hate speech or not hate speech: that is the question

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Simon

sjbouza isn't blaming conservative Christian for the crimes she listed in her post. However, do not be deceived - many so-called "Christian' evangelicals (rich, famous and not too compassionate by the way) are responsible for inciting and encouraging an atmosphere of 'let's hate gays'.

I have nothing against 'conservative Christians', many of my friends and family are just that. Simon, I have a handful of family (close) and friends (who I thought were close) that have:

My aunt no longer has any contact with me, sent me a letter on my birthday last year which basically indicated I was going to hell and backing up her believe with her version of some really hateful Bible verses. And this one is good, she cannot talk to me about my being a lesbian or having a same-sex partner because she is afraid the evil spirit of homosexuality will overtake her too (??????)

A friends' last words were "may God have mercy on your soul" when I came out to her - nothing since

My stepmother who raised me from age 7 who hasn't called me in months and months and cannot even begin to fathom that I"m a lesbian and have a partner

A sister who feels I am on constant need of salvation (hence her emails of Bible message, CDs (what hell is really like), articles (why women become lesbians)

These friends and family attempt to 'take away' my faith and spirituality, have the audacity to tell me what I'm feeling, use the Bible against me, and refuse to read or listen to 'gay' stories and experiences. Guess what, in all examples they would consider themselves to be fundamental, conservative Christians (and all believe Dubya is doing a terrific job ).

There are other personal experiences of likeness throughout these forums.

They attempt to take away your dignity. The one unforgivable sin, it attempts to steal your soul. Not just your spirit, but the source of it.

[sjbouza]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Simon

sjbouza isn't blaming conservative Christian for the crimes she listed in her post.

tdogg,

Sorry to tell you, I am a GUY!!! I dont know where you got that I was a female?! But no I am a guy, No offense taken, I guess, I understand it was, I am sure, just a simple mistake.

Scott

Simon,

As I stated in that long post, "What was spoken was directly related to what happened then, just as it is now. When people spread lies and half truths about any class of people it incites people to fear. Fear breeds hate and hate breeds violence." When people speak negatively about others is breeds fear of those people. Look at what happened to the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Just because they were Japanese they were locked up in camps and treated like "the enemy". After 9/11 Muslim Americans were attacked. Did they have anything to do with what happened on 9/11? No one knows, but they were still attacked simply because they were the same class of people that attacked us on that day.

Speech directly affects how people look at others. Dobson himself has "declared war on homosexuality". He sent out mailings with "Declaration of War" in bold red letters on the envelope. You dont declare war on someone unless you want them dead. He may not personally be doing the physical violence, but HE IS inciting others to do it with what he says. Whether he means to or not, what he says has a VERY DIRECT AFFECT on how others look at homosexuals. If he, as well as others, would speak words of love and acceptance do you think there would be as much violence towards gays? Yes, there still would be violence, we are human, but I do truthfully feel that there would be much less. When a person is in a place of "authority" such as Dobson, what he says influences people strongly!!! I know my family is a devout listener to him, and how they vote, purchase things, basically everything is dictated by what he says. They wont even shop at WalMart anymore because Dobson said "they support homosexuals".

Speech can either spread love or hate. When a person lies and tells half truths about a class of people they are not spreading love, they are spreading hate. That hate gets planted in the hearts of the listeners. Like a seed it grows and blossoms. For the greatest majority of people, it just remains there without producing fruit. But for the radical people, the ones that feel they must cleanse the earth, it produces that fruit and is manifests itself in violence towards homosexuals.

All we are asking is that the lies and mistruths stop. Agreeably, a person can say whatever they want to, it is a free country. But on the same note, a person should be allowed to live their life free from fear of death or injury. That is also a freedom that everyone in this country is guaranteed. Remember, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?!

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Simon

But I don't understand, why are conservative Christian people are being blamed for the existing murders and assaults on LGBT folks? How many conservative Christians that you know, have actually advocated the violence against homosexuals? As this list of murdered gay people seems senseless to me, the blaming of regular Christian Americans for it happening, who simply believe that gay sex is wrong, seems senseless to me, no less.

Simon

Here is why conservative Christian people are being blamed:

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Now if I was a conservative Christian, I would be embarassed to associate or support any of these people. I would have to ask a conservative Christian, do you support these people's ministries knowing what they are saying about LGBT people and knowing the connection between hate speech and hate crime?

