Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law
'It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties'

Posted: October 28, 2009
3:57 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama.

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law "creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American."

Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence.

"It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable," he said.

Full story (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114305)

So it's a bad thing to know your minister, priest, pastor won't be able to preach hatred in church anymore?

And that whole thing about LGBT getting more protection than straights...  Are they being discriminated against, beaten or murdered for being straight?

Julie

Ah poor babies, so misunderstood.  Ha

I knew that they would begin saying that their freedom to be bigots and preach hate would be threatened.  Just wait till they begin to get sued into the ground.


Janet

Nazis don't like getting squelched either. Oh yeah, I almost forgot the original Nazis were base on perversed Christian beliefs. Funny how committing mass murder didn't figure into all that  :P

Lets say it all together in retarded right style unison...

we're all gonna die!
we can't push the idea of forcing our narrow minds upon other as much as before, ohh noes
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg144.imageshack.us%2Fimg144%2F2394%2Fsarclg1.gif&hash=5bfea3056c28b2e905f4cbc3e95d02a684d13ebf)

:P
somehow, I see this as having little effect on the haters though, like a criminal couldn't care less about the law broken, the retarded right doesn't care much about the rights of others in spite of their claims to individual liberty.

Quote from: Julie Marie on October 28, 2009, 11:38:11 PM
Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law
'It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties'

Posted: October 28, 2009
3:57 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama.

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law "creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American."

Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence.

"It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable," he said.

Full story (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114305)

So it's a bad thing to know your minister, priest, pastor won't be able to preach hatred in church anymore?

And that whole thing about LGBT getting more protection than straights...  Are they being discriminated against, beaten or murdered for being straight?

Julie

While I think that the church has it almost entirely wrong when it comes to what the Bible says regarding LGBT folks, I also don't think it's helpful to asses that all ministers who preach that it's unbiblical are "preaching hatred"

Certainly some do, but most in my experience preach loving compassion for those who are "outside of God's will" (whether that's LGBT, or adultery, or substance abuse, or whatever) - not hatred.

That's not to say that shallow hearers won't see the "unbiblical" label as a license to hate but that's still not "preaching hatred"

All that said, I sincerely hope that Wildmon is wrong and this legislation is NOT applied to religious teaching (as such laws have led to elsewhere) because I strongly believe in religious freedom and as long as you are not actively violating another you have every right to be sincerely wrong.

I THINK he is wrong - virtually paranoid - because I don't think Americans would stand for the sorts of applications of this line of reasoning that have been applied in other countries against religion...but given that there are precedents it's not entirely unreasonable he's worried about it.

I'm VERY happy about the legislation (albeit, I have philosophical issues with the concept of a "hate crime" - if there is to be hate crime legislation it DEFINITELY needs to be all inclusive)  but i would be unspeakably unhappy with it if it were used to undermine freedom of speech or religion.

Sadly, I've come to have very little confidence in our lawmakers to ultimately get something right, even if they do have a brief moment of lucidity along the way.

I'd like to see a few more "sad days" for these folks w/ passage of fully inclusive ENDA, repeal of DOMA and DADT...   >:-)

Z

Wow. Laws get so misunderstood here. First Amendment prevents the gov't from denying an individual or group from speaking out (hence why organizations like the KKK do so well in the US). The Hate Crimes bill only addresses crimes that were done because of <insert identifying reasons here, like colour, religion, etc.>. It doesn't prevent people like Phelps from speaking out.

As an example if someone were to attack Phelps physically because of his religious views, that is a hate crime. If someone were to yell epitaths at me, calling me a "wannabe man", it's not. It's technically freedom of speech. Now, I may decide to sue the individual, claiming slander -- that's a different matter. If, however, because of what they said someone attacked me or they attacked me, then that is a hate crime.

I don't think it does us any justice to be as uneducated as others in this society about changes in laws that happen.

Oh.. and before I forget, please remember the source of the article. WorldDailyNet is the extremist right wing arm of the GOP. It's a fear mongering site that is known for making up stuff and for slanting things in the worst possible light. I don't consider them a reliable news source. 

Quote from: heatherrose on October 29, 2009, 08:30:31 AM

The very same "News Outlet" which came into being with
their shrill trumpeting of the apocalypse of 12:00:01 1/1/00

Well, according to them, this is the apocalypse!  The world is going to hell!  Sodom had risen!  Jesus is on the next flight in with his flaming sword (that sounds kinky).

Actually Jesus landed ten minutes ago and has been detained by the TSA because of a flaming sword found in his luggage.

-Sandy(run for the hills! Rapture is nigh!)

Laura,
In what ways is the church in the right about their position on LBGT?

What examples do you know of clergy being silenced or being arrested? There are none that I know of in the 13 states that have LBGT hate crime protections already.

Maggie

The thing that they just don't realize is that the law did not take their or anyone's freedom of speech or religion.  But if they cause their followers to assault any GLBT person then that is a hate crime and falls under the new law.

Let them speak all they want, just as I can call them Bigots, Hate Mongers and Non-Christians, it is a freedom of speech.


Janet

Quote from: Janet Lynn on October 29, 2009, 09:52:04 AM
The thing that they just don't realize is that the law did not take their or anyone's freedom of speech or religion.  But if they cause their followers to assault any GLBT person then that is a hate crime and falls under the new law.

Let them speak all they want, just as I can call them Bigots, Hate Mongers and Non-Christians, it is a freedom of speech.


