The Armies of Tolerance
Clearly, this 67-year-old woman was inciting the peaceful crowd to violence.
Too bad the police weren’t there to arrest her! (Video of the aftermath, and the original incident from a different angle here.)
Clearly, this 67-year-old woman was inciting the peaceful crowd to violence.
Too bad the police weren’t there to arrest her! (Video of the aftermath, and the original incident from a different angle here.)
I have a perverse admiration for her gumption. I hope when I’m 67, I can dive into a hostile demonstration and put them all in a no-win situation while cameras run.
Mmm, I wonder if she would have been able to tame the crowds with cookies or a fruitcake or two?
This reminds me of the other video where a solitary gentleman wearing a McCain-Palin shirt to an Obama post election party.
First thought that come to my mind is neither one was too bright to face such strong opposition. Second though that came to my mind is I wish I had the courage that either one displayed.
I don’t think that this is a display of courage. Nor is the example Roland mentioned. Veterans day just passed has reminded us of acts of courage of the military nature. Others include a young man making his way through angry protesters to attend high school and an old woman refusing to give up her seat on a bus.
Justin’s camera clowns are drawn to the lens like inscects to bright light. They display nothing other than a pathetic need for attention.
Phil has spoken well. The man and woman who protested spurred a movement that destroyed racial barriers. The woman with the cross and the man with the McCain shirt have left no legacy; “poor players who strutted and fretted their hour upon the stage, and then were heard no more”.
OldTimeLefty
OTL, your willingness to declare that the protester in the video shall be immediately airbrushed from history is very telling. You really need to ponder the value and the importance of individual rights and individual expression, if you want to avoid the mistakes of the other “lefties” from the past.
Assuming, of course, you are actually interested in avoiding them.
It beats killing oneself in front of Paula Abdul’s house to get her attention.
Andrew,
The “protesters” will be immediately airbrushed from history or they won’t. What I have to say on the matter will have no influence whatsoever. If they are starting a movement we shall see, if not history has no place for them. So I say again that they are poor player, etc., and I’ll stand by that until a movement starts and is sustained. Feel free to join in a march and keep me informed.
OTL
Another very disturbing part of this was the anchor’s last few words of the clip… “a lot of hate coming from both side”. That woman was very peacefully expressing her view. When attacked, she chose to pray.
For the media, the homosexuals marching and the lefties commenting here (clearly all on the same side) the cross obviously represents a symbol of hate. Even if that woman’s opinion is wrong in the eyes of God, her opponents don’t know any better than she does.
She seemed to be the only one behaving peacefully and non-violently (certainly more “Christlike” than those who attacked her.
Phil and OTL, give me a break, you mean to tell me those demonstators were not there to attract the media… give me a break!
In this instance, all the hate is clearly coming from one side.
George,
If it’s a movement it’s a movement. If it isn’t a movement then your interpretation is just a bunch of words, and you are purely speculating.
Try reading Matthew 24:5
Carrying a cross or other public displays of piety also brings to mind Matthew 23:5
Please don’t presume to tell me how to act like a Christian.
OldTimeLefty
P.S. Jesus sat with the “Publicans and the sinners”, not with Republicans and those who profess sanctity. It was the sanctimonious religious leaders of the day who complained about Jesus and brought him to Pilate for sentencing and punishment.
Bumper sticker which I saw put it in a nutshell, “Lord, Save me from your followers”
OTL
Jesus was a liberal, and I believe he would see right through the charade the proponents of Prop 8 sold to Californians. ‘Nuff said.
Beware the attempt to claim a divine mandate for your political persuasion per se, Rhody. Jesus was above politics, as the embodiment of the Truth that lies behind aspects of each side of the ideological coin.
Maybe those of you who revere the cross as a symbol of your faith would feel that that symbol was used as a prop and be dismayed. It takes no courage to be a fool or a charlatan. Also I defend the right of gays to demonstrate as do I fools and charlatans.
