In rebuttal to Brian Farenell’s response to my so-called bigotry in “Yearning for yesteryear”:It's really hard to determine where to begin. This letter together with his last letter lead me to believe that Mr. Shene believes himself to be a Christian. He believes God created man and that God would never make a man that could be gay because that would be a 'mistake'. Unfortunately, there are plenty of structural flaws in the 'design' of the human body.
In my “bemoaning” I didn’t mention race or economic status, and since only women have babies I can only deduce that I ruffled his tutu with my comments on the gay movement. If he wanted to debate his point, why lump it in with anything else? If he believes it has made America a better place, then let it stand or fall on its own merit.
It was obvious that he would not admit that these problems exist, and THAT is blissful ignorance. Mr. Farenell obviously disagrees with me. Does that make HIM a bigot? Of course not; he just needs to learn the difference between democracy and bigotry. Apparently he is so steeped in his progressive thinking that he has taken on what he attests to hate so much.
If Mr. Farenell wishes to marry another man, or his mother or father for that matter, have at it, but don’t expect everyone to agree and call it right in the guise of being politically correct, “an oxymoron, by the way.” It is not a natural act, sir, and even animals recognize that fact. I would wonder if a gay man or woman believes in God, and if so, do they believe that God made a MISTAKE in their sex in the miracle of creation? That may explain the far left’s push to eradicate God from society — get rid of God, get rid of guilt!
Common sense dictates that when beliefs and actions leave the norm of our society, debate and disagreement will follow, and the right to agree or disagree belongs to ALL Americans, not the secular few. If disagreement is bigotry, every American is guilty of it.
Mr. Farenell may enjoy seeing a man dressed in women’s panties and bra, painted like a clown, riding a float in public, commercializing his sexual yearnings. I do not, but then, I pride myself as keeping some common sense in his “progressive society.”
I realize there are laws in this country and that they should be obeyed, but I do not have to agree with them — and that, sir, is my GOD-GIVEN right as an American.
Traditional America spoke loud and clear in the O.J. Simpson and Ludacris cases and learned that people with strong moral values can triumph and we ARE quick learners. Mr. Farenell would do good to not mistake tolerance for acceptance.
Mr. Shene goes on to say "I can only deduce that I ruffled his tutu with my comments" which is, in my opinion, a very non-Christian remark to make. But I suspect that Mr. Shene is a member of the "hating" Christian sect and not the "loving" Christian sect.
Mr. Shene goes on: "Common sense dictates that when beliefs and actions leave the norm of our society, debate and disagreement will follow". I guess Mr. Shene also believes he will determine what the 'norms' of society are going to be. Is society today the same as society 500 years ago? 100 years ago? 50 years ago? I don't think so. Mr. Shene was on "talk of the town" this morning ranting about how the ACLU and the 'left' were destroying America. He didn't like that certain books were being published and sold. I guess he wants to determine which books will be published while he is setting the 'norms' of society.
Lastly, "If disagreement is bigotry, every American is guilty of it." Well, no, disagreement is obviously not bigotry. A bigot is a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. (from Wikipedia)
Mr. Shene is quite obviously obstinate, very obviously prejudiced and is the one that needs to learn the meaning of Democracy.
5 comments:
What exactly is wrong with this guy having or sharing his opinions? I'll grant that he seems to be a bit of an asshole, but I think it's kind of silly that you got "you're tutu ruffled" over someone like this having their thoughts published in the editorial section of a small town newspaper.
I don't like bigots, prejudices, hateful Christians, ignorance, potential book burners, people who disagree with the Bill of Rights and/or rose colored glasses.
How are his prejudices any different from those you or I might have?
Didn't I hear you say that you would no longer shop at a bookstore in town because the owner had stocked/read on of Bill O'Reilly's books. Wasn't that pretty intolerant?
No. Not because he stocked a book by Bill O'Reilly but because he thought Bill O'Reilly was a clear thinker. I am definitely intolerant of intolerance.
As object of this guy's scorn, I had to laugh. I didn't expect that my letter would draw out his looniness to this degree, but it's both amusing and revealing in how it did.
He had his opinion challenged and responded with a series of implicit insults and name calling. That I probably want to marry another man. That I probably enjoy seeing men in panties parading around. That I'm a Godless heathen.
He also fabricated nonsense about me oppressing his right to free speech. If you read my original letter*, I mention nothing about his right to express his opinions. Only that I think his opinions are wrong.
(*-Interestingly, letters to the editor on their website go back to Nov. 27. But strangely, my letter of Nov. 28 is no longer available on their website. However, the letter is pretty much identical to this essay: http://mofyc.blogspot.com/2006/11/good-old-days-for-whom.html)
I stand by my response. His longing for 'the good old days' ignores the fact that it was hardly good a majority of Americans. He did nothing to counter my arguments, though he surely thinks he did.
Now, I'm off to get another tutu.
Post a Comment