S/O "Can you still be a Christian.."

[twoforjoy]

So it's not ok to be intolerant of intolerance?

 

I think a mistake people often make is confusing injustice and intolerance.

 

Personally, I don't care how personally intolerant somebody is. I do think that tolerance is, in general, a virtue. Like any other virtue, it's not always the best course, especially when it conflicts with another virtue (like justice). (Patience is a virtue, but that doesn't mean that people should have just waited patiently for slavery to end, for example.) But, in general, tolerance is a virtue and we should be tolerant of others.

 

But, I don't really care if somebody else wants to be intolerant. They can be as intolerant of gay people as they want. The woman writing the blog post can keep gay people out of her home or yard. She can write any cruel thing about them that she wants. That's her choice. I'm sad for her, and I hope and pray she changes her heart, but I have no desire to stop her from doing those things. I'm perfectly willing to tolerate her intolerance, not in the sense of applauding or agreeing with it, but in the sense of allowing her the freedom to be personally intolerant.

 

That is a different issue that legislated and/or institutional intolerance. When intolerance because legislated or institutionalized--when gay people are denied equal rights, when an employer discriminates against a person because of their sexual orientation, when a school culture is one of harassment and bullying of those perceived to be gay and teachers and administrators either do nothing or join in, if this woman were to get her way and gay people were to be barred from going to the park--then it had become injustice, and we should not tolerate injustice. There is no virtue in that, ever.

 

The woman writing the blog post seems to be confused on this issue. She seems to think that somebody disagreeing with her personal stance on homosexuality is somehow denying her her freedom. She seems to think that somebody being personally intolerant of her attitude is the same thing as her desire to legislate injustice against GLBT people. That's not the case, at all.

[twoforjoy]

The trouble is that on such an issue one way is right and one way is wrong. Either the practice of homosexuality is displeasing to God or it is not. That is why these threads always get so out of control with not much being accomplished in the end..because I am never going to see the Bible condoning the practice homosexuality.

 

Who is asking for that? The question is, when you go to the park, do you get outraged if you see anybody not just engaging in behavior that you think the Bible doesn't condone, but if you even see anybody who looks like they, when they are in the privacy of their bedrooms, might be engaging in behavior you think the Bible doesn't condone? Do you think that whether or not somebody engages in behavior the Bible condones should determine not just whether they deserve equal rights, but even if they should be out in public at all?

[Scarlett]

The thing is, though, I think pro-gay and anti-gay Christians are coming from two different perspectives. For anti-gay Christians, the issue is sex: it's about acts/desires and whether they are right or wrong. Honestly, when I think about homosexuality, I don't think about sex.

 

Without sex it wouldn't be the practice of homosexuality. Then it would become a non issue.

[emubird]

So are you saying that some people want the Bible to condemn homosexuality and some people don't?

 

The trouble is that on such an issue one way is right and one way is wrong. Either the practice of homosexuality is displeasing to God or it is not.

 

It may be that God doesn't like homosexuality, but I don't think he left us a lot of guideposts on the matter. The fact of the matter is, the Bible just doesn't say that much on it, it's a matter of interpretation, there are translation issues, and the fact that it was written down in a society that didn't think about these things the same way our society does just makes it difficult to figure out what the answer is.

[Scarlett]

Who is asking for that? The question is, when you go to the park, do you get outraged if you see anybody not just engaging in behavior that you think the Bible doesn't condone, but if you even see anybody who looks like they, when they are in the privacy of their bedrooms, might be engaging in behavior you think the Bible doesn't condone? Do you think that whether or not somebody engages in behavior the Bible condones should determine not just whether they deserve equal rights, but even if they should be out in public at all?

 

Maybe you aren't asking for that. But I think many many people are enraged by people like me who view the practice of homosexuality to be a sin. The only way they will 'tolerate' my view is if I am totally silent on the matter. Which of course I would be in the situation you described...seeing such behavior in a public place. Good manners dictate that.

[twoforjoy]

Without sex it wouldn't be the practice of homosexuality. Then it would become a non issue.

 

Here is what the woman in the blog post was objecting to:

 

looked up to see four women laughing at a baby boy as he was swinging in one of those bucket baby swings. That seems harmless enough, but I'm so sensitized to the strangeness in my community that I've developed this ever-present jumpiness whenever I'm in public. Sure enough, two of the women, so happy to see a baby boy laughing, embraced and remained standing there rubbing each other's back in a way that was clearly not just friendly affection.

 

Now, where in the Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not laugh at your baby boy swinging?" "Thou shalt not, while fully clothed, embrace somebody of the same sex?"

