Tolerance is the New Intolerance
by Jason at 6:00 am on April 19th, 2006 in Religious Right / ExtremistsIt’s got to be rough being a conservative Christian. After all, there are attacks coming from all sides: Wars on Christmas. Wars on Easter. Unmarried people who don’t practice abstinence. Naughty words on television. Schools that dare to teach evolution. Gay people walking about in polite society without scarlet letters stitched over their sinful hearts.
Their ranks may include important politicians leading all the way up to the President, their faith may be practiced to some degree by a huge majority of Americans, but why should that stop some Christian conservatives from feeling persecuted?
(I expect an answer for that once Christian jokes overtake Jew jokes as a source of good old-fashioned American humor. As in, probably never.)
The latest news item from the Christian battlefronts:
Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she’s a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she’s demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
For people like Malhotra, they feel marginalized if they are denied the right to marginalize others, and they are mad as hell about the situation. They may never talk to an actual gay person, and they may never come closer to gay culture than a re-run of Will and Grace, but their great struggle is to retain the ability to target homosexuals both professionally and socially. And if you think that’s a little over-dramatic, read the following:
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. “Christians,” he said, “are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian.”
Now, I’m not Christian and—as such—I may not be privy to their great hardships, but I know for certain that: 1) They haven’t been denied the right to vote because of their religion; 2) They don’t have to use special “Christian Only” bathrooms and water fountains; 3) They’ve never had firehoses sprayed on them as they walked to church; and 4) They can sit on the bus in any damn spot they choose. Instead, people like Scarborough are the bus driver, the segregationist, the politician blocking the doors of a school so blacks can’t enter. In this twisted interpretation of the Civil Rights movement, they play the other side—it’s their God-given right to deny equal treatment for gays, target them with impunity and call them “faggot” whenever they feel like.
Certainly, not all Christians feel the same way as Malhotra and Scarborough and their ilk. But it’s the evangelicals who reliably have their hand on the megaphone and have the means to push through the lawsuits, and they will not be denied the right to put homosexuals in their proper place. Cast off those shackles of opression! Viva freedom! We shall overcome!
(PREVIOUS: The Opposite of Tolerance, by Matt)
sarabeth wrote:
You know, if you take a broad ACLU-style view of things, the Ruth Malhotras and Rick Scarboroughs of this world may have a point after all.
Many of us who believe that no one should be persecuted because of their race or religion or sexual orientation have no problem reviling and heaping scorn on Malhotra or Scarborough for what, after all, are their genuinely held religious views. I know that if Malhotra went around wearing a sign that said “Ruth Malhotra, 22-year old Georgia Tech senior”, and I passed her on the street, I probably would not be able to resist telling her a thing or two. And I would probably feel no guilt whatsoever. But I would, of course, just have persecuted her for her religious beliefs. Just as your post or my comment ridicules the Malhotras and the Scarboroughs of this world for their religious beliefs.
How come I’m still able to sleep at night when I cheerfully go around practicing religious intolerance? Because I tell myself – I guess it’s my religious belief – that the persecution-for-religion protection stops at the point where a religion starts to practice and to preach hatred and intolerance. But the Malhotras and the Scarboroughs don’t see their behavior as intolerance; they can’t. So from their point of view, they have indeed been unjustly persecuted for, or unjustly prevented from, practicing their religion
Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 6:30 am ¶
DCeiver wrote:
Uh-oh! I think Rick Scarborough has met The Straw Men! Those invisible creatures who persecute Christians, don’t want the NSA to monitor terrorists, and who practice a style of journalism specifically intended to get our troops killed.
I’ve never met a Straw Man, but I’m doing what I can to track them. I invite 1115 to join me in my efforts.
What I have learned will delight you. Also here.
I totally heart the 1115. Thanks for always coming correct.
Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 8:28 am ¶
Jason wrote:
This is true, but then again if you take the broadest possible stance…well, as long as religion is mentioned as a factor, anything goes. What if someone, in the name of their religion, sued for the right to publicly discriminate against people of other races? Other religions? If Malhotra’s suit said that her religious beliefs compelled her to speak out against Jews, for instance, would society have the same attitude? Probably not.
This isn’t about disliking gay people, or believing that they are sinful or whatnot. This is about getting to a point where their rights can be curtailed because of their sexual orientation—that it’s ok to not only to harass them, but turn them into second-class citizens. What’s next? Denying gays job protections? Denying them public health services? Hell, why not ship them all out to some deserted island so they aren’t aiming their evil homo rayguns at anyone.
Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 9:56 am ¶
matt wrote:
What, did you just watch Boiler Room?
Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 10:38 am ¶
Jason wrote:
That is really funny. Any Boiler Room references were inadvertent, I swear!
Posted 19 Apr 2006 at 10:41 am ¶
Mike S wrote:
Why is it that those who demand tolerance are the most intolerant people on the planet? Anyone who has a viewpoint different than the Tolerance Gestapo are shouted down, or worse. Frankly, you all look pretty stupid.
Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 5:17 am ¶
Anna@beaverstudio.co wrote:
You wrote and I quote “They may never talk to an actual gay person.” You should know that I am a christian and I believe that homosexuality is a sin. But also need to know that every christmas and thanksgiving, since before I was born, my family has a gay guy come over for dinner, he is a really good friend of the family and has been there for every important situation in my family. So for you to say that those type of people may never talk to a gay person, I have. I don’t agree with his lifestyle choice, but I still love having him around for Christmas and Thanksgiving.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 8:53 am ¶
matt wrote:
sounds like a 90210 episode. you’re quite the tolerant humanitarian.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 9:05 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
how is anna @ beaverstudio not a lesbian?
anyway, anna, serious question: the whole hate the sin, not the sinner construct, is that dependent on convincing the sinner to stop sinning? i mean, if i were a gay man and i acknowledged that having sexual relations with a man was in fact a sin, but i decided to keep doing it, would you still have to love me? even if you couldn’t change my mind/actions?
Posted 07 May 2007 at 11:02 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Jamie Beth, may I answer your questions as well?
Posted 07 May 2007 at 1:25 pm ¶
matt wrote:
as long as you answer the first one.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 1:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You mean this one?
Ha Ha
No, I don’t want to answer Jamie Beth’s questions if she is looking specifically for anna’s viewpoint…
Posted 07 May 2007 at 1:48 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i imagine you and anna are of like mind, and people who comment on year-old posts generally don’t stick around to debate. please, give us another dose of hate the sin love the sinner. it’s my second favorite after bush is responsible, but it’s not his fault.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 1:54 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
JimC - fire away!
I posted the following on march 28 in response to this post:
http://www.1115.org/2007/03/28/pluralism/
Posted 07 May 2007 at 3:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Jamie Beth, it is difficult to convey this concept, especially if someone doesn’t share the same biblical beliefs, however, I will try to give you my honest opinion and answer your question from what I believe the Bible (Old Testament and New) tells us.
First of all, from a Biblical perspective, sin, such as homosexual acts, must be understood on how God views them. Sin is literally the disobedience of God’s commandments that He has provided for us. Sin is the product of our own lusts.
James 1:14-15 says “14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
What this means is that everyone is tempted, and by their own desires or lusts, having given in to those desires or lust, sin results. The end result of sin is death, most importantly death of a relationship with God but also death of your earthly relationships, careers, etc. Because sin will destroy lives.
