From Agape Press:
Several liberal organizations are displeased that the Colorado-based men's ministry Promise Keepers has been granted permission to use facilities at the University of Arkansas for one of its stadium events. Critics claim PK is non-inclusive and intolerant and should therefore be precluded from visiting the campus.
Next month, Promise Keepers will be holding a conference at Razorback Stadium on the University of Arkansas campus in Fayetteville. However, groups like the Arkansas chapter of the National Organization for Women, the Washington County Green Party, and the Omni Center for Peace, Justice, and Ecology want the Christian men's outreach organization barred from the campus. PK is being accused of intolerance of non-Christian religions and promoting a narrow-minded viewpoint.
I think the headline I used pretty much says it all. George Orwell would be proud — or would he be frightened?
cross posted at JackLewis.net
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Temple Stark
"several liberal groups?"
Could that be more vague? And, no the link does not elaborate in the slightest.
Why is this important to you? Why do you believe "Agape Press? Why did you make this post?
Ask some more questions and maybe do a little research yourself ???
2 - Temple Stark
Clarification - groups are mentioned but just, that mentioned. Nothing about if or what they said. "However, groups like ... "
"Such as" would be the correct phrase there.
3 - Steve S
I think the headline I used pretty much says it all. George Orwell would be proud â€" or would he be frightened?
He probably would be bored with this post and with biased agape press.
Liberal groups work for tolerance and diversity among us all, if there are groups out there, like almost all conservative Christian ones, that are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others, then it is perfectly natural to not want to be around them. You don't have to tolerate the intolerant and you can still be a tolerant person.
I thought Promise Keepers had been on the verge of bankruptcy for several years ever since the news reported how they teach their Christian males that a woman's place is in the home and subservient. They still hangin on?
4 - Plainavy
"Liberal groups work for tolerance and diversity among us all." What a crock of Mydol inducing cramps.
Good grief. Steve S. your argument can be made by both sides. Liberal groups have no lock on virtue and are intolerant of others with whom they disagree.
They are only interested in thinksame groups. Anyone whose assumptions conflict with theirs is, *surprise*, not tolerated. Some liberal groups "are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others" because they are Christian. Some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don't tolerate it and I don't see that, in a free country, they have to.
5 - Temple Stark
tolerate murder?
6 - Steve S
yeah, plainavy, it works both ways. When I was referring to liberal groups, I was speaking in the context of the ACLU and it's supporter organizations, not the whole liberal field. Sorry for not being clearer.
7 - Steve S
They don't tolerate it and I don't see that, in a free country, they have to.
On an individual level, I don't think they have to, in a free country either, as long as another's right isn't infringed upon in some way. It's a societal wide intolerance on a large scale, from one group to another, that is unacceptable, rights always get trampled on in cases like that.
8 - Plainavy
Murder is one of the Ten Commandments--Christians are bound to uphold that, even if in an imperfect world that standard isn't always upheld.
The ACLU--tolerates Nazis, pedophiles, and KKKers. But not Christians. No wonder the Dems lost 2004.
9 - Plainavy
The Commandment against murder, that is!
10 - Steve S
The Dems lost 2004 because of the ACLU? Kerry will love to hear that.
as far as them 'tolerating' those groups, refer to a famous quote by Voltaire. I'm not sure why you brought them up, they aren't mentioned in the article above.
11 - Bennett
"No wonder the Dems lost 2004."
How does this come into the conversation? Are you saying that ALL Christians are Republicans?
Are there NO Christian Democrats?
Hey, get a clue!
12 - Plainavy
The Dems lost b/c of liberal bias (and resultant hubris) against Christian red staters. Steven S. brought the ACLU into the conversation as the intended "liberal group" of his previous post: "When I was referring to liberal groups, I was speaking in the context of the ACLU...."
The pitch of "you don't have to tolerate the intolerant, and still be tolerant," is just self-contradictory nonsense. It's a way to soothe one's hate with the angelic balm of asserting one's essential goodness.
To that remarkable rejoinder, "Hey, get a clue!" everybody, or at least I thought everybody, knows that one of the defining characteristics of the Red Staters is a pronounced proclivity for Christianity, whereas every schoolboy should know that among the Blue Staters, secular reason is held sacred and the Christian religion is barely tolerated, if at all, even by those who profess to practice it.
13 - BillB
RE Comment 4
>Some liberal groups "are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others" because they are Christian.<
Christian propaganda. Liberals take issue with Christians who wish to impose they're repressive and exclusionary "morality" on others. I have some lovely Christian friends who wouldn't dream of telling others how to live.
And then there are those who would withold basic rights because one is gay, or deny personal freedom in choosing to die because only God can take life. Or maybe force a Moslem to listen to Christian prayer in school because we're a "Christian nation". Etc. etc.
>Some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don't tolerate it and I don't see that, in a free country, they have to.<
What? If it were truly free, their repressive opinions would find no foothold to take root and would simply disappear with the breeze. Currently the so called freedom you speak of equals repression for many.
