The pastor who gave the sermon telling people (that is, fathers) to punch their sons if they see them “dropping the limp wrist” and to shout at their daughters if they are “too butch” – Sean Harris – is complaining on Twitter that his apology is being spurned. So I looked for and found his “apology.” He has a blog – we are colleagues! – and he blogged his apology. Or clarification. It’s probably not really an apology since the words “sorry” and “apologize” and “apology” don’t appear. The closest thing is “apologetics” in the left margin, and that ain’t close enough. Maybe that’s why his “apology” is being spurned: it’s not one.*
By now you may know that my words, from Sunday morning’s sermon, about effeminate behavior in children are being completely taken out of context by those in the LGBT community. (Nearly every article is misquoting me.)
Clearly, I would like to have been more careful with exactly what I said, but sometimes I say things without enough clarity. I trust you understood my intent in the context of my total preaching ministry. If you did not, I would be more than happy to meet with you privately to provide clarity.
Clarity about
Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist.
Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you’re going to be a male.
His voice was savage in that part (and other parts). It’s clear. To change the meaning, he would have to withdraw it, not clarify it.
For the record, I want to ensure everyone that I do NOT believe physical force is capable of fixing effeminate behavior or homosexual behavior. Parents should not punch babies or children. (Ultimately only the gospel of Jesus Christ has the power to deliver one from sexual immorality and behavior including effeminacy; )
I would never advocate for such discipline or actions on behalf of a father or mother. I misspoke. Hopefully, you understood that I was speaking in a forceful manner to emphasize the degree to which gender distinctions matter to God; and therefore, must matter to each of us and especially parents.
He spoke in a savagely angry manner, his voice dripping with disgust and rage, to emphasize his own unreasonable prejudices, which he conceitedly assumes are identical with those of “God.”
Those in the opposition are suggesting all sorts of hateful things and using ungodly and profane words. Those who speak of the love of God are using the most hateful terms I have ever read. We must never resort to such language.
I want to stress just how much I love your children and my desire is only to see them glorify God in the lives they live in obedience to God’s will for each of them as revealed in the Word of God.
Oh no you don’t. You don’t get to pretend to “love” anyone’s children when you spit hatred at any of them who don’t fit your ignorant bigoted profile of what is Normal and Allowable.
As I emphasized in this sermon, as well as the week before, we must not be hateful toward those whose behavior is an abomination to God. But we also cannot compromise on what we believe the Bible teaches on all sexual perversions and immorality.
The opposition is revealing their complete lack of toleration toward those do not approve of the LGBT lifestyle or agenda. However, we must be tolerantly intolerant. Jesus our Savior provides the perfect example of grace and truth.
The usual passive aggressive bullshit. We are loving and kind, they are mean and intolerant, so when we talk mean intolerant smack, it isn’t that, because we are good and they are not, and we wish they were all burning in hell right this second.
*Update and correction: He did do a retraction, and there is some apologizing in it. It’s pretty worthless, because he still calls people he dislikes sinners and still insists that “God” hates all that stuff, including “effeminacy” (how tf does he know?), but it’s there.
Were I a parent, I’d be severely worried at a clergyman talking about how much he loves my children.
You know, this is what I like about these people. They let you know who and where there are and what they really think. The phenomenon of the internet hasn’t caught up with them yet, and I posit that it never will. Strategy is based on intelligence and one of the most important strategies is knowing when to keep your fucking mouth shut. This will never happen for these folks who perpetually sport a raging hard on for the chance to jerk off in public.
The Reverend Peters most probably missed this talk by Tony Porter.
This guy (and so many others I’ve read about on FTB lately) puts me in a quandry. I’m either going to have to find a new moniker or take some serious remedial courses, because quite frankly, I just don’t think I measure up to the standards of evil being set.
~~~
lemme recycle my words from over t’ Lousy Canuck:
Well I suppose, never having spoken in public before and suddenly finding himself called upon, he might have gotten carried away with a few off the cuff remarks, what with the approval from the audience and all.