 

Where exactly are these women--at the moment this woman is watching--engaging in sinful behavior? I have, in the past, embraced female friends in public. In one instance I can remember, a friend who very distraught, and we hugged and I rubbed her back while we were out in public. Was I sinning? If my actions were not sin, then why would the same actions by these women suddenly be sin? That's what is so wrong about this woman's attitude. It's not like she saw two people having public sex. She saw two people doing things that, if she hadn't perceived them to be lesbians, she wouldn't have considered sinful or wrong at all.

 

This wasn't about sex. She has NO idea if these two women are having sex or not. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they are celibate lesbians. So then where's the sin? This woman is not thinking about what these two women were doing at that moment. She was imaging what they are doing in their bedroom. And, AFAIK, that's a sin, whereas hugging somebody of the same sex is not.

 

The sad thing is, she admits in her own post that these women hugged because they were so happy to see the baby boy laughing. Even she didn't see this as an embrace motivated by lust or sexual desire. She considers two women embracing because of the joy they feel at seeing a baby laugh to be so offensive that she is horrified that her children had to witness it.

 

I agree with previous posters who think there's probably some mental instability at work. But, this woman's attitude is just wrong.

Edited September 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[WishboneDawn]

 

It seemed to me that you were judging the hearts of those who openly expressed their views that homosexuality is wrong.

 

This is NOT the issue and I think that's been clear from the beginning.

 

The op stated that it wasn't and several posters who would agree that homosexualityis a sin have found issue with that blog post. It's a red herring.

 

The issue is how the blogger choose to respond to the question, "What do we do about those sinners?"

 

The OP brought up the discrepency between what she though a Christian reponse was supposed to be and what the woman's response was and asked for input on that. She did not condemn those who would judge homosexuality a sin. I think this thread is getting sidetracked into the issue that took over the other thread.

[Scarlett]

It may be that God doesn't like homosexuality, but I don't think he left us a lot of guideposts on the matter. The fact of the matter is, the Bible just doesn't say that much on it, it's a matter of interpretation, there are translation issues, and the fact that it was written down in a society that didn't think about these things the same way our society does just makes it difficult to figure out what the answer is.

 

I think the Bible is VERY clear on it. And as far as guideposts go....it is like any other sin in the Bible....'Go and sin no more.' In other words---just stop it.

[twoforjoy]

I think the Bible is VERY clear on it. And as far as guideposts go....it is like any other sin in the Bible....'Go and sin no more.' In other words---just stop it.

 

What did this woman witness that needed to be stopped?

[Scarlett]

Here is what the woman in the blog post was objecting to:

 

 

 

Now, where in the Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not laugh at your baby boy swinging?" "Thou shalt not, while fully clothed, embrace somebody of the same sex?"

 

Where exactly are these women--at the moment this woman is watching--engaging in sinful behavior? I have, in the past, embraced female friends in public. In one instance I can remember, a friend who very distraught, and we hugged and I rubbed her back while we were out in public. Was I sinning? If my actions were not sin, then why would the same actions by these women suddenly be sin? That's what is so wrong about this woman's attitude. It's not like she saw two people having public sex. She saw two people doing things that, if she hadn't perceived them to be lesbians, she wouldn't have considered sinful or wrong at all.

 

This wasn't about sex. She has NO idea if these two women are having sex or not. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they are celibate lesbians. So then where's the sin? This woman is not thinking about what these two women were doing at that moment. She was imaging what they are doing in their bedroom. And, AFAIK, that's a sin, whereas hugging somebody of the same sex is not.

 

Was the woman over the top in her 'jumpiness?' Sure. She shouldn't be so quick to judge questionable actions of total strangers. We just don't know what we don't know. Sounds like she has a lot of problems with anxiety anyway.

[Scarlett]

What did this woman witness that needed to be stopped?

 

I was responding to this post by emubird---

 

It may be that God doesn't like homosexuality, but I don't think he left us a lot of guideposts on the matter. The fact of the matter is, the Bible just doesn't say that much on it, it's a matter of interpretation, there are translation issues, and the fact that it was written down in a society that didn't think about these things the same way our society does just makes it difficult to figure out what the answer is.

[Momto3indians]

...I take God at His Word and His Word from the first book to the last book does not condone homosexuality or any other kind of sexual behavior including fornication which just about all of us committed before our marriages. As one gets to really know the Lord they see His hand of protection...His reasoning to the 'sheep' in keeping us protected from the enemy.

 

I read an article once and if you google it you will find it...about hundreds of sheep that went to their deaths following the herd straight over a cliff in Turkey. What a waste but that is how our churches are becoming. So watered down...so what IS the difference? What makes the Christian different? As I shared before, what was so different in the people who went to horrible deaths for their faith. Why do that? I do see a separation happening within the church body and oh how sad.

