Christians suing for the right to be intolerant

[Holly]

Yep, those open-minded, tolerant student liberals. -- with many of their "teachers" right behind them.

Yes, well, it is a proven fact that liberals are a much smarter, more highly educated group than conservatives. Studies have shown that that overwhelming majority of college professors are liberal, and even if they came from a conservative background, as they became educated their views changed.

I'm not at all sure what that superior intellect has done for Democrats recently.

 

[Buckalew11]

Yes, well, it is a proven fact that liberals are a much smarter, more highly educated group than conservatives. Studies have shown that that overwhelming majority of college professors are liberal, and even if they came from a conservative background, as they became educated their views changed.

I'm not at all sure what that superior intellect has done for Democrats recently.

Wow, Holly, do you really believe that liberals are smarter than conservatives? Honestly, in my experience I think there are smart people on both sides. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom though. And to even say college educated people are smarter than those who didn't go to college is wrong IMHO. Probably because there is a difference between book sense and common sense.
But, I suppose you can are quite free to make a blanket statement like that if you'd like.

 

[LukenDC]

I don't regard the media in general as conservative or liberal. Clinton took quite a beating from the media during his presidency and Bush does not seem any more popular. Of course, there are specific networks and print media that certainly do have a political bias.

After 9/11, I came to the realization that the media is more sensationalistic than partisan. Media companies are profit making entities and the companies with the juciest stories usually attract the larger viewing audience and profits.

 

[toto2]

Well they don't have a Heterosexual pride month.

The work place isn't a place to "share the love". That should be left off campus and out of the workplace.

And for clarification--well--not sure if I can clarify but for example they have Black History Month--that is okay--shows wonderful figures in our history who did great things. My understanding of Gay Pride Month--they don't do so much of that. I don't know. I just don't see teh workplace as an appropriate venue of that.

Usually , those special month are for minorities. hour whole yera is heterosexual pride week. Second , I have never seen a pride month for gay people. it is usually between two and seven days. Lastly, those pride celebration never go on at schools and work place. Newspaper and newscast will have special features about GLBT issues. I have never heard of workplaces or schools doing anyting special for pride.

Lastly , yes religious group can give free food on campus , and give pamphlet inviting people to attend seminars and workshop about there faith. But to seek the right to diapparage acertain group of people on campus is , in my opinion , a totally different thing. This person is not looking to spred the good news , she is specificaly seeking the right to talk against gay people on campus.

 

[jgmklmhem]

Yes, well, it is a proven fact that liberals are a much smarter, more highly educated group than conservatives. Studies have shown that that overwhelming majority of college professors are liberal, and even if they came from a conservative background, as they became educated their views changed.

I'm not at all sure what that superior intellect has done for Democrats recently.

You could also say that as professors get in to the university system and get tenure (security and no competition) that their worldview drastically changes in that they now do not have to be part of the "real world" any longer and can say basically whatever they want and not get fired (Ward Churchill being an extreme example, pretty much any other profession and he would be fired).

Studies have also shown that people who vote liberal are also the least educated as well. I think it broke down that Kerry got the most votes from those with graduate degrees and those who didn't get or only have a high-school education whereas Bush got the most votes of the bachelors degree level.

 

[Disney Doll]

I am a total supporter of Freedom of Speech. But that doesn't mean everyone has to listen, for crying out loud.

No it doesn't mean everyone has to listen. Actually, no one has to listen, unless they choose to. But it does means that they have to have the right to say what they want, if everyone else in the country has that right.

Let me be perfectly clear. I disagree wholeheartedly with the message. But I agree with their right to speak it.

We are debating 2 different things here...religion and rights. They are intertwined, true, but still different.

I was in NYC one day. In Times Square, there was a black man(I can't say African-American, because I have no idea if he was from Africa, Jamaica or elsewhere, and I work with Jamaican people who become highly offended if you call them African-American, because even though their skin is black, they are not from Africa) spouting all sorts of hateful invectives against "white" people. He was not being volent, he was not breaking any laws. He was standing on a platform, using a loudspeaker to spew his venom all over Times Square. Did I agree with his message? Obviously not...but then again, I generally don't agree with any message that starts out with "all insert group here are bad".

But I did agree wiht his right to speak, as long as he stayed within the confines of the law.

The "message" may have been bad, but the "right" was his.

 

[Disney Doll]

Yes, but should we want to speak out about the fundamental Christians, well, THAT would just not be tolerated

Can't legislate stupidity... ignorant people will always be ignorant....

I am not a Fundamentalist Christian. As a matter-of-fact, I am an even-lower-on-the-food-chain-Roman-Catholic-christian. But I will say that Christianity gets "spoken out about a lot", and it's generally not too positive, and the opinions that are stated are generally based on hearing the beliefs of loudest, but smallest denominator, which the rest of you seem to think represents all Christians, for some reason, even though everyone is smart enough to understand that the 9/11 terrorists didn't represent the "good Muslim people", which I understand as well, having known & cared for some very lovely Muslim people in my days as a visiting nurse.

