I Don’t Think That Word Means What They Think it Means

Via The Lookout:  Church where toddler’s anti-gay song was filmed: We don’t condone hate.

I am sorry, when someone teaches a small child to sing “ain’t no homo going to heaven” and then have it sing it to the congregation, which then cheers and claps after it is sung, you are fomenting prejudice and, yes, hatred. 

Further, from a Christian point of view, what would be the justification for cheering for someone’s damnation?

FILED UNDER: Quick Takes, Religion, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. MarkedMan says:

    Steven, I agree of course, but you are shooting fish in a barrel here…

  2. Murray says:

    I always found it very creepy to have children publicly recite or sing texts they don’t understand.

    Doing it with hate messages is downright despicable.

  3. G.A. says:

    Further, from a Christian point of view, what would be the justification for cheering for someone’s damnation?

    There is none…

  4. Phillip says:

    Further, from a Christian point of view, what would be the justification for cheering for someone’s damnation?

    From the Christian point-of-view, it represents the Pharisee and their preference for the law (“the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life).

  5. TonyW says:

    Even if you agree with them, and I don’t, it’s much more satisfying to point to the sins of another than your own.

    Problem is that you can’t abhor homosexuality without taking everything else in Leviticus in the same light.

  6. Bennett says:

    @TonyW: I’ve always heard this as “It’s easy to attack those who are tempted by a sin which you are not tempted by,”

  7. mattb says:

    Totally off topic test:
    @jukeboxgrad

  8. mattb says:

    Second test:
    @jukeboxgrad

  9. al-Ameda says:

    I have to admit, this incident makes me feel more comfortable and satisfied as a “lapsed Catholic.” Just knowing that there are millions of people out there who are potentially “lapsed Protestants” gives me much hope for the future.

  10. mattb says:

    @TonyW:

    Problem is that you can’t abhor homosexuality without taking everything else in Leviticus in the same light.

    As demonstrated in a different recent thread* here, this isn’t necessarily true.

    It’s more accurate to say, that if you are at all using Leviticus to justify an abhoration of Homosexuality, then you need to follow the rest of Leviticus (or you’re not being either spiritually or intellectually consistent).

    * – https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-american-taliban-at-least-in-terms-of-rhetoric/

  11. Phillip says:

    If you adhere to any part of Leviticus for reasons of law (i.e. right/wrong, black/white) you’ve rejected the New covenant in favor of the old.

    It still stones me to my very core how many christians are obsessed with Old Testament law.