Janet

True, it would be a hate crime but the perpetrator of the violence would be the one who is given the penalty, not the preacher.  I suppose that if the preacher was acting like a godfather in the mafia and ordered a hit, he could be involved but I don't think that even is under this legislation. 


I wish there was a way to stop religious leaders from fomenting hatred like they so often do but that will not happen in this nation.  There are plenty of hate groups like the KKK who can still speak out and none are jailed.

Maggie

Possibly, I can envision members of the clergy putting out a disclaimer in their Sunday sermons; "members of the flock, upon completion of today's message do not take literally what I say as license to justify violence and/or bodily harm  upon the intended". But then, that would take away their thunder wouldn't it? I mean, if they have to, on the one hand say something that nullifies their chosen diatribe of the week, then whats the point in saying it? ??? On the other hand, if members of the clergy did put out some disclaimer, that might give pause to some of the sheep to stop and think for themselves for a moment, that the message they are about to receive might not be in their best interest. ;D

Either way, it works out better for us. It's time for haters to be cautious about the words they choose to inflame and the actions arisen from them.


Dawn

Quote from: Dawn D.It's time for haters to be cautious about the words they choose to inflame and the actions arisen from them.

Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.

---Just some good advice from the Quran

Quote from: Linus on October 29, 2009, 07:36:41 AM
Wow. Laws get so misunderstood here. First Amendment prevents the gov't from denying an individual or group from speaking out (hence why organizations like the KKK do so well in the US). The Hate Crimes bill only addresses crimes that were done because of <insert identifying reasons here, like colour, religion, etc.>. It doesn't prevent people like Phelps from speaking out.

I understand the First Amendment perfectly well.

I know that the PROPER application of it protects morons like Phelps along with sane people.

I also understand perfectly well that our constitutional rights are not ALWAYS properly applied by the courts which is where the worry comes from.

For instance, McCain-Feingold is EASILY a violation of freedom of speech but the SCOTUS upheld it.

Quote
I don't think it does us any justice to be as uneducated as others in this society about changes in laws that happen.

Oh.. and before I forget, please remember the source of the article. WorldDailyNet is the extremist right wing arm of the GOP.

It IS extremely right wing, but as a former regular reader, I can tell you they were chewing on Bush's a$$ as much as anyone when he was in office. they are NOT "a wing of the GOP - they are well to the right of the power-people in the GOP.

Quote
It's a fear mongering site that is known for making up stuff and for slanting things in the worst possible light. I don't consider them a reliable news source.

On that we agree.

---

Post Merge: October 29, 2009, 12:27:47 PM

---

Quote from: Maggie Kay on October 29, 2009, 08:51:56 AM
Laura,
In what ways is the church in the right about their position on LBGT?

where did you get the idea I thought they were right? Nothing in my remarks remotely implied that.

I said they had the right to be wrong.

Quote
What examples do you know of clergy being silenced or being arrested? There are none that I know of in the 13 states that have LBGT hate crime protections already.

Maggie

If there have been cases they have escaped my notice. I'm inclined to think the "threat" is overstated because we have stronger constitutional protections for our liberties than any other nation.

I merely noted that people like Wildmon need only look across our northern border to see misapplication of this sort of mindset - to say nothing of various European countries.

The fact that other nations HAVE botched the good intentions behind such laws is enough to make the Christian Right paranoid on the subject.

To be crystal clear - I DON'T think it will happen here, but I also don't think it's moonbat craziness for them to be worried about it.

Quote from: Sandy on October 29, 2009, 08:35:53 AM
Actually Jesus landed ten minutes ago and has been detained by the TSA because of a flaming sword found in his luggage.

Gee, I heard that he wasn't allowed to board because he had too many liquid hair-care products in his carry-on luggage.

Quote from: Dawn D. on October 29, 2009, 11:20:24 AM
Possibly, I can envision members of the clergy putting out a disclaimer in their Sunday sermons; "members of the flock, upon completion of today's message do not take literally what I say as license to justify violence and/or bodily harm  upon the intended". But then, that would take away their thunder wouldn't it? I mean, if they have to, on the one hand say something that nullifies their chosen diatribe of the week, then whats the point in saying it? ???

That would be all well and good IF your average minister was preaching "Let's all go out and find a ->-bleeped-<-got and bash his skull in!!!"

The problem is, even the true nutters like Phelps and that dude in Arizona ain't saying that.

But for 99.9% of all christian ministers, they don't say ANYTHING which could REMOTELY be twisted by a SANE person as "go attack a gay and god will love you more"

Heck, you get more incitement to violence from popular music than you get from the pulpit by 100,000 times more.

And I say this as a person who's listend to thousands of Southern Baptist sermons and preached a few.

I can't recall ever hearing ONE in which, if the church bulletin had said:

"Be advised that neither the church nor the minister encourages, approves, or endorses any sort of violent or hateful behavior towards any person based on the information received today"

...that it would have contridicted a single syllable of the sermon being delivered.

In fact, I think it's a capital idea for churches to start including that disclaimer just to show a good faith ghesture.

Quote
On the other hand, if members of the clergy did put out some disclaimer, that might give pause to some of the sheep to stop and think for themselves for a moment, that the message they are about to receive might not be in their best interest. ;D

Either way, it works out better for us. It's time for haters to be cautious about the words they choose to inflame and the actions arisen from them.

Dawn

It's so very sad that we fall prey to the same sort of generalized distaste for them that they do for us.