One of my professors at Covenant Theological Seminary lambasted conservatives for how they talk about homosexuals. You can read a transcript of his lecture here:

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worl...C310_T_09.html

My point is that conservatives know they have a problem in their midst that is disgracing the name of Christ and everything their faith stands for.

[tdogg]

sjbouza - SORRY!!! Not sure where I got that?? Anyways, got it now, you are a guy. Won't make that mistake again, thanks for setting me 'straight'

Simon, just curious - what was your initial emotion when you finished reading the list of hate crime victims that sjbouza posted? Be honest, your INITIAL emotion....

Patrick, yes, it's pretty horrible. I've had contact with my stepmom but only because my father has had some major medical stuff going on. She still won't call, come over, talk about anything to do with 'me'. And she considers herself a great Christian lady (who loves to give $$$ she doesn't have to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson...guess I have some issues with that!)

[suzer1013]

One I didn't see mentioned in the list (unless I missed it) was the bombing of a lesbian bar (the Otherside) in Atlanta. This was apparently done by Eric Rudolph, more famous for being the Olympic Park bomber.

No one died (thank God), but five people were injured. There was also a nexus with conservative "Christian" teachings. From crimelibrary.com:

"On February 24, 1997, some news media outlets in Atlanta received letters claiming responsibility for the Otherside and Sandy Springs clinic bombings. Signed "Army of God," the writer railed against "sodomites." The writer included details about the bombs that led investigators to believe he was indeed involved in the attacks."

Also worth noting, in the Georgia section of the list of hate crimes, there are two persons who are unidentified (there are also many unidentified in other states, too). If we had hate crimes legislation, the local and federal authorities would have more resources (and perhaps more incentive) to determine who these victims were. As of yet, they are nameless. How tragic for these victims (and their families, whoever they are)!

Susan

[BrentRichards]

The other obvious observation that should be made here ... how often do you hear anyone railing against homosexuality from something OTHER than a religious perspective? I can't recall seeing "Darwinists Oppose Gays as Nonadaptive" or anything like that.

I am a conservative Christian, and always will be, but I cannot deny that my faith community has added most of the fuel to this fire. Of course, other faiths have vocal opponents as well, but since 80-90 percent of our nation self-identifies as at least nominally Christian, we have to bear the brunt of the responsibility here. Were most of those people who committed the crimes listed above serious Christians? Probably not. Were they fueled, at least in part, by religious rhetoric. Likely.

[tdogg]

The thing is, it's not the average citizen running around spewing hate about GLBT people. It is for the most part conservative, fundamental Christian leaders who those average citizens put a lot of faith in. For instance, with the hate crime bill, look who is doing the most fussing about how it's going to take away free speech rights??? The only ones I'm hearing complaining about this are those who would consider themselves conservative Christians. Most people I know are at worst ignorant about the bill itself and can't bother to take action on anything. At best they are educated about the bill (and other political matters), support it and will do actions to help get it passed.

Other than what has been discussed on these forums, and what I've heard from conservative Christian folk, I haven't heard anything against this bill. Not making large assumptions here, just stating my personal experience and first hand knowledge.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tdogg

sjbouza - SORRY!!! Not sure where I got that?? Anyways, got it now, you are a guy. Won't make that mistake again, thanks for setting me 'straight'

Simon, just curious - what was your initial emotion when you finished reading the list of hate crime victims that sjbouza posted? Be honest, your INITIAL emotion....

Patrick, yes, it's pretty horrible. I've had contact with my stepmom but only because my father has had some major medical stuff going on. She still won't call, come over, talk about anything to do with 'me'. And she considers herself a great Christian lady (who loves to give $$$ she doesn't have to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson...guess I have some issues with that!)

Toni,

I was initially horrified by reading that list and to tell you the truth, I felt the same way after watching that Soulforce video, where they talked about hate speech.

I'm sorry about the situation with your family, and I'll keep you in my prayers that they will find ways to reconcile with you, someday. Personally, I don't like being around too many fundamentalists. However, not all conservative Christians are so legalistic. I read a book by a conservative, but not fundamentalist Christian writer Bob Davies called "Someone I love is gay." In it, he instructs parents not to reject their children because of their homosexual orientation, although he opposes same-sex intercourse. So, there you go.

I know very little about Robertson and Falwell, and I don't follow on everything they say. I saw Robertson once on TV, where he talked about how Christians should not be business partners with non-Christians: needless to say, I turned the TV off, right away. About Jerry Falwell, I remember how Mel White has blamed him for the murder of Matthew Shepard 7 years ago, but then he went on public television with him and when questioned whether it was okay to blame Falwell for the murder, he replied: absolutely not!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...k308/news.html

This is another reason why I'm having difficulty understanding this gentleman and Soulforce. But I'm still trying to learn.

