Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm a conservative Christian who was asked to leave the house I was sharing with other conservative Christians because I don't agree with them on the abortion issue.  It doesn't change my faith in God or how I approach the Word of God (which is how I divide the "conservative" from "non-conservative" in my own mind at least,)  I've found this thread very informative and it has helped me think through some things.  I'm still thinking through some things!  

[IsabelC]

I don't think that conservative Christians necessarily have a monopoly on bigotry or narrow-mindedness. It's a natural trait of the human mind to assume that people who don't agree with us are either ignorant, stupid or evil on some level. It takes the application of both empathy and logical thought to overcome this tendency.

 

 

[Catwoman]

You can assume that about someone without trying to justify refusing to serve them in a shop because of who they are.

 

None of my atheist, agnostic, non-conservative religious or conservative EO friends are trying to create that world.

That may be true of the people you know, but I wouldn't assume it to be some sort of universal truth.

 

I think all of us want to think the best of the people we feel are similar to us, but unfortunately there are narrow-minded bigots in all walks of life.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't have any IRL gay buddies and I'm starting to feel a little sad about it. 

 

I'd share some blue cheese with you anyway. Texasmama and I can't be cheese sharing friends because she's too close minded to consider that I might know where to buy the blue cheese she could learn to love.

[LucyStoner]

I don't think that conservative Christians necessarily have a monopoly on bigotry or narrow-mindedness. It's a natural trait of the human mind to assume that people who don't agree with us are either ignorant, stupid or evil on some level. It takes the application of both empathy and logical thought to overcome this tendency.

I don't agree that is a natural trait necessarily. But I agree with your post. I know a lot of bigoted, narrow minded people of all stripes.

[LucyStoner]

Unfortunately, I come across far more bigotry here than I ever have in my real life.

 

 

I'd say that's pretty fortunate. IRL jackassery has way more potential for IRL damage. Better online I say, because we can shut the computer down. We can't shut off the yahoo sitting next to us in class or on the bus.

[IsabelC]

Unfortunately, I come across far more bigotry here than I ever have in my real life.

 

You are fortunate in that respect. 

 

 

 

And I'm pretty sure there aren't too many liberal atheists in the FRC...

 

I was thinking about prejudice in general, not just homophobia. But you're probably right about the FRC. 

 

 

[IsabelC]

I'd share some blue cheese with you anyway. Texasmama and I can't be cheese sharing friends because she's too close minded to consider that I might know where to buy the blue cheese she could learn to love.

 

Cheese sharing is good, m'kay.

[LizItaly]

I'm glad homophobic actions are being silenced. I can't help what you believe in your own home and church and head, but I don't want homophobic actions in the public square.

 

What do you intend by "homophobic actions?"  Violence against any person should never be tolerated, and I certainly agree that no civil society can tolerate it and survive.  But your word choice of "silenced" implies that you include speech in what cannot be tolerated.  If that is what you mean, I find it disturbing and it is what I was referring to in my previous comment (which seems to have disappeared).  

 

There is no right to freedom from hurt feelings.  As long as I do not incite violence, I can say (with a few exceptions) what I want, no matter how idiotic.  You are free to respond, engage, ignore, etc., as you please.  But you are not free to decide you gets to speak and who does not, and you are not free to decide what I may say.

 

I would ardently defend your right to say anything you want, no matter how repellent I find it.  Would you do the same for me?  Or is free speech reserved for those who share your opinions?

[Rosie_0801]

I would ardently defend your right to say anything you want, no matter how repellent I find it.  Would you do the same for me?  Or is free speech reserved for those who share your opinions?

 

Would you ardently defend my right to bully your kids? 

 

I assume my right to bleat on in that manner ought to cease once I'm in earshot of your kids, no? I ought to use my in public manners when I'm out in public, right?

[LizItaly]

Would you ardently defend my right to bully your kids? 

 

I assume my right to bleat on in that manner ought to cease once I'm in earshot of your kids, no? I ought to use my in public manners when I'm out in public, right?

 

In the public square, as long as you are not becoming violent or advocating violence,  I do.  I would hope your public manners would prevent such behavior.  If they did not, then you and I would have a reckoning.  You can say what you want and I get to respond.  It's a beautiful thing, even when it's ugly.  Public manners are important for civility but they are not a legal requirement.