I've said before on here (and no one listens) and will say again - if we are going to get on our sopabox and point the self-righteous finger at religious people and label the "Haters!!" then we are doing EXACTLY the same thing to them that we decry when they do it to us.

I will never understand why we can't be bigger than that.

Laura,
"While I think that the church has it almost entirely wrong when it comes to what the Bible says regarding LGBT folks, I also don't think it's helpful to asses that all ministers who preach that it's unbiblical are "preaching hatred"

I asked because you said "Almost" so I wondered where you think they are right about LBGT folks.

As for the Canadian case and the case in Sweden, they were overblown and misrepresented by the RR to make them appear egregious.  Just like many of their tactics now, they use all sorts of underhanded means to get their ends.  It is downright shameful in the ways they distort or even lie about these things to make their case. 

Maggie

Quote from: Sandy on October 29, 2009, 08:35:53 AM
Well, according to them, this is the apocalypse!  The world is going to hell!  Sodom had risen!  Jesus is on the next flight in with his flaming sword (that sounds kinky).

Actually Jesus landed ten minutes ago and has been detained by the TSA because of a flaming sword found in his luggage.

-Sandy(run for the hills! Rapture is nigh!)

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

"Dogs and cats living together"  :laugh:

Laura,
"I've said before on here (and no one listens) and will say again - if we are going to get on our sopabox and point the self-righteous finger at religious people and label the "Haters!!" then we are doing EXACTLY the same thing to them that we decry when they do it to us.

I will never understand why we can't be bigger than that."

Let me help you with some hyperbole:

1) We don't massively fund organizations with the sole purpose to deny Christians of their civil rights.  They do.
2) We don't fund studies by bogus scientists to come up with specious "facts" about the Christian lifestyle. They did against us to influence the next DSM.
3) We don't defend those who commit violence toward Christians. Oh wait, that could be because there isn't any... They do in the opposition to the hate crimes bill going so far as to say Mathew Shepard was not killed because he was gay.
4) We don't condone the massive numbers of Christian children thrown out into the street because they are believers.  Oh wait, there aren't any...But 30 percent of homeless teens are LBGT because of the preaching that these children are sinning.

No, what we do is to point out their hypocrisy and their thinly veiled hatred against US and the massive harm they cause US.  We are the ones being discriminated against not them.  We are the ones being murdered and beaten, not them.   To say we are doing the same thing is more than wrong, it is infuriating.

Julie,
I love your Ghostbusters quote. One of my favorite movies. Well done.


Maggie

Quote from: Laura Hope on October 29, 2009, 12:42:51 PM


I've said before on here (and no one listens) and will say again - if we are going to get on our sopabox and point the self-righteous finger at religious people and label the "Haters!!" then we are doing EXACTLY the same thing to them that we decry when they do it to us.

I will never understand why we can't be bigger than that.

I'll tell you why I can't be bigger than that.

At this point, I have lost contact with all of my brothers and sister. My mom hasn't spoken to me in two years. Although they are not members of the the Southern Baptist church, they are members of a church which funnels money to defeat LGBT rights across the country. I resent church leaders from speaking out against a medical condition like mine without knowing anything about it.

Would these same preachers and church leaders speak out against those suffering from epilepsy, a cleft palate or depression? (all medical conditions for which someone in my family suffers) Would they condemn them as "being outside the will of God"? I don't think so. They are still promoting that I had a choice, and made an immoral one. For that, I am saddened and upset. These self appointed, self righteous judges of societal norms and mores have no right to do so. Sure they have the First Amendment, but now they can be held legally responsible for their condemnation speech if it leads others to carry out acts of violence. No one has thankfully been violent against me. However, by taking the position that I am a sinner in need of repair, these leaders are creating the equivalent of a hostile living and working environment.

Yes, my family is responsible for their own decisions about me and actions towards me. Still, I don't appreciate being cast into such a negative light by others who can't understand why I am the way I am, and why I choose to love someone of the same sex.

Didn't their prophet say, "and the greatest commandment of all, is love..." ?

Quote from: Julie Marie on October 29, 2009, 12:57:11 PM

Who you gonna call?

GAYBUSTERS!

Kinda like that Sandy?

Julie

Exactly like that!

-Sandy(!)

Laura,

I don't typically tend to take much issue with what others have as a differing of opinion on this site. I usually leave it at attempting to make mine and move on. However:

QuoteI can't recall ever hearing ONE in which, if the church bulletin had said:

"Be advised that neither the church nor the minister encourages, approves, or endorses any sort of violent or hateful behavior towards any person based on the information received today"

...that it would have contridicted a single syllable of the sermon being delivered

.

..........on this I feel I must. Just how in the world could you possibly believe that most (not all) of the miss-interpretations of Biblical and Muslim teachings alike have led to, oh..... I don't know, say, the crusades! Or the Spanish inquisition's, people burning at the stake for witchcraft or the expulsion of Christians from the holy land and beheading's of innocent people fighting (and some not even engaged) in a war that they had to; are not at the very doorstep of religious fervor? To suggest otherwise is ludicrous (my opinion only). At the very least it's disingenuous.

No, this is something that needs to have happened and has taken far to long to occur. Too many of our brothers and sisters have been murdered and been brutally beaten for no other reason than some idiot with a twisted notion of doing good for society and at times for religious beliefs. I ask you, where do they get these ideas? Could be family, friends, ministers or all of them combined. Could also be things they read.

This hate crimes legislation shouldn't be solely focused on the religious element alone. No, there's plenty more hate out there that originates from pure unadulterated ignorance.

