The Rise of Christian Vigilantism
There is a price this country is paying, for the way discourse has changed today. From Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews pundits Hannity and Vetter, to the likes of Ann Coulter, WorldNetDaily, the Free Republic and on and on, there has been an outcry of faith, specifically the Christian faith, being under attack. From Godless liberals, European nations, gay people, secularists, the ACLU, the NPR, planned parenthood, school teachers and who can forget those dear sweet librarians with their demonic internet computers, it's all always presented as an attack on faith, on Christianity. What used to be the trend of saying 'Happy Holidays', in order to be all-inclusive, is now turned around to be an attempt to be specifically exclusive against Christianity. After years of this paranoid rhetoric, is it any wonder the sheep want to chew their way out of the pen and seek blood?…
Article comments
126 - Dave Nalle
Xenophobia is spelled with a 'x', Steve. Just for future reference, as I suspect it's going to be used more and more in coming years.
>>No US 'kiddies' have been molested, no kidnaps, no foreign-born diseases, no higher crime rate than any other coastal city of equivalent size, etc.<<
May I direct you to the case of Angel Resendez AKA Rafael Resendez-Ramirez or the "Railway Killer", illegal alien and serial killer, credited with at least 9 murders - mostly here in Texas - and notable for his ability to evade identification because he was able to slip back and forth accross the border and establish multiple identities within the illegal alien community. The mechanisms which have developed for keeping illegals anonymous and not asking them too many questions gave him the cover he needed to keep killing for years without getting caught.
Estimates are that every day at least 75 non-mexican illegals come accross the border from Mexico, including many fromt he Middle East. It has already been established that Al Quaeda has trained at least some operatives in the Spanish language so that they could take advantage of the porousness of our borders.
In addition, the international criminal organization MS13 which originates in El Salvador has been using the Mexican border to smuggle their members into the US, where they are taking over more and more criminal operations - particularly violent organized crime - in the major cities. Their manpower is almost entirely composed of illegal immigrants who come into the US from Mexico and they are known for their extreme violence, including murdering an raping other illegals on the border.
My point, Steve, is that it's not xenophobia if the threat is real.
Dave
127 - Steve S
just shows you how foreign the word is to me, Dave.
and I acknowledged "while criminal element might and does get through and should be stopped", so I am aware of criminal element that does get through, probably from a much closer viewpoint than those who are exhibiting xenophobia.
I was wondering when Al Queda would be brought up. It's common knowledge that the only person ever caught since 9/11 trying to cross the border with explosives, intent on harming the US, was caught on the Canadian border, where nobody is frothing at the mouth.
With this endorsement of vigilantism on the border, with vigilantism requiring the protection of our judges, with vigilantism resulting in a rise in hate crimes against minorites, why don't you all just tell the government to just stop with law enforcement and advocate that we become a nation of civilians running around with shotguns and pitchforks and torches?
128 - Dave Nalle
>>With this endorsement of vigilantism on the border, with vigilantism requiring the protection of our judges, with vigilantism resulting in a rise in hate crimes against minorites, why don't you all just tell the government to just stop with law enforcement and advocate that we become a nation of civilians running around with shotguns and pitchforks and torches?
<<
At the most basic level that's what we've always been, Steve. Law and order is ultimately the responsibility of the citizenry if the mechanisms we've put in place to maintain it are not doing their jobs. And that's what this whole border issue comes down to - outrage over the fact that our government is not doing one of the jobs it was created to do. Vigelantism probably isn't the best answer, but a lot of people feel that the government won't respond to anything but the most extreme embarassment and media pressure. Remember, the first reaction to the Minuteman Project was that the Border Patrol send 500 more men down to the area.
As for the Canadian border, I completely agree. It has the potential to be an even bigger disaster than the border with Mexico, especially considering Canada's complete lack of any kind of responsible management of their own immigration policies.
Dave
129 - Steve S
I understand and agree with your reasoning as to why vigilantism is on the rise. I know it is an exasperation over the Republican controlled government in doing anything. (Heehee).