Filthy lying suppurating turd. He said it. He knew damned well what he was saying. Anyone who believes it was unplanned or that he was kidding is as much of an idiot as Harris is an asshole.
I remember apologizing once for using “empirical” instead of “ontological”. Given the astute company I was in, that foible stings to this day. It must be freeing to not-give-a-fuck so spectacularly…Like the obese 55 year old man at the beach sporting a cock-hammock.
to evildoug @4
Harris has done some really weird hit and miss lately. However, I’m still a fan because of Moral Landscape and Letter to a Christian Nation. One other good point in his favour is that he tends to eventually defend (or at least address) his positions publicly. I haven’t yet read his essay on why it is good to always tell the truth, but my bristles went up stat at the audacity of that idea…Again, I havent read it but on the face of it it seems more provocative than substantive.
For him to truly apologize, he would need to be able to feel empathy and remorse. As a sociopath he is incapable of doing that. Aside from anger, his emotions are just faked.
His whole behavior is text-book sociopathy. The pathological lying, the need to control other people, the evasions, the blaming of others, the inability to admit his own faults.
It just dawned on me that the recent up-tick in anti-woman legislation corresponds well with the recent OWS movement almost to the day. I think that the stronger correlative is with social networks forcing knee-jerks (who live almost exclusively in the hypothalamus) into defense mode instinctively. It’s like they can’t not do it.
From the ‘clarification’ I now see that:
…he has been deliberately misquoted by enemies
…beating kids is fine – it’s approved in scripture after all
…whatever he said it’s Dan Savage’s fault
what a tur**all!
astrosmash…are you on the wrong thread? or blog? I don’t see the relevance of your comments.
Astromash,
Some confusion here. The preacher is Sean Harris, not Sean Peters, as Ophelia named him.
Sam Harris, well … Letter is pretty good. I’m not a big fan by any stretch, but I’d stop far short of calling him an asshole.
~~~
I note the preacher has closed comments on his blog. People were being mean to him!
Oh! Oops, I’m the one who’s confused. Beg pardon, astro.
@ Ophelia
In your defense I did go off thread a bit. The hurt all seems to glom onto a common enemy. Any post like this opens the floodgates.
Astrosmash @2: I agree. There is something worth (very limitedly) commending about religious believers who make no bones about their inhumane ideas. Call ’em brutes and barbarians if you must (they are), but they practice a level of honesty that their more liberal counterparts have a very difficult time matching.
Brutality is brutality and ought to be called out as such, but the practice of putting one’s cards on the table, rather than dissembling about what one is holding, has value nonetheless. (Harris, of course, was first on one side of this divide and then on the other. FWIW.)
How is this anything other than mental footbinding for girls? Crippling all independence and strength they have–FORCING them to be weak. I find that viscerally repulsive. It sends me into incandescent rage.
I can see, intellectually, where it’s just as horrible or nearly as horrible for the boys. Overall I think it’s less damaging to be raised as tough than to be raised as weak, but in specific cases–particularly if you’re a boy who’s artistic, or quiet, or gay–I bet it’s just as bad as for a girl, or even worse.
But something about training someone to be helpless seems like an atrocity to me on a gut-level.
@ rieux
I agree. However, this current sociopathic sect, who up until recently were relegated to distributing tracts copied at Kinkos at 3 am on Monday mornings, found a voice on the nets as we did. The good news is that there is a kind of “instinctual literacy” regarding the nets that we have and they don’t. Social networking, at it’s psychological core is about connecting, and given that social progressives not only gladly connect with “different” people, but actively seek them out is a powerful panacea. Simply put: We have the numbers, they don’t because they can’t. Theirs will always be a diminishing echo chamber, so it comes down to a game of perseverance on our part, however “it” won’t go away without that perseverance.