 

The bible might have some 'grey' areas in it but from a study from start to finish it's pretty clear and pretty exciting...it changes lives! It's alive...because He wrote it!

[Scarlett]

This is NOT the issue and I think that's been clear from the beginning.

 

The op stated that it wasn't and several posters who would agree that homosexualityis a sin have found issue with that blog post. It's a red herring.

 

The issue is how the blogger choose to respond to the question, "What do we do about those sinners?"

 

The OP brought up the discrepency between what she though a Christian reponse was supposed to be and what the woman's response was and asked for input on that. She did not condemn those who would judge homosexuality a sin. I think this thread is getting sidetracked into the issue that took over the other thread.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

I also agree that the woman on the blog seems unstable and over zealous.

[twoforjoy]

Was the woman over the top in her 'jumpiness?' Sure. She shouldn't be so quick to judge questionable actions of total strangers. We just don't know what we don't know. Sounds like she has a lot of problems with anxiety anyway.

 

I just feel like this isn't simply "over-the-top" jumpiness; this is a clear example of Christians singling out homosexuality as a uniquely terrible sin.

 

I cannot imagine that if she saw an unmarried straight couple engaging in the same behaviors she saw this lesbian couple (if that is what they were, rather than two sisters or very close friends, which is possible given her description), would she have had the same reaction? If not, why not? If what she saw these "lesbians" doing would not have bothered her if she'd seen an unmarried couple doing it, then she's elevating homosexuality to the status of a worse sin.

 

I don't doubt that this woman is unstable and has problems. But, the issue is that her instability and problems have manifested themselves in a very particular way, that they probably would not manifest themselves in if she were not part of a Christian culture that views homosexuality as uniquely sinful and as somehow more dangerous than any other sin.

 

I think that's why the comments were so angry. This couple wasn't having public sex. They were, if they were a couple at all, embracing over their shared joy at a laughing child. I mean, that's beautiful. It's beautiful whether they are straight or gay. And to have this woman vilify them for it, and respond the way she did...well, I can understand why that would cause great hurt.

Edited September 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Scarlett]

I cannot imagine that if she saw an unmarried straight couple engaging in the same behaviors she saw this lesbian couple (if that is what they were, rather than two sisters or very close friends, which is possible given her description), would she have had the same reaction? If not, why not? If what she saw these "lesbians" doing would not have bothered her if she'd seen an unmarried couple doing it, then she's elevating homosexuality to the status of a worse sin.

 

And so what if she is? She is a human being and therefore not perfect like God who views sin as sin. So what if it bothers her more than simple fornication? Why does that bother homosexual activists so much? I mean after all they don't think it is a sin at all, so why do they care if she thinks it is the worst sin of all?

 

I don't doubt that this woman is unstable and has problems. But, the issue is that her instability and problems have manifested themselves in a very particular way, that they probably would not manifest themselves in if she were not part of a Christian culture that views homosexuality as uniquely sinful and as somehow more dangerous than any other sin.

 

Well, I've been raised in a conservative Christian culture...:tongue_smilie: I believe homosexuality to be a sin. At this moment in my life---due to my own life experiences---I am pretty disgusted by adulterers.

 

We all have our issues. What is important is how God views our actions.

[twoforjoy]

And so what if she is? She is a human being and therefore not perfect like God who views sin as sin. So what if it bothers her more than simple fornication? Why does that bother homosexual activists so much? I mean after all they don't think it is a sin at all, so why do they care if she thinks it is the worst sin of all?

 

I don't think people care that they think it's a worse sin. They care that this woman feels that gay and lesbian people should not be in public places lest her children see them.

 

The problem with seeing homosexuality as the worst sin is that it makes people want to pass all sorts of unjust legislation based on it.

Edited September 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[kiana]

And so what if she is? She is a human being and therefore not perfect like God who views sin as sin. So what if it bothers her more than simple fornication? Why does that bother homosexual activists so much? I mean after all they don't think it is a sin at all, so why do they care if she thinks it is the worst sin of all?

 

Because her thinking it's a far worse sin than any other takes the form "I pay MY taxes, I shouldn't ever have to SEE them" as opposed to just saying it's a sin.

 

Because she thinks that as a taxpayer, she should be entitled to dictate the actions of people around her as well. That she owns the park and all behaviour therein must conform to her own standard of ethics.

[twoforjoy]

Because she thinks that as a taxpayer, she should be entitled to dictate the actions of people around her as well. That she owns the park and all behaviour therein must conform to her own standard of ethics.

 

Well, I think this gets to what I see as an unfortunately common attitude among some American Christians, which is that if they are not allowed to force others to conform to their personal standard of ethics, they are somehow being persecuted or denied rights.

[Scarlett]

I don't think people care that they think it's a worse sin. They care that this woman feels that gay and lesbian people should not be in public places lest her children see them.

