- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« What he’s spending his prize money on | Main | Daily roundup »

April 20, 2009

Religious beliefs have no politics!

When a beauty pageant director becomes incoherent with anger, it ain't pretty.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Religious beliefs have no politics!:



While they're cranking up the protest over this situation, maybe the GLBT community should also protest that the competition is restricted to only one gender. (Gotta wonder if that isn't the *real* source of Perez's bile: he wasn't permitted to compete.) And once they have a contestant from their community, they can charge that their contestant didn't win due to discrimination, try to get the pageant to shut down, etc., etc.

And before anyone mentions it, the fact that they can start their own pageants is no answer any more than permitting civil unions is an answer to the gay marriage issue; the whole goal is the bottom of the slippery slope.

I just heard a podcast where a Christian teacher proposed that *all* unions be civil unions, and that "marriage" be reserved for church ceremonies. By decoupling the state and the religion in this way, Christians would be able to make "marriage" a distinctive again. A controversial idea to be sure, but one worth thinking through.

But I've probably hijacked this post; sorry, Gina. On the other hand, without Prop 8 Perez would have had nothing to ask.


I don't care to hear another word about how some gay activist is "saddened" etc, etc, but it seems a little over the top to characterize Lewis' remarks as "incoherent with anger". His statement is merely garbled - in the same way our former president sometimes misspoke his thoughts. Who is doing the cranking on this issue?

Maybe I'm just overly sensitive these days, but there seems to be a lot of meanness in the pointification lately.


Ah, David, you need to follow the link to watch the Fox News broadcast that shows a clip where Perez Hilton himself is delivering a video blog. He's shouting, and calls Miss California what we used to call an unprintable name.

You can skip the first few minutes where they replay the contestant who got all tongue-tied and sounded totally ditzy.

Now, if you want to quibble with Gina over whether Hilton was a beauty pageant "director" or beauty pageant "judge", then go for it.

...but if you do, I'd recommend not making any poor word choices *yourself* in the future. Double-edged sword, y'know.

Gina Dalfonzo

LeeQuod, thanks for jumping in, but just to clarify, I was talking about the Miss California pageant director, Keith Lewis, who delivered the garbled quote I used as my post title.

But there was indeed a lot of rudeness and downright vile behavior going on in this case. And though I'm sorry you were offended, David, I truly don't think it's un-Christian to point that out.

There are those, I know well, who think that Christians should never speak a word that's not sugary sweet. Though I try to treat all people with respect, in the end I'm not one to equate respect with sugariness. I'm a devotee of Dorothy Sayers and Dorothy Parker and Mark Steyn, firebrands all (two of them Christian firebrands), and on top of that, I've got Italian blood in me. :-) When I see something that I believe is wrong, I pull no punches. Frankly, I don't believe it would be right to pull punches.

I'm not about to compare myself to Jesus Christ, but I would just like to note that He didn't gently try to persuade the moneychangers to change their ways. Sometimes He did use such methods -- but sometimes He felt the situation called for a little table-tossing. (It was Sayers who wrote that calling Him "gentle Jesus meek and mild" was "about as adequate as calling a man-eating tiger 'poor pussy.'")

I'm not trying to say I'm always in the right in these situations, either -- many times I've gone overboard and regretted it. I'm simply suggesting that a "meek and mild" response is not always the best way to deal with evil.

And if you think I'm always heartless toward those I dislike, go read my recent post on A. N. Wilson. Frankly, that took some effort. It just proves that I have a great Savior who is forever pushing my stubborn will -- sometimes gently, sometimes not -- in the right direction!

jason taylor

Yeah David, she's got Italian blood in her. If you don't watch out the Dalfonzos are gonna be'a sending some of their boys after you.

Gina Dalfonzo

Okay, now you're just being silly. :-)

Gina Dalfonzo

One other point that I neglected to make (and I'll try to be brief this time!): I thought Lewis's remark, was particularly worthy of pointing out, because whether or not it came out the way it was meant to, it seems emblematic of the way many people view the interaction of faith and politics.