Hugs,

S.

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by Simon

About Jerry Falwell, I remember how Mel White has blamed him for the murder of Matthew Shepard 7 years ago, but then he went on public television with him and when questioned whether it was okay to blame Falwell for the murder, he replied: absolutely not!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...k308/news.html

This is another reason why I'm having difficulty understanding this gentleman and Soulforce. But I'm still trying to learn.

Maybe he made a mistake in his first statement, and thought better of it later? Sounds, well, human to me.

I think people are entitled to revisit their opinions over time.

James

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Simon

However, not all conservative Christians are so legalistic. I read a book by a conservative, but not fundamentalist Christian writer Bob Davies called "Someone I love is gay." In it, he instructs parents not to reject their children because of their homosexual orientation, although he opposes same-sex intercourse. So, there you go.

Sub-culture alert, Simon. I'm sure you don't know it, but you stepped on a land mine here - Bob Davies is the Exec. Director of a group called Exodus International, which doesn't have many friends here. They are THE umbrella group for ex-gay ministries in the US and beyond, and I know from limited but personal experience that they and many of their affiliates are in fact VERY legalistic, and have been the source of much hurt to many like us. Mentioning him as compassionate and potentially an ally (my words, not yours ... I'm reading in) is going to set off bells and whistles here. Just so you know.

[u-dog]

Yup. he was right!

[Emproph]

I was just thinking that the opponents of this legislation may have a point.

Not necessarily a legitimate or ethical one, just that it might be a complicating factor that we and proponents of this legislation are not recognizing.

To recap:

"Statements critical of sexual orientation or gender identity can be prosecuted if those statements were part of the motivation of a person committing a crime against a homosexual"

The bill's supporters say that such an assertion is nonsense, and that a sermon could never be considered an inducement to violence unless it explicitly advocated it. (link)

advocate:
noun: a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy.

verb: publicly recommend or support.

Originally Posted by Emproph

Senator Gordon Smith, R - Oregon:
"This act is about the prosecution of crime, not prohibition of speech," Smith said. "Unless they believe part of their religion is the practice of violence against others, they should not be affected by this bill."

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Originally Posted by antonyh

My point is that conservatives know they have a problem in their midst that is disgracing the name of Christ and everything their faith stands for.

Obviously for them this is about the right to hate with impunity, and of course hate breeds violence, but I think for the most part the motive is political violence, not personal physical violence.

But as the argument goes, it's the expression of their "religious beliefs" that is of concern. So even if they don't use Leviticus 20:13 in their personal condemnation of homosexuality, to say that their belief is based on the Bible would still be the promotion and advocacy of murder.

I'm getting the impression that this is even more political than it already appears. Their "religious beliefs" by default, include the advocacy of murder -- whether or not that's their personal intention. There's no way around this, if you're advocating "God's inerrant word" when it comes to homosexuality, you're advocating murder.

The difference being of course that they're not promoting the condemnation of other equally valid "sins" of the Bible (that also require death).

I'm thinking that they've figured this out and are terrified that if any additional connections are made between their hate speech and the violence that results from it would lead others to also figure this out.

Those of you familiar with law might want to weigh in on this. It seems to me that given the right circumstances or social climate, this is the type of speech that could legally be considered to go beyond just hate speech, even here in America.

Ironically, it would be the Bible's own advocacy of murder that draws the line between religious expression and the incitement to commit crime.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Simon

Also, a pretty lesbian lady with a blonde hair from the video, had mentioned about changing laws and connecting their movement with the anti-segregation movement in the South, where eventually laws were changed. What was she, Chris, and others, advocating? Could it be possible that Soulforce was asking for censoring hate speech? If not, why would she bring this subject up about "changing laws?" She didn't state specifically what she meant, but the curiosity of her message, got the best of me, just like with the whole vigil.

FYI, in Europe and even in Canada, there are laws against hate speech, where people making public statements regarding the criticism of homosexuality, were punished:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...n/pch0080.html

Isn't there any similarity?

From link/article above, Chris Kempling:

Originally Posted by Google

In a seven-day trial that began on May 29 in Vancouver, anti-abortion activists Donald Spratt and Gordon Watson defended themselves from charges that they violated the bubble zone around Everywoman's Health Centre on December 17, 1998.

