Church Sues After Being “Terrorized” by Gay Activists Kissing

by Will Potter on June 11, 2009

in Terrorism Court Cases

bash_back_lansing_protestA right-wing Christian group and an anti-gay Michigan church are suing gay activists who “terrorized” the congregation by protesting, distributing leaflets and kissing.

The far-right Alliance Defense Fund is taking on the lawsuit on behalf of Delta Township’s Mount Hope Church, which was “invaded” by queers in November.

Accounts of the day differ, of course, but they go something like this: Local activists affiliated with the Bash Back! protested the church, wearing pink bandanas and chanting slogans including “Jesus was a homo”.

That was all just a distraction, though, so other activists wearing their Sunday-best could proceed inside unnoticed. When security guards were lured outside because of the loud protest, two women went to the front of the sanctuary and began kissing, while others threw leaflets over the balcony and unfurled a banner that read, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”

The criminal complaint against Bash Back says church members were “terrorized by the Defendants’ conduct inside the church,” and that they felt the queers “might be violent.” [Interestingly, the next paragraph notes that the defendant's agreed to move their protest at the request of the pastor. Not exactly "terrorizing" behavior.]

Perhaps my favorite reaction to all of this has been from Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it. This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland.”

Urban fascism? If gay bashers “stormed a gay church,” it would be to use physical violence against people because of who they are. That’s much different than gay activists using non-violent protest to challenge the ideology that fuels gay bashing (an ideology we could label “suburban fascism,” if we’re adopting Donohue’s terminology).

Nevertheless, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, this “revealed how dangerous the homosexual agenda is.”

Hmm. You want to talk about “dangerous”? “Dangerous” is not queer kids kissing. “Dangerous” is racists opening fire at a museum. “Dangerous” is right-wingers, espousing many of the same anti-gay, fundamentalist Christian views as these plaintiffs, murdering people.

Tagged as: , , , , ,

  • Joe

    Will, You have said that when the AETA4 tried to break into a researchers home it was for non-violent protest. You do not know for sure what they intended to do when they tried to storm into that house. So why must a group gay protesters automaticly become violent?

  • http://www.greenisthenewred.com Will Potter

    Joe:
    I have never said anything like that. Please provide a quote, a link, or anything to support your claim.

    In regards to this article, nobody “tried to storm into that house.” It’s not a house. It’s a church. The activists were waiting in the church until service began so they could create this spectactle, involving two people *kissing*, so they could draw attention to their cause.

    By this logic, civil rights activists were “violent” and “intimidating” by sitting down at lunch counters and offending the racist sensibilities of everyone in the diner.

  • http://arphilosophy.blogspot.com ARPhilo

    They can terrorize me any day.

    But seriously folks, when I first heard about this ridiculous accusation, I thought it would die out quickly because it was so ludicrous. Apparently I was wrong. I do think to highly of society at times…

    All the best to Bash Back! Keep it up!

  • http://www.greenisthenewred.com Will Potter

    Lin–how’d you score today?

  • well…

    I don’t think what the gay people did could be considered “terrorism” — but the gays should stay in their own churches if they want to sit and kiss and disrupt worship. In my church, the heterosexual couples don’t go up to the sanctuary and start kissing in front of everyone, we don’t feel it’s and appropriate place for anyone to do that. Why do the gays think they should? Why don’t they go infiltrate a buddhist monastery and demand the right to play loud rap music and ride skateboards there? It would accomplish the same thing – making them look like idiots.

  • http://www.motivecompany.com Lin

    To “well…”- I’ll start by admitting that I haven’t been to church a lot. In fact it’s been since I was in my teens. But I’ve seen people kiss in church. I’ve seen them hug, hold hands….pretty much everything that couples normally do. What offends the people in the church isn’t that there was kissing going on. It’s that the two people involved were the same sex. It seems to me that saying “the gays should stay in their own churches if they want to sit and kiss” is very similar to whites in the south during segregation saying “if they want the right to vote and to be treated like ‘regular Americans’ they should stay up North cuz we don’t like that shit ’round here.”