Where is the logic in assuming that if the government can't make things better on the border, that they can make things better (safer for us) in Baghdad?
500 border patrol agents weren't sent to catch immigrants, when mention of the MinuteMen came up, I'm sure, but it was probably an instance where 500 border patrol agents were pulled from catching illegals elsewhere and set to babysitting.
Illegal immigration is best solved, as I stated earlier by forcing Mexico to get rid of it's corruption and to make that place not such a hostile environment so that fewer people have an interest in seeking a better life here. It is in the best interest of our own national security to do so. Vigilantism is not in the best interest of our own national security. I don't advocate trying to stop a bleeding cut on the knee by slicing open the achilles tendon.
And of course with the cowboy we have right now, it seems that partisianship with Vicente Fox is an impossibility. We can't get the best solution implemented when we have someone who is so isolationist running the helm.
130 - Dave Nalle
>>I understand and agree with your reasoning as to why vigilantism is on the rise. I know it is an exasperation over the Republican controlled government in doing anything. (Heehee).<<
This isn't a problem with the current administration, it is a problem which dates back decades and no one from either party has done anything to fix it.
>>Where is the logic in assuming that if the government can't make things better on the border, that they can make things better (safer for us) in Baghdad?<<
Because in Baghdad they're actually making an effort, which they aren't doing on the border.
>>Illegal immigration is best solved, as I stated earlier by forcing Mexico to get rid of it's corruption and to make that place not such a hostile environment so that fewer people have an interest in seeking a better life here. It is in the best interest of our own national security to do so.<<
So in the interests of national security we should invade Mexico for the third time?
>> Vigilantism is not in the best interest of our own national security. I don't advocate trying to stop a bleeding cut on the knee by slicing open the achilles tendon.<<
This very mild vigelantism is a way for people to show their concern. It's really not much different from a protest march.
>>And of course with the cowboy we have right now, it seems that partisianship with Vicente Fox is an impossibility. We can't get the best solution implemented when we have someone who is so isolationist running the helm.<<
You seem very confused about Bush. He gets on famously with Vicente Fox and is more knowledgable about Mexico than any president we've ever had. His plan to set up a guest worker program is probably one of the best solutions to the current situation, but it's not getting taken seriously in the furror over vigelantism and the flood of immigrants.
Dave
131 - Steve S
I acknowledge the first statement, which is why I concluded mine with a hee-hee.
So in the interests of national security we should invade Mexico for the third time?
No, your side should learn that in the saying 'war is a last resort', it really should be a LAST resort. I'm talking about diplomacy, working with the Mexican government to solve the crisis, not overtaking the Mexican government. I do not support the conservative rush to war or vigilantism. Violence and a pro-agressive hostile response is not the answer to everything.
132 - Dave Nalle
Have you SEEN some of the stuff the Mexican government has been doing? Comic books on how to cross the border? Tacitly allowing Federal Snipers to shoot border patrol agents? Providing food and water and other suppplies to those crossing the border? The Mexican government isn't incompetent and corrupt, they are actively encouraging illegal emigration to the US because it's now the single largest source of revenue for their nation, outstripping both oil and tourism as of this year. Why on earth would they want to negotiate? They've got it good.
Dave
133 - SFC SKI
Mexico's government is riddled with corruption as well, and Fox is not proving to be either willing or able to do anything about it.
I don't know too much more than that though, so if anyone is a subject matter expert on Mexican politics, I'd like to learn more.
134 - Steve S
Documentation for thread:
CNN report on evolution being under trial in Kansas, contains this statement:
Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.
article also contains,
School board member Sue Gamble, who describes herself as a moderate, said she will not attend the hearings, which she calls "a farce." She said the argument over evolution is part of a larger agenda by Christian conservatives to gradually alter the legal and social landscape in the United States.
"I think it is a desire by a minority... to establish a theocracy, both within Kansas and growing to a national level," Gamble said.
--
Just documenting that moderates are now using the term 'theocracy', not just those of us in the asylum.