And, please:

QuoteI've said before on here (and no one listens) and will say again - if we are going to get on our sopabox and point the self-righteous finger at religious people and label the "Haters!!" then we are doing EXACTLY the same thing to them that we decry when they do it to us.

..........self righteous, I am not. I spew no hatred toward no person. I do ask for personal responsibility and repect by all! That in itself can bring about a better world for all of us. At which point these hate crimes measures will no longer be needed.


Dawn

If the "chrisitans" of this world want us to stop being critical of what they say and do and stand for, they have to stop passing judgment on us, stop condemning us*, stop campaigning against our obtaining the same civil rights as they have.

We didn't start this war.  They did.  We are not attacking, only defending.  Once the attacks stop, peace will begin.

Julie

*I know it has been said they are not condemning us, only our sins.  I am being who I am, not committing a sin.  If they condemn who I am, they are condemning me.

Quote from: Dawn D. on October 29, 2009, 01:57:12 PM
Laura,

I don't typically tend to take much issue with what others have as a differing of opinion on this site. I usually leave it at attempting to make mine and move on. However:
.

..........on this I feel I must. Just how in the world could you possibly believe that most (not all) of the miss-interpretations of Biblical and Muslim teachings alike have led to, oh..... I don't know, say, the crusades! Or the Spanish inquisition's, people burning at the stake for witchcraft or the expulsion of Christians from the holy land and beheading's of innocent people fighting (and some not even engaged) in a war that they had to; are not at the very doorstep of religious fervor? To suggest otherwise is ludicrous (my opinion only). At the very least it's disingenuous.

It's a good thing I didn't suggest that then.

I make no defense for the actions of politicized and nonsensical religious practices of people who dies hundreds of years before I was born.

Nothing in my comments has anything to do with ancient history.

Quote
No, this is something that needs to have happened and has taken far to long to occur.

Agreed.

QuoteToo many of our brothers and sisters have been murdered and been brutally beaten for no other reason than some idiot with a twisted notion of doing good for society and at times for religious beliefs.

I disagree with the assumption that most were religious motivated or committed by actually religious peopl.

I DO agree that our CULTURE has a undercurrent of bigotry towards LGBT people (albeit steadily lessening over the last 40 years) which can be traced to the Christianized worldview dominant in our culture.

But almost never is the actual perpetrator of an attack shown to be an overtly religious person....it's bigotry and malice using the EXCUSE of the cultural situation.

After all, many people are racially bigoted and they don't need religion to tell them that Blacks/mexicans/whatever are bad and need killing.

Quote
I ask you, where do they get these ideas? Could be family, friends, ministers or all of them combined. Could also be things they read.

It's part of the culture, sure. But, to repeat myself - where does a racist get his ideas? Sadly, hatred and bigotry against the "other" are a fact of life in the human condition just like the reality that there will always be thieves.

The motivation for bigotry is no more relevant than the motivation for theft.

Quote
This hate crimes legislation shouldn't be solely focused on the religious element alone. No, there's plenty more hate out there that originates from pure unadulterated ignorance.

so how do you know that the hate we blame on religion isn't, in fact, the result of ignorance?

As one who knows something of the religion, I can tell you that if someone goes out of a Baptist or Mormon or Pentecostal church and physically attacks someone "in the name of religion" that person is highly ignorant because those religions do not suggest violence as a solution to (supposed) sin.

Quote
And, please:

..........self righteous, I am not. I spew no hatred toward no person. I do ask for personal responsibility and repect by all! That in itself can bring about a better world for all of us. At which point these hate crimes measures will no longer be needed.

Dawn

and yet you use language which IMPLIES that ALL religious people are "haters"

Which is no more true than when Phelps says all of us are "perverts"

I can't figure out why I'm asking so very much to suggest that we don't broad brush as we wish not to be broad brushed.

Quote from: Maggie
To say we are doing the same thing is more than wrong, it is infuriating.

Except that you are infuriated over what you read into my remarks, not what I SAID.

I made no comment regarding all the stuff you listed - I spoke only of the WORDS WE USE.

If you want to get mad because you can't read a comment within the context it was posted instead of broadening it beyond the intentions, that's a waste of your effort.

And mine to try to talk you out of it.

Quote from: juliekins
Still, I don't appreciate being cast into such a negative light by others who can't understand why I am the way I am, and why I choose to love someone of the same sex.

Neither do I. And i make no defense of the political involvement and actions you describe - and even less defense of individuals who misguidedly make their love conditional on a persons behavior - which is not true love at all.

ALL i have suggested here is that the moral high ground (which we hold) is best served by specifically directing our ire where it is deserved, rather than just calling the whole lot "haters"

when we make up what is basically a fairy tale that a preacher can say (wrongly) that being gay or trans is outside the will of god and not a healthy lifestyle, that if one of the lose screws in his congregation goes out that night and attacks me with a tire iron that the preacher intended, encouraged, or approved of that act.

Or said anything that rationally justified it.

when we engage the target in such a sloppy way we undermine our credibility every bit as much as that minister loses credibility by calling it a "choice" to be trans.

We should be smarter than them, not sink to their level.

We also have to face the fact that there ARE and always will be hateful, bigoted, mean, violent people in the world who fear and dispise anything and anyone different from themselves.

No sermon and no book and no ad and no newscast and no leader MAKES them that way - they simply ARE. Take away all the things which supposedly incite hatred - every last one of them - and SOME people WILL hate us...and hate blacks or whites or Jews or whatever.

