Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

The New Look of Conservative Christian Values

Timothy Kincaid

May 1st, 2009

Many in the world of anti-gay conservative Christianity have praised Miss California, Carrie Prejean, as having courage, belief, convictions and Christian values.

Maggie Gallagher: Her example resonates, especially to many young Americans, because she chose to stand for truth rather than surrender her core values.

Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins: Prejean’s Christian beliefs were no secret to the organization; she quotes a biblical passage in her official bio on the Miss California USA website, citing Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” as a daily source of inspiration.

American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon: What I was most impressed with was Miss California’s courage, as she knew her answer could very well cost her the opportunity to fulfill her dream to be Miss USA. But she went ahead and expressed her convictions.

Carrie Prejean: We have to be strong and true to our faith and our beliefs.

Carrie has become the poster girl for Christianity – or at least the anti-gay variety. And this pictorial from the center fold of B!isss Magazine must be the new look of Conservative Christian values:

Conservative Christian Values

I hope that some Christians will recognize the irrationality of rushing to embrace anyone, no matter who, so long as they espouse an anti-gay agenda. It’s time that conservative Christians do some soul searching and distinguish between a principled position based on their theological understanding of scripture and a knee-jerk homophobic endorsement of anything anti-gay.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

John
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

For all her conservative ranting, someone should straight up ask her if she is a virgin. If she isn’t a virgin, how does that sqare with all this holier than thou garbage about gay marriage.

David C.
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

What’s next, an “Anti-gay Crusaders Calendar” full of buxom beauties quoting scripture?

Give me a break.

Candace
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

Homosexuality isn’t a choice, Carrie….. but the last I checked, dressing in a sexually provactive way and tempting the men (and lots of women, don’t kid yourself) in all those traditional marriages to sin through lusting, well, that’s a choice.

And it’s a particularly bad choice for someone who has agreed to be the voice for christian morality.

If you were really moral, Carrie, you wouldn’t appear in public while dressed like a Craigslist hooker.

So until your walk matches your talk, why don’t you just shut the hell up and not add “hypocrit” to the list of your own personal shortcomings that you seem to be overlooking in the rush to give reallyreally bad interviews to all the people your bossman pastor is hooking you up with?

Bruno
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

The woman walked into this mess…perhaps Perez invited her down that road but she drove down it willingly. And now we maybe see why NOM is rolling back her spokespersonship. Boob jobs, salacious photo spreads…this isn’t exactly Mother Theresa here.

Bruno
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

Carrie Prejean had the public on her side, even MANY in the LGBT community who feel Perez is a dramatic bully. But she got harangued into this crap and is now paying the price. I feel partially sorry for her, but I also think she deserves what she’s gonna be getting in the next few weeks before she becomes irrelevant again.

Pomo
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

um not to mention that she got a BOOB JOB. And its a perfectly “acceptable” thing for a good christian to do. Never mind that its a vain attempt to look better or that the money could be spent on actually helping someone.

When I used to teach in a Christian school I was always amazed at the things the “christian” parents would do or say and then were so quick to turn around and condemn the homosexual…

Miss California thinks that gays should, like, have some rights, you know? » YoGoG.com
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

[…] also known as 2M4M, are now distancing themselves from her. Maybe they didn’t like her centerfold pic. Or maybe she wasn’t willing to buy in to the whole “violent overthrow of the […]

Jim Burroway
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

Oh dear me. It looks like her top lost all of its chastity buttons.

Tony Perkins likes that she quotes scripture: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Christ may strengthen her, but it’s her plastic surgeon who makes her so perky.

Mark in Colorado
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

I thought this site was a gay oriented Web site?! Sorry, I forgot, most of you still like this stuff. I keep forgetting. We’re not all really gay. Mea culpa or my bad, depending on your generation.

Candace
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

Hmmmmm…… in Jim’s link Ms. Prejean seems to have lost enough weight from the first pic to the second to prompt concerns of having an eating disorder, but her boobies didn’t shrink with the rest of her– they got BIGGER!!!!

This is definitely a miracle, just like the sun revolving around the earth in the Old Testament.

Glory Hallelujah.

Elise
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

I wish you wouldn’t keep posting these cheesecake pictures of Ms. Prejean. Every time I catch a glimpse of them I think “Wow, who’s that girl? She’s hot!” And then I die a little inside when I find out.

Jim Burroway
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

Believe me, I wish we didn’t keep posting these cheescake pictures either.

For some reason though, male homophobes tend not to be so hot.