135 - Steve S
Further documentation for rise of religious based intolerance growing in America.
Christian church excommunicates liberals, Democrats.
Reading through the updates at the bottom of the blog shows that the Church said if you voted for Kerry or voted Democrat, then you were against the Church and had to leave.
and ya still don't wanna believe.
136 - Dave Nalle
Steve, a loony Baptist church kicking all the sane people out isn't a new event, nor is it a sign of a greater trend. Those people should have been happy to have escaped what is essentially a cult.
BTW, could you please stop posting your stories from Kos and go direct to a MSM source or something. Every time you post from Kos I have to go look up another source because there's a fair chance that if it's from Kos it's been misrepresented or spun in some way.
In this case Kos does have a link to the TV story, though the newspaper they link to is not covering the story. It also appears that their claim of excommunication is incorrect. The people were asked to leave the church, which is not the same thing as a formal excommunication.
Dave
137 - Steve S
Well no, Kos is a valid source for information. Most of the diaries are written by people all across America, so you do get a variety of perspective thrown into the story, but you still get the story.
Dave, you call me insane for even thinking there's a rise in Christian vigilantism. So how do you think I could link to a MSM story? I'm not talking about the Runaway Bride. I'm like the only one trying to link a series of events around the country together to illustrate a trend.
I picked up the term excommunicate from the story itself. Whether it is accurate or if they were just asked to leave what the church says is the only way to Heaven makes no difference to me. It doesn't lessen the intolerance or the trend any.
Dave, it's like if society is one big city, I live more on the outskirts and you live more in the center. When night falls, or the winds come in, it all hits the outskirts first. Know what I mean?
I lived through a very conservative swing of the pendulum once. The Reagan era. Scores of my community died from religious intolerance, in the form of phobias supressing the dissemination of life saving information, or in the ostracization of terminally ill people, hate crimes were at an all time high, etc. and no, I don't have documentation to back that up, I don't need it to forumulate my opinion. I was there on the outskirts, most every gay person I knew when I was running around in crowds had been a victim of a violent crime based on orientation at some point in his/her life. Nobody bothered to report it.
Given the fact that since these last two presidential elections, my community is under legislative attack like never before, in schools, in the medical establishment, via recognition of our relationships, etc., and given the fact that this well-documented intolerance is on the rise, I know that my community has been primarily relocated to the outskirts and night is falling. Meaning - the pendulum is swinging and my community is always one of the first it hits.
I'm gonna keep posting references to religious based intolerance until it quits rising. If I can make just one member of my community a little more aware, a little more cautious and some bad possibility is then avoided, it will be worth it.
138 - Dave Nalle
For what it's worth, Steve, you have heightened my awareness of religious intolerance. I'm keeping an eye out for it, anyway. I'm not convinced it's an epidemic yet, but I will agree there are some objectionable examples.
Kos, however, is not a reliable news source. Everything there has been filtered just a bit too much for me.
Dave
139 - Steve S
That's cool. This thread is really more for the people on the outskirts anyway. You don't have to click on the links just yet, if you don't want to.
But I do appreciate that you read this thread Dave.
--
further documentation for thread:
second investigation in two years begins in religious bias, proselytizing and Christian favoritism at the Air Force Academy.
The Colorado Springs Gazette obtains a report from a year earlier, which showed this intolerance already becoming a problem.
Some key quotes from the article:
“Anyone who is not conservative Christian would begin to realize they have to get with the message or find ways to survive outside the message,” said Kristen Leslie, a Methodist who holds a doctorate in pastoral care and counseling and led Yale’s visiting team.
“For anyone to differentiate themselves is very problematic and even threatening.”
140 - Mike
As is typical of any religion that claims to have exclusive access to the "Word of God," christianity is a faith based in paranoia. If it aint the devil that's gonna git ya, it's them godless sinners. It is not surprising, therefore, that the most rigid christian fundamentalists link disagreement even with their political views to an attack on their god.