 

The problem with seeing homosexuality as the worst sin is that it makes people want to pass all sorts of unjust legislation based on it.

 

I don't see the politics going that way at all. Seems like things are speeding in the other direction.

 

And as I said, she seems a litte unbalanced.

[Scarlett]

Because her thinking it's a far worse sin than any other takes the form "I pay MY taxes, I shouldn't ever have to SEE them" as opposed to just saying it's a sin.

 

Because she thinks that as a taxpayer, she should be entitled to dictate the actions of people around her as well. That she owns the park and all behaviour therein must conform to her own standard of ethics.

 

Again so what if she feels that way? She doesn't like seeing things she feels are sinful, but under the laws of this country the only thing she can do about it is leave the park and go home and blog about it. So who cares?

[Scarlett]

Well, I think this gets to what I see as an unfortunately common attitude among some American Christians, which is that if they are not allowed to force others to conform to their personal standard of ethics, they are somehow being persecuted or denied rights.

 

I guess I am in my own little conservative bubble, but I do not see this attitude AT ALL....not within my faith or in other even conservative religions.

 

What *I* see is practicing homosexual activitists furious that some people DARE to call their lifestyle of practicing homosexuality a sin according to Bible standards.

[kiana]

Again so what if she feels that way? She doesn't like seeing things she feels are sinful, but under the laws of this country the only thing she can do about it is leave the park and go home and blog about it. So who cares?

 

Because she can (and probably will) also actively vote for the laws of the country to be changed. It has not been so long since the supreme court struck down the law that allowed people to be charged for sexual acts committed *in their own bedrooms*. There are many people who would like to see that undone.

 

It is not like she was complaining about seeing a pair french-kissing in the park (which I would consider uncouth regardless of the gender) but the fact that she came to the conclusion that these people were homosexual because of the way they *looked* at each other, hugged and rubbed backs.

 

She makes comments such as "I'm supposed to be able to influence my community, and as a voter I do exercise that right. But I'm outnumbered." This statement strongly implies that she thinks it's okay to pass laws against couples of the same sex interacting in public. That it's okay to pass unjust laws based on majority rule.

 

FWIW, I would (and do) absolutely, totally, and 100% speak out against any law making it illegal for her to post whatever blog she wants, as long as she's not doing something like "here are the addresses of the homosexuals in my community, please take care of them". She has a total right to express her opinion. But that doesn't mean that she's immune from people thinking that she's a prejudiced twit *because* of her opinion. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people have to *like* what you say. You just have the right to say it. They have equal right to speak about what you're saying.

[KristinaBreece]

Again so what if she feels that way? She doesn't like seeing things she feels are sinful, but under the laws of this country the only thing she can do about it is leave the park and go home and blog about it. So who cares?

 

People of other religions may feel that practicing Christianity is sinful. That doesn't mean they should expect all Christians to stay home so they don't have to see them, does it?

[twoforjoy]

What *I* see is practicing homosexual activitists furious that some people DARE to call their lifestyle of practicing homosexuality a sin according to Bible standards.

 

Are they trying to make it illegal for you to do so? Is there any push by GLBT rights organizations to pass a law saying that people can't say homosexuality is a sin? To prevent people who believe that from marrying? To make it legal for employers to discriminate against conservative Christians in hiring, solely on the basis of their religious beliefs?

 

Or, to put it another way, is there any concerted effort by GLBT rights supports to legislate injustice against people who think homosexuality is a sin?

 

I assure you--very seriously, this is true--if all Christians who think homosexuality is a sin did was DARE to call it a sin, and treat it, in their public rhetoric and legislative efforts, exactly the same way they treated the sins of greed, gossip, gluttony, covetousness, idolatry, and premarital sex, the GLBT community would not care at all. They would probably weep with joy. Although that could lead to one of those awful joyful embraces that the woman writing the blog post mentioned...

 

And, FWIW, the vast majority of supporters of GLBT equality, both outside and within the church, are straight people.

[Scarlett]

People of other religions may feel that practicing Christianity is sinful. That doesn't mean they should expect all Christians to stay home so they don't have to see them, does it?

 

:confused: I've experienced plenty of discrimination in my life. You (collective you) can't control what people think and how they feel about various topics.

 

I guess I am not sure what people WANT from that woman. Do they want her to stop blogging about her beliefs? Do they want her to stop believing the way she believes? Do they want HER to stay home so she doesn't enrage people by her 'intolerance'?

 

How else can it go down when there are such opposing viewpoints on a subject?

[Scarlett]

Are they trying to make it illegal for you to do so? Is there any push by GLBT rights organizations to pass a law saying that people can't say homosexuality is a sin? To prevent people who believe that from marrying? To make it legal for employers to discriminate against conservative Christians in hiring, solely on the basis of their religious beliefs?