That's the world we live in. I'm all for educating people to work at the margins of that group....but they don't hate because of religion - they hate because they are hateful. The most religion does at it's worst is help them rationalize it.

(note for clarification - I do NOT mean STATE religion which I consider to be a MASSIVE evil)

---

Post Merge: October 29, 2009, 02:34:14 PM

---

Quote from: Julie Marie on October 29, 2009, 02:22:47 PM
If the "chrisitans" of this world want us to stop being critical of what they say and do and stand for, they have to stop passing judgment on us, stop condemning us*, stop campaigning against our obtaining the same civil rights as they have.

We didn't start this war.  They did.  We are not attacking, only defending.  Once the attacks stop, peace will begin.

Julie

*I know it has been said they are not condemning us, only our sins.  I am being who I am, not committing a sin.  If they condemn who I am, they are condemning me.

"Being critical" is essential - we can't get enough of it.

Is it too much to ask to do it intelligently instead of emotionally?

Laura,

I said what I said in an effort to educate you as to why we won't see things your way.  You asked the rhetorical question. I answered it as did Juliekins

In a prior thread, you indicated that you do not keep up on the current events in this area on either side of the issue.  Therefore, you do not really know who is against us and their church backgrounds.  We can site dozens of examples yet you will say, NOT ALL.  Sure not all. But the leadership and the people who speak for the church do what we say they do and they are not countermanded or contradicted by their followers.  Just who do you think funds Focus on the Family or NOM or Mass Resistance or the 700 Club? Not atheists.  These organizations are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into anti-LBGT agendas.  FOF has a researcher who specifically works to deny Transsexuals legitimacy.   

It is not emotional, it is fact.  I won't flood this thread with the dozens of current news stories of their actions because I know you won't read them.  You should speak from knowledge not just from sitting in a pew on Sunday. That is intelligently not emotionally.


Maggie

I would read them - I have read many. Do not assume becauseI do not make Pam's House Blend my #1 source of information that I am totally uninformed.

I simply not an activist.

In any case - have it your way. I will stop banging my head against the wall, at least for now.

Every time I try to make this case I promise myself it will be the last time and then I give in to temptation again.

Hatred, bigotry, passing judgment are learned.  No one is born with hatred.  No one is born a bigot.  No one is born self righteous.  No one is born religious.  No one is born an activist.  We come into this world unblemished by it.  What we leave with is what we pick up and carry along the way.

While I'm here I would like the same opportunities as everyone else but I know that's not the way it works.  But when it comes to points of law, issues of civil rights, those things we humans created and live by, I expect fair treatment under law.  And when some person or group campaigns against allowing that, I feel I have to stand up for myself or become a catalyst to their ego (among other things).

Anyone who is involved with any group, religious or otherwise, would do far more good standing in front of them and telling them LGBT people are deserving of equality, rather than trying to convince those who have been harmed by their campaigns that our detractors are okay.

Julie

PS: I don't think anyone here believes all Christians hate us.  From what I read and feel, we are at odds with those who speak against us and campaign against us having civil rights.

OK Laura, I'll try again. If we run by your logic:

QuoteI can't recall ever hearing ONE in which, if the church bulletin had said:

"Be advised that neither the church nor the minister encourages, approves, or endorses any sort of violent or hateful behavior towards any person based on the information received today"

...that it would have contridicted a single syllable of the sermon being delivered

and

QuoteI make no defense for the actions of politicized and nonsensical religious practices of people who dies hundreds of years before I was born.

Nothing in my comments has anything to do with ancient history.

Part of what you're saying is true enough! You may not have heard it. But, have you been in front of every pastor or minister out there? Of course not. And neither have I. The point I make was a point that human beings have the capacity to take to a literal sense things they hear and learn in a religious setting. The same as what one can in the same sense learn from within their own family, or school for that matter. Religion though, and the people who claim to be religious cannot run away from their own history. And what you said has everything to do with history, even though you didn't specify as such.. Who was it that said something to the effect, "those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it". And Laura, I do not mean you specifically. I am merely attempting a point that the human species is replete with taking aggressive actions based upon what they are told to do or that they misinterpreted implied understanding, at the behest of leaders (religious) who had ulterior motives and/or holier than thou beliefs. This cannot be denied. Call these actions ancient history if you wish. But the fact remains that the vast majority of human on human atrocities throughout history have been based upon religious theocracies and doctrine. Notice, I did not say all.

They don't necessarily have to explicitly say "go out and kill all the ->-bleeped-<-s and ->-bleeped-<-s" to be complicit in the crime. So, when people like the one name you brought up "Phelps" says things like "God hates ->-bleeped-<-s" and "->-bleeped-<-s are worthy of death", yeah, he said it (go look at his web page) and, someone goes out and does kill one of us based upon those words or can be shown to have been a follower of his, wouldn't you think he (Phelps) may have a little to be accountable for? This is not ancient history. This is real! The danger to us is real! There are religious nuts living and breathing amongst us. And yes, there are also nuts for other reasons living amongst us as you stated.

Look, I didn't intend to focus solely on the religious aspect of hate crimes. And no, I do not believe that every religious person out there is "out to get us". If that were the case I'd be out to get myself wouldn't I? But when you see what some (religious leaders) have been allowed to get away with more recently, i.e., sodomizing young boys, castrating others so their voices stay on pitch for a choir, it's pretty difficult to not pick on the obvious.

