Clenard Childress Says Gay Activists Are Like Those Who Killed Jesus

Jun 17 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Clenard Childress

Right Wing Watch describes Clenard Childress, Jr. as “a fervent anti-choice leader who believes that legal abortion is intended to bring about black genocide and Obama wants to destroy the African American community. He founded and is a leader in rabidly anti-choice groups like the Genocide Awareness Project and the Life Education And Resource Network, and helped organize Priests for Life’s “Freedom Rides” against reproductive rights. “

He is also a homophobe. Apparently blacks deserve rights and deserve not to be victims of genocide. The same does not apply to gays and lesbians. In columns in May and June on his site, RenewAmerica, Childress has attacked the idea of LGBT rights, describing gay rights as a sign of the end times  and comparing gay rights activists to those who wanted to kill Jesus. As is typical when dealing with conservative “spew” there are more than a few historical problems with the account as portrayed.

Childress writes:

The Roman Empire had been occupying and subjugating Israel for multiple years along with the religious elite. They were enslaved to man outwardly and sin inwardly and blind to both.

And before that, Israel under the Hasmonean kings had been subjugating Gentile lands for multiple years, enslaved to their idea of a hateful god and sinning inwardly and blind to both. as William G. Dever has pointed out, the Hebrew Bible is the product of a literate elite, and represents therefore the point of view of less than 1% of the population. The authors of the Hebrew Bible did not represent the opinion of the other 99% of the population. And that 99% of the population left no written record of their beliefs, hopes, fears, and aspirations. That 1% was the elite; they were the elite before the rise of Rome when they had their own kingdom “under God” and ruled in his name. They were misogynists, bigots, and homophobes. And they wrote the Old Testament.

It is they who Mr. Childress most takes after.

Mr. Childress is playing to the Christianity can fix anything meme, second in popularity only to the Christians are a persecuted minority meme. What we are really seeing is the story of the rise and fall of civilizations. After the Pagan Roman Empire was replaced by the Christian Roman Empire, nothing changed except for levels of bigotry and intolerance, which skyrocketed. Don’t pretend monotheism is a magic pill for anything that ails us. History proves it isn’t.

Certainly at that point, Jesus saw the futility of trying to reach that audience with truth, yet out of compassion he persisted. The elites were determined to twist and malign the facts to accommodate their lifestyle, though in error. They lived in a vacuum of denial refusing to see the obvious. When truth is ignored, or denied, the course often taken by those in denial is to first obfuscate, then defame, diminish, and finally denounce the messenger.

As we have seen conservatives repeatedly do with their swiftboating campaigns against any Democrat who threatens the status quo. If ever a group has made use of these tactics it is American conservatives in the last half-century since Joe McCarthy.

This crowd resorted to using the “N-word” of that day: “Samaritan,” and even went so far as declaring that Jesus was the devil. Sound familiar?

Actually, most Jews did not then and do not now concern themselves with the devil, as I have argued here before. This was a sectarian gig. Keep in mind the Gospels were written by Gentiles for Gentiles. Saying because the Christians were devil-obsessed that the Jews must also have been is like saying because Paul thought the snake in the Garden of Eden was the devil that the Jews must also have interpreted the snake to be the devil. Wrong. In Genesis (read it) the snake is just a snake. Don’t project, Mr. Childress. It’s not nice and it leads to inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

And the “N-word” of the day among Jews was “Gentile.” What’s your point?  If you’re saying that gay rights activists are like the people who killed Jesus, we have a problem: a historical problem. According to the Gospels, the Jews killed Jesus. According to the Gospels, it wasn’t the fault of the Roman authorities and it wasn’t even just the Jewish “elite” as you would have here. By the time Jesus was tried, the people themselves were shouting for Barabbas, demanding Jesus’ death. The people, not the elite. The people wanted Jesus dead.

You want to know how many people Jesus had left in his corner when he was crucified? Bart Ehrman paints a stark picture: “the Gospels indicate that there were eleven men and seven women who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion, say a total of fifteen or twenty people altogether…”[1]

Yeah, he had problems with more than just the priestly elite. If you’re comparing yourself to the Jewish people as opposed to the Jewish elite, then you have created another sort of problem for yourself, haven’t you?

And Paul? Childress cannot really doubt Paul; after all, he cites Paul (Romans 1:26-27) in his opposition to homosexuality. So we have to take Paul’s word for it…problem is, Paul doesn’t agree with the Gospels. The Gospels focus on Jesus’ life and teachings. But Paul has an entirely different conception of Jesus’ life and death.

Jesus’ earthly life and teachings did not matter because Paul’s Jesus was not historical but spiritual (2 Cor 5.16). The historical context of Jesus’ crucifixion disappears and is replaced by the daemonic “rulers of this age” crucifying the “Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2.6-8). No Sanhedrin, no Roman authorities, no wandering rabbi teaching his flock. But how could his life matter if only his death and resurrection held importance? How impatiently Paul must have listened to the prattling of those foolish old men in Jerusalem as they talked about their adventures with Jesus! Perhaps he tried to convince them of his own insights. After all, he knew something they didn’t. A mystery had been revealed to him that threw all mundane considerations, including Jesus’ life and teachings, into the shadows (1 Cor 2.6-7).

It is similar today, for instead of examining the data, this generation’s elites combat truth with ideology, character assassination, deception, and of course, denial.

This is true, but the real elites here are the rich white conservative Christians, not the liberals. By definition, an elite does not stand in defense of the common people. Liberals do (liberalism is about liberty, after all); conservatives don’t.

The two defining issues of the day which will determine the course of our culture, and the destiny of our nation, are abortion and homosexuality… Pro-choice, and homosexual and lesbian activists, all claim their cause is a Civil Rights issue.

It IS a civil rights issue. When a segment of the population is denied their constitutional rights, it is a civil rights issue by definition.

Yet the “Civil Rights” of the unborn children are being denied, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim a “right” for yourself, and by so doing, deny the rights of someone else, especially when that someone is an unborn infant.

But of course, this is exactly what conservatives are doing, denying civil rights to women, to blacks, to Hispanics, to non-Christians, to the LGBT community, denying them even the rights essential to the founding of our country – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are reserved for the Republican Christian elites alone. Women, rape victims, victims of incest, women whose lives are threatened by pregnancy – none of these have rights.

These individuals are completely wrong because you do not give Civil Rights to sexual orientation because your sexual orientation could be flawed.

Your religion could be flawed. Should we take your churches away?

“Civil Rights” are based on “Birth Rights,” and according to the APA, homosexuality and lesbianism is an acquired behavior, not something like the color of your skin — something you’re born with. You were not born homosexual, so sexual preference is not a Civil Right — it’s a preference.

This is not true. The APA (American Psychological Association) does not say that. In fact, it says exactly the opposite. Another situation like WND’s reversal of Gallup Polls statistics to suit their argument. Jesus said (Matthew 19:24) “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” I would like to revise that to say “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a Christian fundamentalist to tell the truth.”

[1] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 49.







21 responses so far