Add new comment

I listened to your guest today and wanted to believe that perhaps there was room for finding some sort of common ground with Evangelical conservative Christians and those of us who believe in a tolerant secular human world, especially on the topic of sexual orientation. Perhaps less shouting would help. However, I read the letter from the Southern Baptist minister, and I suspect that there is a falsity in the welcoming and imploring tone of your guest. In the letter (which I understand was not written by your guest) there was an appeal somewhat hidden within the language that conservative Christians should not single out homosexuals as a special kind of sinner. Although perhaps that would be a step toward finding a Christian tolerance, it is still telling another human being that they are morally wrong for being who they are. Both the letter and your guest fail to address the fact that Evangelicals and other Christians, most who claim to be fundamentalist readers of the Bible, still choose which of any litany of sins listed in the Bible to condemn and which to ignore. Slavery is recognized in the Bible and the Bible was used to support the American institution of slavery until Americans finally reached a consensus that support of slavery was truly evil. So while more "tolerant" Evangelicals want to suggest that we be civil, they still want to define homosexuality as a sin and therefore unworthy of (and in fact dangerous to) equal protection of the law under the US Constitution. I fear that your guest wants those of us who do understand that in America, and in our own spirituality, GLBT Americans have equal rights, to be tolerant of what is at its very heart an intolerant position of Evangelical Christianity. How is this different from asking 19th century abolitionists to allow Christians, under what even today's Evangelical conservative Christian fundamentalists agree was a false view of Christianity, to "own" slaves. I appreciated the quote involving false gods and false devils. But in the name of tolerance, those of us who truly believe in human liberation and human rights for all, must be cautious of being tolerant of those who stand against those rights and that liberation. I was taught in my Sunday School that the devil does not always appear as a red horned monster but more often appears as a smooth talking seducer. In my spirituality, the sin is to fight, or talk, or seduce, against human liberation and human rights. I can be somewhat civil to persons such as your guest who are fellow citizens, but I cannot find common ground for to do so is to compromise other people to his faith's condemnation - whether quiet or angry, condemnation just the same - and to his faith's efforts to deny in our secular civil society rights to GLBT American citizens. Perhaps he can succeed in toning down the loud, hateful lunatic fringe within his religion, e.g. Fred Phelps, and hope that this is where he directs his efforts. But ultimately, he shares Reverend Phelps beliefs that homosexuality is a sin of great enough magnitude to oppose equal protection of the law to my fellow citizens who are GLBT. Peter Barr You may publish my unedited comments with my name (but only unedited.)