QuoteTake away all the things which supposedly incite hatred - every last one of them - and SOME people WILL hate us...and hate blacks or whites or Jews or whatever.

Agreed! Hence the reason I never said "all" as you stated that I did;

Quoteand yet you use language which IMPLIES that ALL religious people are "haters"

Those are your words not mine. Attempting to put words I never said into my mouth, or implications of such that do not exist is poor form.


Dawn

Quote from: Dawn D. on October 29, 2009, 06:48:44 PM
Part of what you're saying is true enough! You may not have heard it. But, have you been in front of every pastor or minister out there? Of course not. And neither have I.

Agreed - and I never denied there was the RARE instance of a nutball - I mentioned a couple of them in fact.

QuoteThe point I make was a point that human beings have the capacity to take to a literal sense things they hear and learn in a religious setting.

Or any other - it's not just religious ideas that touch off such people.

Quote
The same as what one can in the same sense learn from within their own family, or school for that matter.

Oops! i see we're on the same page here...

Quote
Religion though, and the people who claim to be religious cannot run away from their own history.

I don't see it that way. Do we hold the Democrat party responsible for the racial bigotry of many of them in the 50's? Or for slavery? of course not. Societies evolve over time and religion is a society too.

Quote
And what you said has everything to do with history, even though you didn't specify as such.. Who was it that said something to the effect, "those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

A valid point - and religion most definitely has. Unless you know of some witch burnings or something I missed.

Quote
And Laura, I do not mean you specifically. I am merely attempting a point that the human species is replete with taking aggressive actions based upon what they are told to do or that they misinterpreted implied understanding, at the behest of leaders (religious)

or otherwise

Quotewho had ulterior motives and/or holier than thou beliefs. This cannot be denied. Call these actions ancient history if you wish.

If the case is that "some crazy man will tell impressionable people to do the wrong thing and they will" then that's an easy case to make. Heaven's Gate? David Koresh? Jim Jones?

OBVIOUSLY  this can and does occasionally happen.

Quote
But the fact remains that the vast majority of human on human atrocities throughout history have been based upon religious theocracies and doctrine.

Depends on if you mean collective events or if you mean body counts.

If it's the latter, avowed atheist were responsible for more dead people in the 20th century than all the religious wars in the history of man put together.

But if it's the former - that's pretty easy to say since up until the last couple of centuries almost every human alive WAS religious in one way or another and the stunning majority did EVERYTHING they did because of what they believed.

At least, nominally so. It's also true that most of that was more of a cultural/political religion (sort of like Protestants and Catholics opposing each other in Northern Ireland for political reasons instead of religious reasons).

The Crusades, for instance, were VERY MUCH a geo-political action dressed in the robes of religion to gain public support.

Quote
Notice, I did not say all.

They don't necessarily have to explicitly say "go out and kill all the ->-bleeped-<-s and ->-bleeped-<-s" to be complicit in the crime. So, when people like the one name you brought up "Phelps" says things like "God hates ->-bleeped-<-s" and "->-bleeped-<-s are worthy of death", yeah, he said it (go look at his web page) and, someone goes out and does kill one of us based upon those words or can be shown to have been a follower of his, wouldn't you think he (Phelps) may have a little to be accountable for?

It would be hard for me to pass up a chance to see Phelps thrown under the jail. but I do NOT trust the government to restrain their application of that power once they have it.

The price of freedom of speech is that SOME morons are going to say dispicible things. It's a price I'm willing to pay.

IMHO, the man who hears Phelps say "they are worthy of death" and attacks one of us was already a threat to us before he ever heard Phelps' voice. I would argue that far too often our society tries to blame a song, a video game, a movie, or a speaker for creating a monster when the monster was always there.

That said, I am all for it if someone wants to take it to court and get a court to find Phelps liable if indeed the case can be made. Anything bad that happens to him based on his nonsense is something I am very much in favor of.

that does NOT mean i want over 300 million OTHER Americans to have their liberties threatened simply because of the isolated nutter.

There are other ways to go after a guy like Phelps rather than sacrificing our hard-won liberties (liberties very very few other nations in the world enjoy). Once lost, you almost never get them back. there's no such thing as a government which willing reduces it's own power.

Quote
This is not ancient history. This is real! The danger to us is real!

YES!!! Yes it really really is!!!

And if you look up Phelps and what's-his-name in Arizona and every other one who shares their views it will STILL be just as great.

In fact, there's a very very real possibility that you would CREATE even more voices on that side by giving them the weapon of being able to claim we were "out to get them" (more so than some do already) and you'd end up with a MUCH more strident "us v. them" mentality than we already have.

The law of unintended consequences can be a real bitch.

Quote
There are religious nuts living and breathing amongst us. And yes, there are also nuts for other reasons living amongst us as you stated.

Look, I didn't intend to focus solely on the religious aspect of hate crimes. And no, I do not believe that every religious person out there is "out to get us". If that were the case I'd be out to get myself wouldn't I? But when you see what some (religious leaders) have been allowed to get away with more recently, i.e., sodomizing young boys, castrating others so their voices stay on pitch for a choir, it's pretty difficult to not pick on the obvious.

Agreed! Hence the reason I never said "all" as you stated that I did;

Perhaps I over-reacted but very few posts on this subject make obvious use of the word "some" or better yet "a few" because that's what it is in our day.

I don't dispute that religious people have done bad things but that's because, contrary to the sunshine and roses people want to believe - PEOPLE do bad things. If those people have a nice handy religious justification for there bad thing then all the better but it doesn't make them bad.

for just one example, you mentioned sodomizing young boys - you and I both know that nothing in the Catholic religion instructs or justifies what those priests did, there is NO religious motivation or justification BUT they did it anyway!