 

Or, to put it another way, is there any concerted effort by GLBT rights supports to legislate injustice against people who think homosexuality is a sin?

 

I assure you--very seriously, this is true--if all Christians who think homosexuality is a sin did was DARE to call it a sin, and treat it, in their public rhetoric and legislative efforts, exactly the same way they treated the sins of greed, gossip, gluttony, covetousness, idolatry, and premarital sex, the GLBT community would not care at all. They would probably weep with joy. Although that could lead to one of those awful joyful embraces that the woman writing the blog post mentioned...

 

And, FWIW, the vast majority of supporters of GLBT equality, both outside and within the church, are straight people.

 

But what did the blogger actually DO? She spoke out against something that bothers her. And they do not know HOW she views those other sins. How could that standard be measured? A disclaimer every time one speaks of homosexuality--"Oh btw, I also believe greed, gossip, gluttony, covetousness, idolatry, and premarital sex to be sins."

 

I just don't get it. I really don't buy that homosexual activists just want to be seen as equal sinners---BECAUSE they don't think they are sinning! It doesn't make sense to me.

[HRAAB]

The woman sounds very frightened and paranoid. She has young children, and is probably constantly worried about what they're being exposed to. I, personally, think she is over the top and not very charitable. But, it's her blog. Good grief... people write any and everything on their blogs. I read very few blogs because they tend to raise my blood pressure to very unhealthy levels. There's many, many people who feel as she does, and they can write about it, just as there are many that are on the opposite end and write about it.

 

Can you still be a Christian and..... There are Christians all over the spectrum, from ultra liberal to ultra conservative. I've had people ask if I think I can be a Christian and a Catholic. Whatever. We're all where we are on our path to heaven, working it out. I don't like what she wrote and don't agree with her attitude, but I don't think that means she's not a Christian. She's not perfect, I'm not perfect, we're human, we can always improve and become more Christ like. I'm very thankful God's patient with us.

[8circles]

:iagree: Jesus, was not tolerant of sin. But he loved sinners.

He certainly would not be on here criticizing this lady. The comments on her blog are far worse than what she said. I have not read the other threads on WTM about this but this one is strange.

 

I don't think Jesus would be having any of the religious-related discussions that we have on here. Interesting that this one has been singled-out.

 

Jesus wouldn't be on here criticizing anyone who was striving to follow him - certainly not because they hadn't vowed allegiance to a particular church.

 

I think this woman is mentally ill. I sincerely feel sorry for her that her life is so unhappy. Its unfortunate that its causing her to be hurtful to others.

[Marylou]

Rebekah,

 

My short answer is that hating others is wrong, period.

 

Last Friday night (I think it was Friday!) Bill Maher was on Jay Leno's show. I think he is known for crass "humor". Imagine my jaw dropping when he made derogatory remarks (insinuating that a presidential candidate's spouse is a closet homosexual) about another human being. As far as I know, there was no uproar b/c he labeled (in a hateful way) someone homosexual. Why no uproar? Because he is a comedian? IDTS

 

Hate comes from all types. It's sad, but true.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

I don't think Jesus would be having any of the religious-related discussions that we have on here. Interesting that this one has been singled-out.

 

Jesus wouldn't be on here criticizing anyone who was striving to follow him - certainly not because they hadn't vowed allegiance to a particular church.

 

I think this woman is mentally ill. I sincerely feel sorry for her that her life is so unhappy. Its unfortunate that its causing her to be hurtful to others.

 

This lady does not seem mentally ill (although saying that is a great way to silence critics). She went to the park and got annoyed at PDA, she did not want her kids to see (PDA is obnoxious, it does not matter who does it). Then she went home and wrote a blog about her frustrations and put in her political opinion. I see no injustice in what she did.

 

If this ladies blog posted is getting this kind of response we have a big problem.

[twoforjoy]

This lady does not seem mentally ill (although saying that is a great way to silence critics). She went to the park and got annoyed at PDA, she did not want her kids to see (PDA is obnoxious, it does not matter who does it). Then she went home and wrote a blog about her frustrations and put in her political opinion. I see no injustice in what she did.

 

If this ladies blog posted is getting this kind of response we have a big problem.

 

Do you consider two straight people or two friends who embrace after they see something that fills their hearts with joy--like, say, their child/a child laughing happily--to be a PDA?

 

Should we just show NO affection to one another in public? Because even from this woman's description, it seems pretty clear that there was nothing sexual or lustful about the hug. Should we not hug our children, because that's a PDA?

 

Her blog post itself is not injustice, but she is most certainly calling for injustice. If somebody writing that gay people should not be in public places, then I most certainly hope there's an outcry!