Now, God views sin as something that separates us from Him. The Bible tells us that no sin can enter into the God’s presence. All sin, not just homosexual acts, but all sin, can keep us from an eternal relationship with God. Think of it this way, not all sins are equal but all sins are equally condemning. For example, you can flunk a test by 1 point or 20 points but you still flunk. To take this further, Christians are also flunkies, no different that the homosexual or liar or drunkard or adulterer, whatever. Christians, know, or should know, that they are nothing but sinners saved by grace, literally, flunkies given a passing grade because of someone else’s sacrifice. So knowing that a proper Christian view is to not have a holier than thou perspective but a loving attitude of those who are still condemned by their sin. This means Christians are not to hate sinners because they themselves are sinners. We are to love sinners because Christ loved us even though we were in sin but we are to separate ourselves from the sin. This means that we are to not condone, support, or aid someone else’s sinful ways (or of course indulge our own lusts). Yet, we are to love them enough to desire them to turn from their sins. You cannot force someone to turn from their sins, it has to be the choice of the sinner to do so but we can help foster a condition through love by which someone comes to the realization that they are in error.
So, if you acknowledge your sin (the first step actually to redemption) but refuse to turn from it, you essentially choose to live in disobedience and more saddening, knowingly doing so, but I can still love you, and desire that you turn from it, but I will hate the sin because it keeps you ensnared, and seek to council or dissuade you from living in sin. I will pray for you and also do what I can to keep you from the temptation.
To expand on the meaning of “hate the sin”, it is not an angered hate but a compassionate hate of the very thing that destroys lives. I hate that drugs destroys lives, I hate that alcohol destroys lives, I hate that adultery destroys lives, I hate that hate destroys lives. Sometimes, because Christians are imperfect, they will blur the line of hating the sin and the sinner. Some, such as the Westboro Baptist “Church” have missed something very critical and they have distorted the idea that God can hate the sinner but love them at the same time, they focus only on the hate and miss the fact that God loved them even though they themselves are sinners. It really distresses me that they label themselves as Baptists, for I attend a Baptist church which is appalled by their hate.
In the end, a Christian must be able to separate the sin from the sinner, acknowledging that we are all subject to the same common lusts and can be enticed to sin, so hating sinners would mean you would hate yourself, unless you are a hypocrite. So you see, I cannot hate you for your sins because I am empathetic in your condition, having been and still being a sinner, I know the consequences of those sins and desire you to be freed from the slavery of those sins and ultimately, be redeemed.
This is how I am able to “hate the sin but not the sinner” even if you willfully chose to live in sin…
Posted 07 May 2007 at 5:38 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Jamie, sorry I submitted this long comment before seeing your last comment. If this doesn’t address some/part of that please let me know.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 5:41 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
I think I understand what you are saying, but I don’t buy it. I think this is the sticking point (and there’s nothing either of us can do about it):
truth be told, it was an impressive, or at least long, attempt but this is where you lost me:
desiring i change is precisely what i detest about the whole thing.
let me just make this perfectly clear: i don’t need saving. because i don’t believe in heaven or hell and because i will only be judged by myself and those who love and know me (in this world), the whole notion of “sin” as something that separates me from god and/or the kingdom of heaven doesn’t really hold any water for me.
i have to look at myself in the mirror every morning, that’s how i live my life, that’s how i tell right from wrong. i don’t ask that you change the way you live your life to suit my beliefs but in your explanation of hating the sin and not the sinner, you would be asking someone to change the way he or she lives his or her life to suit your beliefs, NOT some universal truth, no matter how firmly you believe in it.
oh well. thanks for the response.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 7:30 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
This is why I said if you don’t believe in the Biblical truths as I believe them, you would not accept or understand (buy) it. I’m not trying to change you, rather trying to show you through the books of the Bible, OT and NT, that God loves you and wants you to turn from sin as God has defined it, thus you would desire to change yourself.
I can’t make you belive in God, but I believe you will stand before Him on the day of judgement, just like everyone else will. The bible says those who do not accept God will be blind and not understand His word. There’s nothing I can do to change your mind on this, I know that, but I can still have hope and pray for that to happen. Just as I do for my father and my sister…
Maybe I assume too much but I assume that you are familiar with the Pentateuch and all the other books of the Orignal Testment or Jewish Tanakh? I love the books of the OT and there is a lot of wisdom there. I’ve been studying the Tabernacle, very interesting stuff.
