Telling the story from our point of view

Blog Archive

November 01, 2005

Nightmare in Boston: gays besiege black church!

Boston - Homosexuals have insisted that Sodom wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality, but inhospitality. Well, that "inhospitality" was on brazen, rainbow colored display in Boston this past weekend as anti-family gay activists illegally converged on Tremont Temple Baptist Church cursing, shooting the finger, screaming and threatening attendees to the Love Won Out conference. Because of the tense violence and anger, Boston police refused to let conference goers exit the church. This time it wasn't Lot. The anger, hostility and verbal violence was directed at former homosexuals and others who believe that homosexuality can be overcome through Jesus Christ. If you have ever wondered about the terrifying scene involving Lot and the homosexual men of Sodom, wonder no more. For comparison's sake here is the account of the Sodom scene:
Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!" Lot went outside and shut the door behind him. Then he said, "Friends, please don't do such a terrible thing! I have two daughters who have never been married. I'll bring them out, and you can do what you want with them. But don't harm these men. They are guests in my home."
"Don't get in our way," the crowd answered. "You're an outsider. What right do you have to order us around? We'll do worse things to you than we're going to do to them."
The crowd kept arguing with Lot. Finally, they rushed toward the door to break it down. But the two angels in the house reached out and pulled Lot safely inside. Then they struck everyone in the crowd blind, and none of them could even find the door. {contemporary english version)
  • CitizenLink gives a full account here.
  • Pictures and eyewitness account of the siege by Article 8.
  • UPDATE WorldNetDaily picks up this horror story.
    Reports from Boston sounded like terrified Jews holed up with foaming at the mouth Islamofascists on the loose.

    "Demonstrators had no permit, but Boston police stand by and do nothing Sound truck, coffins placed at church door. Police allow near-riot outside, but tell people inside they can't leave.Ignored by Boston media. It is utterly and completely unbelievable that this would happen to a church. In the United States of America. During a religious event."

  • Homosexual clergy act as protest scouts.
  • 23 comments:

    vesti said...

    Just wondering if during this "siege" if there were any acts of violence or personal threats made. My guess is "no", or that would have been mentioned in one of the "articles".

    Also, I'm unaware of any standing regulations regarding sidewalk protests in Boston that would require a permit. There were special regulations passed for the Democratic Convention in 2004 requiring permits to demonstrate near the (then) Fleet Center, but I don't believe you need to file for a permit except for parades. So I scratch my head when I read the lead caption "Demonstrators had no permit, but Boston police stand by and do nothing."

    Also, one of the "articles" cites "near-riot behavior." I'm not exactly sure what that is, but last time I checked, in America a bunch of people demonstrating with placards is not considered even CLOSE to a riot, unless we want to say that our founding fathers codified "near-rioting."

    Basically, it looks like there was an event, and it was protested. There was no siege, there was no riot. Frankly, it doesn't really seem like news to me. And if there really was an anti-Love-Won-Out bias in the Boston newspapers, they would have covered the event conspicuously and spun it to make LWO look bad. Perhaps "watch out, you might get what you wish for" is a good watchword in this case.

    ragingcoconut said...

    Just imagine if the protestors had dumped tea in the harbor!

    Boston is STEEPED in such tradition.

    wg said...

    Why do hate Gods children so much? Why don't you love your fellow man and woman?

    I can't understand how to follow God's instructions and follow your words at the same time. I thought Jesus taught that we should help each other; compassion. So why do you preach hate? I really don't understand.

    I'd appreciate it if yoy could explain your interpretation of the Word which seems to differ from what I was taught.

    Thanks,
    wg

    Anonymous said...

    and this is what it means to be a "Christian"...things that make you go hmmmm.....

    DL Foster said...

    Why do hate Gods children so much? Why don't you love your fellow man and woman? I can't understand how to follow God's instructions and follow your words at the same time. I thought Jesus taught that we should help each other; compassion. So why do you preach hate? I really don't understand. I'd appreciate it if yoy could explain your interpretation of the Word which seems to differ from what I was taught.

    Wg, I'll humor you and give you the first shot. What's your definition of hate? Love? Identify based on the scripture who "God's children" are. What are the characteristics of "God's children"? Is it possible that the devil could have "children"? If, so what should be an appropriate response to the devil's children? Who taught you what you were taught? Where did they get their interpretations? Explain exactly how I am "preaching hate".

