what? no, it’s about moral outrage and trying to police “sinful” behavior . it always has beenSo you agree it's about power and control.
A drag show scheduled for July 9 in Bedford has sparked heated debate on social media as to the whether or not the entertainment is appropriate for this community.
The New BROADway Divine Drag Show is hosted by the Bedford Arts Cooperative. The show is only for those ages 21 and older, according to publicity materials. Since announcing the show, some local churches and pastors have decried it as immoral on social media and have urged others to pray and speak out against it.
According to a public post from Breezewood Lighthouse Assembly of God, “The Bedford Arts Cooperative is sponsoring a Drag Show on July 9th to be held in Bedford. Please join in prayer against this event even happening. This is one of the things, as a local church we need to stand against.”
A person posting on the Everett Assembly of God’s Facebook page cited scripture that forbids men from wearing women’s clothing, and vice versa, to specify sin, as well as the church’s moral obligation to fight against it.
Arts Cooperative Program Manager Dawn Ziviello said she has been inundated with messages and colorful voice-mails from self-described Christians speaking out against the drag show. Some of the messages and posts have hinted at protests and violence, she said.
“What I don’t want to do is enflame it. I don’t want to endanger my people. Safety is my absolute number one priority,” Ziviello said of her performers. “I want them to feel like they have a venue where they’ll be appreciated.”
Although the social media posts decry the event, many comments have come out in support of the production, and cite scripture that points to the hypocrisy of judgment. One commenter questioned the mere premise of gendered clothing. “It’s just my clothing. I’m the one who owns it.”
Ziviello, who attends the Bedford Presbyterian Church, said she is challenged by the notion that the hatred directed at her show is rooted in Christian values.
“I would challenge anyone to tell me which population of human beings Jesus didn’t sit with,” Ziviello said, explaining that it was the Pharisees, who were known to be a sanctimonious lot defined by hypocrisy.
The churches are uniting behind a veil of community, Ziviello said, but noted, “I am the community.”
John Wylie, pastor at the Everett Assembly of God, would not say who created the post on the church’s Facebook page, but did not condemn it.
“As Christians, we are commanded in scripture to love our fellow man,” Wylie said, adding, it is “our right to believe the Bible is the word of God and to act on that.”
Clifford Swankler, pastor at the Liberty Independent Baptist Church in Everett, said that as such, “I need to stand where the Bible stands.”
Swankler said the Bible condemns homosexuality and promotes distinct gender differences.
“When God made male and female there is to be a distinction between them and not blur the lines,” Swankler said. “Men pretending to be women, just common sense tells you there’s something wrong there.”
There were no public posts on his church’s Facebook page, but Swankler did speak out against the event on his personal page, and asked others to write to the BAC to withdraw support for their organization.
Ziviello said it was a ridiculous suggestion that Swankler rescind his support for BAC.
“None of these people have ever come to anything,” she said, including her family friendly Christmas shows, children’s shows and other events.
“Just do what you’ve been doing,” Ziviello said. “Nothing.”
As for the show? It will go on, Ziviello said, although she has made authorities aware of the situation.
“I think because of the reach, the backlash, more people want to participate. It’s kind of solidarity,” Ziviello said. “People around here don’t realize how loyal the drag community is. They poked the rainbow hornet’s nest.”
JurisdictionSuch as?
It looks like in 2020 the SC rules that since reservation land was not state land, crimes committed by American Indians in reservation land was under federal jurisdictionI know nothing about this case in the first place, but I must be missing something...
It sounds like this makes it easier to go after someone who is non Indian who committed a crime against Indians. I take it that's not the case.
So what does this ruling actually do?
Same reason TX doesn't have jurisdiction over parts of Mexico, or NY has jurisdiction over part of Canada.
I'm curious what the argument against this is (ie why a state shouldn't have jurisdiction). Not saying there isn't one but I just don't know enough about everything ti understand it
this comparison breaks down so quickly as the federal government DOES have jurisdiction on reservations (but obviously doesn't have jurisdiction in Mexico)Same reason TX doesn't have jurisdiction over parts of Mexico, or NY has jurisdiction over part of Canada.
I'm curious what the argument against this is (ie why a state shouldn't have jurisdiction). Not saying there isn't one but I just don't know enough about everything ti understand it
This has been my point through the last 10+ years. Like it or not, you're talking about an enumerated constitutional right.LOL at Troy Loney arguing like Bruen wasn't decided last week. The SCOTUS just confirmed—for the third time—that owning guns is a constitutional right. Don't like that? Too bad. Your view of guns and gun rights lost in Heller, lost in McDonald, and lost in Bruen.I am calling the "I like guns argument" to not be a valid argument for not imposing gun regulations. In the same way that "I like booze' is not a valid argument to limit restrictions on the product. It could be an honest argument, but that's different. Mostly just that folks with direct incentives in this argument are framing this debate in a way that deliberately ignores the negative exernality.
It doesn't matter whether someone owns guns for hunting, or self-defense, or for whatever reason. They have a right to do so. They don't need to explain themselves to you or to anyone else. In fact, the SCOTUS just ruled that you cannot condition public carry on someone having a special need or justification over and above "I want to." The same is certainly going to apply for ownership, so long as someone has no disqualifying conditions, such as a felony conviction.
Neither do "negative externalities" matter. "The Second Amendment is the very product of an interest balancing by the people and it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Bruen, slip. op. at 17. The people who enacted the Second Amendment already considered the negative externalities of permitting the public to own arms. They concluded it was worth it. If you disagree, I direct your attention to Article V of the Constitution, which explains the process for amendment.
this is a good summation of my political beliefs in a nutshell. I have 0 interest in going to one, but the outrage just rubs me the wrong way. Just ignore it and let them be if it's not your thing. Who cares
I love these people who are so worried about things other people are doing that don't affect them. You're more than free to think something is weird, if it's not victimizing someone else wtf do you care? If your religion says they're going to hell, well I guess if your religion is right that's on them.this is a good summation of my political beliefs in a nutshell. I have 0 interest in going to one, but the outrage just rubs me the wrong way. Just ignore it and let them be if it's not your thing. Who cares
Drag shows are the f**king best.I'd recommend these churchy C(h)ucks try a drag show once before they dismiss it...I get it's not everyone's speed, but man, they throw some ****** parties...
But what if their religion also tells them they have an affirmative obligation to preach the word of Big G and to gain converts?I love these people who are so worried about things other people are doing that don't affect them. You're more than free to think something is weird, if it's not victimizing someone else wtf do you care? If your religion says they're going to hell, well I guess if your religion is right that's on them.this is a good summation of my political beliefs in a nutshell. I have 0 interest in going to one, but the outrage just rubs me the wrong way. Just ignore it and let them be if it's not your thing. Who cares
Users browsing this forum: genoscoif and 113 guests