The Lauderdale
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

“I thought this site was a gay oriented Web site?! Sorry, I forgot, most of you still like this stuff. I keep forgetting. We’re not all really gay. Mea culpa or my bad, depending on your generation.”

Because all gay people are men.

Percol8r
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

You can get your hair done. You can have cosmetic surgery. You can buy new boobs. But if what’s inside is deficient, you’ll always be ugly.

I used to think in our society this was just simply hopeful conjecture. I’m so happy we have Miss California’s example to show us it’s accurate.

JJQR
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

Do you BTB guys really how silly you look when, if one scrolls down, all one sees is post after post on Carrie Prejean ? Grow up, guys. This story was irrelevant two days after the contest.

Priya Lynn
May 1st, 2009 | LINK

JJQR Prejean has been all over the media pushing bigotry. It needs to be addressed.

Bruno
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Jim: I have a Republicrush on Senator Paul Ryan. He’s got a sexy 0% rating from the HRC :)

Buffy
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Let’s face it. RRRW Christianity is predominantly about preaching anti-gay, anti-choice propaganda. They don’t care about anything in the Bible outside of the Clobber Verses and “Thou shalt not kill” only applies to fetuses. The Bible in any form is a weapon to be used against others, not applied to their own lives. They’re hypocrites of the highest order.

palerobber
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

btw, is she even married?

no? then what the hell does *she* know about it?

Emily K
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Hey guys, I set up an organization called the National Organization for Mammary Enhancement to make fun of NOM. You can visit us at Jugs4Jesus.org. Also, please see my parody of the NOM ad with Carrie in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3omL6kCa3I

David C.
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Believe me, I wish we didn’t keep posting these cheescake pictures either.—Jim Burroway

So, if the NOM and RRW Christian recruitment of would-be beauty queens continues, should we expect a Swimsuit Issue of Box Turtle Bulletin?

George
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Do you BTB guys really how silly you look when, if one scrolls down, all one sees is post after post on Carrie Prejean ? Grow up, guys. This story was irrelevant two days after the contest.

Baloney (is that you, Peter L.?). It’s relevant, and genuinely important, because of how it very keenly exposes hypocrisy.

Carrie Prejean and her not-God-given body and come-boink-me pictures and televised bikini-strutting are a gift to the marriage equality movement. Ms. Prejean’s porny boob job and porny T&A poses have no doubt created lust in thousands of married heterosexual men who have seen her, promoting the breaking of marriage vows and the breaking up of families.

The hypocrisy could hardly be greater; and the not very sharp or articulate (but visually attractive) Ms. Prejean points up delightfully well the thoughtlessness of the “marriage is between a man and a woman” crowd.

Coverage of Ms. Prejean, and NOM’s antics, will get more and more people to think a little more deeply about their values, and what matters.

Keep the cheesecake coming.

Emily
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Ms. Carrie Prejean, I’m a lesbian, and even I wouldn’t do you. In the words of Sir Mix Alot, “Silicone parts are made for toys.”

Emily
May 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Having her as spokeperson for the marriage movement, is like having Rush Limbaugh as the spokesperson of the Republican party.

Candace
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

What I want to know is what kind of PASTOR does this girl have, who obviously approves of her wearing the hooker outfits and letting it all hang out in public. Did he take a magic marker and just scribble over all the bible verses about women dressing modestly?

1 Timothy 2:9-10 NIV

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Yeah, let’s totally ignore those verses, carrie, and spend a little more time on mistranslating verses that we think are about homosexuality.

Do as we say, America, not as we do.

Can anyone say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-S ?

hazemyth
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Uhm… Has anyone noticed the ads on BTB from NOM claiming “Gay marriage activists want to silence the opposition,” and questioning, “Is supporting marraige bigotry?” What gives here?

Jason D
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Haze,
as with other blogs, BTB probably has little control over what ads appear. I’m sure they can write their advertisers (looks like google) and request certain ones removed – but if it’s anything like Jeremy Hooper’s set up at GoodAsYou – it’s futile.

On the upside, if you see NOM ads on BTB, or any other anti-gay ads on BTB or any other gay-friendly Blog – CLICK ON THEM, and let the new page load.
Bloggers get $$$ from people clicking on ads, effectively NOM would be giving money to BTB — and that’s certainly worth it.

Susan
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

There are very very beautiful people. A few. It’s a very rare quality.

And there are very very smart people. Again, a very few. That’s rare too.