    Once you respond satisfactorily, we can move forward. If your accusations/questions are rhetorical, then simply ignore mine.

    DL Foster said...

    I'm unaware of any standing regulations regarding sidewalk protests in Boston that would require a permit.

    Tracey Ganiatsos, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Department, said conference protesters had not requested a permit to march from the city.

    Of course since you are so anti-religion, you probably wouldn't mind if they had firebombed the church and killed somebody, eh Vesti? What if your wife and daughters were inside? Would you want 1000 screaming people outseide harrasing them?

    vesti said...

    Tracey Ganiatsos, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Department, said conference protesters had not requested a permit to march from the city.

    And they didn't "MARCH". See, that's the key word. In Boston, you only need a permit to establish a parade route. If you engage in a protest demonstration on a fixed piece of land, no permit is required. Police then have the discretion to determine whether the protest is causing a public hazard (such as blocking a roadway so that ambulances cannot pass) and can take appropriate action as they see fit (beginning with simple instructions, such as asking folks to temporarily move to a sidewalk). As in all police interactions with the public, the modus operandi would be to use the "least restrictive effective" method possible - keep things in order without using undue force or the threat of arrests unless real illegal activity (such as failure to comply with police instructions, or threats of violence) occurred.

    Of course since you are so anti-religion, you probably wouldn't mind if they had firebombed the church and killed somebody, eh Vesti? What if your wife and daughters were inside? Would you want 1000 screaming people outseide harrasing them?

    Your "anti-religion" comment is, of course, as unfounded as your "anti-family" comment from the original post. Your "doomsday scenario" of firebombings didn't even come close to materializing, and your statement that someone - anyone - "wouldn't mind" if someone got killed is the type of disingenuous rhetoric that I'd hoped you stopped engaging in. It does you no good, as only the most hard-headed (and hard-hearted) of folks could possibly find any validity in it.

    As far as 1,000 folks chanting and screaming at my wife and kids ... we're raising our kids to be strong, and if they have a conviction that is important to them, they should be prepared to defend it. My girls (and thanks, by the way, for visiting the other blogs that I post on such that you know that I have two lovely daughters, 9 & 10) are not made of glass, and the experience would have made them stronger. That being said, I'm not about to expose them needlessly to situations where they don't have the maturity and emotional wherewithal to deal with the issues at hand - like the people who dragged their 6-year-olds to the abortion protest outside the DNC in Boston and used them as "fetus models" (drawing chalk outlines around them in the street). I prefer to nurture their critical thinking skills and not force belief systems on them until they are capable of making informed decisions.

    DL Foster said...

    Funny vesti, you quickly diminished the violent situation in Boston.

    "Frankly, it doesn't really seem like news to me."

    Yours and others selective "concern" is the main reason these types of events need to be highlighted. Which I do.

    Your "anti-religion" comment is, of course, as unfounded as your "anti-family" comment from the original post.

    Stop lying. Your ho-hum attitude because you are anti-religion (see your post today in Vesti Land on your blog)

    "While I am unabashedly anti-religious, the Vesti-wife is Episcopalian, and the Vesti-kids attend Sunday services with her regularly."
    "Whether you're a big fan of Weezer or of Jesus Christ, it was an abomination either way..."

    Like I said stop lying and blowing smoke.

    "...disingenuous rhetoric that I'd hoped you stopped engaging in. It does you no good, as only the most hard-headed (and hard-hearted) of folks could possibly find any validity in it."

    Who said it had to do me any good?
    And it begs the question, why do you come slinking back if its not valid. Seems like to me you would find a more worthwhile occupation that attempting to refute something you deem invalid. So I suspect this will be the last I will hear of your religion hating commentary...at least on this blog.

    DL Foster said...

    And they didn't "MARCH". See, that's the key word.

    Uhhh gee how did they get from Boston Common to 88 Tremont Street?
    Oh wait, little green space machines ferried them there.

    vesti said...

    Uhhh gee how did they get from Boston Common to 88 Tremont Street?
    Oh wait, little green space machines ferried them there.


    Uh, no, they walked on the sidewalk. Last I checked, that's a legal act.