 

If you attempted to bully my kids in a school or in my home, your freedom of speech would be curtailed.  Schools, even public schools, may limit speech.  In my home, you'd find yourself kicked to the curb in a hot second.

 

 

 

Not that I believe for a minute you'd ever do anything of the kind. :001_smile:

 

[Cammie]

I don't think that conservative Christians necessarily have a monopoly on bigotry or narrow-mindedness. It's a natural trait of the human mind to assume that people who don't agree with us are either ignorant, stupid or evil on some level. It takes the application of both empathy and logical thought to overcome this tendency.

 

Gosh, I really hope you are wrong.  I certainly don't think that people who have a different religion than me are ignorant, stupid or evil on ANY level.  I don't even think that about people who hold different political views than me.  I probably do think that about people who are hateful (think Westoboro or the KKK) and I do think that about people who are extremists (think ISIS or Taliban).  But just people who disagree with me or who are different from me, no.  And boy, I would be really, really disappointed if more people felt the way you think that they do!  I guess I have a little more faith in humanity and its capability for understanding across cultures, religions, backgrounds.

[LizItaly]

 

 

 

 

US history shows us that you are wrong. It's the best guarantor for the majority group to subject minority groups to tyrannical behavior. The past predicts the future.

 

 

It doesn't logically follow that people in favor of anti-discrimination laws are anti-free speech.

 

 

 

 

The Civil Rights movement and in the various anti-discrimination laws that were enacted were absolutely necessary.  Period.  But I do not agree that the past predicts the future.  I would prefer the word "informs."  The past teaches.  We learn from it.  Germany was responsible for a Holocaust that eventually claimed 10 million lives, 6 million of them Jewish.  Would you tells Jews today not to live there?  Probably not.  Yet there are still neo-Nazi groups in Germany.

 

Are there still racist Americans?  Of course, and they come in all colors. But this is not the 1950's and the 1960's. If a store put up a sign reading, "No blacks allowed," how long do you think that store would survive?  I'd give it a month at most.  In the age of Twitter and Facebook, such a business would be besieged by protesters, local and otherwise.  I would predict that the hypothetical owner would face not only the failure of his store, but also total personal failure.  For who would ever want to be associated with him?  

 

I am not a true Libertarian; there are times when the government should step in to protect vulnerable groups.  But I believe in the ability of the market to correct wrongs, and in a way that teaches more forcefully.  Imminent and unchanging poverty is a very convincing instructor.

 

Re: anti-free speech, see comment #642.

[LizItaly]

I don't care what you say in your head, your home or your church, as long as it isn't inciting hatred or violence.

 

I do care what you say elsewhere, but I wouldn't lobby to stop you saying it, unless it's hate speech.

But what is "hate speech?"

 

I realize there are some laws against it some places.  I question their constitutionality.  I do not believe the 1st Amendment protects only speech that is not "hateful." 

[Vera]

I just got back from my anniversary weekend so I am just trying to catch up on this very interesting thread. Has anyone answered why homosexuality is considered the big sin? I would like to understand why bakers go to so much trouble to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding but happily make cakes for adulterers, people who have been married several times, gluttons, etc. Does it say somewhere in the bible that the other sins are not really a big deal but homosexuality is the big thing?

[creekland]

Gosh, I really hope you are wrong.  I certainly don't think that people who have a different religion than me are ignorant, stupid or evil on ANY level.  I don't even think that about people who hold different political views than me.  I probably do think that about people who are hateful (think Westoboro or the KKK) and I do think that about people who are extremists (think ISIS or Taliban).  But just people who disagree with me or who are different from me, no.  And boy, I would be really, really disappointed if more people felt the way you think that they do!  I guess I have a little more faith in humanity and its capability for understanding across cultures, religions, backgrounds.

 

Unfortunately, the original statement is not wrong from what I've seen.  It definitely doesn't fit everyone - there are MANY decent people out there in all walks of life.  This is what gives me hope for the world to be honest!

 

But there certainly are many also who are hateful of anyone who doesn't believe as they do (or consider the others "stupid" for believing otherwise).  Politics and religion are the biggies we all tend to know about, but there are also other categories (food police - or their opposite, socio-economic stuff, pro/anti green, etc, etc, etc).  Working in a public school, I see tons of extremes and work hard to get kids to be tolerant of more than just the biggies.

