christians sue for right not to tolerate - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2006, 07:46 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Should we/ would we tolerate these same people telling Jews they are damned and will not be saved
unless they reject their faith and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior?
lol, well we were told that tons of times where I grew up, though it was usually a straightforward gleeful "All you Christ-killers are gonna burn in hell!" minus the polite offer of conversion. I can't remember a teacher ever intervening either, that was just the way it was.

In general though, I think most schools and workplaces would find themselves de facto needing to reintroduce bans on open and unprovoked defamation of gays, religious sects, racial minorities etc. even if they tried to lift them, if only because this would put their free-speech commitments on a collision course with with their need to maintain a civil/professional enough atmosphere to get their regular business done.

When I managed a bookstore back in college, I had an employee who was a neo-Nazi. There was no company ban on this (actually I've never heard of a company that bans it) and I didn't myself have a problem with her, honestly; she just seemed like a messed-up young woman with drug and domestic abuse problems to me. However, I did ultimately have to speak with both her and several other employees about not getting into confrontations over neo-Nazism while at work, and in the end two people--one of them her--wound up getting fired because of their inability to cooperate with my request. I suspect many workplaces and schools would wind up having similar fallout from the choice to be "tolerant" of chronically libelous groups. Probably colleges could afford to let more slide, but on the other hand, a student center is not a town hall and colleges have traditionally had a fair amount of leeway to define and regulate what they consider vulgar or defamatory (banning sales of porn on campus, etc.)--balanced out by an equally strong traditional commitment to permitting constructive expression of opposing points of view.

I'm not sure how applicable extending this to housing or hiring discrimination is though since those are not free speech issues, which is what the campaigns cited seem to be focusing on.
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
if we are going to argue that homosexuality is "behavior" and "choice," and therefore exempt from anti-discrimination laws, well then i'm damn well going to defend my right to discriminate on the basis of religion since religion is far, far, far more of a "behavior" and a "choice" than sexual orientation.
I had pretty much the same incredulous reaction to her suggestion that gays need to "knock off the political propaganda" if they want to be tolerated...knock off, knock knock.

But then I've never really understood why the right to practice one's own faith, and to lead an observant lifestyle, would necessitate seeing people who don't as some kind of intrinsic threat to that.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 08:04 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Christians are sounding more like a hate group everyday.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 09:18 PM   #33
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Christians are sounding more like a hate group everyday.

Melon
I know this would be next to impossible, but it would be interesting to see a poll as to where churches really stood on the issue. Where individuals within the umbrella of Christianity stood on the issue.

I mean I'm pretty sure I'm part of the minority, but I wonder really by how much? If there were some outspoken influential members of the minority, truly educated in scripture would it really effect the middle?

I've been distancing myself from Christianity more and more over the past 5 years or so, and I'd really like to not have to do that, but the more and more quacks like this come out I run a little further and get closer to this concept that "Christianity" is sounding like a hate group.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-12-2006, 09:54 PM   #34
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

But then I've never really understood why the right to practice one's own faith, and to lead an observant lifestyle, would necessitate seeing people who don't as some kind of intrinsic threat to that.
Same here, so I found this article. If any Christians here feel the ideas in the article are out of line, please clarify why.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slack...ominable_.html

The Abominable Shellfish

Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon

The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, has some wonderful passages. The Jubilee laws outlined in chapter 25, for example, provide an inspiring vision of liberty and justice for all. The 10th verse of this chapter even supplied the inscription for the Liberty Bell: "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."

The Jubilee laws and the ideals they embody, unfortunately, are nearly wholly neglected and forgotten. Most of the book of Leviticus is similarly neglected.

Yet some passages live on, their teachings still regarded as unwavering and binding.

One such passage is Lev. 20:13, which says (in the King James Version), "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

That passage is frequently cited by the spokesmen of the religious right to explain why they're so adamantly opposed to allowing homosexuals to enjoy full civil rights here in America.

The thing is, though, that the book of Leviticus condemns a lot of things as "abominations." The 11th chapter is overflowing with abominations. For example, from verses 10-12:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem eating at Red Lobster. What gives?

Since many observers have noted this apparent inconsistency (see, for example, godhatesshrimp.com) I figured I would wade in to try to explain why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while embracing shellfish.

To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp you have to flip ahead to the Acts of the Apostles, the good doctor's account of the early days of the Christian church.

Acts chapter 10 finds the apostle Peter on a rooftop in Joppa, praying at noon before heading down to lunch.

The impulsive former fisherman has grown into a genuine leader in the early church. At Pentecost, he preached the gospel to people from every corner of the Roman Empire and he is slowly appreciating that this new community is supposed to transcend any ethnic or cultural boundaries. But the goyim still seem to bug him a bit. Especially the Romans.

So God gives him a vision. Peter falls into a trance and sees a vision of a giant tablecloth descending from heaven. The tablecloth is covered with honeybaked hams, cheesesteaks, crab cakes, calamari and lobster.

"Eat up, Peter," a voice tells him

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter says. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

"Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean," the voice says. "And try the angels on horseback, they're like butter."

This happens three times.

This is generally regarded as an instance in which a New Testament passage seems to set aside a prohibition from the Old Testament. And that's why our friends on the religious right do not feel compelled to eat kosher and do not consider shellfish to be "an abomination."