 

If you don't want people to be critical of your views, don't post them online.

[twoforjoy]

Rebekah,

 

My short answer is that hating others is wrong, period.

 

Last Friday night (I think it was Friday!) Bill Maher was on Jay Leno's show. I think he is known for crass "humor". Imagine my jaw dropping when he made derogatory remarks (insinuating that a presidential candidate's spouse is a closet homosexual) about another human being. As far as I know, there was no uproar b/c he labeled (in a hateful way) someone homosexual. Why no uproar? Because he is a comedian? IDTS

 

Hate comes from all types. It's sad, but true.

 

For what it's worth, I think Bill Mahr is a total jerk, and I think he has a tendency to be both misogynistic and homophobic. I don't find him funny, at all. And certainly if he was talking about gay people being barred from public places, even in jest, I wouldn't think it was at all funny.

[Mrs Mungo]

For what it's worth, I think Bill Mahr is a total jerk, and I think he has a tendency to be both misogynistic and homophobic. I don't find him funny, at all. And certainly if he was talking about gay people being barred from public places, even in jest, I wouldn't think it was at all funny.

 

:iagree: I don't watch him because I think he is a jerk.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

If you don't want people to be critical of your views, don't post them online.

 

If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that the death threats and hate speech (and the questioning of her mental health) directed at this women are okay because of the pain Christians have caused the gay community. And if you do not want to be threatened (or to have your family threatened) do not post your opinion online.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Father of Pearl

[Mrs Mungo]

If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that the death threats and hate speech (and the questioning of her mental health) directed at this women are okay because of the pain Christians have caused the gay community. And if you do not what to be threatened (or to have your family threatened) do not post your opinion online.

 

She was talking about people discussing it here. Nobody here has said any such thing.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

She was talking about people discussing it here. Nobody here has said any such thing.

 

Sorry, I was not clear. I was also responding to post #62 (need to figure out double quotes). In the context of her direct responses to my input I would disagree with your conclusion about who she was talking about.

[kiana]

If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that the death threats and hate speech (and the questioning of her mental health) directed at this women are okay because of the pain Christians have caused the gay community. And if you do not want to be threatened (or to have your family threatened) do not post your opinion online.

 

The threats she has received are not okay. 100% not okay. That doesn't make what she wrote okay either.

 

I also don't think that questioning someone's mental health because of the way that they went unhinged over relatively benign behaviour is over the top.

[Tea Time]

People of other religions may feel that practicing Christianity is sinful. That doesn't mean they should expect all Christians to stay home so they don't have to see them, does it?

 

Well, I do think that there are some rather vocal and uncharitable atheist groups who are quite emboldened lately who want to do just that, pretty much. They may not have gotten very far, in fact a lot of people on this thread might very much LIKE the amount that they have gotten done, and that is fine; but they clearly have taken a page from the GLBT groups and are running with it, and we can't be sure exactly where some of them really wish to stop. These camps have learned the value of patience. They are more than happy to have the changes happen incrementally. And there are other, even more patient, groups waiting in the wings for their time to come. No telling who they will want to put in the closet or why. :glare:

 

The woman sounds very frightened and paranoid. She has young children, and is probably constantly worried about what they're being exposed to. I, personally, think she is over the top and not very charitable. But, it's her blog. Good grief... people write any and everything on their blogs. I read very few blogs because they tend to raise my blood pressure to very unhealthy levels. There's many, many people who feel as she does, and they can write about it, just as there are many that are on the opposite end and write about it.

 

Can you still be a Christian and..... There are Christians all over the spectrum, from ultra liberal to ultra conservative. I've had people ask if I think I can be a Christian and a Catholic. Whatever. We're all where we are on our path to heaven, working it out. I don't like what she wrote and don't agree with her attitude, but I don't think that means she's not a Christian. She's not perfect, I'm not perfect, we're human, we can always improve and become more Christ like. I'm very thankful God's patient with us.

 

:iagree:

 

And I have to confess, I did not read the blog. I can't. My heart hurts when I see too much stuff like that. Every time I make the mistake of reading comments after articles that is the stuff that I see. I see it from all groups, the extreme fringes who are filled with anger.

 

The ones that really freak me out though, because I never saw it coming (I thought we were all teaching tolerance? :confused:), are the ones that are hateful toward homeschoolers. You see them commenting on education articles, and sometimes it is really venomous. My college age kids no longer volunteer the fact that they were homeschooled because reactions have often been very unkind. So they sometimes find themselves in groups where their peers bad mouth homeschoolers not knowing they are one!