Not because religion told them to but because they - being people - do bad things.

And if every preacher with a voice says "gays and lesbians and trans are the salt of the earth, wonderful people who deserve our love and respect" every single Sunday, there will STILL be a significant minority of people who go to their graves hating us and some of those enough to be violent.

Now, I AGREE that such messages DO have value and SHOULD be preached, not because of what effect it will have on the hateful...but because of what good it will do in the "mushy middle" of people who don't really know what they think. the people who can be taught to support equal rights for us, and give us jobs, and invite us to their weddings and speak to us when we are at the market.

I absolutely think that when some Fundy Baptist or whatever (like the preacher who married my wife and I) go about preaching wee are perverted sinners that need to repent that that does us damage socially and politically and they ought not do it.

I simply am not willing to give up the tiniest sliver of my freedom of speech to stop them. The price for that bauble is simply far too high.

All of us should defend ALL the rights of ALL of us or we won't in the long term save any of them. Even if that means a hateful man enjoys the right to say hateful things.

Because - if for no other reason - there are far more "normal" (in their view) people than there are LGBT people - and if we give the government the right to infrnge rights...they have a lot more votes for infringing ours than vice versa
(see the results of most of the "stop gay marriage" referenda in the various states - I think my state reached 80% opposed)

Quote
Those are your words not mine. Attempting to put words I never said into my mouth, or implications of such that do not exist is poor form.

Dawn

Perhaps I read a tone into your posts which wasn't there because I'm so used to seeing that broad brush tendency - if it wasn't your intent, I apologize.

But it seems to me that if one means "a few" or "some" in situations like this then it's a good thing to say that strongly because it matters.

One of the favorite tricks of the hateful preacher (or whatever sort of speaker) is to cite the worst examples of behavior by LGBT - things that in reality are VERY rare - and let his audience reach the conclusion that ALL gays are like that, even though he might never use the word "all"

Same thing happens when it's racial bigotry or religious bigotry or whatever - the common form of low debate is to try to tar the image of the whole with the behavior of the few.

i just don't think it's any more fair to make all believers accountable for Phelps than I do when such tactics are used against us.

But I do not want to give offense so I will gladly accept that such was not your intent and apologize.

Quote
If it's the latter, avowed atheist were responsible for more dead people in the 20th century than all the religious wars in the history of man put together.

Only two minor problems with this...

1. In many cases, they weren't actually atheist but it doesn't matter much because...

2. These acts weren't carried out "in the name of atheism" anyway - unlike the (at least superficially) religious ones

Anyway, the point is not that all religious believers are bigots - I don't think anyone has been saying otherwise.  There are, however, well funded, vocal and influential religious lobby groups actively seeking to oppress what they call "non-normative sexuality" and so on.  (How many atheist lobby organisations have a similar agenda?)

Frankly this seems like a stunning non-argument.   Bigotry founded (inaccurately or otherwise) on religious argument inherently requires that the proponent has religious belief.  Ergo while not all members of the religious population are religiously motivated bigots, all religiously motivated bigots are members of the set.

Quote
...the common form of low debate is to try to tar the image of the whole with the behavior of the few.

If it's so few, why the silent majority?  I mean, if the bulk of y'all can see it for the bigotry that it is, why isn't there a mass revolt among the rest of the believers?  Especially given that this bigotry is bringing the movement into disrepute.

To be honest, I do see that it can be frustrating to be tarred with the same brush but if this "majority" is going to stand quietly by and let the organised oppression of a few go unopposed, then I find it hard to rally my sympathies for you.

Besides, it doesn't matter how few it is - how many does it take before it becomes WRONG?

Quote from: Laura Hope on October 30, 2009, 01:57:02 PMBut it seems to me that if one means "a few" or "some" in situations like this then it's a good thing to say that strongly because it matters.

It is also a good thing not to presume if one doesn't say "some" or "a few" that it does mean "all". 

I have used "christians", in quotes and with a lower case 'c'.  Most understand that to mean "so-called" Christians.  I have even used the term "so-called christians" in my posts so as to make a point of distinguishing between those who follow what I feel to be Christ's example and those who don't.  (Christians do, "christians" don't)

And that brings us to the crux of many misunderstandings on forums.  We inject a bit of our own stuff into something we read.  If you (general) don't read everything posted with an open mind, if you start to form an opinion before you're done reading, if you begin injecting your beliefs before giving yourself the opportunity to understand the post; you run the risk of misinterpreting the intent of the poster.

This is a suggestion that would benefit all of us:  Before you reply, ask yourself if you read everything and if you feel you have a full understanding of what you are about to reply to.  If you don't, ask for clarification before you challenge the poster.

Julie

Quote from: heatherrose on October 30, 2009, 02:15:16 PM

:icon_blink: If it is all the same to y'all,
I would rather not be around
when they cross the streams.

The mental image of that just Boggles!

-Sandy

:icon_yes: :icon_eek:

Quote from: finewine on October 30, 2009, 02:13:08 PM

Besides, it doesn't matter how few it is - how many does it take before it becomes WRONG?

Exactly right! How many here remember Eric Rudolph?

Quote from: Laura Hope on October 30, 2009, 01:57:02 PM
Perhaps I read a tone into your posts which wasn't there because I'm so used to seeing that broad brush tendency - if it wasn't your intent, I apologize.