Mike
141 - Steve S
Further documentation for thread.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:
"Responding to a directive from the Vatican, Archbishop Harry Flynn has advised all parishes in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis to deny communion to anyone wearing a rainbow-colored sash."
--
Gays and lesbians in St. Paul and Minneapolis may no longer receive communion unless they return to the closet.
142 - Steve S
Further documentation for thread.
A judge has suspended a safe sex education class in high school for having an anti-religious bias.
The Southern Baptist Press reports:
The curriculum -- aimed at eighth- and 10th-graders -- claims that Jesus "said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality" and that being homosexual is similar to being left-handed. It notes that some Baptist churches once defended racial segregation, implying that conservative Baptists today are on the wrong side of history. It also says that future generations likely will view today's traditional beliefs on homosexuality with "astonishment" and that "religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression."
--
If a school says that religions has been used to justify hatred and oppression, then that school now has an anti-religious bias. So look for schools to quit presenting that line of thought, actual history be damned.
Should schools present the fact that I am just like a left-handed person, that school is now presenting an anti-religious bias. Sad irony that I AM left handed.
143 - Dave Nalle
If you keep adding to this thread you're going to have to turn it into a book and publish it, Steve.
You could call it "Bad Religion: Southern Baptists I've Loved to Hate".
This textbook may be just fine in many ways, but I'm not sure about this:
"It notes that some Baptist churches once defended racial segregation, implying that conservative Baptists today are on the wrong side of history."
Doesn't negative commentary on a specific religion seem rather uncalled for in a sex ed text?
As I see it this is as much a violation of church and state as prayer in school. By all means keep religion out of the school, but that should also mean that the curriculum shouldn't single out religion for criticism or persecution.
Dave
144 - Steve S
Doesn't negative commentary on a specific religion seem rather uncalled for in a sex ed text?
presented like that, yes, I can see how it seems odd, but I can also understand how it is brought up.
one of the things sex ed talks about is sexual orientation. Certainly current societal perceptions of sexual orientation should be open for discussion. That would include discussion of groups who are intolerant of different types of orientation. I can see how that would be a valid topic of discussion in sex ed. Sex ed is about more than just the act. It is also about sex's role in society.
As for the 'wrong side of history' comment, the right winger said it is implying that. I think that would be subjective. Some Baptist churches DID defend racial segregation. That is not an implication as much as it is a fact. Whether one wants to 'infer' that the defense of racial segregation would put them on the wrong side of history, I guess depends on how they feel about racial segregation now.
145 - Steve S
and I don't hate anybody, Dave.
146 - Dave Nalle
Talking about Baptist churches defending segregation might have a place in a history text, but not in a sex-ed text, IMO. A Sex Ed text doesn't need to talk about Baptists specifically to talk about prejudice over sexual orientation. There ARE baptists out there who are not anti-gay. The church is one of the most fractured around. It just seems inappropriate.
And I respect you for not hating anyone, Steve - but don't you think maybe you should hate some people? Some people are hateful.
Dave
147 - Steve S
I don't know the actual context or the actual presentation of the class. I only know what is in the link I provided.
When talking about orientation and the instances in life where people can be intolerant about it, I can see where kids (remember the age group) might ask questions and segregation could be used as an example. I don't know the premise of the class. I CAN see that it would be stupid to have to say 'I can't answer that, the class might be shut down'.
If only more straight people could experience what it is like...in order to respect someone's faith, EVERY public mention of who you are as a person, MUST have a 'disclaimer'. To respect THEIR opinions, to respect THEIR faith, it is the gay person who must go through life forever offering a counterpoint to the validity of their humanity. Try walking in those shoes sometimes, and then you might begin to see that it is impossible to respect one's faith without condemning another, because religion is all about good vs. evil, and that's really all it's about. I exhibit far more tolerance than people can perceive of, coming from me, I believe.