    I'm so glad you visited the Vestiblog. It affords me the opportunity to clue you in on the difference between "anti-religious" and "anti-religion" (as specificity of language is VERY important when trying to understand what others are saying - just ask LaShawn Barber - "The Language Artist").

    Being "anti-religious" is my own personal decision on my priorities and how I choose to live my life, while "anti-religion" would be a view that religions should be eliminated for all people. Since I am "pro-freedom", I believe that everyone should have the right to believe and practice whatever spiritualism they wish. That same "pro-freedom" slant is what keeps me "slinking back" to this blog (among others), as I believe that all people benefit when folks of differing perspectives interact (as a "choice" certainly isn't "free" unless one has been availed of all options).

    No smoke, no mirrors, no lying. And no blowing things out of proportion, either.

    - V

    Fantod said...

    Toscano is a Quaker which may explain his inability to grasp fundamental Biblical truths.

    I'm beginning to see who around here is truly anti-religion.

    DL Foster said...

    fantod, thats an interesting and enlightening statement. I wouldnt have expected that from you. But just for fun, who is it?

    Robert said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    DL Foster said...

    Moved your last comment to the Toscano post.

    vesti said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    DL Foster said...

    This thread is not about Quakers and Peter Toscano. Im a comment purist. Any comments placed here on the above will be deleted.

    DL Foster said...

    Being "anti-religious" is my own personal decision on my priorities and how I choose to live my life, while "anti-religion" would be a view that religions should be eliminated for all people. Since I am "pro-freedom", I believe that everyone should have the right to believe and practice whatever spiritualism they wish.

    And gee to think I've been accused of making up words and matching definitions. I don't feel alone at all now. Referring to your wife's priest as "Rev. asshole" doesn't sound at all like you are respectful of one's religious beliefs. Yeah, the smoke is billowing. At any rate, youre welcome to slink back all you like, just remember the rules of this house.

    vesti said...

    *slinks in*

    Referring to your wife's priest as "Rev. asshole" doesn't sound at all like you are respectful of one's religious beliefs.

    For the sake of clarity, "Rev. Asshole" (who I believe I also referred to as "Rev. Dickmunch") was the guy at the church she decided NOT to attend as a result of their obvious greed and generally un-Christian attitude. If you were to ask my wife about that guy she'd call him much worse.

    *slinks out again*

    Michael LaBonte said...

    I went to the linked site and looked at the pictures. Not much of a riot if you ask me.

    I thought it was interesting that the coffins--intended to represent the deadlier consequences of homophobia--were interpreted as a form of "intimidation" aimed at the conference's participants.

    Beware The Attack Queers!! ;0)

    DL Foster said...

    The mother of all ironies. The coffins probably represent more accurately the deadly consequences of homosexuality.
    Check the latest CDC statistics on AIDS.

    Fantod said...

    I thought it was interesting that the coffins--intended to represent the deadlier consequences of homophobia--were interpreted as a form of "intimidation" aimed at the conference's participants.

    Let's take a look at the signs that they also found "intimidating." From the article 8 website:

    I love God and my girlfriend

    Ending homophobia starts here

    Stop brainwashing teens

    I "heart" me

    Thank God we're gay

    Christian, proud and blessed

    Conversion therapy kills gay teens

    child abuse is inconsistent with my family values

    Fear is curable and preventable

    Gay, Catholic, happy and my parents love me

    Honk against hate

    Boy, these anti-gay activists sure have some thin skins if they find "I love God and my girlfriend" intimidating. Smells more like the manufactured persecution syndrome so prevalent in these parts.

    Michael LaBonte said...

    DL,

    One of the lowest risk groups for AIDS and for venereal diseases in general are lesbians. They must be God's chosen people! ;0)

    Michael LaBonte said...

    I posted a follow-up comment yesterday and for some reason it's not here.

    I just wanted to point out that even though AIDS can be transmitted through sexual intercourse and unprotected anal sex (homosexual or heterosexual) puts one at higher risk for transmission, AIDS is not in any sense the result of homosexuality. AIDS is the result of a virus.

    It's also noteworthy that the in this region the highest risk categories include heterosexual African American women.

    If we were able to talk more honestly about sexuality we would be better equipped to deal with this disease.

    I don't think a blanket condemnation of gays and lesbians helps the situation.