- It's a Washington Post article... Liberal.
- It has the word Sexuality... Washington Post is a veritable Gay Rights activism site.
- Nashville Statement... I had not heard of it until now
- It's a response article... Refutation.
- If it's refuting a sexuality argument and it's from Washington post, whatever the article is refuting is most likely either from a conservative site, or a church of some sort.
And thus you now have a short list of what I think before clicking on an article. Now mainly what interested me is the idea that there is some document, clearly famous to some degree, that I had not yet heard of. I clicked on the Article thinking I would Learn about the Nashville statement, but instead I got the usual leftist spiel, for instance "Signers... Overwhelmingly Male"(Because if there is one way to fight sexism, it's to highlight gender in everything you do and make sure people know it's bad when too many males sign a document), "Condemnation of both same-sex Marriage and the idea that Christians can "agree to disagree" on issues around sexuality".
Now I want to highlight one clear difference between one thing i'm writing here, and the article from the Washington Post, Those quotations that I used in the last paragraph, yes, I quoted what i'm refuting, the Article never once cited the Nashville statement, nor did it give a link to the Nashville statement, so I'm giving you one right now. (Nashville Statement). Following a short background on the Nashville Statement, one that clearly was not biased(Thats sarcasm if you didn't realize), The Article Gives us seven simple ways to respond to the nashville statement, as the title suggests.
Here's a couple examples.
"I Affirm: That God Loves all LGBT people. I deny that Jesus wants us to insult, judge, or further marginalize them."
"We Affirm that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to god through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all christians, walk in purity of life.
We Deny that Sexual Attraction for the same Sex is part of the natural goodness of God's original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel"
Now you may notice that the word "I" became a "We", that's because the article supposedly refuting super bigoted comments is the owner of the first quote, but the quote that begins with "We" is pulled straight out of the clearly horrid Nashville Statement, I mean, how bigoted, "People who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God", clearly condemning all gay people.
Here's a quick tip for the Washington Post, and the author of the article "Seven simple ways to respond to the Nashville statement on Sexuality", James Martin. If you are going to attack a statement, or literally any idea, At list give examples of what you're attacking. This entire article is a supposed response to the Nashville Statement, not only does it not come to odds with anything in the Nashville statement, but it fails to give a link to the Nashville statement, and fails to cite anything, ANYTHING, from the Nashville statement. You simply can not honestly attack a statement you disagree with and not give links to that statement, it is dishonest, and frankly a disgusting abuse of journalistic power. This is the Washington Post, one of the largest media sites in America, and somehow and article, supposedly refuting a statement, was published without once citing what it was supposedly refuting.
Not only is this a clear demonstration of how leftist sites like the Washington Post attempt to distort reality in order to create a false reality for leftists, in which they truly believe gay rights are in danger, a very dangerous and dishonest thing for a media site to be doing, But also isn't Washington Posts motto, "democracy dies in darkness", I mean honestly, I would assume they would agree that failing to give a voice to the other side is definitionally darkness in terms of free speech, Hypocrisy is indeed and incredible thing.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened, Remember the Google Memo, which was constantly accused of sexism, and in numerous articles, and in numerous media shows, not even once cited. Honestly anyone that read the memo would have known that there was no sexism to be found, and in fact everything was based on facts.
This has become a vile and all too common practice by numerous media outlets, obviously including, but not limited to, the highly credible and clearly not biased Washington Post. Now Certainly this is not the only dishonest practice, cherry picking quotes is all too common as well, but the sheer arrogance of Washington Post, to assume that Americans are so stupid that they wouldn't be able to tell fake news when they see it. If you purposefully leave the link to what you are quoting or citing out of your article, you shouldn't be writing an article. Commonsense people...