 

Look, if people can malign and hate (using that term a little loosely for my own taste, but that is how it is commonly used now) a group like homeschoolers, who are not even a group at all, okay, not a race, religion, ethnicity, political group, anything... then their capacity for bigotry and hate really knows know limits. It is sad and frightening. :confused:

 

The thing that bothers me is that this behavior is pervasive through all ideologies and issues. I wish we could stop seeing the claim by some that it is only conservative Christians, or radical Islam, or atheists that do this (add in your favorite flavor of fanatic right here). Those people exists, but why can't reasonable people be consistent in calling that out where ever they see it, not just in their favorite group to notice?

[twoforjoy]

If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that the death threats and hate speech (and the questioning of her mental health) directed at this women are okay because of the pain Christians have caused the gay community. And if you do not want to be threatened (or to have your family threatened) do not post your opinion online.

 

So you see questioning this woman's mental health as the same as making a death threat toward her?

[momma2three]

The threats she has received are not okay. 100% not okay. That doesn't make what she wrote okay either.

 

I also don't think that questioning someone's mental health because of the way that they went unhinged over relatively benign behaviour is over the top.

 

She said on her blog that she has been hospitalized for mental illness in the past, and suffers from debilitating anxiety. The post in question talks about severe anxiety. It is not a stretch, nor is it libelous, to say her anxious overreaction is probably related to the anxiety that she openly talks about. I think the fact that this is probably her mental illness speaking makes me pity her, instead of just being appalled by her bigotry.

[8circles]

I didn't make it through the whole conversion story, but did read enough to see that the author has had a lifelong struggle with severe anxiety and other mental health problems, to the point of being hospitalized, self-harming, and spending years in therapy. It gave me a different perspective on some of the language in the post:

 

"I was again anxiously watching my children"

"I've developed this ever-present jumpiness"

"I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying"

"knowing this... makes me afraid to leave the house"

 

:(

 

This lady does not seem mentally ill (although saying that is a great way to silence critics). She went to the park and got annoyed at PDA, she did not want her kids to see (PDA is obnoxious, it does not matter who does it). Then she went home and wrote a blog about her frustrations and put in her political opinion. I see no injustice in what she did.

 

If this ladies blog posted is getting this kind of response we have a big problem.

 

I'm not sure if you've read some of the above things that Eleanor pointed out. I did & I believe this woman is mentally unstable. I'm not attempting to silence anyone - I'm not sure how that came across in my post. :confused:

 

My response to her is a big problem? I'd love for you to explain that further. I pity this woman & don't think she should be treated as she is either here or on her own blog.

[8circles]

If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that the death threats and hate speech (and the questioning of her mental health) directed at this women are okay because of the pain Christians have caused the gay community. And if you do not want to be threatened (or to have your family threatened) do not post your opinion online.

 

If you are talking about my comment, you are mischaracterizing it.

[twoforjoy]

Well, I do think that there are some rather vocal and uncharitable atheist groups who are quite emboldened lately who want to do just that, pretty much. They may not have gotten very far, in fact a lot of people on this thread might very much LIKE the amount that they have gotten done, and that is fine; but they clearly have taken a page from the GLBT groups and are running with it, and we can't be sure exactly where some of them really wish to stop.

 

Who exactly are GLBT groups trying to keep in their homes or deny (actual, legal) rights to?

 

And what have atheist groups gotten done? Last I checked, I'm still free to attend my church, pray any time I want, teach my children whatever I want regarding my religious beliefs, marry somebody of my faith and have it legally recognized, adopt a child, and not be fired from my job because of my religious affiliation.

 

I'm not really sure what rights atheists have taken away from me. Do I think some of the New Atheists are annoying? Yes. But, until they start denying me rights--not my "right" to force other people to pray or to live by my morals, but my actual right to live according to my beliefs and to practice my faith--I don't think they can be compared to the Christians who want to deny rights to GLBT people. At all.

Edited September 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Rebekah,

 

My short answer is that hating others is wrong, period.

 

Last Friday night (I think it was Friday!) Bill Maher was on Jay Leno's show. I think he is known for crass "humor". Imagine my jaw dropping when he made derogatory remarks (insinuating that a presidential candidate's spouse is a closet homosexual) about another human being. As far as I know, there was no uproar b/c he labeled (in a hateful way) someone homosexual. Why no uproar? Because he is a comedian? IDTS

 

Hate comes from all types. It's sad, but true.

 

 

That candidates husband tried to turn gay people into straight people by way of his "reparative therapy". He opened that door for people to scrutinize his life in such a way. (ala Ted Haggard....that whole, "methinks he doth protest too much''.) People who are not anti-gay don't see the possiblity of someone being gay as "hateful".