And what is to be gained by hating? I can be so adamant against intolerance, can you imagine if I actually hated the intolerant ones? I'm only human (meaning someone could probably dig through the archives and find examples where I have failed), but I always try to go after the ideology, never the person. I've never called anyone a bigot, never attacked their weight, physical appearance, spelling and grammar, their character, etc. never engaged in a lot of what debate can turn into here. I diligently try to never do it anyway.
But I do know that my presentation of the facts can be as forceful as a personal attack and can be perceived as such. I can get exasperated and frustrated that people cannot see the harm in their ideology, but what can be gained by hating? Would it make me adhere to my beliefs even more adamantly like the fundies adhere to theirs? Is it even possible for me to more strongly believe in what I already believe in? I'm not sure. Most importantly, how can hate help me bring about the tolerant world I long for?
Look at what religion is doing to the country, what it's doing to the world. There's already enough hate, done in the name of the Lord, on this planet. I don't need to add to it.
148 - Dave Nalle
I see what you're saying, Steve, but not hating implies a willingness to forgive almost anyone, and I don't see forgiveness as an option for those whose crimes are truly abominable. Perhaps hate is the wrong word, but there are some people and actions which just have to be singled out as abominable and unacceptable and IMO worth of hate. And I'm not talking about relatively minor things like a little ill-conceived religious bigotry. I'm concerned about Baptists not liking gays, but I reserve hate for people like Hitler who actually send them to death camps.
Dave
149 - Steve S
at the risk of sounding pretentious, perhaps I don't know what hate feels like.
I define hate as wishing ill on others. I don't know that I wish ill on anybody. I can say things like 'I hate lima beans', but I don't really care to seek them out and stomp them underneath my boot. So I don't know that I really HATE them, as much as I just prefer to not eat them.
I guess I don't know what hate feels like. So it could be possible that I feel it, and don't know it. But I define hate as wishing ill on someone, and I wish ill on nobody.
I can believe (and do believe) that Hitler was a monster. Do I hate him? I don't know, how can I feel emotion towards someone who died before I was born? I can think he was evil (and I do), but is THAT hatred? I don't know, maybe I do hate but don't know what hate feels like, so don't know when I am experiencing it. Here's a good question for everybody (would probably be best posted on a blog that people actually read): how do you define the hate you feel for something/someone? It would be interesting to see the variety of perspectives.
Regarding 'minor things' like a little ill-conceived religious bigotry, look at it this way:
You have a neighbor who upends his trash bag over the fence, dumping his garbage in your yard. It's a little 'minor thing', but now consider that he does it every morning. Still minor, Dave?
And how is it 'minor' that in regards to acknowledging you as a person, there MUST always be the notification that there is a 'way out' for those who don't want to be like you, as well?
150 - Keith Drummond
Dear Steve:
I printed out and read -- when I should have been working (but I work at home just now so what the H?) -- your article and all the comments to it. I found your link on planetout.com and posted some thoughts there, but, if you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste the salient paragraph here:
How DO we address evil, i.e., these repellent people's willingness to offer human sacrifices of all sorts -- Blacks, Mexicans, queers, Muslims -- to their unspeakable god? So much of the trouble, it seems to me, lies in the simple MORAL imperative that we cannot turn round and inflict evil ourselves even though great evil is being inflicted upon us, otherwise we'd end up in open and even, to a degree, just war against them. But the old saw about "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," is as true as ever; unfortunately, there isn't a one of them who would do us a similar courtesy. Just as in the late 1930s in Germany where the NAZIs played on the decency of ordinary folks (in which they themselves didn't believe for a New York second) to further their own revolting and, untimately, horrendously self-destructive end -- today we have powerful politicians playing on the shibboleths of the Religious Reich. In other words, WE are left vulnerable. Though the fundamentalists would scream in indignation at this characterization, THEY'RE the ones who've loosed the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Ignorance, fear, bigotry and hatred. (THAT from a friend in Boston, bless her!) Their determination to take over education and see to it that history, science and well-reasoned logic cannot be taught is part and parcel of the whole in which gay marriage is included, because all three would inevitably strike at the very root of their own misguided beliefs. In fact all of the twaddle they preach is part and parcel of something I really do not know how to fight effectively, except to continue to live and think and write and hope -- yes, and even pray -- that, somehow, somewhere, the message will get through that the individual rather than feculent and neolithic tribal imperatives is what matters.