 

I do believe it is COMMON to at very least consider those who disagree with you to be ignorant/stupid, but it does go beyond that to evil more than it should.

 

One can see that even in the Hive on many of the controversial threads.  It's difficult to comprehend that someone who believes differently can also still be intelligent.

[bettyandbob]

I just got back from my anniversary weekend so I am just trying to catch up on this very interesting thread. Has anyone answered why homosexuality is considered the big sin? I would like to understand why bakers go to so much trouble to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding but happily make cakes for adulterers, people who have been married several times, gluttons, etc. Does it say somewhere in the bible that the other sins are not really a big deal but homosexuality is the big thing?

It's not. In the Bible its grouped with other sins. We all sin. anyone who worries about it as much as the baker probably has quite a few of his own sins he is ignoring.

 

I think there is only one judge and sinners who start imposing judgement on others may be in for a double whammy.

[LizItaly]

If "threatening" means the same as "inciting violence," then I agree that such speech is suspect at best and probably not protected.  Insulting and offensive?  Still worthy of protection in my view.  I feel the same way about crimes.  "Hate crimes" should not be treated as a special class.  Crimes are crimes, regardless of the motivation.  We should not be policing thought.  I am not alone is this viewpoint, as you probably know.  Here is Andrew Sullivan on the subject.

 

There is nothing magical about the free market.  It will not work to correct all social ills.  But I cannot imagine a situation in America in which a business openly refusing serve black people, for example, would survive.  One person calls CNN.  Another person tweets.  And in no time, people and groups of all stripes will descend upon that store.  It would be a terminal case.

 

Frankly, rather than shutting down free speech, I would like to see a return to widely accepted standards of polite behavior.  But I'm not holding my breath.

 

ETA: sorry, I should have quoted.  This was a response to #650.

[mom31257]

I think it is the obsession with s_x* that is the old testament. We are in the process of studying the old testament and so far there is a constant theme of obsession with s_x and the male genitalia. I am not shocked that some Christians are fixated on gay relations above all other sins. I also think that many do not understand the many euphemisms for s_x that are in the Bible. I am just thankful that my son has not yet made the connection. I am planning to revisit the subject when he is older to make sure he really understands what was said. 

 

*I hate not spelling it out but I do not want to give ammo to those with twitchy report fingers who report almost everything I post**.

 

**To the mods or SWB, Hi!

 

It's not so much an obsession by the writers of the OT as much as it was a huge part of ancient societies. Some believe the asherah poles were actual representations of male genitalia. Worship in many pagan cultures did involve the act, too. Throughout the OT, God is calling His people out to be separate from the rest of the world and not act like them, so in those times it meant circumcision, not eating pork, not fornicating, etc. 

[mom31257]

I just got back from my anniversary weekend so I am just trying to catch up on this very interesting thread. Has anyone answered why homosexuality is considered the big sin? I would like to understand why bakers go to so much trouble to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding but happily make cakes for adulterers, people who have been married several times, gluttons, etc. Does it say somewhere in the bible that the other sins are not really a big deal but homosexuality is the big thing?

 

I've wondered the same thing about the baking cakes thing. Also, shouldn't it be a good opportunity to possibly witness and show love to them? 

 

The bible does put s_xual sin in a little different category. In 1 Corinthians the Word says that other sins are committed outside the body, but s_xual sins are against your own body. I don't think that it means they are treated differently by God but that the consequences will be deeper, more emotional, etc. We've all probably experienced or known someone who made a bad choice s_xually that caused them serious emotional pain that runs deep. 

 

My issue  with the cakes is that yes, that would include adulterers or fornicators. I don't see the church running huge political campaigns to outlaw people living together or divorcing. IMHO, these are much more detrimental to "traditional family values" than gay marriage would be; however, I would not vote for those either.

 

I think that conservative Christians feel voting for gay marriage is saying that they believe it's okay and are also afraid that their churches will be forced to perform ceremonies or teach differently. That is why I think the political drive all along should have been for getting exemptions instead of fighting it altogether. 

[MSNative]

 

And Scalia is not really a flaming secularist liberal patsy.

 

The laws are unevenly enforced and applied in a racist, classist way. Surely that's obvious to everybody, given recent events.

 

 

 

You keep using that word "discriminate". I do not think you understand the purpose or application of affirmative action procedures.

