Kill a Christian, earn $250

And your evidence that nothing is being done to protect Indian Christians is... what, precisely?

Rod, I know it hurts. I'm sorry that it hurts. I've known that pain, and not just because I'm a pagan.

Your update was not, however, anything close to an honest expression of that pain. At whom are you striking out? On whom would you want to visit vengeance?

Please, take a deep breath. You have stepped off the path of healing.

Rod, I'm a long-time lurker and could be described sort of as a non-Christian crunchycon. My parents are from India and so I am somewhat familiar with current events there. I come from a family of adherents of Jainism and therefore very sympthetic to you discussions on materialism, violence, etc. While I agree that the recent violence against Christians in India is horrific, I would encourage you to investigate some more into the communal dynamics of India rather than simply post a message that reads more like an "e-mail alert" to fellow conservatives/Christians. There has been violence against Muslims in the western state of Gujarat and elsewhere, against Hindus in disputed Kashmir, and of course against other minorities, ethnicities, and castes all over India. Unfortunately, while the government of India is a strong democracy, it is not particularly strong at effectively protecting individuals against violence - certainly not as strong as developed, industrialzed nations. That is not an excuse - they of course should do more. Of course it hurts me that this is happening, but there are a lot of issues to explore (rapid modernization, historical sense of humiliation amongst Hindus (and Muslims), the sensitive topic of conversion, etc.) in order to have a more complete discussion.

Talk to the hand. I've just spent three days reading e-mails and comments all over the blogosphere saying it's too bad for Mormons and others who oppose gay marriage, that they're being yelled at and boycotted and cursed and driven off the street, but really, when you're a bigot, you have it coming.

Wow, Rod. I was really excited to see that you had posted something about the persecution in India. Then you had to turn it around and smear it with dung.

Why is it that when Christians are being persecuted, we can always count on someone like SPM to come along and encourage us to discuss something else?

Why is it when Rod writes of Christians are being killed for being Christian, he is accused of taking cheap shots yet if he doesn't believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, the combox flows with the indignant making those same cheap shots against Rod and other Christians?

"Talk to the hand. I've just spent three days reading e-mails and comments all over the blogosphere saying it's too bad for Mormons and others who oppose gay marriage, that they're being yelled at and boycotted and cursed and driven off the street, but really, when you're a bigot, you have it coming."

This is the culture war you wanted, Rod. Lock and load was your war call. You declare war, there's going to be some casualties.

Still, your update was petty and childish and completely detracts from a serious international concern.

Somewhere Gandhi is weeping over what his dream has become...

And I would like to point out that quite a few people on this blog have dismissed or minimized the threats of violence, the cursing and the vicious treatment of Mormons and others in California as being simply what happens when you believe something offensive and act on it. It's easy to see that the murderous persecution of Christians in India by Hindu extremists is evil (and to be sure, nothing that severe is happening in California). But the Indian Christians live far away; the Mormons live down the street. You don't think that the Hindu extremists believe that the Christians deserve what they get because hey, that's how it goes?

My point is that if you don't find violence, vandalism and threats against Christians in this country for what they believe about SSM -- and the Indian Christians are no doubt 100 percent in agreement with them on this point -- you are preparing the way for the same sort of persecution here.

"My point is that if you don't find violence, vandalism and threats against Christians in this country for what they believe about SSM -- and the Indian Christians are no doubt 100 percent in agreement with them on this point -- you are preparing the way for the same sort of persecution here."

Except, arguably, Christians in the U.S. are more similar to the Hindu nationalists targeting an oppressed minority because they won't acquiesce to the state religion. Christians are not on the verge of being persecuted and hunted down in the U.S., despite your paranoid marytydom.

Daniel: Christians are not on the verge of being persecuted and hunted down in the U.S., despite your paranoid marytydom.

Well, your sort of Christian will do fine in the coming legal regime. So do members of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. Believing Chinese Catholics, on the other hand...

Erasmus - nowhere did I say to "discuss something else". Maybe I wasn't clear on this - let's discuss this INTELLIGENTLY. I'm not saying Prop. 8/bullying Mormons/etc. and persecution of Christians in India are wholly separate - but let's put both things in context. I greatly respect Rod and his postings about crunchycon things, whether they are overtly or implicitly Christian in his message. For that reason I'm disappointed that he is taking an awful situation in India as a cheap prop in the US SSM issue. Look, I'm sympathetic to the argument that anti-Prop. 8 agitators who are viciously attacking Mormon supporters don't realize how evil their actions are. But to crudely link that argument to a seemingly similar situation in India (when in fact there are complex differences along with the similarities), is a huge mistake, I believe. It reminds me of the argument I was having with my father in the wake of the anti-Christian and anti-Muslim violence in his birth state of Gujarat in the 1990s and 2000s - he crudely compared it with the isolated violence and a few murders of a handful Indian-Americans in the U.S. in the days after 9/11. I can see having a fruitful conversation comparing and contrasting the two things, but not drawing a direct line between them.