Especially in view your repeated attempts to discuss the very simple proposition that human life is to be valued REGARDLESS of anything else! I have had to deal with folks who are "hard of listening" all my LONG life. Unfortunately, one unpalatable truth I have learned is that "I've made up my mind; don't confuse me with facts" in an inevitable concomitant of that kind of willful refusal to, as it were, narrow the field to focus on the topic under discussion is fairly common. (Pardon the split infinitive!) Probably because facing a probative and reasoned argument head on just might start gnawing at long-held emotional crutches.
I'm with you: Killing folks, even if it be by neglect and indirection, is every bit as much murder, MORALLY speaking, as if one pulled out a gun and just blew 'em away. Possibly, even worse, because given the fancy dancing in the media, it's clear these wankers KNOW their xenophobic stance is not only intolerant but intolerable to the vast majority of good folks. But then of course it would NEVER do, now, would it, for physical cowards actually to be forced actually to confront their living and breathing victims who might actually be capable fo defending themselves?
I'm with you. SOMETHING has to be done about regulating immigration. But every single white person in this country descends from some European loser who came here to find a better life. It's unconscionable that vigilantes and self-proclaimed patriots who are little more than lawless, vicious men have been given the space to do what our feckless government won't do!
And thank you for struggling so wonderfully to REMAIN reasonable.
Yours,
Keith Drummond
151 - Steve S
Thank you Keith, for that comment. I appreciate it.
Some of the scariest things of this whole thread was seeing the responses rationalizing putting illegal immigrants in life-threatening situations. 'They are breaking the law after all. They deserve it, they do it to themselves'. Sound familiar?
Illegal immigration is a crime, yes, but some of the solutions to fixing it are akin to getting your hand cut off for stealing a loaf of bread.
I don't know what is happening to my country anymore. It's just sad. Thank you for your comment and support.
152 - Keith Drummond
Dear Steve:
I don't either. And as a gay man of, ah, a certain age, this whole development is more frightening and alarming than even the pervasive homophobia of the forties and fifties! Right now, though friends tell me I am not obviously gay (whatever that means), I frankly would rather walk through the Tenderloin in San Francisco than down a street in Walnut Creek or Pleasanton; I would certainly feel less apprehensive!
Commission of a crime, much less inculcated prejudices, can NEVER be an excuse for wildly disproportionate punishment. One of the more appalling aspects of the prevailing form of christianity is its wholesale reliance on Old Testament barbarisms. I AM a Christian, though the word has become so debased, I'm half ashamed to use it! And all this hankering after punishment is unthinkable in light of the Great Commandments of Jesus. At least *I* think so.
And besides, it would do us all well to remember that there have been many laws throughout history the breakers of which are now reckoned heroes! To have signed the Declaration of Independence in 1775 was a hanging offense! Just to sympathize with the Resistance Fighters in World War II got you shot by the NAZIs! There was even a time in THIS country when to steal a loaf of bread because you were hungry was sufficient to get you off.
Or the reverse: The Conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 by the Crusaders (such heroes!) was followed by one of the most repellent blood baths in history, with the Bishop of Winchester, addressing a question about the native Christians, "Kill them all and let God sort them out!" I have a good friend, gainfully employed, upstanding citizen and very moral man who spent FIVE YEARS in a prison in Mississippi for, in his admittedly rather wild youth, stealing a case of beer! FIVE YEARS! FOR A CASE OF BEER? Is it relevant that he's a Black man! I should rather imagine so! And he's told me all about the moral posturing that went on at his trial!
And, of course, lying largely unaddressed behind the whole "illegal" immigration thing is the fact that on BOTH sides of the border we have outrageously corrupt governments, and, here in California, at least, factory farms and restaurants and janitorial services who would squawk like punctured virgins if their supply of cheap labor were REALLY to dry up! The usual excuse here is that Americans won't do the work, but I have more than a few friends who, in an economic pinch, went out to the Central Valley looking for work and were told flat out the growers only use illegal labor!