The likelihood of finding one individual who has both of these very rare qualities is vanishingly small.

Miss Prejean is not, apparently, one of this last very select group.

Richard W. Fitch
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Susan — nor does she come even close to being within seeing distance of either of the sub-groups. In truth, her contribution is to help make the average attainable by most of us.

hazemyth
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Hehe, maybe that’s the route I should have gone, Jason D. I figured it was something random like that. I contacted the editor and they’ve taken measures to filter NOM from their ad content.

Buffy
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

WRT the Google ads:

For text ads admins can block specific ads as they desire. My wife and I do it all the time on our blogs as we refuse to allow ads from organizations like NOM, AFA and the like to show up. (She’ll be glad to walk interested parties through the process)

Banner/graphics ads, unfortunately, are nearly impossible to block on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly we’ve chosen to opt out of them completely, particularly after seeing a few for “Yes on 8″ and “Song of the South” show up on our blogs. Ugh.

Nelson G.
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Guess what, Buffy? An ad for NOM is appearing on LavenderLiberal.com too.

I sent you an e-mail with the screenshot.

inez t
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

There are more pressing issues in the world than gay marriage.

Hopefully, in 10 years, this will be a non-issue.

Brieuse
May 3rd, 2009 | LINK

They didn’t ask her in the competition what she thought about gay marriage with regards to her religious convictions.

They asked her what she thought about what her opinion was on various states’ decisions to endorse the rights of people to marry those they love.

She decided to blanket condemm all gay people and not answer the question.

Heretic Zero
May 4th, 2009 | LINK

One more holier than thou attitude. She is heading into the realm of Anita Bryant, and we all know how long that career lasted! Go for it. The sooner she gets her ass handed to her in a libel case the better. If homosexuality is a choice then so is heterosexuality.

ravenbiker
May 4th, 2009 | LINK

What I find interesting through reading all the blogs I can fit into my daily routine, I find this one the only one who directly qoute others and their research and opinions. This blog enthusiastically has links to their sources whereas the others seem to spout their own vitriol randomly. Thanks Box Turtle for being the beacon of truth.

Their is one thing I would like to know, however: How exactly will same-sex marriage have dire consequenses in a pluralistic society? Box Turtle bloggers, any thoughts?

Veritas
May 5th, 2009 | LINK

Homosexuality may or may not be a choice. I suppose it depends on the individual person and the circumstances of his life. It certainly seems that in some cases it is a choice. However, it cannot be controverted that homosexual sexual activity is a choice, and as it always outside of a true marriage, it is objectively sinful.

Timothy Kincaid
May 5th, 2009 | LINK

No, Veritas,

there is nothing whatsoever in any way to support the idea that same-sex attractions are the “choice” of the person experiencing them. Not in “some cases”, not in any cases.

Further, it most certainly can be controverted that homosexual sexual activity is in all instances outside a “true marriage” or objectively sinful. Many faith leaders controvert that claim on a daily basis.

So basically, nothing you said is supported by fact. But thank you for joining the conversation. I encourage you to stick around and do some more listening before you state your opinion. And when you do state your opinion please be prepared to substantiate any facts that you claim.

Veritas
May 5th, 2009 | LINK

Your welcome, Timothy. Yours was a most tempered response. I think that our disagreement is in some respect in our most fundamental principles, and those are the most difficult to agree on sometimes. As for those faith leaders you speak of, they do disagree, don’t they? My faith is based on the Rock and is apostolic. It wasn’t invented by some dissenter.

Ben in Oakland
May 5th, 2009 | LINK

“My faith is based on the Rock and is apostolic. It wasn’t invented by some dissenter.”

I think you should read a bit about the history of Christianity. It in itself was invented by a dissenter by the name of Paul. It has been continually re-invented by other dissenters, most prominently, Martin Luther. But there were many before him, and many after. Here is an interesting link on the Baptists, for example.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/05/sbc-president-albert-mohler-abandons-baptist-tradition/

and then, here’s another idea about “invention”. A growing number of religionists– not a majority, but a sizable minority– are coming to the conclusion that the traditional “beliefs” about G’s will and homosexuality are yet another in a long sad line of mistaken ideas that have been attributed to G and not to the religionists who have forever remolded G in their own image. “Good” Christians used to burn witches with exactly the same moral certainty (and assumption of superiority) that they understood and did G’s will with which they now attack gay people. How many people were tortured and murdered for that slight mis-apprehension of G’s will? 2000 years of G-sanctioned anti-Semitism (both Jew and Arab) led to the murder of 6 million people, and the mess and danger to the WHOLE WORLD that is the middle east today. Slavery and segregation have certainly been church-and-bible supported, but only an unashamed racist would admit it today.