But like I have stated before, I was once a professing atheist up until I was 28 years old, but I found that I was wrong…so excuse me if I hold out some hope for all of you :-)
BTW - perhaps you should check this out. It is a Nightline hosted debate between two atheists and two Christians (Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, yes that’s Kirk Cameron from “Growing Pains”). Here is another link on this.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 8:08 pm ¶
matt wrote:
it’s the presumptuousness of this that grates. i don’t submit to judgement from you or anyone else, whether or not you try to cloak that judgement by passing it off on your god. the vast majority of your life, you lived as if there was no sin, and now you’re judging people who you don’t even know based on a work of fiction that contradicts even itself. preposterous.
all of that said, you are certainly welcome to your beliefs. where this begins and ends for me is the simple fact that the Constitution is the controlling legal authority, and you and many others ignore that in favor of some fantasy of dominion that is repugnant to me and everyone else who believes in equal opportunity, the pursuit of happiness etc.
Posted 07 May 2007 at 9:08 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
i should have known that my question would be seen as an open invitation to proselytize.
for the record, in case I haven’t said it before, I have always found your use of the old testament and your “knowledge” of judaism to be insulting. do you not understand that I don’t believe the old testament is divine revelation and even if you were to convince me it were, I would still not believe in your version of god, heaven or hell? it has always seemed to me like a cheap ploy on your part. as if you getting me to be a “better jew” would be one step closer to getting me to renounce my own views and take on yours.
you should really check this out (you can listen to it for free right on your computer or download it to your ipod for 95cents - the actual audio is far more compelling than the synopsis):
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=304
there is a really powerful moment towards the end when a christian who grew up in the born again tradition but no longer believes in hell (the “heretic”) is approached by a christian who does believe in hell. the christian who believes in hell tries to “save” the “heretic,” she tries to convince her that there really is a hell and that she needs to believe or she is going to hell. the “heretic” (and former proselytizer) comments that:
your need to save others takes away valuable time from your life that could be used doing good works. that makes me very very sad.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 5:05 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I did not intend for it to be that way. I’m just fascinated with the OT. To me, I think it is beautiful, I just want to share it. If you don’t want to take part, that is your right to do so, and I won’t share it with you anymore. This is why I asked if you wanted me to answer your questions because obviously it required my answers to be Biblically founded, so I thought you were prepared for it. If you don’t want me to say anymore about, at least until the next religion topic comes up, I won’t say a word.
I don’t want to dominate your life. I want you to be free of the bonds of iniquity. I realize I may never be able to show you what I believe to be truth of the Bible (or even the Original Testament), but I will always have that burden for you, think me crazy, doesn’t matter.
By having that love for those who are lost, I believe I believe good works have been wrought as much as I can say. For example, our desire for Israel to see Christ as the Messiah has allowed our church to become part of the Yedidim of Israel. Money I have sent along with many others has allowed us to give thousands of dollars to Israelli families in Northern Israel and also allowed us to feed the IDF on several occasions as they sit along the border of Lebanon. We have been able to send money to buy our troops supplies and care packages in Iraq. We have tended to needs in our own community, helping people with the tragic events in their lives. I’m not boasting just saying what my(ours as Christians) “need to save” others has brought forth in my home church and in my life. Don’t be sad for me. I’ve had nothing but good since my conversion from atheism, but thanks for the concern :-)
Posted 08 May 2007 at 6:00 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Very true.
(it is with self-restraint I didn’t even know I possessed that I have held my tongue throughout. that, and the fact that you and matt did a pretty good job of expressing my feelings too.)
