A Regurgitation of the Mind

Day 08: A Photo That Makes You Angry/Sad So, I made a rather pathetic effort to continue the 30 day challenge. I’m just going to pretend that the two month break in between this post and my last post didn’t occur and just merrily continue on with my business. This photo makes me clench my fists in anger. It was taken in early March, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Westboro Baptist Church (who have the ever-so eloquently named website godhatesfags.com) in the case of picketing the funeral of deceased Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The Church, who has come under heavy fire in the international media on a number of occasions for similar controversies, set up a rally outside the court as the judgement was being handed down. I have no qualms with free speech and in particular the First Amendment. It’s sometimes difficult for me as a socially liberal individual to stomach the views (and the way that those views are disseminated to the community) of some interest groups. Needless to say, it’s a crucial aspect of American life. I’d go as far as saying that we in Australia are disadvantaged by not having such a civil right granted to us in our own constitution. But the use of children - children no older than the age of twelve - who could not conceivably hold the knowledge or social understanding to justify being involved in the protest themselves disgusts me. These children are having the views of the ageing conservative minority pressed upon them. It would be folly to suggest that all three children will nurture their own views on social platforms such as same-sex marriage solely based on what they were subjected to in their childhood - one cannot discount free thought and other influences in later years. However, the fact remains that early childhood is a crucial time for development on social norms, values and expectations. Insurmountable ideas can be transferred from child to parent during this period of time - hundreds of scientific studies have told us this. What kind of responsible parent would be comfortable with the idea of behaving in a manner which is all but likely to force their own values onto their free thinking offspring? Of course, it could be argued that no such consideration was present in the parent’s mind when attending the rally with their children. But look at the picture  closely. “God Blew Up The Shuttle”? An interesting example, referencing the tragic chain of events that lead to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. But one to associate with an anti-gay sentiment? As far as I could tell, nobody on the shuttle identified as same-sex orientated. There is nothing on the Internet that explains why the WBC chose this particular issue to centre their attention on, suggesting it was not an organisation-wide focus. It contradicts WBC’s usual method of blaming events such as the September 11 attacks and the deaths of US servicemen on homosexuals - assuming that some of the thousands killed in these incidents identified as being same-sex oriented. The only conceivable reason I can put forward that explains such a bizarre message relates to the person holding the sign. What would a young boy, no doubt exposed to the grandeur of America’s innovation through the media, find exciting enough to paint a picture of? What might a parent suggest that a child paint on a sign lauding such an archaic and backward political view? A space ship! It is entirely plausible (and in my opinion, extremely likely) that the parent(s) of the child in question goaded him into painting something that he found pleasurable and exciting.  Imagine now the child at the rally site, shouting along with dozens of other protesters holding a sign with a picture on a spaceship. An exciting environment combined with emotional thoughts relating to the imagery the child may have painted earlier is leading us to see how dangerous this sort of association is. Subliminal as it may be, this child may now have intertwined hatred of the gay community with admiration and interest of a spacecraft. While the positive feeling that the child associates with the space shuttle may leave him over the course of his adolescence, who can say whether the same will occur with the staunch opposition to gay law reform? Another life-long dissenter to same-sex friendly legislation may have been born. Who knows the extent to their disapproval? Will they merely curl their lips in disdain whenever they see a gay couple walking down the street holding hands? Or will they do as many of their fellow WBC acquaintances have done in the past and performed criminal acts - trespass, disorderly conduct and assault to name a few – in the process of the group’s actions? I’m not suggesting for a second that the parents of the children considered all of this in great detail prior to involving them in an anti-gay picket. However, the involvement of children in protests such as those held regularly by the WBC is a reprehensible act. Children should be free to make their own mind up about the vast number of political wedge issues they will encounter over the course of their lives. They should not be subjected to the aggressive (and sometimes violent) protests that the WBC hold. Doing so could easily result in irreversible ideas on social norms, values and expectations being “force fed” to children, an idea that I personally find morally heinous.  That’s why this image makes me angry.