As a small business owner and former federal subcontractor, I think I do. I've also said that I understand and agree with the purpose and ideals of affirmative action, just not the implementation. Again, the Harvard lawsuit gives a good example of the discrimination to which I am referring.

[Jane in NC]

I just got back from my anniversary weekend so I am just trying to catch up on this very interesting thread. Has anyone answered why homosexuality is considered the big sin? I would like to understand why bakers go to so much trouble to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding but happily make cakes for adulterers, people who have been married several times, gluttons, etc. Does it say somewhere in the bible that the other sins are not really a big deal but homosexuality is the big thing?

 

In general, I think people derive a certain comfort in pointing out other people's "sins"--as opposed to dealing with their own.

 

This is a season of good will and great cheer in many cultures.  Yet how many of us will hear of the failings of people within our extended families as we attempt to gather and celebrate?  That line about planks in one's own eye compared to the speck in thy brother's comes to mind.  ;)

[kiana]

There is nothing magical about the free market.  It will not work to correct all social ills.  But I cannot imagine a situation in America in which a business openly refusing serve black people, for example, would survive.  One person calls CNN.  Another person tweets.  And in no time, people and groups of all stripes will descend upon that store.  It would be a terminal case.

 

In the current climate, probably yes. There might be a few white supremacists who would deliberately try to patronize the store in order to support them, but they're really a dying breed.

 

50 years ago I would argue differently. I think at that point in many areas there would have been enough that such a business would have been viable.

[bettyandbob]

While I suspect a business that openly refused persons of a certain race or religion would not survive in today's free market. Today's climate has been formed by years of fighting what was the free market of 50+ years ago. If we did not put in place the laws we did to stop some of these behaviors back then and continuously enforce them, I don't think the landscape of businesses would look the way they look today.

 

The free market was not going to correct generations of wrongs.

[texasmama]

I'd share some blue cheese with you anyway. Texasmama and I can't be cheese sharing friends because she's too close minded to consider that I might know where to buy the blue cheese she could learn to love.

 

I am a blue cheese bigot.  <hangs head>

 

[bettyandbob]

I like blue cheese. My dc can't eat it, because they have celiac and the source of the mold is questionable (or so that's my understanding). Blue cheese with steak in a salad...mmm.

 

Why do we have so many food analogies?

 

Didn't we have cherry pie earlier in this thread?

 

 

[TeacherZee]

I'll be back to read but I just found this interesting video about the history of marriage.

 

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-history-of-marriage-alex-gendler

[texasmama]

You can assume that about someone without trying to justify refusing to serve them in a shop because of who they are.

 

None of my atheist, agnostic, non-conservative religious or conservative EO friends are trying to create that world.

 

There are people who reject me and assign motives and make assumptions simply because I am a Christian.  I don't know if they would refuse to bake me a cake for a baptismal service or something.  But yes, some people reject those who self-identify as Christian on a regular basis.  No, I am not persecuted.  Being made fun of (silently or otherwise) is not the same as being persecuted, so no one should think I am drawing a parallel there.

 

There are mean, rude, hateful people of all ilks.  (What is an ilk, anyway?) 

 

I'm not what I like to call a "hippie Christian".  (For an example of a "hippie Christian", see Anne Lamott.  Love her and her writing, but she and I practice our faith pretty differently.)  I think that makes me "conservative-ish".  I am very live and let live, but I do have some deeply held beliefs that are not open to change.  They are in my heart, and I do not wave them about.  No one can change them, and making or not making cakes for any cause will not change them.  (ETA:  not about gays)

 

One of my gay friends called me out publicly on FB a few years back, tagging me on a post of one of the conservative Christian politicians who had said some nonsense about gays. I forget what it was exactly, but it is the thing that you want to say, "Just sit down and shut up already.  You make all of us Christians look stupid!".  He was very confrontive, asking that the couple of "conservative friends" he had tagged to respond to his post.  It was rude and absurd of him to do this and to assume that that man in any way represented my thoughts on the issue.  Suddenly I was the face of "conservative Christianity" and must answer for the views of a fringe weirdo politician I didn't even agree with.  I don't think so.

 

Most people are kind, even people who don't always agree on issues.  Some people (vocal ones, typically) are unkind.  In some circles, identifying as a conservative Christian would get you summarily rejected.  Mean people suck.