FWIW, most Christians are pretty middle-of-the-road folks who don't really want to kill all gays, blacks, and abortionists. Most of us are pretty normal folks who go to work, raise families, and try to be nice and help other folks when we can.

Swear to God, I don't have bomb-making equipment in my basement to blow up abortion clinics, I don't have a white sheet and wooden crosses in my basement so I can go and do "night raids" and, having been a nurse for 20+ years, I would imagine I have taken pretty good care of some very nice gay folks over the years, and I don't have any gay folks locked in my basement for periodic torture. I do, however, have a lot of crap in my basement so if anyone wants to come and help me clean it out, I wouldn't care if you were gay, white, black or pink with purple polka dots!!!!

 

[Planogirl]

So do those of you who speak of free speech think that anyone should have the right to say ANYTHING to ANYONE? I'm on the fence on this one because I believe that certain types of speech crosses over into harassment. Should verbal harassment be allowed?

 

[Disney Doll]

Now let's see, so far on this board the crazy-religious, the regular religious, the gay (religious or not), the republicans, and the inbred have been attacked.

Now, just imagine if someone is an inbred Republican crazily yet regularly religious gay person!!!!

We'll be hearing from them soon!!!!!!!

 

[Disney Doll]

As of today the employer has the right, but the courts could change that. I understand the purpose of diversity training, I just happen to believe it's a waste of time. If grown adults in the workplace have viewpoints about a certain race, religion, or lifestyle then I doubt a few hours or more of diversity training will change any of that.

It's just a cheap way for a company to show they are doing "something" in the name of diversity. So an entire cottage industry is born, millions of dollars are spent, and nobody questions or cares if it is actually accomplishing anything. That's why I think it's stupid.

I agree.

My employer has the right to tell me that they expect me to behave in a professional manner that will not be offensive to anyone. They have the right to outline what their definition of "professional" and "offensive" are, and notify me of that, so that I know their expectations.

I have the right to choose how I am going to act in the workplace, knowing what their requirements are. They have the right to fire me if I do not behave according to the standards that they have set, that I am aware of and agreed to as a condition of my employment.

They can diversity train me all they want. If I don't like someone, it's not going to change. I will treat them respectfully and professionally when required to do so, but it's not going to make me like them or agree with their position.

 

[Disney Doll]

So is it also ok to say that Black History month is stupid or does this only apply to Gay Pride week?

If I walked past a black person and said the N word its not ok, but if I walked past a gay person I can't call them a gay word (can't think of any lol).

Does this logic apply to all intolerance or just gays and lesbians?

I don't care one way or the other about Black History Month or Gay Pride Week, to be perfectly honest with you. If it makes either group happy to celebrate their "groupness", they can knock themselves out doing so!! Fine by me.

And, I guess if it's OK in some folks mind to walk by a black person and called them the "N" word, then it should also be OK to walk by a gay person and called them a derogatory name for gay people.

And it's obviously OK for Christians to be called fundamentalist nuts and everything else, because it happens fairly frequently.

For me personally, it's not OK to do any of the above. It's not a manner inwhich I choose ot behave. And believe me, I have been called some names in my day by a few drunks that I have cared for, who I hope were saying what they said in the haze of DTs!!!!!!!

 

[jgmklmhem]

So do those of you who speak of free speech think that anyone should have the right to say ANYTHING to ANYONE? I'm on the fence on this one because I believe that certain types of speech crosses over into harassment. Should verbal harassment be allowed?

But can you define the difference. I asked for this awhile back and didn't really get a response. I mean if I am standing in the center of campus chanting "I hate _______" (gays, whites, Republicans, Democrats, blacks, illegal immigrants...etc) harassment? If so, why? If not what is the step up to make it harassment? Obviously if I add a threat to my chant then that would be harassment, but is just stating my opinion on whatever matter considered harassment even if that opinion is stupid such as "I hate _____ people and they are going to hell"

 

[Disney Doll]

Overweight people yes, but Christians? Seems to me (and I'm not trying to be a smart aleck) that Christians have more power, have been more publicly vocal in their opinions, and getting more positive attention from politicians than ever before. They seem to be getting their message across, so to speak, in a lot of different venues. I just don't see the intolerance angle at all, sorry, and I live in a blue state. Religiously speaking, if any group is suffering from intolerance right now in the USA, I think it's the Muslims.

My goodness, it's amazing how people's perceptions of things can be so different, isn't it?

 

[toto2]

I agree.




They can diversity train me all they want. If I don't like someone, it's not going to change. I will treat them respectfully and professionally when required to do so, but it's not going to make me like them or agree with their position.