 

Someone ASSumed that I was an evangelical fundie homeschooler one time b/c she knew that I homeschooled and knitted. Now THAT offended me! :glare:

 

Sorry, people, the puppets are in the shop! :001_huh:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Hateful language and death threats to this blogger are clearly wrong!!

 

But,....putting the people who wrote those comments in the same group as "all GLBT people'' is wrong, just as wrong as assuming that all xians are like Fred Phelps and assuming that all Muslims are terrorists. ;)

[Georgiana Daniels]

Rebekah,

 

My short answer is that hating others is wrong, period.

 

Last Friday night (I think it was Friday!) Bill Maher was on Jay Leno's show. I think he is known for crass "humor". Imagine my jaw dropping when he made derogatory remarks (insinuating that a presidential candidate's spouse is a closet homosexual) about another human being. As far as I know, there was no uproar b/c he labeled (in a hateful way) someone homosexual. Why no uproar? Because he is a comedian? IDTS

 

Hate comes from all types. It's sad, but true.

 

:iagree: He definitely hates under the guise of humor. I saw that show and was very put off by him.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

She said on her blog that she has been hospitalized for mental illness in the past

 

I did not read the rest of the blog site and did not realize this about her. I hope the abuse she has taken can come to an end.

[WishboneDawn]

I guess I am in my own little conservative bubble, but I do not see this attitude AT ALL....not within my faith or in other even conservative religions.

 

What *I* see is practicing homosexual activitists furious that some people DARE to call their lifestyle of practicing homosexuality a sin according to Bible standards.

 

I think there are extremes that we're only seeing because we occupy one space or another. Some on one side see an extreme in relation to their position in the homosexual community. Some on the other side see and extreme in relation to their position in the conservative Christian community. Both shake their heads in confusion when the other side points to their perceived extreme because it's not something they recognize in their own circle.

 

If we could ll have a seat in the middle of the room and talk about the values we share, like treating others, regardless of perceived sins or politics, with respect and care, I think we'd stop being so sensitive to the perceived extremes.

[Tea Time]

Who exactly are GLBT groups trying to keep in their homes or deny (actual, legal) rights to?

 

And what have atheist groups gotten done? Last I checked, I'm still free to attend my church, pray any time I want, teach my children whatever I want regarding my religious beliefs, marry somebody of my faith and have it legally recognized, adopt a child, and not be fired from my job because of my religious affiliation.

 

I'm not really sure what rights atheists have taken away from me. Do I think some of the New Atheists are annoying? Yes. But, until they start denying me rights--not my "right" to force other people to pray or to live by my morals, but my actual right to live according to my beliefs and to practice my faith--I don't think they can be compared to the Christians who want to deny rights to GLBT people. At all.

 

That is not what I said. It doesn't appear you read or thought about anything in my post. Or maybe you don't want to think about the incremental nature of change.

 

IMHO. Some, rather aggressive and uncharitable atheists want to suppress religious expression in the same manner that the blogger wanted to suppress gays, as in, they do not want to be "exposed" to any religious expression in public. In order to further their agenda, they have taken a page from the GLBT groups in order to move forward. In other words, they use similar tactics, tactics that are arguably valid for gays, but they are stretching it for atheists, again, in IMHO. For example, I have seen quite a number of these individuals suggesting that because they are a minority, they are persecuted and oppressed by the majority, by the very presence of religious expression alone. I don't consider that comparable to gay claims, but then again I don't consider gay claims comparable to African American claims, but such comparisons are regularly made. Incrementally moving public opinion is the goal.

 

I imagine some GLBT groups may overlap with such atheists groups, wanting Christians to just go away, but that is not the point. The point is that some people DO want other people out of their sight, and they can use these strategies to slowly make that happen unless we protect everyone's interests before liberties are lost, because once your liberty is taken away it is too late.

 

I am not taking sides on the issues but rather pointing out how things change, how power is shifted, how rights get redefined and how different groups can end up being victimized. You need not be defensive about that, unless you don't like it being pointed out.

 

Anyway, I think the stuff I brought up about not letting fanatics of any ideology get away with it was really more important, and the stuff about maligned homeschoolers, but never mind any of that I guess.

[WishboneDawn]

:confused: I've experienced plenty of discrimination in my life. You (collective you) can't control what people think and how they feel about various topics.

 

I guess I am not sure what people WANT from that woman. Do they want her to stop blogging about her beliefs? Do they want her to stop believing the way she believes? Do they want HER to stay home so she doesn't enrage people by her 'intolerance'?

 

How else can it go down when there are such opposing viewpoints on a subject?

 

I think we can discuss her reaction, reflect on it and change how WE approach similar situations.

 

But with the blogger...? You are absolutely right. There's nothing we can do about her. What she's contributed to this is her example and what we can do with that is look at our own behaviour. Continuing to condemn her is fruitless.