Fair enough, but there's something else going on in this story. The main point of Peter's rooftop epiphany has nothing to do with diet. The main point of this vision had to do with the people who were about to knock on Peter's door.

Peter is about to meet Cornelius. Cornelius is a gentile. Worse than that, he is a Roman. Worse than that, he is a Roman centurion. Cornelius is about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger.

But give Peter credit -- he understood the vision. "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean." Don't call anyone unclean that God has made clean.

Peter does not treat Cornelius as an unclean outsider. He travels to the centurion's house, where he says, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."

Peter gets it. In this new community that God is building, this church, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. No one is excluded as unclean.

This is the unsubtle point that Luke is hammering home for his gentile friend Theophilus. The surrounding chapters of Acts read like a hyper-P.C. after-school special on celebrating diversity. The church embraces Jews and gentiles, Roman soldiers and slaves, men and women, Africans, Greeks and even a token white European.

In our fondness for Easter ham, we Christians have fervently clung to the surface-level meaning of Peter's vision. But we haven't been as enthusiastic about embracing the larger, more important lesson God was teaching him there on the rooftop. When the "unclean" outsiders knock on our doors, we don't like inviting them in.

That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one "abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.

(Oh, and what about Leviticus' Jubilee laws? Those were never set aside by anything in the New Testament, but Christians no longer treat them as authoritative because, um ... well, because money is pretty and shiny and let's us buy nice things.)
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 10:01 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Illumination70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eastern, WA.
Posts: 271
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Quote:
I don't think we have a right to harrass gays either verbally or physically. Gays are getting killed due to all the homophobia that's going on now. It's scary. I don't like this stuff. To me it's just an excuse for homophobia.
I totally agree!!
__________________
Illumination70 is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 10:07 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:33 AM
I think A_Wanderer summed it up best here.


Amazing how many are intollerant of what they call intollerance
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 10:47 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I think A_Wanderer summed it up best here.


Amazing how many are intollerant of what they call intollerance
Do we allow the KKK to speak on college campuses?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:09 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:33 AM
I could toss the cheap "so conservative Christians are the same as the KKK?" question, but that type of discussion has been beaten to death.

I think elsewhere we've discussed an answer of yes, you allow people to speak so you can counter their speech. It is both the price and the benefit of a free society.

Perhaps we can draw the analogy to Islamic societies that ban expressions of other religious beliefs.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:13 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Perhaps we can draw the analogy to Islamic societies that ban expressions of other religious beliefs.
Or back in the good old days when Protestants were sawed in half by the Papal Inquisition. But no...some stupid hippies came in and made that illegal.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:16 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I could toss the cheap "so conservative Christians are the same as the KKK?" question, but that type of discussion has been beaten to death.

I think elsewhere we've discussed an answer of yes, you allow people to speak so you can counter their speech. It is both the price and the benefit of a free society.

Perhaps we can draw the analogy to Islamic societies that ban expressions of other religious beliefs.
Of course I wasn't trying to make the analogy that CCs are the same as the KKK, but their speach does have similar consequences.

If they would focus on the teachings of Christ and not using misinterpreted or out of context scripture we wouldn't have this problem.

But your example of Islamic societies comparing to college campuses is a much different animal. College campuses have always maintained a different set of free speech laws than free society.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:20 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:33 PM
And goddamn it. I want my right to protest during church services. What kind of society is it when I cannot exercise my right to free speech by making a direct counterargument against a minister's sermon to the congregation? What is this? North fucking Korea? Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, guys?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:25 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Of course I wasn't trying to make the analogy that CCs are the same as the KKK, but their speach does have similar consequences.
Similar consequences?

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
If they would focus on the teachings of Christ and not using misinterpreted or out of context scripture we wouldn't have this problem.
We've been around the block too many times on the interpretation issues. A solid argument could be made that the speaker referenced in the original article is not using misinterpreted or out of context Scripture.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
But your example of Islamic societies comparing to college campuses is a much different animal. College campuses have always maintained a different set of free speech laws than free society.
This raises the most interesting issue here - should colleges become unique islands of limited free speech? Does your answer to this question depend n the list of approved and disapproved speech?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:33 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
And goddamn it. I want my right to protest during church services. What kind of society is it when I cannot exercise my right to free speech by making a direct counterargument against a minister's sermon to the congregation? What is this? North fucking Korea? Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, guys?

Melon


As soon as you let Fred Phelps march through your living room.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:34 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Let's stop playing on the merry-go-round here.

1) Christians hate gays so much that they'll look for any excuse to demean, belittle, and deny their existence. And if someone tells them they can't, they're going to cry "discrimination."

2) Substitute "gays" for "blacks" or "Jews," then substitute "Christians" for "neo-Nazis." The sentence still makes sense.

3) On top of everything, if someone started insisting on demeaning and firing Christians in the workplace, along with suing for the right to bash Christians at their own worship services (marketplace of ideas, guys!), they'd then cite their own non-discrimination laws as protection.

It's Hypocrisy 101.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:36 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


As soon as you let Fred Phelps march through your living room.
No one lives in churches just as no one has worship services in their living room.

If Christians want the right to hate people, then non-Christians should have the right to hate right back. Let the marketplace decide or do Christians hate freedom?

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com