    To Will- I was doing pretty well…But I’ve been wrong twice today, so that knocks my average way down to like 50/50…The comment about the Museum shooting that implied that since it was only one shooter it wasn’t terrorism really hit me out of left field. And then the comment on this one killed my average.

  • http://oppositerule.govindapeacefarm.com Paul108H

    I’m all for protecting animals, but this is something else.

    I personally find gay behavior disgusting, and my religion describes homosexual attraction as “demoniac.” One should never enter a place of worship with the intention of being offensive.

    http://vedabase.net/bg/7/11/en

    Homosexualty is not annyone’s identity; it’s a consequence of excessive lust. Lust is a perversion of love, and homosexuality is a further perversion. If it’s a condition from birth, then it’s the result of a previous life’s thoughts and activities. Feeling gay attraction should be a wake-up call to resist the call of lust and surrender to God. Instead these gays are mocking religious sentiment and offending those who are trying to advance in spiritual life. One should hope they’re also engaged in animal welfare activities, because disregarding religiousity is a good way for the soul to enter the womb of an animal for the next birth.

  • http://www.greenisthenewred.com Will Potter

    “Instead these gays are mocking religious sentiment and offending those who are trying to advance in spiritual life.”

    Sorry dude, you’re making a better mockery of your own “religious sentiments” than queer kids ever could.

  • http://www.yahoo.com matt

    Paul108H— i thought stds were a consequence of excessive lust.

  • http://oppositerule.govindapeacefarm.com Paul108H

    Will, That’s not a rebuttal. I’m simply explaining the principle that says effects have causes. One gets burned by touching fire, not by anything random. Similarly one gets a certain kind of body, such as gay, straight, or free from sexual attraction, as a consequence of prior actions.

    Similarly one gets a future body according to present activities. It is not hard to understand. As Krishna explains in Bhagavad-gita 2.13, “As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.” http://vedabase.net/bg/2/13/en

    Homosexuality as a condition from birth is not at all inconsistent with Vedic knowledge, but it does not take the responsibility away from the soul so affected by the condition. Similarly, the suffering of animals is the result of their own past activities in human bodies. When one understands spiritual nature, this is not at all difficult to grasp. The exploitation or proitection of anyone is all the unavoidable result of their activities. This is not speculation; it is reading the law out of the lawbook.

  • http://www.motivecompany.com Lin

    To Paul108H – “Similarly, the suffering of animals is the result of their own past activities in human bodies”….How far does this pattern of blaming the victim extend? For instance, was Auschwitz just a place where people were punished for crimes they committed in past lives? Is a woman who’s raped just being punished for past sins?
    I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything….I’m just trying to understand. Also, when you quote religious writings as concrete facts, it makes it hard for 99% of people to have a conversation with you because either A) they aren’t religious, in which case they’re going to automatically dismiss anything you say or B) they ARE religious, but worship another God, in which case you’re just going to go round and round with “Krishna says…” “Yes, but Jesus said that…” “That’s not what the Lock Ness Monster teaches…”

  • l(A)ntz.

    I like your reporting, Will, but I don’t know if I can keep reading your blog because of some of the racist, right-wing, gay-bashing trolls that come out of the woodwork. Thanks to all the intelligent people that post meaningful comments and defend important, critical writing and analysis.

    Paul108H – I’m an athiest and don’t believe in your religion. So your words have absolutely zero credibility to me. That being said, you have no right to judge anyone based on their own self-identified sexuality. Please keep your gay-bashing beliefs to yourself.

    well… – Again, my athiest mind is not going to wrap itself around your idea of “gay churches” and whatnot. People kissing is not offensive. Get over yourself and stop being an asshole.

    Also realize that when you refer to a group of people as, “the gays” in such sentences as, “…why don’t the gays stay over there?” you are referring to a group of human beings. Do you go around saying, “the blacks?” Probably not, unless you’re a racist in addition to a gay-bashing wingnut. Human beings have rights. You should respect those rights. However, please don’t use use that fact to defend fascist rhetoric. Hitler did not have the right to exterminate Jewish people. The KKK and Neo-Nazis do not have the right to lynch and harass people of color, and christian fundamentalists and other religious right-wingers do not have the right to harass and oppress queer people. Period.

