Mohler often uses grand and ambiguous phrases (“the new sexual revolution,” “the moral revolution,” etc.), but now he’s gone a step further, putting a deliberately misleading phrase in direct opposition to his notion of religious liberty.
It’s a clever move. Replacing “LGBT rights” with “erotic liberty” reduces the myriad of LGBT experiences and issues to what he presumably sees as a matter of sexual promiscuity, depravity and perversion, something many of Mohler’s followers will agree is bad, wrong, unnatural. It dehumanizes a community seeking civil rights into a gaygle of sexual beasts.
But the “LGBT rights vs. religious liberty” debate, if we’re going to keep Mohler’s battle narrative afloat for a minute, is about so much more than sex. Is eros a component? Sometimes. But the real fight is one for equality.
Pellot says [blockquote]I’ll have my “erotic liberty,†whatever that means, and you can have your religion or beliefs. Better yet, let’s both have both. I’m sure individuals and societies can make it work without coming to blows if we reconsider what’s really at stake.[/blockquote]But Pellot’s side won’t permit “both.” Religious beliefs about human nature are being suppressed as “bigotry.” As the firing of the Atlanta fire chief and of the Mozilla CEO show, people are increasingly not allowed to have these views even in their private lives.
‘Erotic liberty’ is a good term especially for a ‘community’ that is so obviously defined by it its sexual proclivities in spite of Pellot’s assertion that it isn’t all about sex.
Good to see that Brian Pellot is upset. I hope he stays that way – he might learn something.
Al Mohler must be on to something here.