>Liberal groups have no lock on virtue and are intolerant of others with whom they disagree.<
You need to check yourself here Plainavy. Liberal groups are intolerant of INTOLERANCE! Those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum will defend your right to SPEAK your conservative mind - but impose you narrow view of creation and purpose on the rest of us! I don't think so.
What some conservatives just don't get is that liberalism is INCLUSIVE and does not attempt to IMPOSE upon others.
Pro choice does not mean you MUST get an abortion.
Pro gay does not mean you MUST be homosexual.
Pro contraception does not mean you MUST only have sex for pleasure.
Pro euthanasia does not mean you MUST choose to die.
Note to REAL conservatives: When are you going to shed the lunatic religious right?
You'll do us all a favor when you put them off on their own where they belong.
Now what DOES liberalism try to impose? Fairness and justice. Does the application of this idea sometimes overstep reasonable bounds of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. Yes. It's our job to hash this out in an equitable fashion.
Just how this equity manifests must be colored with respect and compassion or it will be meaningless.
I believe that true conservatism actually overlaps with true liberalism, as crazy as that may sound to some. True conservatism is more libertarian than activist Christian.
One, Liberalism, comes to freedom from the notion of individual rights and the other, Conservatism, comes to freedom from the notion of hands off government. True that at times these ideas can colide but they are often in agreement.
Now don't get me wrong, there are some wacko liberals as there are wacko conservatives.
The wacko liberals are not currently running the democratic party.
Big difference..
14 - Plainavy
RE: Comment 13 by BillB
>Some liberal groups "are hellbent on ostracizing and condemning others" because they are Christian.<
>>Christian propaganda. Liberals take issue with Christians who wish to impose they're repressive and exclusionary "morality" on others. I have some lovely Christian friends who wouldn't dream of telling others how to live.<<
But you apparently have some "lovely" liberal friends--so unlike the naughty Christians whom "liberals take issue with"--who are willing to tell Christians what the tenets of their own religion ought to be. The liberal gown is "lovely" but the liberal body it covers is dictatorial.
>>And then there are those who would withold basic rights because one is gay, or deny personal freedom in choosing to die because only God can take life. Or maybe force a Moslem to listen to Christian prayer in school because we're a "Christian nation". Etc. etc.<<
Or force a Christian to listen to lectures on Islam, or force a Christian to have his or her children given sex education in public school at inappropriate ages, or force a Christian to smile on the sin of homosexuality, or force a Christian to forego the sanctity of gender roles, etc., etc.
>Some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. They don't tolerate it and I don't see that, in a free country, they have to.<
>>What? If it were truly free, their repressive opinions would find no foothold to take root and would simply disappear with the breeze. Currently the so called freedom you speak of equals repression for many.<<
Repression is in the eye of the beholder. If our country were "truly free" your "repressive opinions" wouldn't exist either.
>Liberal groups have no lock on virtue and are intolerant of others with whom they disagree.<
>>You need to check yourself here Plainavy. Liberal groups are intolerant of INTOLERANCE! <<
Oh claptrap. The "liberal groups" of which you speak are selectively intolerant. They embrace the "right" kind of hate; the kind of hate they approve of.
And what on earth does my needing to "check" myself mean? Do you mean that I must be silent? That I must self-censor b/c I dare say things that go against the grain of your party line? What hypocrisy! With any luck we might not be talking at cross-purposes in this little informal forum, and already you are demanding my silence. Do you see a problem here?
>>Those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum will defend your right to SPEAK your conservative mind - but impose you narrow view of creation and purpose on the rest of us! I don't think so.<<
Yeah, right after I "check" it and denude it of any thing that might make you think. I AM speaking my conservative mind and what I'm getting from you is one-sided, exclusivist, and intolerant.
And newsflash: I'm libertarian enough not to want you thrown in jail for spouting your secular liberal angst.
15 - Plainavy
RE: continuation on comment 13
>>What some conservatives just don't get is that liberalism is INCLUSIVE and does not attempt to IMPOSE upon others.<<
What some liberals don't get is that liberalism is just as virulent and antagonistic of others' basic beliefs and founding assumptions as the dreaded fundamentalists that liberals are always howling about.
>>Pro choice does not mean you MUST get an abortion.<<
But it creates a culture where babies are not sacred, where life is a matter of "choice," where children having babies are encouraged to hide their "decisions" from their parents--that's an anti-family and anti-parent agenda, all stemming from the "innocent" "pro-choice" line on abortion.
>>Pro gay does not mean you MUST be homosexual.<<
It's not so simple. Studies of children raised by homosexuals found that those children were more likely to experiment with or adopt that lifestyle. The ever growing prevalence of homosexual representation in the media is likewise probably a catalyst to experimentation. For many Christians, acceptance of homosexuality is not an option precisely b/c there is no middle ground of ongoing stability, in the face of accepted, visible homosexual lifestyles, in gender roles and family structure. Also, to have the homosexual lifestyle and aesthetic thrown into Chritians' and Moslems' faces is painful and disgusting to them. Homosexuality isn't about individuals; it's about a cultural shift that 1 billion Muslims, among others, aren't into.
