SAC Funded Christian Speaker Sparks Protests, Controversy
Students and community members alike protest Turek's anti-gay marriage attitude with their Standing on the Side of Love campaign. / Photo by Anna Rumer
The controversy of Frank Turek’s visit to Ohio University came to a head Tuesday, as the Christian speaker’s return to discuss his book drew criticism from the LGBTIQQA community.
Turek, who came to OU to discuss his book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” was sponsored by Ratio Christi, a religious student organization that focuses on logical reasoning for the belief in Christian value. The event was funded by the Senate Appropriations Committee, a commission of Student Senate that allocates usage of a portion of student general fees for student organizations. However, the use of the general fee money has drawn controversy due to Turek’s views on gay marriage and homosexuality.
In his 2008 book “Correct, Not Politically Correct; How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone”, Turek speaks out against homosexuality and gay marriage, citing religious reasons. While Turek’s lecture this year did not focus on such issues, his beliefs have still drawn fire.
Open Doors, OU’s LGBTIQQA union, has since protested the SAC funding of Turek’s visit. While an apology was given by SAC to Open Doors, the organization showed up at Turek’s lecture in protest.
Students, community members, allies and members of the LGBT community all gathered outside of the Baker University CenterBallroom prior to Turek’s speech holding a banner that said, “Standing on the Side of Love” while handing out flyers proclaiming that homophobia, not homosexuality is the sin.
Co-Founder of Athens’ chapter of Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Amy Coombs was one of the protestors in attendance. “I’m here as an ally of the LGBT community,” she said. “And we’re here to just send a different message than Frank Turek about accepting gays.”
The message of tolerance as opposed to intolerance was the main point for many of the protestors, rather than hatred towards Turek.
“We are here to promote an idea of tolerance rather than intolerance that has to do with being gay,” said sophomore Will McFarland. “I identify as LGBT and Christian and I really believe in this … and whether he’s here to talk about his hateful message or not, it’s still his idea of his influencing students and community members that I live with and commune with … I don’t think it’s right that he should be speaking.”
Other protestors focused on their perception of Turek’s “hate speech” in a public university.
“People have a tendency to think that homophobic speech isn’t a big deal, that hate speech is no big deal, because they can’t see all the people that it affects,” said senior Kavin Shah. “I think that visibility is a big issue.”
Turek’s actual focus during the lecture did not touch on issues of homosexuality or gay marriage, but on the proof for the existence of the Christian God, the reliability of the Bible and the reality of miracles.
Turek lectures audience members on the evidence for a Christian God and an infallible Bible. / Photo by Anna Rumer
Citing various scientists and theories such as The Big Bang Theory, Turek argued that there can be no creation without a creator and no design without a designer. With the complexity of the universe, Turek said, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist!”
Turek also showed the historical significance of cross referencing the New Testament with historical dates and documents, showing 32 names of biblical figures in non-Christian texts as well as a list of biblical events otherwise documented, later citing archaeological finds as corroboration.
“This is not a once upon a time story, this is no myth” he said. “Archaeology doesn’t prove that everything in the Bible is true, but it shows there is a historical core.”
And while Turek might not have brought up the issue of homosexuality in his speech, students and community members demanded answers during the question and answer session.
Turek stood firm in his beliefs despite the questioning by various protestors and audience members alike, but specified that it was only homosexual behavior that he found sinful, not homosexuality, and thanked the members of Open Doors for their attendance.
“We all have feelings that we ought not act on, I have feelings I ought not act on … but that’s not the only sin in the world … I’m a sinner too, and I have come to the foot of the cross just like everybody else,” he said.
And while Turek’s beliefs remain the same, Open Doors protestors are not discouraged.
“I’ll never change that guy’s mind,” said Shah, “[But] anytime you can get your point across to somebody who stands almost 180 degrees in opposition to you, there’s still hope there for me … I guess I’m here because I don’t give up.”
Related Posts
About the author
Tweet this!
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
Subscribe by RSS
RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
15 Comments
I think the outrage against Turek for his beliefs against homosexuality is both very intolerant and hypocritical. The people (open doors) claiming to want tolerance and acceptance are being very intolerant and even totalitarian. Tolerance isn’t when everyone agrees with you. Tolerance is when you treat people well even when they disagree with you.
Turek never attacks people or treats ill homosexuals and lesbians. It’s against the Christian faith to treat anyone in a hateful, ill manner.
Such intolerance from the Open Doors is unacceptable.
“Turek never attacks people or treats ill homosexuals and lesbians.”
But he does argue against them having the right to marry. If someone argued I shouldn’t be allowed to be married to Mrs B, I’d say they were ill-treating me.