Day 08: A Photo That Makes You Angry/Sad

So, I made a rather pathetic effort to continue the 30 day challenge. I’m just going to pretend that the two month break in between this post and my last post didn’t occur and just merrily continue on with my business.

This photo makes me clench my fists in anger. It was taken in early March, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Westboro Baptist Church (who have the ever-so eloquently named website godhatesfags.com) in the case of picketing the funeral of deceased Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The Church, who has come under heavy fire in the international media on a number of occasions for similar controversies, set up a rally outside the court as the judgement was being handed down.

I have no qualms with free speech and in particular the First Amendment. It’s sometimes difficult for me as a socially liberal individual to stomach the views (and the way that those views are disseminated to the community) of some interest groups. Needless to say, it’s a crucial aspect of American life. I’d go as far as saying that we in Australia are disadvantaged by not having such a civil right granted to us in our own constitution. But the use of children - children no older than the age of twelve - who could not conceivably hold the knowledge or social understanding to justify being involved in the protest themselves disgusts me. These children are having the views of the ageing conservative minority pressed upon them. It would be folly to suggest that all three children will nurture their own views on social platforms such as same-sex marriage solely based on what they were subjected to in their childhood - one cannot discount free thought and other influences in later years. However, the fact remains that early childhood is a crucial time for development on social norms, values and expectations. Insurmountable ideas can be transferred from child to parent during this period of time - hundreds of scientific studies have told us this. What kind of responsible parent would be comfortable with the idea of behaving in a manner which is all but likely to force their own values onto their free thinking offspring?

Of course, it could be argued that no such consideration was present in the parent’s mind when attending the rally with their children. But look at the picture  closely. “God Blew Up The Shuttle”? An interesting example, referencing the tragic chain of events that lead to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. But one to associate with an anti-gay sentiment? As far as I could tell, nobody on the shuttle identified as same-sex orientated. There is nothing on the Internet that explains why the WBC chose this particular issue to centre their attention on, suggesting it was not an organisation-wide focus. It contradicts WBC’s usual method of blaming events such as the September 11 attacks and the deaths of US servicemen on homosexuals - assuming that some of the thousands killed in these incidents identified as being same-sex oriented. The only conceivable reason I can put forward that explains such a bizarre message relates to the person holding the sign. What would a young boy, no doubt exposed to the grandeur of America’s innovation through the media, find exciting enough to paint a picture of? What might a parent suggest that a child paint on a sign lauding such an archaic and backward political view? A space ship! It is entirely plausible (and in my opinion, extremely likely) that the parent(s) of the child in question goaded him into painting something that he found pleasurable and exciting. 

Imagine now the child at the rally site, shouting along with dozens of other protesters holding a sign with a picture on a spaceship. An exciting environment combined with emotional thoughts relating to the imagery the child may have painted earlier is leading us to see how dangerous this sort of association is. Subliminal as it may be, this child may now have intertwined hatred of the gay community with admiration and interest of a spacecraft. While the positive feeling that the child associates with the space shuttle may leave him over the course of his adolescence, who can say whether the same will occur with the staunch opposition to gay law reform? Another life-long dissenter to same-sex friendly legislation may have been born. Who knows the extent to their disapproval? Will they merely curl their lips in disdain whenever they see a gay couple walking down the street holding hands? Or will they do as many of their fellow WBC acquaintances have done in the past and performed criminal acts - trespass, disorderly conduct and assault to name a few – in the process of the group’s actions?

I’m not suggesting for a second that the parents of the children considered all of this in great detail prior to involving them in an anti-gay picket. However, the involvement of children in protests such as those held regularly by the WBC is a reprehensible act. Children should be free to make their own mind up about the vast number of political wedge issues they will encounter over the course of their lives. They should not be subjected to the aggressive (and sometimes violent) protests that the WBC hold. Doing so could easily result in irreversible ideas on social norms, values and expectations being “force fed” to children, an idea that I personally find morally heinous. 

That’s why this image makes me angry.

permalink