But it seems to me that if one means "a few" or "some" in situations like this then it's a good thing to say that strongly because it matters.

One of the favorite tricks of the hateful preacher (or whatever sort of speaker) is to cite the worst examples of behavior by LGBT - things that in reality are VERY rare - and let his audience reach the conclusion that ALL gays are like that, even though he might never use the word "all"

Same thing happens when it's racial bigotry or religious bigotry or whatever - the common form of low debate is to try to tar the image of the whole with the behavior of the few.

i just don't think it's any more fair to make all believers accountable for Phelps than I do when such tactics are used against us.

But I do not want to give offense so I will gladly accept that such was not your intent and apologize.

Laura, It is good of you to offer the apology. I thank you for that. It wasn't really necessary, yet, I thank you just the same. Truly.

It really is unfortunate that the "all" in any one group is sometimes swept under with that broad brush stroke when "some" or a "few" are the real culprits. You are correct. However, at this point in time it may be a good opportunity and with good reason, for the rest of the "all" to take a deeper look at the messages that are delivered from which ever venue. What I hope to see (might be wishful thinking) come about with this legislation, is an awareness within individuals as they listen to a "targeted" hateful sermon or a hate-filled lecture from an academic or whatever venue one attends, that they have pause to consider what real ramifications are awaiting the actions of any one of them who pursue these acts of terror against us or "any" group, individual or other disenfranchised minority. It certainly may not change their complete view of who we are, yet, it may allow for common existence without violence. At the very least, hopefully, we will see a drastic reduction in the amount of open hostility and danger. In other words, living by the Golden Rule could finally win out!


Dawn

Quote from: finewine on October 30, 2009, 02:13:08 PM
Only two minor problems with this...

1. In many cases, they weren't actually atheist but it doesn't matter much because...

2. These acts weren't carried out "in the name of atheism" anyway - unlike the (at least superficially) religious ones

Oh yes! Absolutely true!

i wasn't laying any charge at the feet of the belief system known as atheism....i was simply pointing out massive violence which couldn't possibly be attributed to religion (at least in the proactive sense - religion was often the cause of GETTING killed)

Quote
Anyway, the point is not that all religious believers are bigots - I don't think anyone has been saying otherwise.

As I pointed out last time - one need not say "all Christians are bigots" just like one need not say "all gays are promoscious" - you just spend a LOYT of time talking about the gays who ARE promiscious and you leave the audience to infer on there on that all of them are.

It's only necessary to dwell on the minority of hateful religious folks and say nothing at all about the accepting, giving, generous, good-hearted sort and let the audience draw their own conclusion - whether it's the intended conclusion or just being a bit sloppy with the argumentation.

Quote
  There are, however, well funded, vocal and influential religious lobby groups actively seeking to oppress what they call "non-normative sexuality" and so on. 

To suppress our rights? Absolutely they are and they should be strongly opposed anf given NO quarter.

But encouraging or even implying violence?

that is a different discussion and nominally the subject of this thread.

Quote
Frankly this seems like a stunning non-argument.   Bigotry founded (inaccurately or otherwise) on religious argument inherently requires that the proponent has religious belief.  Ergo while not all members of the religious population are religiously motivated bigots, all religiously motivated bigots are members of the set.

Agreed. And concurrently, not all bigots are religiously motivated. In fact, except in the sense that we live in a latently christianized culture, I would suggest MOST are not.

Again, to my knowledge when you see a matthew Shepard incident - the attacker is NOT a religious person who regularly devotes themselves to their church - most often they are, in fact, noteable reprobates.

Quote
If it's so few, why the silent majority?  I mean, if the bulk of y'all can see it for the bigotry that it is, why isn't there a mass revolt among the rest of the believers?

When we are discussing violence - again, supposedly the subject of this discussion, the "silent majority" isn't remotely silent. The most passionate denunciations of Phelps I've ever heard were from the most passionate Christians I know because he denigrates US more than he does anyone else by calling himself a speaker for the Christian God.

If you are talking about fighting against the expansion of our protection under the law, then I will readily concede that the great majority of Christians are on the wrong side of that discussion - but THAT subject is NOT the subject i have been addressing.

Quote
  Especially given that this bigotry is bringing the movement into disrepute.

To be honest, I do see that it can be frustrating to be tarred with the same brush but if this "majority" is going to stand quietly by and let the organised oppression of a few go unopposed, then I find it hard to rally my sympathies for you.

Again, if you are talking about Prop 8 or some such then we have no disagreement.

I'm am speaking here ONLY to the allegation that preaching that we are "in sin" is the cause of hatred and resultant violence.

Quote
Besides, it doesn't matter how few it is - how many does it take before it becomes WRONG?

I can't see the relevance of this point since I've not said even that which I have said is rare is any less wrong.

The question I raise is - how many of your liberties do you wish to give up to stop this wrong?

Quote[...]
The question I raise is - how many of your liberties do you wish to give up to stop this wrong?

Hehe, oh none at all.  But you see, I always wanted to be a fatherly dictator.  It's everyone else's liberties I'll give up :) lol!

Yes, that's me stood in the back of the jeep in a uniform that would make Gadaffi green with envy - scrambled egg on cap and shoulder, trouser creases so sharp they could cut salami and a big fat bushy 'tache.   All with the crowds yelling "viva el presidente" as I cruise by (behind my bullet proof glass).

So, get the constitution changed so that we can have a "Finewine for President" campaign.  You know it makes sense!