Steve (SBK)

Ciao Bella, Ms. California.
She's much more than a pretty face.
That took a lot of guts and fortitude.

Very interesting how some (Perez) look at opposing viewpoints. Not just wrong, they are considered to be held only by dumb idiots. Popularity might go to one's head though, and if you have a lot of supporters, you think you're always right.


I wasn't offended, Gina. But I do sometimes wonder what purpose is served by drawing attention to yet another example of wrong headed thinking. I do understand pointing to the woman whose answer took guts and fortitude.


The reported behavior of the judge "Perez Hilton" (that's is -real- name?) was even worse. The homosexualists in this country have been issuing death threats and vandalizing not only in California after losing their attempt to desecrate marriage, that revelation of the relationship between Christ and the Church, but also death threats against parents and school students regarding their intimidation event "the day of silence". It is a chilling reminder of Krystalnacht, which they were also behind. Obama's use of his ACORN sturmabteilung to harass people who earned bonuses by giving his troops the home addresses of these people is a further example.

David, "our God is a consuming fire" and "it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."

Gina Dalfonzo

That's a good question, David. And there are probably several answers to it. But I would say that the main reason for pointing out wrongheaded thinking is that all thinking has consequences, and if bad thinking is not pointed out and if those responsible are given no incentive or inspiration to change the way they think and act, people can suffer for it.

I'll give you a more drastic example that nevertheless helps prove the point, I believe. I was doing some research this morning on the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church. There were many grievous examples of wrongheaded thinking going on among the leaders who were involved --for instance, the idea that maintaining the church's image was more important than protecting kids. If that thinking had been caught and exposed, think how many innocent victims would have been spared.

Ben W

" It is a chilling reminder of Krystalnacht, which they were also behind."

Huh? Are you really saying that homosexuals were behind the Nazi anti-semitic pogrom in the '30s?


labrialumn is more than capable of defending his own statements, Ben, but I must admit that I was also reminded of the way individuals were targeted for harassment in prewar Germany. (I'll leave it to lab to disambiguate who was behind the harassing.)

But as I thought of saying something, it struck me that both labrialumn and certainly Jason Taylor would disagree. The current treatment of political opponents in the USA is closer to the treatment of the Huguenots or the Puritans, since this is persecution not for race, but for religious belief. (Both lab and Jason can weigh in with examples of persecution for political belief, since Hitler, Stalin and the rest purged both for reasons of party and of faith. Me, I'm just coming up to speed.)

The bottom line is that it is very scary times when it not your actions but the mere holding of a contrary opinion that causes you to be attacked at your place of business or your home.

jason taylor

There are certainly many examples of persecution for political belief though politics is different simply because many political beliefs include clear intent to rebel and hence it is not always clear who is doing the persecuting as the main difference seems to be the power ratio.
Arguably there was no such thing as political persecution until there could be a such thing as loyal opposition. However that would be going to far. I can easily imagine such a thing happening.

However as far as that goes, one notorious example was once when Ivan the Terrible abdicated then watched as his courtiers fought over the succession. Whereupon he un-abdicated, revealed that it was a trick to see which ones whose loyalty was not so great as to prevent them having ambitions of their own. At which time he executed a large number of them.
Stalin's show trials seem to have been for a similar motive; they seem to have been for the purpose of intimidating party officials with a spectacular display of power and arbitrariness.

There have also been stories in Herodotus of councilors who have been treated quite gruesomely for giving the Great King advice he did not wish to hear.

Religious persecution is usually for the purpose of maintaining societal cohesion and thus is often more political then religious. Even the Inquisition was directed more at false converts rather then honest infidels which had all fled or been driven away anyhow. In so far as it was meant to save people's souls it was meant to save the public from the influence of the defendants, not to save the defendants.

The comments to this entry are closed.