Posted 08 May 2007 at 6:05 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
JimC - in the comment before yours i told you that your constant reference to the Old Testament was insulting. In your response above you said you would stop. Later in your response, above you said:
it is more and more apparent to me that you can’t help yourself. i think you think that to be a good jew you have to believe in the old testament and that maybe, just maybe, you could convince me or matt or (gasp!) both of us to believe in “our own” book and you would have some small victory. hear me now - my judaism does not ask me to believe that the old testament was written by god. i can acknowledge the fallibility of the men who wrote it and still live a productive, just life, so LET IT GO.
i really don’t mind you talking about your religion, i am actually fascinated by it, but i need you to stop insinuating that because you like the old testament we are somehow likeminded. because we’re not.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 6:11 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
sb - i wondered where you were and i was worried about your tounge the whole time. i hope you have not bit through it.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 6:25 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
not all the way though, no. And only because I tied it up into a little ball after a while.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 6:36 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m a programmer so the scope of the life time of my reference to the thing you mentioned above was comment scope ;-)
This is not the case. I now know as Matt educated me a while back that the two are not the same. I know the difference. I mention the OT only because I love it and believe it. It is part of my faith and we were talking about sin and the origin of sin occurs in the OT. I asked about your knowledge of the OT simply out of curiosity, it helps to know the level of understanding of some of these foundational topics in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Trust me, I am not trying to make you a “better Jew”. I would not even go there. I am simply discussing the foundations of my beliefs and as you say you are fascinated by it, I must be able to talk about the OT because my Christianity isn’t based on the NT alone. To fully understand the NT you must understand the OT. I’m not trying to make you do anything you don’t want and at anytime you don’t want to discuss it anymore then tell me.
Again, I’m not trying to insinuate anything, just trying to find some common ground for discussion. I inquired about your knowledge of the OT simply to see what you are familiar with so that I may or may not have to discuss in detail some things.
If we cannot talk about these things without you being offended by my mentioning of OT beliefs then we should just not discuss Christianity because I’m not a NT only Christian. I know why the New Testament is called “New” it is not by mistake, more accurately it is the New Covenant…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 6:37 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
yes, please. thank you. let’s stop now.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 7:21 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Actually, I was directing that at Jamie Beth since she said she was “actually fascinated by it” but I will take your request and not to discuss it with you unless you request it.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 7:38 am ¶
sac wrote:
This comment thread does as well as any I’ve read to illuminate the intractability of these issues. Jim’s tone is a bit ingratiating, mostly because I think he’s trying to walk the vague tightrope given to him here in order to continue commenting, but he put forth his beliefs in a honest way, and I don’t think him a fool for doing so or believing the way he does. (I have a hunch he’s wrong, but that’s not the same thing.)
As always, I’m disappointed that people are offended by discussion. I don’t get that. I mean, we’re not talking rape jokes here, just the OT.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 8:24 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
i would respond to the notion that i am offended by “discussion” however, i am chosing to respect sb’s desire that the conversation stop. now.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 8:37 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
it seems to have escaped you that these are not exactly personal discussions.
you want to to discuss it privately with jamie, go right ahead…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 8:41 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I just asked that we stop discussing Christianity.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 8:46 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well Jamie, *if* you want to continue to discuss this “offline” as in email or even on my site, let me know…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 8:55 am ¶
sac wrote:
This is what I mean. Jim asked if he could answer JB’s questions regarding Christianity’s take on “hating the sin, not the sinner,” JB literally says “Fire away,” Jim does so, and now we have to stop discussing Christianity. Are your beliefs so tenuous that a little proselytizing does you harm? I doubt it. Are you saying arguing religion is pointless? Well, I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I don’t think that is what Jim was doing. He even stated that if you don’t share his Biblical beliefs, then nothing he says will move you one way or the other. Are Christians annoying? Hell yes they are, but so are most people.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 8:56 am ¶
sac wrote:
Meant to add more…
I agree that using religion to “prove” a point is ridiculous, but Jim was given the go ahead to give the Christian take on something. Disagree with it, sure. Put the kibosh on it? Nein!