>>Pro contraception does not mean you MUST only have sex for pleasure.<<
But pro-contraceptions takes away the mystique and quality of sex at a cultural level--the proper metaphor is inflation: if the coin is available everywhere, it's worth is less.
>>Pro euthanasia does not mean you MUST choose to die.<<
Yeah, I don't really think euthanasia is that important or defining of an issue. Some Christians, I understand, see it as the thin end of the wedge for the culture of death--a culture that sees life as less than a gift from God, and more of a biological convenience that, given enough inconvenience, should be terminated.
16 - Steve S
Steve S. brought the ACLU into the conversation as the intended "liberal group" of his previous post
ooops. I was the one that brought up the ACLU, and then wondered aloud why you mentioned them. I got my threads mixed up.
Although looking at the list of those who were mentioned in the original post (NOW and the Green Party, et. al), it was a mixup but still keeping it in good company.
17 - Bennett
Where is "Danny Carlton", and why doesn't he address any of these issues?
18 - BillB
>But you apparently have some "lovely" liberal friends--so unlike the naughty Christians whom "liberals take issue with"--who are willing to tell Christians what the tenets of their own religion ought to be. The liberal gown is "lovely" but the liberal body it covers is dictatorial.<
So you meant >because they areN'T THE RIGHT KIND OF Christian<
Thanks for making my point for me.
>what the tenets of their own religion ought to be.<
You're a lost cause. You're not even tolerant of other Christians!
>lectures on Islam<
Do you mean teaching history or world religions? I for that.
>sex education in public school at inappropriate ages<
Here we may agree to some degree.
>force a Christian to smile on the sin of homosexuality<
Smile? Accept to the point of not discriminating against them. But alas your security in your Christianity will likely tumble to the ground in the face of such abomination.
>or force a Christian to forego the sanctity of gender roles, etc., etc.<
Gotta keep those uppity women in the kitchen.
>Repression is in the eye of the beholder. If our country were "truly free" your "repressive opinions" wouldn't exist either.<
Repression is in the experience of the oppressed. Exactly how are you religiously persecuted?
>Oh claptrap. The "liberal groups" of which you speak are selectively intolerant. They embrace the "right" kind of hate; the kind of hate they approve of.<
In case you didn't get through my whole post I acknowledged wackos of all stripes. Any liberals that hate allow themselves to be led by fear. Same for anyone else.
>And what on earth does my needing to "check" myself mean? Do you mean that I must be silent?<
You wondered then you decided. Wrongly though. I meant analyze yourself and your positions.
>And newsflash: I'm libertarian enough not to want you thrown in jail for spouting your secular liberal angst.<
Huh? If you were more conservative you'd want me in jail?
>But it creates a culture where babies are not sacred, where life is a matter of "choice," where children having babies are encouraged to hide their "decisions" from their parents--that's an anti-family and anti-parent agenda, all stemming from the "innocent" "pro-choice" line on abortion.<
I disagree but more to the point you're waaaaay off the point.
>It's not so simple. Studies of children...<
I disagree but more to the point you're once again waaaaay off the point. Either you don't want to hear it or you can not comprehend.
>But pro-contraceptions takes away the mystique and quality of sex at a cultural level--the proper metaphor is inflation: if the coin is available everywhere, it's worth is less.<
You mean it's not different for everyone. If I only knew it fit in such a neat little simplistic package.
Well we obviously are not going to sway each other here. My last word.
Freedom is sacred.
19 - Shark
Day Five of the Christoid Spam Attack!
Gee, I wonder if Eric can round up a few hundred other drooling pricks whose idea of an original blog essay is to cut and paste Christoid "press releases" and add profound observations like, "I think the headline I used pretty much says it all. George Orwell would be proud -- *or would he be frightened?"
* (Carlton edited out, "bwahahahaha!" for the sake of brevity!)
PS: Hey Carlton, John BambiNeck says the bus is leavin' in a few minutes.
20 - Aaman
To quote Orwell/Eric Blair,
Sounds familiar?
21 - Aaman
Oops, I missed a key selection of some relevance,
22 - John Bambenek
==============
| |
| Don't Feed |
| the |
| trolls |
| |
==============
23 - Steve S
The trolls? I think you mean the regular members who have been here longer than you. I don't think a troll fits that definition.
24 - JR
What, just because I've been under this bridge for a couple of years now, I can't be a troll anymore?
That's not fair.
25 - Steve S
I wonder how successful BlogCritics can become if it continues to turn into a Christian evangelical recruiting station.
You never see those types of sites on any top 100 list. Bad decision if you ask me.