You know, Rod, for a supposedly bright individual, this concept of "bigotry" really seems to be elusive for you. Let me try to elucidate.

You, and those like you, who oppose not just gay marriage, but even gay access to dating sites, hotels, etc. are what we call "bigots". When we note the idea of "traditional" Christianity, in this sense, you are correct that it's traditional...because bigotry WAS and IS the tradition. Christians were bigoted against Jews, blacks, Muslims, each other's denominations, Christians from other nations, etc. throughout their entire history. Peter was a bigot. Paul was a bigot. Now Jesus, I'm willing to give a pass to, since he spent his days with hookers and centurions and Zealots and Pharisees alike, apparently. But after him, plenty of bigotry.

You posit this weird idea that those of us opposed to bigotry would approve of hunting Christians for cash. But this seems to miss the obvious point that the HUNTERS are also BIGOTS! See how that goes? We don't support ANY bigotry. Not against Christians, nor Jews, nor gays, nor vegetarians, nor Satanists. No bigotry at all.

Hence, no support for hunting Christians. No support for banning gays from eHarmony. No support for Jews being kept out of country clubs.

And, in a final note, please be aware that it's not bigotry to call someone else a bigot. If they act in a discriminatory manner, they're bigots. Otherwise they're not. True or false. Nor, by the way, do I propose any punishments towards bigotry at this "we don't hunt them down and kill them" level. The simple loss of economic livelihood and social standing, generated by people of good will refusing to do business with them, combined with necessary government regulations preventing bigotry in the public sector, will work quite nicely.

Tomorrow perhaps I'll cover the concept of "hyperbole", which you might also find enlightening.

How convenient for you, JPL, that you define as "bigotry" anybody who doesn't share your view of where to draw moral distinctions. It must be exhausting for you to live in a world crawling with bigots.

Whenever I hear the word "bigot" these days, I know I'm listening to b.s.

"It must be exhausting for you to live in a world crawling with bigots."

Said that man who compared the killing of Christians in India to his own life in the U.S. It must be exhausting being a constant martyr and victim.

Rod

"My point is that if you don't find violence, vandalism and threats against Christians in this country for what they believe about SSM -- and the Indian Christians are no doubt 100 percent in agreement with them on this point -- you are preparing the way for the same sort of persecution here."

This statement would be merely silly if it were not so preposterously insulting to the many Christians who are actually being persecuted around the world. Comparing some harsh language directed at Mormons to what happens elsewhere to Christians is to be so far off base as to left the ballpark.

Sorry, John. All I see you doing is redefining the majority subset. Scapegoating is still in the mix there, and I'm not so sure religion would be off the list for that.

The situation has two components: scapegoating, and the promotion and perpetration of violence against the scapegoated groups.

The possible solutions fall into two categories: eliminating the practice of scapegoating; making violence too costly for the perpetrators, causing them to not choose to do it.

Scapegoating is the primary obstacle of pluralism. It is also embedded in culture. Good luck with that. :-(

Raising the cost of violence is actually rather easy. The simplest method is to arm the scapegoats, and leave them free to fight back. That, of course, usually leads to escalation, and we've seen how that goes, but it points the way to the next method: make the state responsible for upping the cost, motivated by their desire to avoid a civil war erupting under their noses. That is the reality of law enforcement, at least in the US: there are a plethora of crimes (under which I include the category of "violation") on the books that go uninvestigated let alone unpunished, and there is no way of stopping them short of a citizen stepping in and collecting the price.

"It must be exhausting being a constant martyr and victim."

It must be, considering the comments of homosexuals on this blog.

Rod,

You must have the most regular commenters who hate the hosts guts of any site. You need to pull an eHarmony and set up another site they can go to where you hate on Christians all day.

Sure, Brain, but where would we get orange umbrellas at this time of night?

Franklin,

Your moms house.

A.B., a brother and sister living together is not such an uncommon thing, and is already recognized under law as a family unit. I speculate with some confidence that there are such family units that have adopted children, as well, but more commonly have legal guardianship of the minor children of their own blood families.

The answer to your question is another one: if incest were not in any culture or religion considered a sin, would the clear detriments to the offspring of such relationships -- the royal houses of Europe a prominent case -- be sufficient motivation for a society to pass laws making it illegal? I like to think it would be. I love my sisters, would never want to have sex with them, and I would have taken my two nieces under my parental care in a heartbeat should it tragically have become necessary. They are both now adults, so the question becomes rhetorical for me, in any event. Does that answer your question?

