Well, I didn't actually get accused of this because Yanina Luna was standing right by Corban, so she was blamed. Here is how it went:
A young/middle-aged lady walked up to us while we were waving signs at the Carl's Jr. corner. Speaking to Yanina, she said with a kind tone, "Can I ask you a question about your sign?" She proceeded to ask (I am not sure whether Yanina gave her the go ahead, or if she just broke out with the question), "What does Prop 8 have to do with religion?" (At this point I took a closer look at the button on her shirt, which was for Obama- just an observation as to where this was headed)
I was unable to hear the response, but whatever it was, it was WRONG...at least according to this lady. She then said, "I am majoring in Philosophy with a minor in Religion." That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. That has got to be a frustrating education. "Nowhere in the bible does it say marriage between a man and a woman." I guess that statement is true, because it isn't said in that exact way; however, I don't know that it could be interpreted any other way. Granted, it might matter what version of the bible you are studying. I am no scriptorian, and there are probably better references, but in Matthew 19:4-9 it gives the marriage law:
A young/middle-aged lady walked up to us while we were waving signs at the Carl's Jr. corner. Speaking to Yanina, she said with a kind tone, "Can I ask you a question about your sign?" She proceeded to ask (I am not sure whether Yanina gave her the go ahead, or if she just broke out with the question), "What does Prop 8 have to do with religion?" (At this point I took a closer look at the button on her shirt, which was for Obama- just an observation as to where this was headed)
I was unable to hear the response, but whatever it was, it was WRONG...at least according to this lady. She then said, "I am majoring in Philosophy with a minor in Religion." That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. That has got to be a frustrating education. "Nowhere in the bible does it say marriage between a man and a woman." I guess that statement is true, because it isn't said in that exact way; however, I don't know that it could be interpreted any other way. Granted, it might matter what version of the bible you are studying. I am no scriptorian, and there are probably better references, but in Matthew 19:4-9 it gives the marriage law:
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcememt, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcememt, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
I read it as speaking of man and woman. It didn't preface the scripture with "heterosexual marriage is such..." It is spoken as if there is no question as to who marries who. But it is very good at pointing out gender- male and female. Huh. And the discussion here was actually going on to teach about divorce, which was not from the beginning, either. So that has been a man made situation because of hard hearts. I guess we need a new scripture for our day speaking of the homosexual's case...and the even harder hearts we are dealing with. No accusation intended.
Needless to say, this ladies tone had changed from kind to angry and hateful. She began to accuse us of child abuse- she said it many times, so I do believe she really meant it- she was pointing fingers and calling us all sorts of names, which included hateful, discriminatroy, . She was spouting about our God and how we should hope he is forgiving of our hate. Liz nicely asked her why she was so angry, but the lady wouldn't hear it. While walking away she rhetorically asked, "Why are you so fearful." There it is again, we are a fearful people.
Interesting. Child abuse, huh? Huh.
So I pondered that situation wondering how it could have been dissolved. Two ideas I came up with- she asks if she can ask a question, you reply back, "Only if I can give you a compliment first." With this one you would have to be on your toes as to what great, sincere compliment you can give. It definitely would need to be spoken with deep sincerity. The other idea would be to say, "Not if it is rhetorical." The point of this one is that they don't really want you to answer their question. They want to be given the chance to tear you down. You are crazy if you think they actually want to listen. That's not to say that there aren't those who are willing to listen; however, they don't normally approach you in this fashion. Oh, and one more, you say, "Is it a question, or would you like to exercise your freedom of speech for the opposition?" This isn't to shut them up, it is more to have them MAYBE think about how you are out there exercising your freedom of speech, not necessary committing a hate crime, and she is welcome to as well.
The best thing about it, traffic was stopped at a light on the side of the road she was standing, and just as she finished the light turned green and we got SOOO many honks. They were mostly from cars that were there witnessing the mad lady.
If any of you readers come up with more POSITIVE come backs (not ones that cut them down), please leave a comment.
These boys look happy to me! But what do I know, I am one of the abusers.
3 comments:
I love this one: "Is it a question, or would you like to exercise your freedom of speech for the opposition?" Brilliant! I wish I could think on my toes like that, but I always forget all the good stuff when I'm being attacked. Hmm...I wonder why that is? :)
Yep, definitely child abuse what with the overly large rolls those boys are eating! Geez, who's in charge of their meals?!
P.S. Thanks for the scripture and your thoughts about focusing on yourself instead of convincing others about how right protecting marriage is. I needed to hear that. I've been sick wondering how I can influence more and more people to educate themselves on this matter based on precedents set in Massachusetts and elsewhere. It was really nice to read some scripture (even just these four verses) and know that I am on the Lord's side and that's really all the matters. I could feel the stress eeking out of me as I read. Thank you!
I think it is sooo hard to come back with a postive response to someone attacking me...especially my beliefs. It's crazy that if you're a believer, you're considered a hateful, discriminatory bigot. Darn it, you Christans!! :0) When I am attacked (and I doubt it's ever been that blatant. Cali has a more liberal population that Colorado or Utah!), I mull over it for days.
I don't know if this is positive or not, but I think I might be able to come up with, "Well, if quitting my lucrative job to stay home and raise my baby, ensuring he gets the best possible care makes me a child abuser, then I suppose I am one."
Really, though, I doubt she could have said anything that would have calmed down Miss Ants-in-her-pants accuser.
I agree. If someone is looking for an argument, there's often little you can say to reason. Just smile and wish them good day, I guess.
We WON!!! Way to go with all the prop 8 work. You are awesome! Both of you. I KNOW it made a difference. Thanks for helping me with those signs. We are on top, for now! Yipee!
Post a Comment