Watson has a history of violence and was once convicted of assault. Many clinic staff members consider him to be dangerous. Spratt is a Christian minister formerly with Operation Rescue, who was arrested about 10 years ago for violating an injunction outside Everywoman's.

Both men agreed that they deliberately sought to test the limits of the law, and expected to be arrested...(link)

Originally Posted by Google

A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal ruled that Bill Whatcott, pictured, incited hatred against gays and lesbians and he's been ordered to pay a $17,500 fine. Whatcott and a group called the "Christian Truth Activists" distributed pamphlets in Regina and Saskatoon calling us "sodomites" in "filthy" same-sex relationships, "430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children!"

I can see the legal 'free speech' argument there as far as the right to publically slander others in the name of Jesus goes, what I don't see is how an actual Christian could be more concerned with the right to publically slander than with the right to be free from the physically violent effects of that slander.

Originally Posted by Google

The Education Act sets out the standards to be applied to each of the different classes of schooling in Ontario (public, catholic, private and home schools). Essentially the province says: if you take public money, you must adhere to certain standards. These standards include:

complying with the Human Rights Code treating others fairly regardless of factors such as race, religion and sexual orientation, and respecting the rights of others.

The Durham Catholic School Board ha[d] adopted this code of conduct, and its decision [to prevent Marc from bringin JP to his Prom] violates its own standards.

Originally Posted by Chris Kempling

marriage commissioners, who are public employees licensed to perform civil marriages, were told by Frank Quennell, the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, to resign if they intend to refuse to perform same sex marriages.

In other words, "Frank Quennell" did his job by telling his employees to do their jobs to UPHOLD CANADIAN LAW, but so-called "Christian" Dr. Chris Kempling intentionally framed it as an employees "right" to not perform their CIVIC job duties if they happen to object on religious grounds.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Google

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith decided to wed after same-sex marriage became legal in British Columbia.

Chymyshyn and Smith allege the Knights of Columbus council cancelled their contract...weeks after they had already paid their deposit and sent out their wedding invitations.

Originally Posted by Google

ARNES, MB-A faith-based Manitoba camp has reached a settlement with a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered choir after four years of discussions.

The Rainbow Harmony Project filed a formal complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission in 2002 against Camp Arnes after the camp abruptly cancelled the choir's annual retreat booking.(link)

Originally Posted by Chris Kempling

My dictionary says that tolerance is "the disposition to adopt a liberal attitude towards the opinions or acts of others, especially those of other religions or ethnic backgrounds." One would think that tolerance would mean that social liberals would be tolerant about our religious beliefs.

In the Newspeak of today, however, tolerance means everyone is obliged to take a liberal attitude towards immoral sexual behaviour, but those who practice that immoral behaviour do not have to tolerate Christian beliefs which oppose such behaviour.

You poor persecuted thing you...No one's tolerating your intolerance for them.

Examples given so far:

Dancing (prom) = immoral sexual behavior
Singing (choir) = immoral sexual behavior
Wedding reception = immoral sexual behavior
Civic wedding = immoral sexual behavior

Thus:
The intent to deceive (lying) = "religious beliefs" that should be "tolerated."

Well Dr. Chris Kempling, when you put it like that...

[Simon]

Emproph,

I don't live in Canada, thanks God. No disrespect to Canadians, but I don't think I could survive living under their socialist system. Besides their hate speech laws, which are so ridiculous, they have a "wonderful" medical care system, where if you need a surgery, you'll be on a waitlist for up to 6 years. But that's another story.

I see that you sound happy with Canadian laws, so have you ever considered moving to Canada? I also think that those protesters from the video would also be happy living over there. They could have said what they want about how great homosexual relations are and nobody could say anything about them, under a threat of being punished for saying what they think. In my experience, I discovered that it makes more sense not to change their place, whether it's a school, city, country, that would support your beliefs but to find another one. That's the thing we have in America. For example, you can always find a college that reflects your beliefs. Have you ever heard of Hope College in Michigan? Over there, they believe that it's okay to be gay in a committed relationship and a Christian. There are about 200 colleges like that belonging to UCC, so that's why this Equality Ride doesn't make sense to me. Why couldn't those gay students who want to pursue a relationship just transfer to Hope?

People who immigrated to America, historically speaking, came here because they were persecuted in their old countries. It seems to me that these liberals and all other pro-socialists are not happy living in America, mainly because we have too much unrestricted speech, so why can't they emigrate maybe to Canada, which coincides with their views. Canada has definitely plenty of space, IMHO ? This country isn't planning to change to suit them, based on what I see. So, why not do something that certainly would make you happy? I don't understand.