    Fuck all this puritannical, religious nonsense. People should have the right to live free from oppression. Why can’t you understand that? What are you so threatened by?

  • http://arphilosophy.blogspot.com ARphilo

    Funny, Paul. It seems like your religious texts you post say nothing about homosexuality, especially not that it is wrong.

    The only thing your texts may have supported is that homosexuality came from a past life. Perhaps you will be BORN gay in your next to help you be more tolerant of people who are BORN gay.

  • http://www.greenisthenewred.com Will Potter

    lantz:

    I know, it’s hard to not get sucked into those comments. At the same time, there’s a great community of people posting regularly here.

    You can always subscribe in RSS, or just not read the comments, but I hope you’ll continue posting. Best, Will

  • http://sleepingjellyfish.wordpress.com Jonathan

    I want to skip over all of the obvious quips like “what about turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, blah blah” because its trite and full of holes, but at the same time I hope people are laughing on the inside at the shallow irony of a church filing a lawsuit.
    But really, I’m left wondering what they are going to be claiming as “damages”. I read through the filed complaint. Trespassing, OK, obstruction or some crap, I could maybe see, but what are these damages? I didn’t read anything about property damages so I’m only left with money they didn’t get to collect from the parishioners? and attorneys’ fees (which they brought on themselves by filing the complaint in the first place.)
    I’m not going to shed a tear if any of the Bash Back!ers get slapped with a trespassing misdemeanor and are not allowed back at that church. They obviously knew what they were doing, and did a damn good job of it, very successful for what BB!Lansing’s aims seemed to be, in my humble opinion. But I will be upset if they are heavily fined for a ton of crap for these shadowy “damages” that people incurred.
    I mean this next comment with the utmost respect for anyone of any gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, or whatever else you might identify as. But, another bit of irony I find is that this group of dominant people (from the news reports I’ve seen, predominantly white, Christian, and heterosexual) were “terrorized” by what “that one asshole in high school” would describe as “a bunch of pussies and fags”. It’s sad that there was even a reason for this protest in the first place, but until hate and sexual discrimination is extinguished, BB! will have a reason to exist.

  • Pingback: MY LIFE » Blog Archive » “Terrorized”? SRSLY?

  • http://oppositerule.govindapeacefarm.com Paul108H

    Lin, The connection between cause and effect or action and reaction extends throughout material activity. Don’t just consider the negative side though. A perpetrator of a crime may not get caught by the state, but he cannot avoid punishment. Similarly, no good deed goes unrewarded.

    It makes a lot more sense than speculating that some things happen for a reason and other things for no reason.

    When people understand this, they take care to help others and not harm them. Of course, helping doesn’t always mean giving people what they want; it means doing what’s good for them. For example, if someone is hungry and wants a hamburger, I’d give him a vegetarian meal and explain why.

    It’s really not a matter of religion. It is science. Fire does not only burn Hindus or Christians and exclude atheists. The connection between cause and effect is a fact of nature. If the Vedas say the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West, that does not make it religious doctrine. The religious aspect is simply that Vedic knowledge is inerrant because it originates from God’s own mouth. The scriptures of meat-eaters are admittedly of human origin, but the Vedas prove God’s reality simply by the fact that no human(s) could produce anything displaying so many features of perfection. Neither is there any human author named therein or known to tradition.

    l(A)ntz, Your idea of rights is nothing more than a social construction. What is the value of so-called rights that are not respected by others? Whether Hitler had the right to kill Jews is a social debate, but if the Jews he killed had those rights, they obviously did them no good.

    What matters is duty, which exists whether acknowledged or not. Rights are the passive side of another’s duty. In the matter of sexual desires, what real basis would there be for anyone to protect another person’s assumed right to whatever kind of sexual relationship they may desire?

    In the matter of oppression, a meat-eater can argue that veg*n activists want to take away their right to eat the food of their choice. I respond to them the same way I respond to gays, by instructing how it brings harmful effects to themselves and others. I’m not oppressing anyone by typing on my BlackBerry. I’m trying to educate people to help them rise above material conditioning and achieve real freedom.

