ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Letter: Traditional ugliness of right-wing Christianity was not hard to find

Lois Undseth's column published Sept. 24th assailing Jane Ahlin, was, on its surface, well-written and polite; but when one digs deeper, the traditional ugliness of right-wing Christianity is not hard to find.

Lois Undseth's column published Sept. 24th assailing Jane Ahlin, was, on its surface, well-written and polite; but when one digs deeper, the traditional ugliness of right-wing Christianity is not hard to find.

As to her first point, one would think the hypocrisy of voting for Der Gropenfuhrer over "the alternative" (Clinton) would be self-evident, as it suggests a ballot of only two candidates. Further, to imply that a vote for anyone other than Trumplethinskin would result in a Clinton victory is an oversimplification, at best; a type of circular argument that takes a debatable outcome and treats it as irrevocable truth.

Undseth's second point is also an untruth; everyone who votes has political power on their mind; why would she vote for Drumpf, if not to deny political power to those she disagrees with? Perhaps she has no interest in it, but all the right-wing Christian leaders (most of whom are men) do; political power, even if they do not practice it in a direct fashion themselves as elected representatives, is foremost in their minds.

And her Christian persecution complex, highlighted by the Tim Gill comments, show, at best, a lack of context of the comment, as well as a reliance on the right-wing media, which two months ago launched a blitz about it, wherein the favorite phrase across all such entities read "punishing Christians." (Undseth also ignores the efforts of the Koch brothers to advance their right-wing agenda, part of which includes supporting right-wing Christians.)

In reality, Gill uses his money to combat all those who are opposed to equal treatment of the LGBTQ community: politicians, lawyers, activists, people of faith, people of no faith. Some of the most effective-and some would say, brutal-efforts by Gill targeted Democrats. What Undseth also fails to mention is that a number of leaders of faith communities support Gill's efforts to prevent LGBTQ discrimination. The Rev. Troy Mendez of Phoenix, Ariz., is quoted as saying: "From a Christian perspective, we're here to build up the kingdom of God. With inclusion, we are [doing that]." In terms of the religious freedom bills (to discriminate against LGBTQ people) introduced in many states, Undseth might take a cue from Republican Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia, who vetoed such a bill in the spring of 2016.

ADVERTISEMENT

Here is part of his veto statement: "I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia of which my family and I are a part of for all of our lives . . . Our people work side-by-side without regard to the color of our skin, or the religion we adhere to. We are working to make life better for our families and our communities. That is the character of Georgia. I intend to do my part to keep it that way." That quote is a far cry from Undseth's gross and false analogy of the KKK asking a black man (notice not a woman) to cater a luncheon, as her example differs in important aspects from businesses who would deny services based on false interpretations of faith. It is doubtful any LGBTQ person would be interested in dressing up in white sheets and face masks to engage in burning crosses on the property of such a Christian business, or in hanging such a Christian business person to the nearest tree.

And as to those Christians who would prefer to not serve LGBTQ clients, a simple but effective answer to those seeking such services would be to say that the dates in question are already filled. To lie is a sin, of course, but so is to discriminate; which is the greater of the two? But rather than create this type of dilemma for themselves, such right-wing Christians as Undseth choose to set themselves up for modern-day martyrdom vis-a-vis issues around sex. To equate gender confusion with sexual preference is a common sin among the religious right; perhaps Undseth should read about small children who from a young age identify with the sex opposite of what their physical body displays. Believing that a woman who identifies as a woman being sexually attracted to other women, is the same as a person born with female physical characteristics identifying as a man, shows little-to-no understanding of either gender or sexuality. The bottom line to all of this, of course, is the difference of the two sides of this debate. Contrary to what she writes about tolerance and acceptance, the goal of people like Undseth is to force all people into adhering to their point-of-view on all matters. Relative to the LGBTQ issues Undseth concentrates on in her diatribe, the Christian right believes everyone should be forced to accept that conservative Christians can discriminate against whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish. The other side believes such acts are wrong; it's as simple as that.

What To Read Next
'Coal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Without proper management, these contaminants can pollute waterways, ground water, drinking water, and the air.'
From migrant caravans to Hunter Biden's laptop to gay M&Ms to gas stoves, Republicans have something new to stew over every day
As Gov. Burgum, others rattle their sabers, Minnesota Democrats believe new law doesn't violate U.S. Constitution
North Dakota's judges rank near the bottom in pay and salaries aren't enough to attrack lawyers from private practice to serve on the bench.