I hear enough people using Jesus to try to justify Prop 8 that I have no trouble claiming otherwise. It’s kind of like the reason I fly an American flag outside my house – I feel conservatives do not hold a monopoly on patriotism.
I said nothing, nor did Jesus for that matter, about whether homosexuality is wrong or not. I didn’t praise the woman for holding a cross. (My absence of condemning it was not for that purpose either.)
My point was that, in this incident, all the hate is coming from one side. The woman expressed herself, whether she’s wrong or right, quite peacefully.
George,
If it’s a movement it’s a movement.
Your opinion is noted. If it’s an opinion it’s an opinion and subject to other opinions.
OTL
Justin,
You say that Jesus was “above politics”. Others strenuously disagree with such an assertion – Dr. Obery Hendricks who is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at New York Theological Seminary, and author of the new book, “The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of Jesus’ Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted”) is one who can be cited.
In addressing The Politics of Jesus Dr. Hendricks on April 9, 2007 said at the Center for American Progress last Thursday that Jesus used seven political strategies—including “treat the people’s needs as holy” as well as “give a voice to the voiceless” and “expose the workings of oppression” Jesus challenged the established order of things.
“To say that Jesus was a political revolutionary is to say that the message he proclaimed not only called for change in individual hearts but also demanded sweeping and comprehensive change in the political, social, and economic structures…” such as “feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, protecting the most vulnerable”.
OldTimeLefty
I think it was clear from my comment that I didn’t mean “above politics” in the sense that His work avoided the political milieu, but in the sense that he transcended political categorization.
Many of us right-wingers heed the call to change hearts and to feed, cloth, and protect. We just disagree that the government is or must be the central medium for such actions.
Justin,
1. It was not clear that when you said “above politics” that you did not mean above politics.
2. It is also strange that you consider that Jesus’ message of love and charity stops where government begins. I’ve looked all over the New Testament and cannot find any such proscription. Perhaps you can cite chapter and verse here??
3. I’d like to point out an article in this Sunday’s N.Y. Times, page 33, where a young black man on Staten Island was beaten with a baseball bat by two thugs who now face charges of hate crime assault and criminal possession of a weapon.
Yours in Jesus,
OldTimeLefty
You strive to outdo yourself.
1. Resist clarity if you must.
2. I never said there was a proscription, just that there’s no requirement.
3. Noted. We humans can make it an ugly world, indeed.
Justin
1. You say “above politics” and don’t mean it and somehow throw it back on me.
2. Absolutely, government has a requirement to aid the poor and downtrodden. Do you deny that Jesus’ message is for the people and that government is made up of people? – a preposterous proposition.
3. I mentioned the story from the Times to point out that it never found its way into one of your blogs. You are as fair and balanced as Fox news, which is to say not at all.
4. Your views on theology can best be expressed with a coloring book and crayons.
OTL
1. You’re being silly. I used the word “above” and then clarified the sense in which I meant it. Just because you cling to the sense that you’d have preferred doesn’t mean I’ve contradicted myself.
2. All human institutions are made up of people; that doesn’t mean that all human institutions are well suited to every human endeavor. Is there no separation of Church and State in your world?
3. I put up roughly four posts a day based on what information comes across my desk. We never claimed to be a comprehensive source of all news worth knowing. (And from the studies that I’ve seen, Fox was by far the least biased network during the recent election cycle.)
4. Oh goody. Now we’re adding numbers to accommodate asserted insults. Well, fine then:
5. Your theology is the avalanche caused by a whisper of evil.
OTL,
If you’ve nothing new to add to the discussion please refrain from inanely repeating yourself like a tired old man.
To try to get this thread back on track…
Not to excuse any possible harm to the old lady here, but methinks she knew precisely what she was doing when she walked into that group. She was trying to create a photo or video op that her side could exploit, whether she emerged unhurt or not.
Her family should’ve been looking out for her (unless they put her up to it). If my mother wanted to do that, I’d tell her she could make her views known without the political equivalent of stage-diving into the mosh pit at a concert.