I'm not trying to confuse the issue, but it does make me wonder what the hell the various governmental jurisdictions can be thinking of to allow on the one hand a free rein to people quite justifiably looking for a better life (while, of course, publicly denying they're doing any such thing), and on the other hand seemingly to actually be encouraging, or at least giving their blessing to strange and savage men who clearly believe that to kill "the other" (ANY other) is no different from shooting a rabid coyote!
Has killing someone who differs from you become the latest fashion in penis extenders for small and hapless men who can't afford an SUV?
Sorry. Ranting. But like you, I just don't know where we're going, and it's becoming more and more frightening as time passes. . . .
Yours,
Keith Drummond
153 - Steve S
I don't know about growers that want to use only illegal labor, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that is true and I can tell you exactly why.
Stand up and then lean forward so your hands are down by your feet. Keep your legs straight. Now hold that position 8-12 hours a day for a few dollars an hour. 6 days a week.
If Americans did that job, there would have to be so much expense involved in finding a better, healthier way to pick the crops and THAT is what these mega-farms out here don't want to do.
154 - Steve S
Further documentation for thread:
From Austin Texas, Republican "author of a House-passed prohibition on gay foster parents says he feels called by God".
The author of the discriminatory ban on gay foster parenting states how the ban originates from biblical interpretation.
Further proof that even in today's America, some of us are still not free from theocratic oppression.
155 - Mike
And the bibilical interpretation your post refers to is from the Book of Leviticus which is selectively embraced according to one's own convenience. It's the hypocracy of fundamentalist christianity in action once again.
156 - Steve S
Further documentation for thread:
In Elkins WV, a pastor says that gay and lesbian Christians should be treated like other people, and his congregation gives him the boot for the sheer audacity of the thought.
--
News from within Iraq reports how evangelical Christians are luring young Iraqi boys into their faith with cars and money, in much the same way that molesters seduce altar boys. Jesus would be so happy. source
157 - Steve S
Further documentation for thread:
Christian Coalition now advocating that gays and lesbians be visibly marked for identification.
And still nobody speaks up when they come for us. Sigh.
158 - Dave Nalle
The quote referenced in the article you link to does not propose putting warning labels on gays, it merely makes a comparison between gay morbidity and the hazards of smoking cigarettes for which they are labelled.
Not that I doubt that some Christian Coalition members would like to put labels of some sort on gays, but that's not what the guy said as quoted in the article.
I haven't been following this thread - are all of the alarmist updates you've been posting of this same spuriousness?
Dave
159 - Steve S
Not that I doubt that some Christian Coalition members would like to put labels of some sort on gays, but that's not what the guy said as quoted in the article.
Title of article:
Christian Coalition: Gays Should Wear Warning Labels
First sentence of article:
The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group says that gays should be required to wear warning labels.
Then the second sentence is the quote explaining why the lobby group says we should wear warning labels. Does that help you understand the article better?
are all of the alarmist updates you've been posting of this same spuriousness?
oh yes, Dave, there's nothing here for you to worry about, I'm just playing. Go back to demonizing all that you disagree with and flippantly disregarding everything of importance if it doesn't relate specifically to you. Kinda crude Dave. I suggest you READ the article. It's pretty clear.
160 - Dave Nalle
I did read the article, Steve. Despite the fact that the author of the article said what you describe in his first sentence, that sentence is NOT borne out by what the quote it's based on actually says. You're correct in reporting the headline, but the obviously sensationalistic author of the article is incorrect in drawing the conclusion he did from the quote which was the genesis of his tirade.
Dave
161 - Steve S
update for thread:
The border killings that I predicted on this thread, due to right wing paranoia and the Minutemen aggression back in May, have begun.
Link is to report of situation on the border escalating to the targeting and killing of migrants with laser scopes.