“Tolerance is when you treat people well even when they disagree with you”
Then tolerance would be Frank supporting gays’ right to marry, even though he disagrees with it. Likewise he would be welcome to keep arguing that it’s immoral.
I’d also say that fighting intolerance isn’t in itself intolerant. If I argue for Jewish rights, it’s stretching the meaning of the word to say I’m being ‘intolerant’ of the views of Neo-Nazis.
“I identify as LGBT and Christian and I really believe in this … and whether he’s here to talk about his hateful message or not, it’s still his idea of his influencing students and community members that I live with and commune with … I don’t think it’s right that he should be speaking.”
The quote above makes me laugh. The LGBT community forces their beliefs on society every chance they get. I do not support gay marriage and I don’t want them to speak about gay marriage because it is influencing people I commune with. You can not expect some one to not speak their beliefs simply because you do not feel the same. Can you say intolerant?
I’m just a little curious about how the LGBT community has forced their beliefs upon you. Do you mean, by this, that they are forcing you to become homosexual? Do mean that they are forcing you to accept that homosexuality exists and is natural? Or something else?
“I do not support gay marriage and I don’t want them to speak about gay marriage because it is influencing people I commune with.”
Then how are you any different from a gay person saying they don’t want Turek influencing people THEY commune with. Your stance is hypocritical.
The Gaystapo strikes again.
Turek has a lot of good information and I really enjoy his podcasts. They can throw a fit everywhere he goes but they’ll never be able to stifle his message completely. There are many people who agree with him and support him. Many are afraid to speak up as you are called “homophobic” and other nonsense. If you are born heterosexual, homosexuality should be repulsive to you. Because you are born naturally repulsed by it.
katy, i was born white, should i be naturally repulsed by all non-white people?
to any person out there who is questioning their sexuality, out and proud, out and fearful, closeted and silenced, or closeted and fearful…whatever it is, and whatever it isn’t. I want you all to know that there are resources available, there is a space on campus for you, there are people who will support you, you will be or you are loved and not because you like the opposite sex, or the same sex, or maybe you don’t feel any attraction–but because you possess so many other qualities other than your orientation and sexual preferences.
It gets better, you are valued and anyone who thinks companionship, love, or even a steamy exchange of attraction is repulsive–is obviously missing out.
“homosexuality should be repulsive to you. Because you are born naturally repulsed by it”
So if naturally I’m repulsed by old people having sex, that means I should argue against the right of old people to marry? I mean, they can’t have kids, which is what marriage is about, so ergo they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. By your logic.
I think Trey means that homosexuals are attempting to force society to legitimize their behavior. No, they’re not forcing us to engage in homosexuality ourselves, but we are not permitted to disapprove of homosexual behavior in any way. The same-sex marriage issue is a case in point.
You’re welcome to disapprove of it, just as you’re welcome to disapprove of old people getting married or interracial marriage. But being tolerant of your views doesn’t mean gay people shouldn’t GET married themselves.
Danielle, skin color and sexual attraction are completely different. Skin color has nothing to do with attraction, whereas sexuality deals with attractive forces. In accordance with the natural order, a male should not be attracted to a male.I’m not saying that this makes it immoral, but I am saying that at the very least it make homosexual actions unnatural.
The comparison with racial issues is unfounded, because race deals with a completely different set of circumstances.
In fact, in your very response you misappropriate the positions played. If you were trying to draw a parallel, you would have to ask, “should I be naturally repulsed by all white people since they are the SAME color?” But this would be a foolish example, because one would quickly realize that race is completely different than sexual attractions. This whole comparing the homosexuality issue to the race issue has great rhetorical value, but it falls apart when one looks at the differing circumstances of the two.
“skin color and sexual attraction are completely different”
The comparison is between race and gender, actually. In the past interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Whites could marry whites, blacks could marry blacks – but whites couldn’t marry blacks. These anti-miscenegation laws were justified by reference to religion – it was seen as unnatural, bad for any children the couple brought up, and people made reference to the repulsion that ‘right-thinking people’ felt towards such unions.
All these arguments are being rehashed now against gay marriage.
Also, what is up with this whole using what is found in nature as a litmus test to what is acceptable is civilized societies? I believe there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, along with polygamy, community child raising, abandonment/neglect, murder and sometimes cannibalism of disfigured, different, or handicapped offspring. Would you adopt and promote these practices of natural order too?
Tom, first let me explain what i intrepreted. I thought that katy was saying it is natural to be repulsed by ones opposite, to be repulsed by what one is not “naturally” since she believes hetreosexuality is natural, she is repulsed by what she is not, homosexual. Therefore i am white, and what i am not is any other skin color. I feel like skin color is an attraction..it is preference right? I could prefer black skin over white, i could think it is sexier?