Pride Rallies: Built to Resist Outside Influence
As a young boy growing up in Idaho Falls, I never could have conceived…
Ahem, sorry…
I never could have conceived of something
now known as a pride event occurring and supported publicly (including
on Christian radio). As I reflect and write this, many appear to be proceeding to or
from the event. The website reveals that it’s not just a quick rally or parade;
it’s a series of events.
Right now, I’m not going to
respond to whether such a thing is Christian or not. I'm not going to prove the waywardness of it from the Scriptures. In this event, it's not really about that. Most participants probably don’t care what Scripture says on
the subject; if they do, there would still be no amount of biblical exegesis
that would influence many of the pro-Pride crowd to change. These powerful
feelings, along with a predisposition to having them affirmed, means that a
series of Bible verses is unlikely to do much to sway somebody who is already very
steeped in this. For most, it is much easier to just reject any God or faith that
stands opposed to certain behaviors than to acknowledge and turn from these
forms of wrong or harmful behavior.
The system is set up so that you
and I cannot influence such a movement. The Idaho Falls Pride festival, and certainly
countless others, inoculates itself against dissenters—which is anybody who publicly
disagrees with what they are doing. Here is how they have forewarned Pride
attendees on their official event page:
“Zero
Engagement with Protesters: In the event of a protest, do not engage in
negative dialogue or debate. Debating only serves to reinforce their belief they
have a valid position. Our rights, freedom, dignity, and our lives are not
debatable…. Protesters want attention. Don’t give it to them. Learn to internalize
a total indifference to their presumed positions of authority” (idahofallspride.com).
Now, to pick apart the egregious brainwashing,
dis-education, and hypocrisy associated with this warning. As I do this, bear
in mind that the above statement is foolish regardless of the type of event it
is connected to. Imagine that there is a type of religious event, maybe one of
the worship events that they used to have in the same spot by the river. Maybe
there is a homeless drive that occurs in the same spot. Maybe the animal
shelter is in the same spot. Now reread the warning about protesters as if it
pertained to that event…
Does it sound like the promoters
of that event are prioritizing reason? Are they concerned with sound
justifications for their beliefs and choices? Does it sound like they are
willing to submit to evidential support for what they are doing? Does it
sound like a voice that is an asset to the community if their posture toward
anyone who is not a part of them is indifference, ignorance, and passive-aggressive
insults about attention-seeking and phony authority?
Why does this matter? If this is
the measure for making important decisions about our lives (faith, personal
identity, who to marry, whether to marry, how to view others, etc.), then a
poor precedent is being set (especially with adolescents and young adults, as
that makes the majority of those passing by). The possibility of reasonable
dialogue is being shut off, possibly before it ever begins. And if this applies
to gender and sexuality, you better believe that it will apply to countless
other areas of life as well.
If they are insulated in this
way, how will a person ever know if they are wrong? There is a phenomenon
called the echo-chamber that is perpetuated by modern internet tracking and social media—and it will
get worse before it gets better. This occurs when social media platforms and
advertisers begin forming your online experience around
the things that already fascinate you and/or with which you already agree. This
leads to two different people having radically different perspectives about the
weight of support regarding particular social, political, or faith-based issues. This is very
unhealthy to anyone who is interested in cultivating a sound and truth-sensitive
mind.
Those who organize the Pride
events claim to be open and affirming… except when it comes to anything that
disagrees with their sexual gratification or pro-Marxist ideologies. They claim
to spread love in the community, but love with these contingencies is more of a
cult-like social pressure. They claim to be open-minded, value all types of
people, and do not want to put labels on anybody… unless it is an attention-seeking, closed-minded, hate-mongering, conservative or religious bigot who is only out to ruin your
life by posturing their idiocy as expertise.
*Excuse me, how do we know that
they are hateful and not loving? How do we know that they are idiots—if they
are, wouldn’t it look good for our movement if we talk to them and expose how
foolish their arguments are? If we have to dismiss all who are out here for
attention, should we also disregard those who are over-sexually dressed, or over-the-top
flamboyant, or, frankly, those of the drag variety? If dialoguing with someone
affirms their unreasonable stance, then what happens when we dialogue together within
our little subgroup? If debating is not a viable way to support one’s position,
then what is—burying my head in the sand of sexual experimentation and identity
confusion?*
That’s right: stay in your echo
chamber; don’t ever bother with the thought that what you are thinking might be…
wrong (gasp)!
Why would it be that engaging
with people who disagree, even if it is a substantive debate, is a recipe for
disaster? This is very much the type of insulating and brainwashing that keeps
cults active. Essentially, this generation’s
developing answer to finding truth and ethics is, if it feels good, is a personal choice, and if you can
find some people to pat you on the back, then do it! Unfortunately, the
same justifications have been used to support suicides and certain criminal
behavior. Truth has become/ is becoming a matter of personal feelings. However,
no level of personal feelings will cause a bridge to support your weight, your
water to be drinkable, the sun to come up and nourish the earth, or your next
breath to be what you need. The same level of objective truth goes for God. He
is who He is, and His means of salvation do not change according to what one chooses
to believe.
I would tell anyone of any faith
to have good reasons for what they believe. I would give the same standard to
pro-Pride folks. But, since their approach to evidence and reasonability is
more emotion-based, with a cult-like closed-mindedness, I might have to first
call them to listen and think about what’s reasonable. Like the cultists, they
have to shift their paradigm for epistemology and ethics (meaning they have to
change how they determine what’s true and good). It can’t be all about subjective
feelings—especially those that are sexually charged. Because, wouldn’t we
agree, those have a track record of destroying people?
Comments
Post a Comment