As far as your declarations by calling people liars: everybody has a different interpretation of the world we are living in and we need to respect them. Or how else are you hoping for others to respect you? Or are you saying that your way is the only way? Who gave you that power? You can certainly disagree with people, but that doesn't make you being always right and others always wrong. I know that Dobson acts like he is self-righteous and that's a problem, but if we have a different opinion and also adopt self-righteousness, will it be productive? I don't think so. Therefore, I fully support people saying anything, since none of us possess the ultimate knowledge regarding absolute truth. For example, I believe that any speech, even it is perceived as being hateful should be spoken, but I may be wrong, that's why I'd like to be respected.

Judging by your sarcastic insensitive language towards people in Canada who were censored and forced to act contrary to their consciousness (from that link, did you check on a man who was fined for refusing to print information about homosexual and age of consent relationships to gay support groups?), how can you expect anybody to be sympathetic to your cause? I am wondering if those protesters have any sympathy to students in secular colleges who are being punished for criticizing left wing ideologies, done by their professors. This happens quite frequently throughout our country, just read the book "Indoctrination U" by David Horowitz, or "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian but speaks out against various abuses practiced by liberals, which unfortunately quite a few LGBT people tend to adopt.

I will check the thread you sent a link to me but in the meantime,

Have a blessed Sunday.

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by Simon

Toni,

I was initially horrified by reading that list and to tell you the truth, I felt the same way after watching that Soulforce video, where they talked about hate speech.

It is horrifying isn't it! Those examples are just a drop in the bucket. There are SO MANY more.

I'm sorry about the situation with your family, and I'll keep you in my prayers that they will find ways to reconcile with you, someday. Personally, I don't like being around too many fundamentalists.

Thanks Simon, I appreciate your concern and prayers. Bless you!

However, not all conservative Christians are so legalistic. I read a book by a conservative, but not fundamentalist Christian writer Bob Davies called "Someone I love is gay." In it, he instructs parents not to reject their children because of their homosexual orientation, although he opposes same-sex intercourse. So, there you go.

Not all, but just about all I've had experience with (knowing, hearing, seeing, etc.). And like Patrick says, Bob Davies isn't considered an ally by most of us. On the surface, a book like that might seem good, and was recommended to me to give to some of my family. However, I see it as providing something that might be misconstrued to being an admission that I feel being a lesbiand and in a relationship is wrong. Can't go there. But I have numerous books I could highly recommend, if you are interested, PM me.

I know very little about Robertson and Falwell, and I don't follow on everything they say. I saw Robertson once on TV, where he talked about how Christians should not be business partners with non-Christians: needless to say, I turned the TV off, right away. About Jerry Falwell, I remember how Mel White has blamed him for the murder of Matthew Shepard 7 years ago, but then he went on public television with him and when questioned whether it was okay to blame Falwell for the murder, he replied: absolutely not!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...k308/news.html

Have you read Stranger at the Gate? Mel had a friendly relationship with Mr. Falwell, which would be more inclined to have considerably more emotion involved. Yeah, Mel is human, but I so admire and respect him for his journey, his courage and his stand. He is one of my heros (Mel, not Jerry)!

This is another reason why I'm having difficulty understanding this gentleman and Soulforce. But I'm still trying to learn.

Stick around, you will learn more. Mel is a wonderful person, and has provided us with a safe, loving place to have these discussions. No one's actions are perfect, but Soulforce is a well though-out and developed organization, taking action that is planned and organized, not a fly by the seat of your pants kind of deal. Stay in the mix, maybe some day it will all make sense to you, even if you can't climb on board, you might get to a place where you can see us off.

Hugs,

S.

One of the reasons why the Equality Ride is such a necessary action, not all these students have a choice of which college to attend. Parents are paying for an education that they want to happen at a conservative Christian college. The student doesn't have a choice, it's either go to X College or don't go at all. That is the case more often than you probably realize. The ER action is making a difference for many. Just read the feedback from the students (some are posted on these forums here). It's amazing, the strides taking place because of the ER ride.

Personally, if I'm paying for my own education, I'm going to go where I want, and it wouldn't be a conservative Christian college. But if someone were offering me a free full college education, but I can only attend X College, well I would have to consider it if the alternative is no college. Don't you think? So they go, they hide, they are themselves in secret, and others just can't wait to out them and get them expelled. Who? Why, there conservative Christian classmates...

No, not all CCs are like that, but I would venture to estimate the majority is.

