Religious Zealotry...

[Nienna]

I want to answer this VERY carefully and VERY respectfully, mom4. The temptation to indulge in a double entendre is almost unbearable!

Not that hair MM!

 

[musicman]

Not that hair MM!

I'm so bad... :dev1:

 

[Bullypulpit]

She had cancer, now I feel like a heel. :

Yeah, you should.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm so bad... :dev1:

Admitting that you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

 

[Shattered]

Yeah, you should.

Why? You don't seem to feel bad about the asinine crap you spew forth on a daily basis.

 

[Said1]

Yeah, you should.

I do feel bad, but it WAS an honest mistake. Ever made one? At least I can admit I'm wrong, publicly - without urging and insults from others. Oh, and thanks for editing your post, "sorry sac of excrement" was seriously uncalled for.

 

[no1tovote4]

As opposed to indoctrinating them behind your back?

No, as opposed to say, getting a sign and working within your rights across from those you wish to oppose. What I was attempting to show is that doing this in front of the parent invites the violence. If they did do it behind their back they would not have been directly attacked. One hopes that they would teach their children enough that they could withstand such indoctrination but insulting their belief in front of them is moving beyond normal societal limits. The Supreme Court talks about "fighting words" and allows that some things would make a person attack you if you said them, I think that this might be one of those cases. I also think the term zealotry was misapplied in this case, when you cross that societal barrier in order to attempt indocrination it smacks of zealotry in its own right.

It would be pretty much the same as the Christians that attempted to convert people at a Gay Pride rally and were arrested for their trouble because attempts at conversion are apparantly, "Hate Speech".

I understand why the Homosexuals were upset and think that those Christians crossed a line where they were clearly not wanted and put themselves in danger. When they were attacked and then arrested (charges were later dropped by the courts) it was only to be expected. To be shocked by the actions of others that believe they are protecting their children when you attempt to accost those children and teach them against their belief is simply disingenuous.

 

[no1tovote4]

Do all lesbians have long straight hair parted in the middle?

Nah, there is a stereotype of them all having mullets, how could they all have long strait hair parted in the middle?

Now my question is, how many of them own Subarus?

 

[dmp]

Uh...in the movies, they look like this:

 

[5stringJeff]

Uh...in the movies, they look like this:

Thank you... now excuse me while I go take a cold shower...

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I don't see how me attempting to speak with one of the children of this group entitles him to strike me. I don't even know for sure whether the kid I was talking to was his kid, but regardless, I didn't "accost" him. I can't believe anyone would think that engaging in violence against someone that simply spoke to your children, in a non threatening manner, could be condoned by anyone. I mean, if a teacher in a classroom is teaching evolution and you believe in creation, and think that that teacher is threatening the soul of you kid, should a jury aquit you for beating the shit out of the teacher? Of course not, that's fucking retarded. Give me a break, I want to see this guy go down and serve some time, he sets two horrible example for the children of this religious group: You have God on your side when you preach hate and rage, and you can beat the shit out of people that threaten your views. Give me a break.

 

[musicman]

I think the important question here is, have you learned anything? Do you plan to tell another child, in the presence of his parents, that they're full of shit, and not to listen to them?

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

...I don't know really. I mean, I don't like pain, but I feel that maybe, years later, I know it's unlikely, but maybe they'll look back and remember what I said to them and maybe try to think for themselves. I don't know. By the way, I know most christians aren't the "God hates fags" types of people; by far the vast majority of christians I know are wonderful and loving people. I wasn't trying to say this is a representation of them or anything like that.

 

[musicman]

...I don't know really. I mean, I don't like pain, but I feel that maybe, years later, I know it's unlikely, but maybe they'll look back and remember what I said to them and maybe try to think for themselves.

What I'm trying to say, though, is that if one opportunity for growth and learning exists here, perhaps several do.

