Thursday, August 21, 2014

FRC's Travis Weber worships his god AND Robby George

Travis S. Weber
Travis S. Weber
Travis S. Weber is the Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council. Today he has commented on Robert George's essay regarding Victoria Beeching. I wrote about George's piece yesterday noting its shallowness and intellectual dishonesty.

Before I get to Weber's commentary, a re-cap on the players. You can skip the next paragraph if you know about Weber, Beeching and George.

  • Travis Weber is a former Naval officer who pursued a law degree from the very Christian Regent University (shocking I know). According to federal court dockets, Weber was an associate at Boyle Litigation in Harrisburg, PA. The reasons for his departure are unknown.  
  • Victoria Beeching has a degree in theology from Oxford and is a popular Christian rock musician. She is currently pursuing a PhD from Durham University in England. Beeching is a frequent commentator on British radio and TV. Beeching recently outed herself as a gay Christian.
  • Robert "Robby" George is a tenured Princeton professor who holds a prestigious chair. George is also a reliable bigot who was a co-founder of National Organization for Marriage.
According to Weber:
In his article, Professor George looks to Plato’s description of the three forms of “atheism” — the belief that there simply is no God, the belief that God exists but doesn’t really care what goes on down here, and the belief that there is a God who sees what’s going on down here, but he is malleable and makes no demands of us. This third form, Professor George argues, is the biggest threat to the West today. I would agree.
This is all pretext for devaluing people of faith who happen to be gay. George has misstated Plato and Weber agrees with George. So much for critical thinking in Weber's orbit. Plato's second form is a denial of the authority of religion coupled with a rejection of the supernatural. These guys have Plato's third form all wrong. Plato's third form is actually the acceptance of a deity while denying that we can alter the behavior of God towards humankind with our sacrifices and devotions. “If there really is an omnipotent god, why would he need to be worshiped?”

If these people are going to use Plato to make a point then they should be correct about Plato.

However, getting past the academics, both of these men have their real problem with Beeching's sentiment that “I am gay and God loves me just the way I am.” That is the what these two anti-gay bigots find utterly unacceptable. Weber continues:
This view is of course convenient for human beings to hold (as Professor George points out), and ultimately places our authority over that of God — consequently removing Him from that station of authority in our lives which defines His very existence. God is thus obliterated, and our “god” becomes our desires.
Rubbish. Perhaps Weber doesn't know that Ms. Beeching is an accomplished theologian as well as a musician. George arrives at his conclusions because he is an apologist for the teachings of the Catholic Church that gay people are "disordered." Weber works for an anti-gay hate group. FRC is heavily invested in depicting gay people as evil perverts. Weber's conclusions are the result of FRC ideology over anything resembling theology.

For her part, Beeching has worked out the possible contradiction between a passage in Leviticus and the very fact that she was born a lesbian. The Advocate has Beeching's on-air discourse the Scott Lively. Lively was clearly over his head with the very smart and well educated Vicky Beeching. Keep in mind that these literalists have a problem with assertive women to begin with. Weber wants us to know that his bigotry is love:
No doubt some reading this will call me a “hate-monger” or some such term, and in doing so, will only help me prove my point. Nevertheless, I will point out, as it is important to do, that my communication of these truths is done in love. Of course, God’s love is all-encompassing and greater than we can conceive, but this does not entitle us to deny His truths and objective reality.
Objective reality? Seriously? Withing sight of that passage in Leviticus we are instructed to murder insolent children. A father is also supposed to murder his daughter if she is not a virgin bride. And so on. The objective reality is that nobody follows the Bible literally. They'll say something to the effect that the Old Testament doesn't count. That is unless you are a literalist who objects to Evolution. Then Genesis becomes the part that is printed in large-bold typeface.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.