Hope you're havin' a great weekend Simon! Glad you are hanging in there on the forums!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Simon

As far as your declarations by calling people liars: everybody has a different interpretation of the world we are living in and we need to respect them. Or how else are you hoping for others to respect you? Or are you saying that your way is the only way? Who gave you that power? You can certainly disagree with people, but that doesn't make you being always right and others always wrong.

The definition of the word lie is not up for debate:

-An intentionally false statement.

-A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

-Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

False:

Donald Spratt was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime - he was holding a sign

Once again, he was simply holding a sign

True:

charges that they violated the bubble zone around Everywoman's Health Centre on December 17, 1998.

Both men agreed that they deliberately sought to test the limits of the law, and expected to be arrested

You're claiming that the difference between holding a sign and deliberately violating a bubble zone is a matter of interpretation?

Everyone has a right to their opinion, everyone does not have a right to the facts.

To say that truth is no more than opinion is moral relativism, not absolute morality. Absolute morality being the very thing that these so-called Christians "under attack" claim distinguishes them from the rest of society.

If you have such a disdain for truth that can be verified, how is it you expect others to believe you have regard for Biblical truth that cannot be verified?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Emproph

The definition of the word lie is not up for debate:


False:


True:


You're claiming that the difference between holding a sign and deliberately violating a bubble zone is a matter of interpretation?

Everyone has a right to their opinion, everyone does not have a right to the facts.

To say that truth is no more than opinion is moral relativism, not absolute morality. Absolute morality being the very thing that these so-called Christians "under attack" claim distinguishes them from the rest of society.

If you have such a disdain for truth that can be verified, how is it you expect others to believe you have regard for Biblical truth that cannot be verified?

I'll leave it up to God. If I can't do something on my own, maybe He can.

[dewdrop_world]

I wonder, Simon, are you really as unconcerned about the misrepresentation of the Everywoman incident in the right-wing propaganda as you appear to be?

Right-wing activist - "We expected to be arrested."

Right-wing propaganda - "They were just holding a sign."



I would think, if one wants to promote conservative ideas / ideals, that one would place a high premium on one's credibility. But there I go again... thinking that ethics matter. What a silly fool am I.

James

[Simon]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I wonder, Simon, are you really as unconcerned about the misrepresentation of the Everywoman incident in the right-wing propaganda as you appear to be?

Right-wing activist - "We expected to be arrested."

Right-wing propaganda - "They were just holding a sign."



I would think, if one wants to promote conservative ideas / ideals, that one would place a high premium on one's credibility. But there I go again... thinking that ethics matter. What a silly fool am I.

James

James,

What happened to Mr. Spratt being arrested outside abortion clinic in Canada seems to me no different that what happened to Mr. Hubble and his crew in front of Focus on the Family. It looks like both of them knew that they wanted to get arrested. I think that even though they promoted different ideologies, their tactics were the same.

However, my main concern about what happened in Canada is about punishing people for publishing their opinions about homosexuality, where over there it's considered a hate speech. 9/10th of that link is devoted to that. I understand that Canada is very left wing and socialist, but I believe that what they do over there, is undemocratic in America. I hope nothing like that would ever happen here.

Then there's the term "hate". If Christians say publicly that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour because the Bible declares it to be immoral, then that is "promoting hatred". If they quote medical statistics about the HIV infection rates of homosexual men, that is "promoting hatred". If they object to their children being indoctrinated in kindergarten class with information about homosexuality, they are hateful people. Apparently Canadians can hold religious beliefs, but if they tell anyone else in a public forum, such as a newspaper, they are "promoting hatred".

How about "homophobia". It literally means an irrational fear, even terror, of homosexual persons. A phobia is a mental illness, which can be successfully treated. In Communist Russia, dissidents were sentenced to forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals, not because they were mentally ill, but because they had wrong thoughts. I believe it is no accident that the Gay Rights term for disapproval of homosexual behaviour is a mental illness term. In all my years as a mental health professional, however, I have never encountered anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals. But the definition of homophobia, as defined by gay activists, is the unwillingness to approve of homosexuality. Even toleration without approval is defined as homophobic. So if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, you are "mentally ill" and require re-education. One homosexual activist, John McKellar, who opposes the Gay Pride movement, calls the use of the word homophobia, "a contrived slander" against religiously conservative people. But activists realize that religious people are unlikely to change, which is why they are focusing a tremendous amount of attention on re-educating children in public schools.

This is something from that link. Now, do you believe that this is not true?