Posted 08 May 2007 at 9:03 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Sac, you can defend me on principal if you want but you do not have to. I am perfectly willing to let this go. If Jamie wants to continue the discussion she may chose to do so, but they are the governors of this site and therefore I will respect that. So, unless you want to press the issue on your own, please let it be…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 9:11 am ¶
sac wrote:
Nah. I’m on the fence on this one. Ha.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 9:12 am ¶
JimC wrote:
That should be “principle” not “principal” stupid language….
Posted 08 May 2007 at 9:12 am ¶
matt wrote:
i’m going to risk the wrath of sarabeth and continue this because jim was invited into this. i’ll take the heat for everyone on that.
i’m not offended by jim’s beliefs. the problems i have here are these: a) it doesn’t stop with proselytizing, that’s just an appetizer for using the government to do the job where private proselytizing fails. and b) using the bible to justify discrimination is pathetic, and a lot like defining a word using the word itself. no one is ever going to win an argument doing that here.
this is a very dangerous case of projection. evangelicals proselytize because the bible says to do so. evangelicals attack gays for supposedly trying to turn other people gay when no such thing has ever happened.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 10:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Here we have a different perspective, you say that we “use he government” wel, I say we use the will of the people to effect change in what is considered moral and decent. If the majority of people want to accept sin, it will be accepted.
Where does your beliefs and standards come from if not your religion? We all have some standard by which we consider what is moral and decent, your standard is different than mine, are yours superior?
Also, you are making a claim that we use the Bible to discriminate, that’s fine, that’s your opinion. But I will not fall into that trap because you are trying to make me feel guilty for imposing on poor innocent people who cannot control themselves. I don’t buy it. We are all given the capacity to give into lusts, whether it be violence, pornography, adultery, alcohol, stealing, etc etc, we also have the capacity to chose not to do those things. You believe from what I gather that a homosexual person is just born gay, that’s fine, that’s your belief, I believe we are all born with tendencies for one thing or another, it is how we act on those tendencies that defines us.
We do not attack gays, at least not the Christians I know (some misguided people have, yes, I know, not necessarily Christians either). We oppose the acceptance of what we deem to be immoral. It is our belief and therefore of course we are going to use our collective moral standard to try to exact change in our society, this isn’t wrong, this is how change occurs. Let me qualify this, I am not going to say that someone committing a homosexual act in their own home should be punished, no, I would never support that, but what I will oppose is anything that tries to push gay lifestyle as ok and decent, and why should I not oppose it if my beliefs are otherwise?
You say that nothing is being done to impose homosexual ideas on? You might have missed this on my site, but here is the original article
The article goes on to say…
And this…
This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. You don’t believe there is a concerted effort to force gay lifestyle on us but I believe there is and they are doing so via our children…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 11:41 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This just in: atheists have no beliefs, no standards.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 11:55 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
a gay lifestyle is being forced on you, though your children?
or is it just being forced on some mythical them, through their children?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 11:57 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
and where, pray, do you gather that from? I don’t recall matt ever saying to suggest such a belief.
maybe he believes some people achieve gaiety (just as you seem to believe some people have gaiety thrust upon them)
Posted 08 May 2007 at 12:01 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i knew if this went on long enough, old jimc would appear. #40 is what i was looking for, and will go in the bookmarks for all time. there’s nothing i can say to make you look any more absurd than you already will to anyone who ever reads that.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 12:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
How is it absurd? You put forth your position and I answered as well as I could? Is there something I’m missing? Could you please dissect it for me, so at least I know why you won’t respond on substance?