The bond between a parent and a child is both sacred and primal. Whether or not YOU judge what a parent teaches his child to be right and proper, he is VERY apt to perceive your intrusion as a threat to his child. This is never a wise position to put yourself in.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't see how me attempting to speak with one of the children of this group entitles him to strike me. I don't even know for sure whether the kid I was talking to was his kid, but regardless, I didn't "accost" him. I can't believe anyone would think that engaging in violence against someone that simply spoke to your children, in a non threatening manner, could be condoned by anyone. I mean, if a teacher in a classroom is teaching evolution and you believe in creation, and think that that teacher is threatening the soul of you kid, should a jury aquit you for beating the shit out of the teacher? Of course not, that's fucking retarded. Give me a break, I want to see this guy go down and serve some time, he sets two horrible example for the children of this religious group: You have God on your side when you preach hate and rage, and you can beat the shit out of people that threaten your views. Give me a break.

When you reach out to the depths of their beliefs and speak against them as the leader of the family publicly and in front of the child you are asking for some retribution, yes the guy crossed a line I would agree, but there is no reason to approach any child in public without permission, let alone just to attempt to impress your belief upon him.

To specify it to one person by approaching a child of the group specifically is pressing him to believe as you do. Approaching children of a group and attempting to impress on them specifically your belief without the permission of the parent is simply going too far beyond societal norms that you have crossed a line.

Your explanation of the child in school is not valid in this case, by sending your child to the school you give consent, plus the teacher does not specifically tell the child how morally incorrect the parent is, they give direct information with implied permission not opinion with no permission as you did in this case. The analogy is simply disingenuous.

If you cannot see how a parent might not be insulted by your action you simply are showing a total lack of social understanding. It could be that you lack children to cement the amount of protectiveness which would be invoked by such contact. It could be that you lack a feeling of belief as strong as these people express with their protest. Either way, you show a lack of empathy that is dangerous to yourself and not slightly disturbing to others.

I certainly do not agree with these protestors but I would not approach a child of the group and attempt to tell him how wrong the adults are and if I did I would expect the reaction that you got. I believe you were unreasonable to expect safety when people are showing this amount of emotional response to something and that you showed lack of judgement in approaching a child specifically.

Also, he didn't beat the shit out of you. He popped you in the face once, this shows me he simply used enough force to insure that you would leave the kid alone. Had they ganged up and beat you to within an inch of your life I would be on your side, but they didn't.

And as I said, I believe in the parents right to protect their child in this case. Just as I would work to protect your right if at a Gay Pride parade one of these bigots approached your child in order to "save" him by teaching what they were saying during their protest.

If I were a member of the Jury I would vote to acquit, if I were he I would look for a Jury trial because it is likely I can get a hung Jury if not acquitted. If the child is not his, he asserted the right of the parent who put him in their custody in order to take part in this "protest".

 

[Nienna]

No, as opposed to say, getting a sign and working within your rights across from those you wish to oppose. What I was attempting to show is that doing this in front of the parent invites the violence. If they did do it behind their back they would not have been directly attacked. One hopes that they would teach their children enough that they could withstand such indoctrination but insulting their belief in front of them is moving beyond normal societal limits. The Supreme Court talks about "fighting words" and allows that some things would make a person attack you if you said them, I think that this might be one of those cases. I also think the term zealotry was misapplied in this case, when you cross that societal barrier in order to attempt indocrination it smacks of zealotry in its own right.

It would be pretty much the same as the Christians that attempted to convert people at a Gay Pride rally and were arrested for their trouble because attempts at conversion are apparantly, "Hate Speech".

I understand why the Homosexuals were upset and think that those Christians crossed a line where they were clearly not wanted and put themselves in danger. When they were attacked and then arrested (charges were later dropped by the courts) it was only to be expected. To be shocked by the actions of others that believe they are protecting their children when you attempt to accost those children and teach them against their belief is simply disingenuous.

I was just kidding! Did I forget to say I was just kidding? Sorry!