Don’t tell me that this is different. It’s not. You just have no historical lens to look at your current position with. You’ve inherited it, very much like racial segregationists inherited their rock-solid certainty about G’s will. Yet another thing that turned out not to be true, though some will cling to it fiercely until they die. Just like Islamists are in full possession of the full truth– yet another group of dissenters.

I suspect that these people who are obsessed with homosexuality to the exclusion of all other concerns constitute a very small, but powerful group of religionists. I also suspect that the vast majority of religionists frankly don’t care, and will care only if the former group makes them afraid enough, or excites enough dormant prejudice, to get them to act. And since there is so much money and power at stake– something that almost always seems to attract some religionists– you can bet the incitement will be there. “Render unto Caesar” is yet another inconvenient commandment that is cheerfully ignored. Just like the commandment against divorce.

Just like the commandment “Judge not lest ye be judged”. There’s a good one that good Christians frequently dissent from. how about John 3:17: whoopsie.

But the whole idea that being gay and living a gay life is somehow a sin, especially as it is portrayed as the WORST sin, especially displeasing to G, is yet another matter of opinion. So many people are willing to state “The Bible says THIS about homosexuality.” with no biblical or even extra-biblical justification for it. This is because they look at the “relevant” (they are not) biblical passages only through the filters of “these are about homosexuality”, “these are about homosexuality as we understand it today”, “these are clear condemnations”, “we have always been told that these passages refer to homosexuality and therefore it must be true”, and worst of all, “we claim expertise and authority in this matter because we speak for G.”

Funny about that, because if you don’t make those assumptions, if you apply a little bit of logic and perception, and especially, look at what is there is terms of scholarship, a vastly different picture appears. The bible may or may not condemn some aspects of gay sex. It is amazing to me how unclear G manages to be on the subject, when he is so clear on so many other subjects. So coy: “sleep the sleep of a woman” (literally from Leviticus– do you know what it means? I don’t, and neither does anyone else.) to “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV on words we don’t know the meaning of. Luther thought it had to do with masturbation, but what did he know?)

If it were as important to G as it is to you, he would have said: “two men or two women together shall not have sex in and way, shape, or form. They will not be naked together and touching each others’ skin. They certainly will not be bumping nasties. Penis into vagina, that’s it. And you shouldn’t enjoy it too much.”

Now, that is clarity befitting the Creator of the Universe. “Sleep the sleep of a woman”? Your guess is as good as mine. G managed to be pretty clear about governing heterosexual behavior. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” That’s clear, but the opposition to adultery is usually limited to “Tsk Tsk”, not “let’s pass constitutional amendments to make sure your family isn’t recognized as one and your kids don’t get health insurance.”

Perhaps G was just embarrassed to talk about homosexuality, so he couldn’t be clear on it.

you wrote:”it cannot be controverted that homosexual sexual activity is a choice, and as it always outside of a true marriage, it is objectively sinful.

Let’s see. i was married by a Christian minister. The state of california, at least for the time being, recognizes my marriage. So in some snese– clearly not yours– i have a true marriage, as i would in a number of states and a number of countries.

Personally, I think it is a far greater sin to assume that G could be caught between the covers of a book, and that somehow, you have access to his mind.

Veritas
May 5th, 2009 | LINK

Ben in Oakland – A “legal” marriage is not necessarily a true marriage. It is like slavery in the US – the laws permitted slavery, but slavery is clearly immoral, and thus the laws permitting slavery were not true laws at all. Either you are going to acknowledge that there is a law according to the nature of things, or you are going to be a legal positivist which leads to the conclusion that slavery is okay, or abortion on demand is okay, or gay marriage is okay, or discrimination against and imprisonment of people of Catholic or Mormon faith for speaking and living their beliefs is okay simply because the laws say it is.

Timothy Kincaid
May 5th, 2009 | LINK

Veritas,

You list things that you think are immoral due to the “nature of things”.

I find discrimination against gay persons to be as immoral as those things which you list. Let’s consider from a natural perspective (not the Pope’s version of Natural Law).

Some persons are same-sex attracted. This is not something they select nor, from all present evidence, something they can change. Thus it is evident that same-sex attraction is their natural state.