This is what discussion is about, You ask, I answer, you give a rebuttal. Yet, here you end with me being absurd. I would like to know why you think I look absurd in my comment? Why is it the “old jimc”?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 12:30 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
It was an assumption and I apologize for that if it was incorrect.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 12:38 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
because i started it all, i think i need to jump back in. sorry, sb.
i was looking for how it is possible to “hate the sin and love the sinner.” looking back over the comments, i think anastasia beaverhousen (anna at beaverstudio) may have answered the question better (without even knowing it!).
setting aside a lengthy discussion of the construct “lifestyle choice,” i applaud ms. beaverhousen in that there was no talk to changing his mind, she just liked having him around. i think that’s nice.
i also like 90210. and so does matt.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 12:43 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
If you read the excerpts, it is clear that these “instructors” were teaching to 1st graders or somewhere around there that homosexuality is healthy and something to be celebrated. In fact here in our school district there was a book and a PBS show being used in our schools that subvertly showed “two mommies” and “two daddies” and by doing so they are indoctrinating our children, making it seem fun and exciting. Furthermore, it puts the values and teachings of the parents at odds with the child’s educators who frankly have their captive attention even more than parents often do…this is what I mean about forcing upon us…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 12:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Actually, this is what I ultimately would chose and I think I said that in there somewhere, we just took a sidetrack into something else in the last few comments but ultimately I would not go up to a gay person and shout them down telling them they are going to hell, I would give the same humble Giant Jim everyone gets…like I have said, I don’t hate homosexuals, I hated to mention this because a while back Sarabeth said something to effect that “JimC would probably claim to have gay friends” or something similar to that and so I have resisted saying anything but it is true, my wife and I actually have been friends with 3 gay men but have since lost contact with them. And how about this for tolerance, (This was before I was a Christian but I still have the same attitude now) I actually danced (nullus) with one of them at a Christmas party, sure it was in jest but I didn’t freak out, and I was secure in my masculinity (not to mention I was there with my girlfriend and now wife). There, it is out, the hateful fear-mongerer had once danced with a gay man…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 12:59 pm ¶
sac wrote:
“John, I’m Only Dancing.”
Nullus. (I’m still not sure what that means.)
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:04 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
lol, I don’t either but it seems to be proper etiquette ..
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:07 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
no, she didn’t. you can’t just keep making up stuff, and expect to be taken seriously.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
like many other things in life, if you wanted to know what it means, it really wouldn’t be all that hard to figure it out.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:28 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I thought it was in the comments to the Plurism post but then again I think that post and the original comments got trashed so I cannot prove it, but I remember you jokingly saying something to that effect but since I cannot prove I guess I can’t prove it. Furthermore, the search engine here, dopes it search comments or just posts?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:42 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
That was supposed to be a question if the search engine searches comments as well as posts…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:44 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
i can see how this must be even more aggravating than when they teach evolution.
but how, pray, is this forcing a gay lifestyle on you?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:45 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
just posts, unfortunately (unless things changed in the last upgrade)
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:56 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Amen.
Well, it forces it upon my child correct? Granted this is forcing me to be gay but it could force me into a situation where my child grows up thinking being gay is cool, hip, and the famous people do it, so why not be gay, therefore, my child, the person I love is now ensared into this lifestyle, wouldn’t this affect me and my family greatly? This is what I am talking about, no it won’t force me to put a rainbow sticker on my truck but it would subvert the values in our home….and do you not think teaching 1st graders about homosexuality is a bit extreme?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:00 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I just need to give up, this is supposed to read “isn’t forcing me”
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:01 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
go on now! they were using famous people in the classroom videos? famous people doing it?
And I totally missed the part earlier that gaiety was being portrayed as cool and hip by these unspeakable classroom violators. Now that I think of it, so many people have confessed they embraced the gay lifestyle only because they were looking for something cool and hip, and there aren’t that many choices, are there, once you rule out smoking?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:14 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Now you’re just mocking me… :-)
But still, do you think it is appropriate for teachers to push this on 1st graders?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:18 pm ¶
sac wrote:
What I think Jim is saying is that this program teaches that a gay lifestyle is as equally valid and moral as a straight one. Now, I happen to agree with that, but many people don’t. In light of this, the question is, should this be taught to 1st graders? I don’t think so, personally. This isn’t like evolution, which is a scientific theory being taught in a science class. This is the vague world of “morality” and judgment, which in my opinion, should be taught at home.
