The hubris and arrogance of the far right fringe knows no bounds.
In an effort to lower the temperature of the culture wars, a covenant was created for prominent preachers that vowed to model civility in public discourse and agreed to disagree respectfully “without falsely impugning the other’s motives, attacking the other’ character, or questioning the other’s faith.”
More than 100 Christian leaders from a wide range of theological and political backgrounds signed the covenant. However, Dr. George O. Wood, (pictured) general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, asked that his name be removed from “A Covenant for Civility,” which was released in March.
“I do not want my name or the Assemblies of God to be associated with persons who claim to be in the Body of Christ yet reject the moral teachings of Scripture,” Wood told freelance writer and conservative Christian blogger John Lanagan.
Apparently, Wood was under the impression that the document would be committed to “by fellow evangelicals.” He was angered because some of the signatories included Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christianity; Lillian Daniel, senior minister of a First Congregational Church which is pro-gay; and Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, director of Disciples Justice Action Network which is pro-choice.
“The problem is the tent that has grown so large on the signatures of this that are including people who are supportive of gay marriage and abortion rights,” Juleen Turnage, spokeswoman for the Assemblies of God told Religion News Service.”He (Wood) just felt that he could not become a part of a large tent.”
Isn’t the point of a Covenant for Civility to treat those with whom we disagree with dignity and respect? What is the point of creating such a document for people who are already on the same page?
The self-serving and self-righteous message sent by wood is unmistakable: If you agree with me and come into our shrinking tent we love you. If you are not with us, you are against us and the gloves are off.
What a wonderful message for the head of this “family values” denomination to send to impressionable children. Play the game my way or I’ll take my toys (and your toys) and go home!
Actually this movement has nothing to do with treating others with civility. Calling these people on their bigotry, and saying publicly that they are in fact bigots must be hurting them personally, professionally (in terms of new people joining them) or financially. But somehow it must be hurting them.
Even before Prop 8, you would hear these anti-gay biogts complain about being called bigots. They take away our rights and complain that gay people aren’t being “civil.” I would never sign one of these pledges, and I urge gay people not to hesitate to call people on their bigotry. If it wasn’t bothering them or having some effect, they wouldn’t be making such a big deal about it.
These so-called pledges by the practitioners of bigotry to be civil is nothing more than an attempt to say “Hey, we are being nice. So why don’t you mean old homosexuals start behaving and stop calling us mean names.”
You say “Isn’t the point of a Covenant for Civility to treat those with whom we disagree with dignity and respect?” Then you say
“The self-serving and self-righteous message sent by wood is unmistakable: If you agree with me and come into our shrinking tent we love you. If you are not with us, you are against us and the gloves are off”
Clearly you have no respect nor sense of dignity toward this one who disagrees with you. Dismissing those who disagree with you as self-righteous is more than obvious self-righteousness on your part.
Yeah, but we didn’t sign the “Covenant for Civility.”
This douchenozzle did.
Craig, you can’t possibly be serious, can you?
Even if Wayne had joined in on the Covenant for Civility, being civil doesn’t disallow you from pointing out when someone is blatantly missing the point.
Clearly, by dismissing Wayne’s (purported) self-righteousness as self-righteous, you make obvious the self-righteousness on your part. This ridiculousness can be taken as far as it needs to.
Wayne Besen’s description of the message was completely respectful. (Evan’s “douchenozzle” comment, not so much.)
Craig seems to equate disagreement with disrespect, and he seems to believe that pro-equality people cannot be dignified unless they show deference toward bigots and agree with them.
True civility, however, requires that plain truths be spoken without weasel words or prevarication. It is civil to call bigoted behavior what it is, and it’s also civil to call someone’s statements “lies” when that someone is intentionally stating untruths.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
big¬?ot (bƒ?g’…ôt)
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
lie1‚ÄÇ ‚ÄÇ[lahy] Show IPA noun, verb,lied, ly¬?ing.
–noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
Of course I’ll be civil. After all, I am a Christian and we are a civil people… Oh, wait a minute! You mean civil to people I DON’T AGREE WITH?!? Are you insane?
God doesn’t call us to be civil to those folk who are WRONG!! Jesus said they’d know we are his disciples because we STOOD for the TRUTH.. oh, maybe I got that wrong.
Oh, wait, I got it… He said to love your ally… ally? wait that doesn’t sound right either.
Oh, yeah! Love the sinner hate the sin. See as long as I hate the sin, I can be uncivil to the sinner. See, I win.
Huh? What do you mean that isn’t in the Bible? I’m sure I was taught that at Liberty.