I was reading Drudge and came across this story in the LA Times, of a nativity scene that had been vandalised. But, it was not just any nativity scene – it was a nativity scene depicting gay people.
Claremont United Methodist Church has a Christmas tradition of unusual nativity displays, intended to carry a social or political message.
Despite some of the controversial topics, the scenes had never been vandalized or defaced, according to church officials and John Zachary, the artist who created the scenes.
But this year, suspects vandalized a nativity scene that included wooden light boxes with three couples holding hands — a man and a woman, two women and two men — under a star of Bethlehem and a sign that said “Christ is Born.”
As the story goes – a church official came to the Church on Christmas morning and found the two gay couples in the nativity scene pushed over, but not the straight couple.
Here is the kicker:
An unusual nativity display at a Claremont church that portrayed gay couples was vandalized over the weekend in an incident authorities are investigating as a hate crime.
So the incident/crime is being investigated as a ‘hate crime’ and NOT a violation of someone’s first amendment right to freedom of worship. In other words, if the straight couple depicted in the nativity scene had been pushed over – everything would have been cool, but since it was the gay couples it is now a more serious issue?!?!?!
What I find interesting – We have reached a point in time when depicting the Christian nativity as a gathering of gay people is NOT considered a violation of first amendment rights to worship freely, but if one of the gay couples gets knocked over it is a hate crime. This presents the commonly understood contemporary belief that bashing Christians is fine, but don’t you dare say/do anything against gay people! Why are some people’s sexual preferences more stringently guarded than another man’s Christian preferences?
Also, is it right to assume that the couples pushed over in the nativity scene were pushed over because of their ‘assumed’ sexual preference and not because of their religious nature? Had the straight couple been pushed over we all would assume because of their religious nature, but if the gay couples get pushed over it is because of someone’s hate of gays?!?! Can we safely make that assumption?