I have kids, and like I said, I’d have no problem with them being exposed to such a program in 1st grade, because I happen to agree with the tenets of said program.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:45 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Gods forbid that we teach our children tolerance. Or let others do so, when we ourselves are blinded by religious intolerance into practicing hate-speech towards others in the guise of morality.
all they seem to be doing is introducing first-graders to the concept of gay families in first grade terms (there are some families with 2 mommies and there are some families with 2 daddies), and teaching the kids that there is nothing wrong with such families, they are not evil, and there is no reason to hate them.
yes, I think it’s appropriate. i think it may even be christian, but what would I know?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:46 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you know who else agrees? the constitution and the declaration of independence.
this curriculum is a red herring. it’s not enough for religionists to say “i’m offended, stop doing that,” they have to revert to “what about the children?” because everyone gets offended by something.
whether or not jim and his buddies are successful in remaking this country in the image of the bible is beside the point. gay rights are ascendant, and more families are non-traditional. teaching kids that it’s ok is vital so that we don’t have 3rd grade bigots running around taunting kids who happen to have a different family situation than most others. when i was a kid, it was mostly about divorce, now it’s about having 2 mommies. deal.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:54 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
lest anyone succeed in creating confusion about what JimC was saying, here’s what he said:
this says very clearly that JimC thinks gaiety is being marketed to our kids in first grade (much as cigarettes are a few years later).
I do think that’s paranoid bullshit.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:55 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Offensive paranoid bullshit.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 2:57 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I think Jim is exactly right. Gay people are cool, hip and in many instances, famous. Don’t let the kids find out!
Posted 08 May 2007 at 3:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I happen to have children that age and it was a case here where objectionable material was being taught to our children, paranoid, no, BS? In your opinion maybe, and it is not the marketing like cigarettes that is offensive, it is the presumption of the schools to take it upon themselves as professors of morality, that’s the offensive part. I will teach my children to not hate homosexuals but at the same time teach them it is not what we consider moral under our beliefs, the schools need to stick with concrete things and leave morality to the parents.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 4:17 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
i pity you.
but i wouldn’t presume to:
a) pray for you
b) try to change you
c) try to inspire you to change yourself
Posted 08 May 2007 at 4:34 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Can I assume then you do not care about me whatsoever?
Posted 08 May 2007 at 4:53 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
you can assume whatever you like.
still a free country.
and very few of your assumptions seem to have much relationship to what I consider to be real or true.
bottom line: I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to assume.
(also: assuming something doesn’t make it true)
Posted 08 May 2007 at 5:48 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
So you are saying there is a chance that you care about me! :-)
I’m just so exhausted from this exchange I feel like this is really a sad situation when we cannot come to any middle ground on some things and I’m talking about myself as well.
I really feel like we’ve come to a point in this nation where americans are pitted against each other so vehemently that we’ve lost something precious. The epic struggle between right and left seems to be a shadow of a civil war itself, makes me feel like so much energy is being expended trying to tear down the other side, we’re going to self destruct…..something has got to happen to unite us, what that could be, I don’t know…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 6:46 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
putting words in my mouth will never get you anywhere. I’m not shy about saying whatever I want to say. anything else you try to put in my mouth, I’m just going to spit it out.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 7:16 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Oh what a masterful game you play :-) I had to laugh in amazement how what you pulled out of my last comment was that I put words in your mouth, {laughing shaking my head}…
I was hoping for something nice we could say to each other….so here goes…good nite, have pleasant dreams, and a wonderful tomorrrow…and I do mean that…
Posted 08 May 2007 at 7:47 pm ¶