You know that thing that happens in TV and movie trials where one lawyer asks a blatantly improper question, the opposing lawyer immediately objects, and the question is withdrawn without argument? Where the questioner knew he was out of line, but also knew that once it was out of his mouth he’d have made his point, even if he had to formally withdraw it?
That.
No one in that congregation will care about any fucking retraction. I bet most of them won’t even read it. The pastor certainly won’t read it to them next Sunday. Those who do hear about it will know he doesn’t mean it – he says right in the “retraction” that he’s only pulling back because of the LGBT community and the media’s attention on the marriage equality debate. (Did you catch that? Only queers object to child abuse.) It veers into denial really damn quick, too – “I never suggested children… should be beaten, punched, abused,” “I understand how those words could be misunderstood,” when he did say that and the words were not ambiguous – which is just lying. Everyone knows he’s just lying.
He specifically gave his congregants permission to beat their kids. His exact words were “You are authorized. I just gave you a special dispensation this morning to do that.” By “that,” he meant to rein the children in, to crack their wrists, to squash their fantasies, to give them a punch.
He shouldn’t be apologizing for “unintentionally offending anyone in the LGBT community.” First of all, nobody fucking believes he cares how we feel. And second, our offended feelings aren’t the damn point. He should be apologizing to the little kids who are gonna be in stitches, or in traction, or in the fucking morgue someday. Because the next time some of the parents in that crowd lose their temper, the next time they think their God or their neat little blind stupid pigeonholes of behavior are threatened by a five year old boy, or an eight year old girl – the next time that happens, they’re not gonna remember the retraction. That stupid vicious little apology won’t cross their minds at all.
As a gay man who was a shy, awkward and “girly” child (still am) I would like to tell this pastor that I despise him with every fibre of my being. If he comes over to crack my limp wrist, he might just find my limp wrist propelling a punch into his fucking face.
Robert — Unfortunately some children will end up in stitches and in the morgue because of the level of influence these types have over their followers.
A while back I did some research on a vile piece of shit named Michael Pearl. As result of following the advice written by Pearl children have been beaten to death with a plastic hose.
Sadly –these fucks never have to take any responsibility or be held accountable for anything because they worship a dead hippie on a stick — so obviously they are, by their very nature, morally superior.
It’s not often that I deem someone a Horrible Person, but Pastor Harris fits the bill really well, actually.
He is advocating abuse of ALL children. It would still be disgusting if he were telling parents something that would lead to violence ONLY against those children of minority sexuality, but really, this is going to lead to parents using violence to police ALL their children’s gender-conformity. Because let’s face it: gender norms are arbitrary, which means ALL children transgress them at least occasionally.
It’s so thoughtful of Harris to give his congregants “dispensation” to commit violence on a child. And here I thought only the Catholics went in for dispensations to break the normal rules. Now, if one of Harris’ congregants goes medieval on his son for some supposedly effeminate behaviour and gets arrested for it, any chance of adding the good pastor to the charge sheet as an accessory?
“If you did not, I would be more than happy to meet with you privately to provide clarity.”
By which he means he will punch you until you agree with him, you sissy.
“(Ultimately only the gospel of Jesus Christ has the power to deliver one from sexual immorality and behavior including effeminacy;)”
Is he winking at me?
“I want to stress just how much I love your children and my desire is only to see them glorify God in the lives they live in obedience to God’s will for each of them as revealed in the Word of God.”
And he’ll beat your children if they don’t do all of that.
“It’s pretty worthless, because he still calls people he dislikes sinners and still insists that “God” hates all that stuff, including “effeminacy” (how tf does he know?), but it’s there.” he knows what god thinks because the bible is the word of god and it says so. People are sinners, ‘god’ does hate that stuff, including both homosexuality and men appearing feminine, and he’s just following his ‘holy’ book. I don’t agree with it myself and am not a Christian, but his rationale is entirely in line with what the bible teaches. People might wish it were otherwise but shouldn’t pretend it is when it isn’t.