No good, Brian. I lost the key.

Fondly,
Nilk (*narf!*)

I agree fully, JPL, that there should be no problem with relatives getting a civil union, or finding a religion that would allow them to marry. I believe the same for same-sex couples.

But why the need to address possible children? Should a hetero couple with hereditary diseases be barred from sex unless sterilized? A related couple's chances of a child with birth defects is roughly 6-8 percent (roughly double that of unrelated couples). I'm sure there are other genetic diseases with a pass-along rate equal or greater.

And on what basis would you accuse someone of having an emotional flaw if they are in a mutually loving relationship. Wouldn't that make you a bigot?

I appreciate the response, Franklin, but it doesn't really answer my question (which was largely rhetorical). I just question why the ability to have helathy children (any any children, for that matter), is under consideration when it comes to marriage.

A.B., the ability to produce blood offspring (to distinguish between "having children" and adopting) is a core argument against SSM. Your bringing it up prompted me to assume that you were taking that argument from the anti-SSM side, and I regret making that assumption. Your (now, finally clear to me) point is, for me, well taken. I don't have an answer. :-)

Sorry for the confusion, Franklin. I understand that argument, and personally believe one of the key aspects of marriage is having children (despite my 6-month-old not wanting to sleep through the night). But I don't think the state should have any say on couples' decisions to procreate.

I had a similar discussion with a friend (who I believe is gay, but am not certain). She was somewhat shocked that I, a conservative Christian, had no problem with SSM. But when I extended the argument in favor of incestual marriage and polygamy, she disagreed. When questioned, she said she believes marriage should be between two consenting, unrelated adults. To her, there was something "wrong" with incest/polygamy, so it shouldn't be legal. Yet she considers those saying the same thing about SSM to be bigots. She didn't recognize the disconnect.

Paul:

Nice. Real nice.

I take it that you are a kid, from your "...make it through the semester" comment, so I will address you as one.

Clue to you: Jokes about killing people are not cute, funny or smart. They are not even remotely well advised. They do not make you look hip, post modern, ironic or particularly intelligent.

Knock it off, kid. You are are showing your immaturity, and it is painfully obvious.

Some here may have deduced that I am not well disposed towards Mormons or some other Christians who have agitated against same sex marriage. Whatever. If I suspected for one moment that I was about to witness an act of violence against any person, regardless of how much I disagreed with them, I would act quickly and violently if need be to protect that other person. I won't stand for violence against my GLBT brothers and sisters, and I d@mned well won't stand for it against Mormons. Harsh language and boycotts are fine, as far as that goes. Expose donors to ridicule.

Do. Not. Touch. Any. Person.

Jesus, to his disciples: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matt 5:11

Rod, the history of Christianity is so filled with persecutions of one kind or another that I've about decided that if you're a Christian and the heathens howling for your scalp, you're doing something wrong.

And here I thought Rod was going to say that those extremist Hindus were a gay mob. . . .

Rod, your closing comment in your post is assinine. Why don't you take a break from blogging? I'll take a break from reading you.

Mr. Dreher:

I think you are improperly conflating non-violent (if angry) protest and violence. In my comments, I repeatedly said that acts of violence should be prosecuted. But when you enter the political fray speaking on behalf of your faith and you attack the families of thousands of your fellow citizens, you should expect to put up with angry words. Very angry words. Even more so when you go into a neighborhood of people you just hurt with the express purpose of rubbing salt in their wounds.

Further, based on the video you posted, the anti-gay "Christians" faced only angry words, not violence. If you have any evidence of violence other than unsourced, unsigned, unverified statements posted on the Internet, I'm all ears.

Violence must be prosecuted, but supporters of Proposition 8 deserve angry words.

All that said, I think it would be wise for the pro-marriage side to take a step back and breath. The anger is justified, but more peaceful protests would be more effective.

Rod, your post sounded bitter. Did you mean it that way?

Just another note on how ALL religion is a blight upon the world!

I think $250 is too much, should be less, christians aren't worth that kind of cash and why the middle east, the christians here in the US are the one's that need to go

A of D is a semi-literate Muslim who's only experienced using toilet paper in the last year or so OR he's a 54 year old bachelor who still lives with his parents. Perhaps his antipathy towards Christians is because he was never molested by a man of the cloth and that scarred him for the rest of his life or when his father was outed as a drag queen they were kicked out of the local Baptist Church. People like him are the best advert to embrace pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism.

Boy, $250 and ridding the world of hate and confusion or sitting at home being furious... I'm on that plane!

by the way, i would pay $250 to do it