And that would be my definition of tolerance

 

[Disney Doll]

Christianity is thriving in the US. Those who claim they are oppressed Christians need a wake-up call. They have no idea what oppression really means. Perhaps a Chinese Christian (or Buddhist) could explain it to them...

I'm not sure anyone said "oppressed". I think a few people have comment on the "broad brush" theory though, but if you interpret that as the Christians saying they fell "oppressed" than so be it.

 

[Disney Doll]

Yes, those POOOOOR Christians. How horriable for them to enjoy the majority status they have in this country and the politicans they have in their pockets.

It's more of the same "Bill O'liely" crap - our local paper carried a story the other day about how "Easter" is "under attack" because a few cities referred to the bunny as a "Spring Bunny" (sure, sounds stupid, but what the heck does a rabbit have to do with the holy ressurection of Jesus Christ anyway????) - it's all nothing more than a conservative media effort to make the masses feel "persecuted" against so they can be manipulated into voting for certain politicans come election time and backing extreme legislation. Someone else used these same tactics in the 1930's ....hum, who was it now, could it have been ...Hitler?

And who, exactly, are the conservative media in this country??? And what would ever give you the idea that they speak for all Christians?

 

[Planogirl]

But can you define the difference. I asked for this awhile back and didn't really get a response. I mean if I am standing in the center of campus chanting "I hate _______" (gays, whites, Republicans, Democrats, blacks, illegal immigrants...etc) harassment? If so, why? If not what is the step up to make it harassment? Obviously if I add a threat to my chant then that would be harassment, but is just stating my opinion on whatever matter considered harassment even if that opinion is stupid such as "I hate _____ people and they are going to hell"

Saying you hate someone would not be harassment. Going on and on about it might be depending on how you present it. Trying to "save" gays would be harassment kind of in the vein of any persistent religious person who tries to convert someone. I consider that religious nut who pickets military funerals an idiot but I don't know that what he does is harassment.

It's a hard line to find. It's one that you can't easily define but you know when it's been crossed.

 

[Disney Doll]

The bold is mine: you do know that a lot of religious people think that bigotery is stupid and that intolerance is stupid and so forth.

Then , it would all right to for an atheist to pass pamplhets on campus saying that christians are totally wrong and stupid to celabrate christmas because Jesus nerver existed and give those pamphlet to everone. Or to wear tshirts that says catholics are pedophiles. Would you tolerate this ? Because giving this right to christaian to bash gay people on university ground will give everybody the right to bash everybody. It is one thing to invite people to your religious meeting and another , to invite people to a gay bashing meeting.


PS: By bashing I mean verbal bashing , of course , and I dont think catholics are pedophiles and I dont think it is stupid to celebrate chrismas , even though I am an atheist...and gay

As long as the atheist wasn't killing me because I am a Catholic (and not a pedophile, BTW), then, yes, I owuld tolerate. I wouldn't like it. I might set up a stand on the opposite corner with pamphlets explaining why all Catholics aren't pedophiles, I might do any number of things which would be legal to do in this country(which does not include physical violence), but I would not try to remove the other person's right to free speech.

BTW, people speak of this as "harrassment". Harrassment tends to have to have constant attacks which are more perosnally directed to really be harrassment. A person spouting what ever they spout to no one in particular cannot really be considered to be harrassing anyone.

 

[jgmklmhem]

Saying you hate someone would not be harassment. Going on and on about it might be depending on how you present it. Trying to "save" gays would be harassment kind of in the vein of any persistent religious person who tries to convert someone. I consider that religious nut who pickets military funerals an idiot but I don't know that what he does is harassment.

It's a hard line to find. It's one that you can't easily define but you know when it's been crossed.

Yes but for legal purposes in a free speech society doesn't the line need to be clear for all to see so that they can determine whether or not they cross it. I think those trying to "Save" gays are alright (legally speaking) unless they target specific individuals. Same with any other groups KKK etc. I think in many ways to truly be harassment it has to target the individual not the group/class/race/religion and even then it still seems pretty gray. Just an example...If I came by your house everyday and said "I hate you because you like Disney and you are going to hell" that could be seen as harassment....but if I stood in town square everyday and chanted "I hate those who like Disney and they are going to hell" then while possibly annoying I don't think that is harassment.

 

[Disney Doll]

First of all, I agree with you most of the time, so I hate to pick on you (and yet, here I go ).

I understand your desire judge people on the basis of what the most extreme and distructive of them do -- viewing all with the same bad image -- of course that's what people who don't like Muslims, and black people, and gay people do, but if you don't mind being like the people you hate, who am I to judge? .... .

And the wind blew Bush our way this time, it'll blow another way another time. (I pray for this every day.)

And I'm sorry, but when you try to belittle people's arguments with the s and the s, it takes away from the integrity of your words.

Thank you auntpolly. I generally try not to reply to much to wv, because why his/her arguments are usually "cutting" they have little basis in the concepts of the true debate style and tend to fall back on sarcasm and smilies to make their "point".