Further, we see that same-sex attraction, in and of itself, does not have negative consequences. It is neither a handicap nor a burden except to the extent that external forces make it so.

Nor does a marriage between two same-sex attracted persons have negative consequences on the parties. In fact, it is quite evident that a committed monogamous relationship supported by the community is very much a benefit to the two same-sex attracted persons.

It honors their individuality, it respects their free will, it enhances their lives and enriches the lives of those who know them.

In fact, the only real objection to the marriage of two same-sex attracted persons comes from those who, for religious reasons of their own, seek to interfere. The only negative aspect of same-sex marriage is completely external and completely unnatural.

Ben in Oakland
May 5th, 2009 | LINK

” It is like slavery in the US – the laws permitted slavery, but slavery is clearly immoral, and thus the laws permitting slavery were not true laws at all.”

As I pointed out, you lack any kind of historical perspective. You are applying your modern perspective on it–dare I say you are inventing a dissention? Slavery was not just supported by the Constitution. It was supported for hundreds of years by large numbers of churches, a number of Christian nations (Spain, Portugal, Brazil, England, France, and the good old US of A) and large numbers of church-going individuals as G’s will. Likewise, the burning of witches. Likewise, the Inquisition. All OK according to the laws of G and man, so we were told.

I acknowledge that there is a law according to the nature of things. The laws of physics, chemistry, biology, you name it. But human laws are not natural laws in that sense. Natural is a word applied to them in an attempt to make them not what they clearly are– human inventions. Homophobia and prejudice and bigotry have no genetic basis, and are also not a part of natural law, but they are a part of nature. Human nature.

Timothy’s point is just that. There is no homosexual gene, true. But there is no heterosexual gene, either. This is where you are using “natural” to mean “this is what I think and it seems right to me.” It is natural to think that the world is flat, but it isn’t. Homosexuality is natural, and it has always existed in every culture and every time.

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn as heterosexuality, despite the testimony of tens of thousands– if not millions– of gay people, despite the simple logic of “who would choose this”, you believe that homosexuality is a choice. Your beliefs about us are more important than any amount of actual evidence– natural evidence.

You wrote: “Either you are going to acknowledge that there is a law according to the nature of things, or you are going to be a legal positivist which leads to the conclusion that slavery is okay, or abortion on demand is okay, or gay marriage is okay, or discrimination against and imprisonment of people of Catholic or Mormon faith for speaking and living their beliefs is okay simply because the laws say it is.”

This is a false dichotomy, irrelevant and illogical. I don’t have to be a religionist to know that slavery is wrong, or discrimination is wrong. I can be a perfectly moral human being without religion to tell me what is right and wrong. And as far as I can tell, if I relied on religion to tell me that, I would be most immoral indeed. In the immortal words of Mammy Yokum (and yes, I’m showing my age): “Good is better than evil because it’s nicer.’

Very little is black and white. Abortion is a good example here. I’m not fond of it. To me, the moral position is not to eliminate abortion, but to eliminate the need for it. Equally immoral is people bringing more people into the world when they neither want them nor can provide for them. Immoral is back alley abortions that occur because legal abortion is not available. Women pay the price. Immoral is spending literally billions of dollars to rob women of that choice, yet somehow never actually doing anything about abortion. The anti-abortion industry, like the ex-gay industry, is a major cash and power cow for the religious right. How many children died in Darfur while the Mormon church was fighting my civil marriage? how many children could have been fed and immunized for that money on an issue which has absolutely no effect on any Mormon’s ability to worship and believe as he chooses? How many abortions could have been avoided if the Religious right and the catholic church supported birth control? How many could have been avoided if these so called defenders of right said simply, and put up the money for it: “don’t have an abortion. We’ll take care of you and your medical expenses, and make sure your baby is adopted into a loving home. except not the gay ones, of course. Those children are better of as products of abortion.”

Do you really want to talk about immorality? I don’t think you have a moral leg to stand on.

Here’s some natural law, some morality for you, and you can decide which is worse. I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve. What about the immorality of what is done to gay people every day in many parts of the world to satisfy that belief?

As i wrote earlier: “Homophobia and prejudice and bigotry have no genetic basis, and are also not a part of natural law, but they are a part of nature. Human nature.”

That doesn’t make them right. It just makes them sad.

Kristen
March 2nd, 2010 | LINK

I think it’s great that she stood up for her beliefs, but I have to agree that there is nothing virtuous about posing like this in a bikini. It negates her Christian values and if she takes her faith seriously she should put some clothes on.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.