's home is one thing, but that's not a judgment I trust the average American to make.
Let's talk semantics. You say "anti-gay" is not consistent with believing homosexuality a sin, yet you claim to "love" them by withholding rights? I am in favor of civil unions rather than marriage myself, but I do not think anything about "gay marriage" should be in the constitution, pro or con. Similarly, if you can prove that every person who is pro-choice is having an abortion, I'll cede my position on the term "anti-choice." But not til then.
Arch, the right wing--from Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Dick Cheney--has spent 4 years smearing and slandering anyone who questions the war in Iraq as anti-American, undermining the troops, and even treasonous. Til that stops, your effort to call the left hypocrites is itself hypocritical.
21 - Jet in Columbus
No Al, YOU'RE the one utterly lacking perspective because you can only see from one side. Not only can I see from both sides, I LIVED both sides.
Until you LIVE being forced to lie to youself and others as I have, and hated myself for it
Until you LIVE being afraid of walking out of a bar and waking up in the hospital like I have, because some religous jerk of a priest on TV or on some street corner convinced some nutcase that it GOD'S work to kill all fags
Until you LIVE watching someone on TV or a street corner yelling out that YOU are a pervert, a child molester, a recruiter for the sickminded, as I have daily
Until you LIVE being hated and avoided by your only family
And THEN was told you're being punnished because you CHOSE that "lifestyle"
Are you defending Phelps' right to carry "GOD HATES FAGGOTS" signs outside of military funerals?
Oh, that's different.
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEN AND ONLY THEN DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT POINT YOUR "HOLIER THAN THOU" FINGER TO JUDGE Me you ///outraged personal attack deleted\
If they want to evangelize let them do it in church, in stead of recruiting homeless people to do for money, what they don't have to courage to do themselves.
and by DAMN that IS my opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22 - Pete Blackwell
Well, they have every right to condemn it. That's what these boards spend most of their time doing. It's no different in theory from the U.S. government issuing a statement in the Abdul Rahman case. The city board isn't making a law. They're issuing a statement. No constitutional issue whatsoever.
Don't you know? It's the government's job to tell us what to think.
23 - Jet in Columbus
And that goes for Arch conservative too!!!!!!!
24 - JP
Pete, wait, it's the conservatives' job to tell us what is inside and outside the bounds of acceptable debate!
25 - Arch Conservative
First of all Jet where did I say that gay people were all "child molesters and useless to society.?"
I dare you to show me where I said that.
I didn't so don't go putting words in my mouth you friggin dolt.
Second the evangelicals in San Fransisco were in a stadium which they paid for and they were not getting in ayone's face. Several of them did go to City Hall and protest outside on the street, a public location.
Compare this to people who went to Liberty University, which is PRIVATE Property to protest. They did this to antagonize, for no ther purpose.
That's the difference between the left and the right. The left would seek thier freedom of speech in a manner that is not only often illegal but generally unruly and vulgar and in your face.
As for the standards and norms of the city of San Fransisco.. we're all too familiar with them. Violating the law to allow gays to marry, claiming that we don't need a military in this nation, the 9th circuit court of appelas.......
The sooner the big one hits and this city falls into the ocean the better off this nation will be.
Lastly Jet I am sick of your little labels and attempts to put words in my mouth that I have never spoken. I am anti-gay marriage as is most of the American public but I do think there should be civil unions and I do not hate gay people or wish them any harm.
So cu tthe fucking bullshit will you.