On the evangelical Protestant side are charismatic preachers “on fire for God power” who know how to whip people into a frenzy. And these preachers are often entrepreneurial religious businessmen, not just employees of an organization with its corporate headquarters thousands of miles away.

Catholics are a perfect example. I have family that go to church, their kids were confirmed, everywhere Catholic symbols, Advent Calendars, the easter palm leaves, all of it. But from day one they’ve all been accepting of my partner. My grandfather INSISTS on giving him a hug whenever we come to a family event. Nothing from Rome about gays seems to sway my family in the slightest. No one has ever attempted to shame us, or suggest we were doing anything remotely wrong.

So while the Catholic Church may say “NO! NO! NO!” Actual Catholics may say “Sure, why not?”

Conversely I’ve seen instances where a more progressive religious group has laypeople who feel their leaders are “too soft” on certain issues. Granted they tend to leave the group for something better, but not always.

The vast majority of christians haven’t read their bible let alone done any studying of theology. Its a red herring to say there is this sophisticated theology people have spent their lives studying, they are not at all like the typical christian who doesn’t have any such understanding. As far as the typical christian goes bumper sticker answers are about right on.

Theology is a tricky subject and one that requires far more time and effort than can be expressed here.

Just accept that the cartoon versions that non-believers have are about as accurate as the impressions about gay people that a 1950′s housewife in Iowa had. We know the difference between a drag queen, a transvestite, a transgender person, and a gay man, but she likely didn’t. And she didn’t even really have a starting point from which to begin to understand.

I’ll be discussing further my thoughts about hate and love and Christianity and I’ll address whether I think FRC (or others) are hate groups.

But for now, please just accept that – unless you are a seminarian or theologian – your understanding of various Christian differences may also have a bit lacking.

I fear that sounds condescending. Please don’t take it as such. It’s just that this is a topic that people dedicate their life to studying and far too often those who know almost nothing at all about the subject demand bumper sticker answers.

Perhaps it might be useful for someone to explain the difference between the theological underpinnings of the dominionist movement between the different anti-Gay actors such as Ms. Shrinav, Tony Perkins, the WCF, and Phelps.

To me I see them all (AFA, FRC, WBC, WCF) as dominionists, who wish to use their interpretation of the Bible to make public policy to deny Gay people basic (such as equal protection, etc.) citizenship. Perhaps you could help us see some of the nuances. Perhaps that’s because their output (public policy positions) appear to be exactly the same.

For example, Is it that they both think that Gay people should be criminalized, but FRC doesn’t celebrate the death penalty for Gays? Is it a question of degree of penalty?

Is it that they both believe that God’s law (as defined by them) should be the public policy of the land, but FRC doesn’t interpret the Old Testament the same way that Phelps does?

Where is the line between an obvious (to everyone) hate group like Phelps and Perkins? Is it because they harrass straight people too? Is it because they use stick porn? Is it because FRC doesn’t say that Matt Shepard is in Hell publically?

Phelps doesn’t bother to try to justify his policies with anything other than his interpretation the Bible. The FRC does (poorly).

Obviously Phelps is an unvarnished hate group. Is FRC? I think the SPLC got it right with them and with AFA.

FRC isn’t some broad based group, such as the Catholic Church. It exists primarily to ensure that public policy treats Gays with discrimination (with minor activity on the abortion front)

You are right, it is a serious charge levelled at the FRC.

Obviously, WBC is more extreme than FRC. But are they both hate groups? I’d argue yes. But I look forward to your comments.

Thanks

Tom

(And why does Alex care whether she’s fat or not?)

While “love the sinner, hate the sin” isn’t in the Bible, a little Googling suggests that it was originated by St. Augustine the Hippopotamus in the early 3rd century AD.

Augustine’s phrasing in Latin:

Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum

…actually means “With love/affection/esteem for human beings and hatred of sins,” and thus does not contain a specific exhortation to “love the sinner.” (Except insofar as Christian theology takes for granted that “humans” and “sinners” are essentially interchangeable terms!)

The familiar modern form of the phrase does indeed come from Gandhi, though it’s impossible to know for sure if Gandhi devised his version independently, or if he had heard Augustine’s quotation from a Christian source.

There are theological differences between WBC and FRC

Perhaps more to the point, FRC is officially a multi-faith group, and thus (in theory) doesn’t have a defining theology, even though its leadership may be overwhelmingly drawn from the ranks of Evangelical Protestants.

H. G. Wells. He said, “Moral indignation is just jealousy with a halo around it.”