“Several days ago, just one block from my home in Vancouver, a group of thugs attacked a gay man, knocking him unconscious and breaking his jaw in three places. He was subjected to this barbarism not for something he had done, but because of who he is. Social conservatives see nothing wrong with this type of violence, as evidenced by their steadfast opposition to making attacks motivated by sexual orientation hate crimes under the law.”

Hugh Vincelette sounds like a malicious, bitter and hate-filled thug. And his bitterness has caused him to throw elementary logic to the wind. As a matter of simple logic, it does not follow that opposition to “hate crime” law means that a person sees nothing wrong with assault against anybody, including homosexuals.

It’s fundamental to broad conservative thought – not just social conservatism – that “hate crime” laws are tyrannical in nature and incompatible with a free society. This is, at least in part, because “hate crime” laws are “thought crime” laws. In terms of conservative analysis, it’s understood that attempts to encroach on freedom of conscience are an assault on the very foundation of a free and democratic society. In terms of Christian analysis, “hate crime” laws are idolatrous because they are attempts to encroach on divine territory by claiming the power to read people’s minds and to know what’s in their hearts.

Christians – and all other decent people – support laws against assault. And we have laws against assault. And it’s because of those laws against assault that police are involved in this case, arresting and charging the alleged perpetrators of the assault in question.

Is Mr. Vincelette a sex worship cultist? Does he hate the fundamental democratic principle of equality before the law such that he wants to see special laws and special protections for certain people such as those who engage in homosexual sex, or those who self-identify as homosexual?

If he does, that’s fine. Everyone has the right to support tyrannical ideas and ruthless demagogic ideology. But I hope that if he ever ran for office, he would be soundly defeated by freedom-loving voters.

Mr. Vincelette also believes in fairytales because the notion that homosexuality is fundamental to a person’s identity seems key to his argument – he emphasises that the victim of the assault was attacked because of “who he is,” not because of “something he had done.” Many “armchair” homosexualists have adopted the media-marketing-message that homosexuality is a matter of identity despite the lack of scientific evidence to back up this claim. Secular humanists are allowed their religion, but I’m surprised that these secular humanist fundamentalists aren’t embarrassed to voice their blind faith convictions about homosexuality in the face of scientific evidence. It certainly doesn’t contribute to the credibility of the secular humanist religion.

But perhaps more to the point, the identity politics he appeals to are irrelevant. The distinction he makes about who a person is over what he has done is irrelevant to his point. Of course he doesn’t think so because he’s a product of his juvenile and superficial age. Sadly, however, a large number of Christians are also a product of this childish, heathen absurdity.

Almost everybody today wants to link their behaviour to their identity in order to avoid judgment and accountability. Everybody today seems to be a perpetual adolescent – stick a flavoured soother in their mouth and let them curl up with a game-boy or a reality show, and they’re happy. One could say a lot about this, but I will simply make one point. It was more than a decade ago when I read a report by conservative Jewish columnist Dennis Prager about homosexuality. He admitted to really struggling with the question of whether homosexuality was a choice or an aspect of albeit distorted human nature. But his conclusion was that, at the end of the day, it didn’t matter in terms of our moral assessment of homosexuality because the Torah declared it wrong, so it’s wrong. If only we saw that kind of theological clarity and moral maturity among more Christian leaders today.

Hugh Vincelette is a product of our fascistic secular humanist age. He thinks discriminatory “hate crime” legislation is superior to the principle of equality before the law. He believes that civil magistrates have the right and responsibility to exercise divine prerogative by pretending they can read people’s minds. He accepts the blind faith notion that homosexuality is innate rather than a matter of choice. And he believes that he has the right to hate, smear and dishonestly caricature Christians. He prefers bitter, hateful slurs over responsible, adult, reasoned debate. In other words, he’s an intolerant bigot. That’s his prerogative, but with a growing number of people like this in Canadian society, Christians have growing reason to fear, both for their physical safety and their democratic freedoms.

If you want to better understand the mentality of these secular humanists and if you want to be better prepared to respond to their arguments and their lies, my book “No Sacred Ground,” is a great place to start. At only 100 pages, it is a quick read and an excellent primer on some of the key beliefs and arguments that are being used against us by officials in positions of influence as well as by ordinary Canadians throughout society.

Now, if we are talking about people taking leadership positions in the parish, that is an entirely different thing, and we are right to expect our leaders to be doing their best to set examples of what it is to live the Christian life.

Kate, yours as always so short and to the point.

ROFL Only in writing, Gerry, in person it is quite a different story!

I areciate your responses, Kate, yours as always so short and to the point. Warren, yours, as most times, expanded to at least explain where you are coming from.
Blame a fallen world ~ of course, and preach the Gospel ~ of course (BUT) should we just stop there and not say or do anything in defence of our stand against the rising tide of the GLBT lobby? I don’t really think so, it is in how we combat that the effectiveness comes. I know, I am a combatant and that is me, and I do, at times take a tougher stand than I should.
Let it be known that I feel we must love the sinner but not the sin.
I cannot stand by and watch someone pointing the fingers at those who are trying to love the sinners.
I have three very close relatives who are all involved in the Lesbian lifestyle. Do I hate them? Of course not, I love all three of them but I surely do not agree with or appreciate what they are doing. Two of them are militant, one more than the other, but there you have it…..I’ll still love them and others who are doing what they are doing but I will not back down in expressing my views and condemning the sin of the GLBT lifestyle.
Warren, you are correct, when we fail, we do deserve to have fingers pointed at us, but when we stand up to this attitude of the militant GLBT’s do we then deserve the fingers being pointed? I really don’t think so.

I think it is important for the Church to draw a clear distinction between how it responds to individuals and how it responds to the militant GLBT lobby who would like to see Christianity conformed to its own image (or eradicated altogether) and wants to dictate how all children should be educated. How individual Christians respond is also very important. Do we see our gay/lesbian neighbour as just another sinner created in the image of God who we are called to love and who needs to hear the good news; or do we react differently because of our suspicions concerning the actions of the GLBT lobby? To the extent that we fail in our individual responses, we deserve to have fingers pointed at us.