    ARphilo, That homosexuality is sinful is specified in the Manu Samhita, commonly described as “The Lawbook for Mankind.” Another mention is here: http://vedabase.net/sb/3/20/26/en I did not give references like these before because it’s not the main subject. I was under the impression that this blog is supposed to be about protecting animals or something like that, and that the gay thing is an off topic post. My points on the matter of karma apply universally.

  • http://www.motivecompany.com Lin

    WOW….It’s obvious that you and I are going to have to play on different sides of the playground, because we are definitely not going to get along. I suggested that it might be a good idea to justify your beliefs with something other than quotes from religious writings because it’s easier for everyone to just blow off what your saying since they don’t subscribe to the same philosophical ideas….and your response is that what you’re saying is cold hard fact driven scientific data because it comes from the mouth of god.
    I’ll give credit where credit is due though….You’re very well trained in the “fire burns both the christian AND the athiest….so therefore, God exists” rhetoric.

  • Anonymous

    mr. paul 108h(ate) (any relation to kate 08)

    aren’t you supposed to give up material possessions? I hope you’re typing these notes at the public library, coz I’m not sure that ray cappo will be happy that you own a computer.

    you mention science, though i’m not sure exactly why or that you really believe in science — please use science to prove that “homosexuality is sinful”

  • Mike

    They sure don’t make terrorists like they used to.

    Next, we’ll hear that the Boston mayor’s panicking over some lite-brites scattered around the city. Oh, wait, that already happened.

    01-31-2007: Boston will never forget

  • http://arphilosophy.blogspot.com ARPhilo

    Uhhhh Paul108H? The “translation” is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the “purport” on that page you posted. It’s like Christians talking about homosexuality as sin when really the book states that hedonism, rape, and promiscuity for the sake of it were sin, which happened to include homosexuality at times- so rather than addressing all promiscuity and rape as a whole- they pin it on homosexuals only and homosexuality as a whole despite the fact that many are not promiscuous. So many religions are guilty of this… The stupidity of people and their ability to retranslate and reword things to fit a hate agenda amazes me.

    Even your religious text does not share your hate.

  • Joe

    Hi everyone, I have been in the field the last couple of weeks working on a radio telemetry project and was not able to look at or respond to post.

    This sentence from ARPhilo caught my eye “The stupidity of people and their ability to retranslate and reword things to fit a hate agenda amazes me.”

    I couldn’t agree more, it has always amazed me how animal rights terrorist will reword the definition of terrorism to meet their agenda.

  • Julian Vigo

    I would hope the defense would countersue the Christian for:

    1. Violently brash dress code;
    2. Dangerously ignorant statements that incite censoreship directly and violence indirectly;
    3. Disseminating hate speech;
    4. The brash display of religious iconography and language which is itself violent, a form of psychological violence (ie. crucifictions, baptism by fire, burning in hell, etc).
    5. Hypocritical speech as psychological terrorism–the Bible is replete with homophilic and homosexual stories that are the basis up which stories of equality and love for others are based.

  • johnnygp

    So what Paul108H is saying is that during pre-life my soul chose to be afflicted with faggotry? Well, hooray for my soul!

  • Jthompson31

    hell naw !

  • http://www.greenisthenewred.com Will Potter

    “Approve”

  • Bettifree

    The majority of people posting here think that “tolerance” means “shut up and go away if you don’t totally support gay activism and gay culture.” “Don’t judge” means “don’t dare to disagree with us”. The more in-your-face obnoxious you get, the more gays will find yourselves shunned.
    I notice that gays never storm the mosques and don’t even protest outside them. Hmmm…I wonder why? LOL. : )
    No, seriously, you should all organize a nice, peaceful kissing protest inside the nearest Islamic place of worship. Demand that the Muslims forget about Allah and the Quran and listen to the all-important homosexual POV. I can’t see any way you could possibly go wrong. C’mon! Why aren’t you standing at the front door knocking RIGHT NOW…and yelling…and waving signs? Islam is clear about the sinful nature of homosexuality and is not shy about the death penalty. It’s time to set them straight. Or gay, as it were. I imagine it would be a very famous protest: famous and SHORT.

Previous post:

Next post: