Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

[PaintMyHouse]

When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.

Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.

She can speak, but she's still a moron for Jesus. Just another member of the American Taliban.

 

[Flopper]

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Wrong.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not make one an 'activist,' nor does it 'deny' other citizens their rights.

And it's a ridiculous lie to claim that gay Americans wish to 'stifle' those hostile to homosexuals, or to make it 'illegal' to be hostile to gay Americans – nothing could be further from the truth.

Consequently, there is no 'intolerance' toward those hostile to gay Americans, they are at liberty to express their ignorance, fear, and hate with impunity, where no one is advocating they be prohibited from doing so through force of law.

It's as if you and others on the right don't even care that you're liars.

Hmmmm ---- if gay supporters aren't interested in stifling those "hostile to homosexuals" - then what is that move to have all anti-gay speech declared hate speech, or those movements attempting to have LGBT be afforded special class protection available to blacks and women? Why do i constantly see cowardly attacks of misrepresentation, half truths, and outright lies on those (the latest was Rubio) who make the 'mistake' of even mentioning the LGBT crowd? Why do I see constant attacks, on these threads, on those who profess their commitment to Christianity?

That's probably not trying to silence people, huh?

There is a lot of talk about hate speech but the only people I've heard talking about hate speech laws are Marco Rubio and some Christian leaders. This is an old political ploy, set yourself up as defender against an imaginary evil. People will assume that it really exist and you the one that will save them.

The EU has had a law against hate speech for years however, speech in the US is protected by constitution, hate or otherwise. Public rallies with people carrying signs for the Nazi Party that say “Kill Jews”, Klu Klux Klan (KKK) white supremacist demonstrations shouting “Kill *******” and lunatic, Christian, preachers with their signs that say “God Hates Fags” are all protected expressions of freedom of speech in the United States.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Wrong.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not make one an 'activist,' nor does it 'deny' other citizens their rights.

And it's a ridiculous lie to claim that gay Americans wish to 'stifle' those hostile to homosexuals, or to make it 'illegal' to be hostile to gay Americans – nothing could be further from the truth.

Consequently, there is no 'intolerance' toward those hostile to gay Americans, they are at liberty to express their ignorance, fear, and hate with impunity, where no one is advocating they be prohibited from doing so through force of law.

It's as if you and others on the right don't even care that you're liars.

Hmmmm ---- if gay supporters aren't interested in stifling those "hostile to homosexuals" - then what is that move to have all anti-gay speech declared hate speech, or those movements attempting to have LGBT be afforded special class protection available to blacks and women? Why do i constantly see cowardly attacks of misrepresentation, half truths, and outright lies on those (the latest was Rubio) who make the 'mistake' of even mentioning the LGBT crowd? Why do I see constant attacks, on these threads, on those who profess their commitment to Christianity?

That's probably not trying to silence people, huh?

There is a lot of talk about hate speech but the only people I've heard talking about hate speech laws are Marco Rubio and some Christian leaders. This is an old political ploy, set yourself up as defender against an imaginary evil. People will assume that it really exist and you the one that will save them.

The EU has had a law against hate speech for years however, speech in the US is protected by constitution, hate or otherwise. Public rallies with people carrying signs for the Nazi Party that say “Kill Jews”, Klu Klux Klan (KKK) white supremacist demonstrations shouting “Kill *******” and lunatic, Christian, preachers with their signs that say “God Hates Fags” are all protected expressions of freedom of speech in the United States.

Speech here is also limited, just not as much.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Exactly how are gays being intolerant toward the religious beliefs of others?

Not only gays, liberals too. See below. Examples of liberal and gay activist intolerances towards Christians are listed in chronological order:

November 2004:

"Rove’s re-election strategy was elegantly simple: Scare the bejesus out of Jesusland. F@ggots are headed your way! Satanic Muslims are hiding everywhere! That’s all it took to get Jesusland to do the job. Intellectual conservatives like the National Review staff are flattering themselves if they honestly believe Jesusland cares about conservative thought. The “reality-based” folks are learning that Jesusland doesn’t even care about jobs or the economy. In Jesusland, it’s all the will of Jesus. No job? No money? Daughter got her cl*t pierced? Jesus is just f*cking with you again, testing your faith. Got the cancer? Oh well. Soon you’ll be with Jesus. Reality is no match for a mystical world in which an all-powerful god is constantly toying with every detail of your mundane life, just to see what you’ll do about it. Keep praying and always keep your eye out for homosexuals and terrorists, and you will eventually be rewarded … all you have to do is die, and then it’s SuperJesusLand, where you will be a ghost floating in a magic cloud with all the other ghosts from Jesusland, with Jesus Himself presiding over an Eternal Church Service"

Ken Layne, Wonkette, after John Kerry's defeat to George W. Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election

September 25, 2006

Religion or Reality. Choose. The Smirking Chimp

November 27, 2006

Late Nite FDL The Christian Right is Neither Firedoglake

February 13, 2007

Edwards Campaign Blogger Quits Amid Controversy - ABC News

December 14, 2011



June 7, 2012

New Mexico photographer loses third round of gay discrimination case but attorneys vow fight isn t over Deseret News

March 21, 2013

FAU Student Claims He Was Suspended For Refusing To Step On Jesus CBS Miami

May 14, 2013

Franklin Graham IRS targeted us too - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

July 8, 2013

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime Courts Examiner.com

September 6, 2013

Air Force cracking down on Christians Fox News

September 9, 2013

Florida official tells Christian charity to choose between Jesus and cheese Fox News

September 9, 2013

TODD S AMERICAN DISPATCH Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats protests Fox News

December 8, 2013

Duck Dynasty star suspended for anti-gay remarks - CNN.com

January 14, 2014

First-grader told to stop talking about Bible Fox News

April 3, 2014

Mozilla CEO resigns opposition to gay marriage drew fire Reuters

March 27, 2015

Richland florist fined 1 001 for denying flowers to same-sex couple Local Regional Seattle News Weather Sports Breaking News KOMO News


April 2, 2015

Threat tied to RFRA prompt Indiana pizzeria to close its doors

 

[NoNukes]

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Not allowing gays to marry is what is intolerant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Not allowing gays to marry is what is intolerant.

And how are we stopping them from getting married? How does denying them service stop them from getting married?

I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Wrong.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not make one an 'activist,' nor does it 'deny' other citizens their rights.

And it's a ridiculous lie to claim that gay Americans wish to 'stifle' those hostile to homosexuals, or to make it 'illegal' to be hostile to gay Americans – nothing could be further from the truth.

Consequently, there is no 'intolerance' toward those hostile to gay Americans, they are at liberty to express their ignorance, fear, and hate with impunity, where no one is advocating they be prohibited from doing so through force of law.

It's as if you and others on the right don't even care that you're liars.

Hmmmm ---- if gay supporters aren't interested in stifling those "hostile to homosexuals" - then what is that move to have all anti-gay speech declared hate speech, or those movements attempting to have LGBT be afforded special class protection available to blacks and women? Why do i constantly see cowardly attacks of misrepresentation, half truths, and outright lies on those (the latest was Rubio) who make the 'mistake' of even mentioning the LGBT crowd? Why do I see constant attacks, on these threads, on those who profess their commitment to Christianity?

That's probably not trying to silence people, huh?

There is no 'move' to have anti-gay speech declared 'hate speech,' nor are there any 'movements' attempting to afford the LGBT community 'special class protection'; gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, not suspect class status as afforded persons because of race or religion. (Lawrence v. Texas (2003))

First Amendment jurisprudence with regard to hate speech is being applied consistently to the issue of civil rights for gay American as to everyone else. (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Wisconsinv. Mitchell (1993))

You must be getting this bizarre misinformation from some rightwing blog or the like.

Moreover, to correctly and accurately identify those seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights by advocating laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution is neither a 'cowardly attack' nor a 'misrepresentation' of the issue. And it is not an 'outright lie' to acknowledge the fact that to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment, a fact of law established by the Federal courts.

Your perception of 'attacks' on Christians is subjective and false – to tell a Christian it is un-Constitutional to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is not to 'attack' that Christian.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I have always been a huge fan of the original Star Trek, and always loved all the main characters.
George however has gotten more and more opinionated on the liberal side, so in turn I like him less and less the more I hear him.

 

[Spare_change]

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Wrong.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not make one an 'activist,' nor does it 'deny' other citizens their rights.

And it's a ridiculous lie to claim that gay Americans wish to 'stifle' those hostile to homosexuals, or to make it 'illegal' to be hostile to gay Americans – nothing could be further from the truth.

Consequently, there is no 'intolerance' toward those hostile to gay Americans, they are at liberty to express their ignorance, fear, and hate with impunity, where no one is advocating they be prohibited from doing so through force of law.

It's as if you and others on the right don't even care that you're liars.

Hmmmm ---- if gay supporters aren't interested in stifling those "hostile to homosexuals" - then what is that move to have all anti-gay speech declared hate speech, or those movements attempting to have LGBT be afforded special class protection available to blacks and women? Why do i constantly see cowardly attacks of misrepresentation, half truths, and outright lies on those (the latest was Rubio) who make the 'mistake' of even mentioning the LGBT crowd? Why do I see constant attacks, on these threads, on those who profess their commitment to Christianity?

That's probably not trying to silence people, huh?

There is no 'move' to have anti-gay speech declared 'hate speech,' nor are there any 'movements' attempting to afford the LGBT community 'special class protection'; gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, not suspect class status as afforded persons because of race or religion. (Lawrence v. Texas (2003))

First Amendment jurisprudence with regard to hate speech is being applied consistently to the issue of civil rights for gay American as to everyone else. (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Wisconsinv. Mitchell (1993))

You must be getting this bizarre misinformation from some rightwing blog or the like.

Moreover, to correctly and accurately identify those seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights by advocating laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution is neither a 'cowardly attack' nor a 'misrepresentation' of the issue. And it is not an 'outright lie' to acknowledge the fact that to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment, a fact of law established by the Federal courts.

Your perception of 'attacks' on Christians is subjective and false – to tell a Christian it is un-Constitutional to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is not to 'attack' that Christian.

"In Europe people are starting to be jailed for saying what they think." Those words were spoken by Vladimir Palko, the Slovak Interior Minister, in a strongly worded protest to the Swedish ambassador to Slovakia. The minister's comments represented outrage over the jailing of a Christian pastor for preaching against homosexuality. The arrest of this pastor in Sweden is only a foretaste of what is to come, if homosexual advocates and their ideology gain traction in the United States and other nations.

Ake Green, pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison on a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals. Pastor Green was prosecuted for his sermon in a January hearing, where he was found guilty of "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon preached in 2003."

"British Christians this month united with political conservatives, political liberals, and entertainers to block the enactment of a harsh new hate speech law. But there's already a bigger battle looming on the horizon.

On Feb. 1 the House of Commons, by a single vote, defeated the government's Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. What did pass was a bill drastically amended by the House of Lords to remove specific references to ‘abusive’ and ‘insulting’ behavior and most importantly the principle of recklessness in relation to actions and behavior. The amended bill, now law, criminalizes intentional incitement of religious hatred, and "threatening" words and behavior. Without these amendments, UK Christian lawyers were certain that the legislation would have significantly impacted the ability to proselytize and hamper discussion and criticism of religious beliefs of practices."

Dated 2007 -
"Recently, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law S.B. 777, outlawing Biblical criticism of homosexuality in CA public schools (See, California 'Mom,' 'Dad' ban garners international scorn). California's Christians face the alternatives of withdrawing their children to private education or watching them progressively corrupted by an educational system that demonizes their religious bias against sodomy.

This ban on the Bible is not a recent capricious edict from Sacramento liberals or the Republican "Terminator" Governor Schwarzenegger. It's the result of massive social engineering throughout the past half century but begun in earnest in 1985 by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. ADL is architect of "anti-bias" educational programs worldwide. Here's how this Jewish activist group helped make it criminal to criticize sodomy in California--and intends to do so everywhere."

You're right --- there's no such movement afoot. Probably doesn't mean anything that 21 states have laws similar to SB7777 proposed or passed ....

