Stacy Trasancos, a self-described scientist turned Catholic homemaker, has been in the "news" for the past few days because of a moral musing that she made the mistake of taking public. In this offensive diatribe, she calmly expresses her trepidation about taking her children out in public in Massachusetts for fear that they will encounter openly homosexual activity and have questions that she didn't think she would need to answer yet. One of the incidents that she cites as sparking concern happened while at the public pool:
When there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions. They don't see Daddy do that with anyone but Mommy.
She follows up with this comment, which has been quoted the most in reports about the incident:
This is my community. I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. We are responsible citizens. We live by the rules, we pay our taxes, we take care of our things. I'm supposed to be able to influence what goes on in my community, and as a voter I do exercise that right. But I'm outnumbered. I can't even go to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality. We all know what would happen if I asked two men or two women to stop displaying, right in front of me and my children, that they live in sodomy.
These incendiary remarks have sparked a swarm of outrage as the blog post went viral. Trasancos rightly highlighted this first comment:
I said...
What a c*nt.
I hope her children are kidnapped, raped, and murdered.
It would be better than having them grow up with such a twisted f**k for a mother!
Others were better only by comparison to that. Consider these gems:
Look in the Mirror !
You're the reason you can't go out, no one else.
Probably the stupidest cunt I've ever had the misfortune of reading about. You are a selfish slut. So you can go to the park, and perhaps kiss your husband/boyfriend, but a gay couple has no right to do such a thing? Oh wait! They were actually LOOKING at one another. Oh no! OH NO NOT ELBOWS TOO!? You are a dumb piece of shit. I'd tell you not to breed, but it looks like it is too late for that. I suggest moving to outer space, because gays exist, and will not cease to exist because you aren't bold enough woman to explain to your fucking children that gay people exist. You are pathetic, petty, and an absolute moron. Hopefully your kids grow up will, they certainly won't being brought up by you.
Here is my personal favorite:
SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT...
It goes on like that for a while, but I think you get the drift. My point in sharing this is not to bring your attention to a plighted Christian or even to express my unqualified support for her position. (After all, I certainly don't think paying taxes should give her the political right to legislate morality, and, for my part, I think the wanton immodesty is the more obvious and pernicious problem at public pools.) I actually want to draw attention toward another post that Trasancos made in the aftermath of this debacle.
Some two weeks after the original post and as part of the ongoing response to her post, Trasancos shared an attempt at parody posted by one of her critics. In it, the author attempts to show Trasancos the logical flaw in her argument by recasting her thoughts into the person of an atheist upset by the unchecked presence of Catholicism in the public square. He proceeds thus:
When there was a priest and a boy relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions. They don't see Daddy do that with anyone but Mommy.
While I agree with the basic sentiment of the author who tries to show the absurdity of transporting particular moral expectations into the public square of a pluralistic society, I was actually more impressed by the way Trasancos responded to this criticism. Here is what she had to say:
Round of applause for Mr. Kaz! You didn't finish though. You forgot how it ends.
See, while Catholics will read this, I can promise you with 100% certainty that there will be no herds of Christians following each other over to find you and tell you that you are a hateful, bigoted, Catholic-o-phobe. Absolutely no one would even consider telling you anonymously that they hope your children are "kidnapped, raped and murdered." There probably won't even be any more emotional reaction than a shrug because we've heard it all before, and we realize we stand among a rich history of saints and martyrs far better than us who have suffered for the preservation of our Faith. We don't demand that you approve of us.
In this response is seen that cherished Catholic just war principle of proportionality that the outraged atheists or liberals or homosexuals or whoever they may have been seem to have missed in their responses to Trasancos. It is a sick, sad world in which the appropriate response to differing opinions in a society--and especially in a vocal subset of that society--which prides itself on pluralism and liberty is personal attacks and dreams of rape and murder (particularly against those who are "guilty" only by association). It is the old cherished but self-defeating adage that we should be tolerant of everything but intolerance. We can welcome with open arms the man whose sexual proclivities tend toward dressing as a unicorn and urinating on a paraplegic but not the person who thinks that strange.
Trasancos made perhaps the greatest rhetorical move possible in responding the way she did, not with logic but with virtue. The latter, we should have long ago learned, has more sway than the former over the human heart. The true response of the Christian heart is not contention but peace, and peace in adversity especially. I hope that she proved to be right, that no Christians went and responded with the kind of disproportionate vitriol that characterized responses to Trasancos's thoughts. Regardless, her final stance is the right one. Speak boldly; live timidly.
No comments:
Post a Comment