Not Everything is OK in San Francisco
San Francisco has finally found a viewpoint that is too deviant even for its tolerant-of-everything environment. Can you guess what it is? According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against “the virtue terrorism” of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a “fascist mega-pep rally.”
“Battle Cry for a Generation” is led by a 44-year-old Concord native, Ron Luce, who wants “God’s instruction book” to guide young people away from the corrupting influence of popular culture.
Luce, whose Teen Mania organization is based in Texas, kicked off a three-city “reverse rebellion” tour Friday night intended to counter a popular culture that he says glamorizes violence and [non-marital] sex.
That’s bad news to Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”
Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the “act of provocation” by what it termed an “anti-gay,” “anti-choice” organization that aimed to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”
Luce said it was the first time one of his events has been officially condemned.
(All emphasis added.)
So, America’s most “tolerant” city can’t tolerate a rally by Christians. Rallying against the war is OK. Rallying in favor of terrorism is OK. But rallying for sexual restraint is so not-OK it’s worthy of an official condemnation from a government which explicitly wraps itself in the mantle of “tolerance” while declaring that they cannot tolerate anyone less licentious than themselves.
The resolution is now online as a PDF file. It begins:
WHEREAS, It is an act of provocation when a right-wing Christian fundamentalist group brings their anti-gay and anti-choice agenda to the steps of San Francisco’s City Hall; and,
WHEREAS, It is unfortunate and alarming that those who are against reproductive and homosexual rights, and who are anti-gay and anti-choice, aim to negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city; …
Will someone please explain to me why that first paragraph isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state? Isn’t liberal position — affirmed by the Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) — that “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion”?
And isn’t that second paragraph basically a statement that some people don’t have the right to express their opinions? Doesn’t it also say that the “most tolerant” city can’t tolerate anyone who disagrees with its Board of Supervisors?