I love the parsing you do, though ---- nothing wrong with LGBT attacking those who oppose homosexuality, but those who attack LGBT should be muffled.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.

Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.

Ignorant nonsense.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private citizens, where government alone has the authority and means to limit or restrict speech consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

When 'defense' of traditional Judeo-Christian values manifests as seeking to deny citizens their civil rights through force of law in violation of the Constitution, it's perfectly appropriate for private citizens to denounce such efforts, and correctly identify the ignorance and hate that motivate efforts to violate citizens' civil rights.

For private citizens to denounce ignorance and hate in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society, in no way undermines America's commitment to free speech.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

So fighting or pushing back against religious bigotry is itself "bigotry towards Christians and people of faith"???

How does one fight against bigotry?

 

[Spare_change]

When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.

Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.

Ignorant nonsense.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private citizens, where government alone has the authority and means to limit or restrict speech consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

When 'defense' of traditional Judeo-Christian values manifests as seeking to deny citizens their civil rights through force of law in violation of the Constitution, it's perfectly appropriate for private citizens to denounce such efforts, and correctly identify the ignorance and hate that motivate efforts to violate citizens' civil rights.

For private citizens to denounce ignorance and hate in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society, in no way undermines America's commitment to free speech.

Why don't you read what is posted???? Damn --- it's tough dealing with the close-minded.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.

Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.

Ignorant nonsense.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private citizens, where government alone has the authority and means to limit or restrict speech consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

When 'defense' of traditional Judeo-Christian values manifests as seeking to deny citizens their civil rights through force of law in violation of the Constitution, it's perfectly appropriate for private citizens to denounce such efforts, and correctly identify the ignorance and hate that motivate efforts to violate citizens' civil rights.

For private citizens to denounce ignorance and hate in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society, in no way undermines America's commitment to free speech.

Why don't you read what is posted???? Damn --- it's tough dealing with the close-minded.

It's tough dealing with you and others who are ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

One can't be 'open-minded' to the 'argument' that 2 + 2 = 6.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

So fighting or pushing back against religious bigotry is itself "bigotry towards Christians and people of faith"???

How does one fight against bigotry?

One doesn't.

He remains silent and quietly accepts being discriminated against and having his civil rights violated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Not only gays, liberals too. See below. Examples of liberal and gay activist intolerances towards Christians are listed in chronological order”

And fails as a composition fallacy.

Moreover, nowhere in these 'examples' are there any efforts to seek to disadvantage Christians through force of law, or to use the power and authority of government to deny Christians their rights, where the same cannot be said for Christians seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights through force of law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Too God damn funny.

Mask your hate with links & current events, everything is ok.

Call out the bullshit for what it is & the posts disappear

huh?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

So fighting or pushing back against religious bigotry is itself "bigotry towards Christians and people of faith"???

How does one fight against bigotry?

One doesn't.

He remains silent and quietly accepts being discriminated against and having his civil rights violated.

enemy of liberty?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Not only gays, liberals too. See below. Examples of liberal and gay activist intolerances towards Christians are listed in chronological order”

And fails as a composition fallacy.

Moreover, nowhere in these 'examples' are there any efforts to seek to disadvantage Christians through force of law, or to use the power and authority of government to deny Christians their rights, where the same cannot be said for Christians seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights through force of law.

it's akin to people calling out 'racism' whenever race is mentioned in an argument or DEBATE.

Racism isn't about mentioning race, it's about using race to denigrate and abuse others

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”

By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”

Actually you're a liar.

No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.

 

[tinydancer]

When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.

Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.

She can speak, but she's still a moron for Jesus. Just another member of the American Taliban.

American Taliban don't shoot women for walking outside of their house. Now that said I think I have to address you for the last time. I have to point out that Hillary's room mate Benazir helped start the Taliban. Did you know that? I am so glad she is not alive to continue her reign of terror.

You are really starting to piss me off PMH again. I'd advise you to walk softly up and coming. You and your crew are not only known to me but I have watched you on more than this board play your games.

I know who all of you are. Today is a new day.