 

(Excuse me for my morning rambling.  I suddenly got a wild hair to share my heart here, and as I have been kind, I hope for kindness in return.  I don't even know that it has much to do with Sadie's above quoted post.  I like these dialogs when they remain civil and kind.  I am all about the kindness and the sharing.)

 

 

 

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The Civil Rights movement and in the various anti-discrimination laws that were enacted were absolutely necessary.  Period.  But I do not agree that the past predicts the future.  I would prefer the word "informs."  The past teaches.  We learn from it.  Germany was responsible for a Holocaust that eventually claimed 10 million lives, 6 million of them Jewish.  Would you tells Jews today not to live there?  Probably not.  Yet there are still neo-Nazi groups in Germany.

 

It's true, there are. There are also strong laws governing their speech, actions, and use of their symbols in an effort to ever prevent that kind of horror from ever gaining ground again. Kind of like we have here in the US!

 

Are there still racist Americans?  Of course, and they come in all colors. But this is not the 1950's and the 1960's. If a store put up a sign reading, "No blacks allowed," how long do you think that store would survive?  I'd give it a month at most.  In the age of Twitter and Facebook, such a business would be besieged by protesters, local and otherwise.  I would predict that the hypothetical owner would face not only the failure of his store, but also total personal failure.  For who would ever want to be associated with him?  

 

Um, lots of people. Do you think racism again blacks has been eliminated in this country? You have only to watch the news to know that's not true. Again, I reference Stormfront.org. 300,000 members. Slogan: "Every month is white history month." If we rescinded anti-discrimination laws, not only would there be business owners putting up signs like that, there would be supporters flocking to them. Every one of the businesses that has refused to serve gay patrons has been besieged by supporters. The baker that TM keeps referencing has said repeatedly in news articles that although he has stopped selling wedding cakes, his business is thriving in every other way. 

 

I am not a true Libertarian; there are times when the government should step in to protect vulnerable groups.  But I believe in the ability of the market to correct wrongs, and in a way that teaches more forcefully.  Imminent and unchanging poverty is a very convincing instructor.

 

I really, really hope this country never has to find out how wrong you are.

 

 

There is nothing magical about the free market.  It will not work to correct all social ills.  But I cannot imagine a situation in America in which a business openly refusing serve black people, for example, would survive.  One person calls CNN.  Another person tweets.  And in no time, people and groups of all stripes will descend upon that store.  It would be a terminal case.

 

Again, do you imagine that people and groups of the opposite stripes would not also descend? Can you not imagine the battleground that would turn into? 

 

Frankly, rather than shutting down free speech, I would like to see a return to widely accepted standards of polite behavior.  But I'm not holding my breath.

 

A RETURN to those standards? Those standards you imagine existed were only considered polite because holders of non-mainstream opinions were afraid to speak out due to the consequences that would rain down on them. 

[texasmama]

I like blue cheese. My dc can't eat it, because they have celiac and the source of the mold is questionable (or so that's my understanding). Blue cheese with steak in a salad...mmm.

 

Why do we have so many food analogies?

 

Didn't we have cherry pie earlier in this thread?

My memory is vague on the issue, but I am almost certain that blue cheese is okay for celiacs. 

 

Food is life.  Food is fun.  It's all about the food.  :D

[KrissiK]

I just got back from my anniversary weekend so I am just trying to catch up on this very interesting thread. Has anyone answered why homosexuality is considered the big sin?

It's not a sin that's necessarily any bigger than any other sin. The problem comes because some people say it's not a sin at all. And that's the rub. I am a Christian. I believe it is wrong. Most people can agree on certain things that are right and wrong.... Lying, stealing, cheating, etc. I think we can all sit down and agree, yes, those things are wrong. But when it comes to s€xual activity, the whole gamut -pre, extra, homo, etc., there is no general consensus.

[fraidycat]

It's not a sin that's necessarily any bigger than any other sin. The problem comes because some people say it's not a sin at all. And that's the rub. I am a Christian. I believe it is wrong. Most people can agree on certain things that are right and wrong.... Lying, stealing, cheating, etc. I think we can all sit down and agree, yes, those things are wrong. But when it comes to s€xual activity, the whole gamut -pre, extra, homo, etc., there is no general consensus.

Can you explain this further? What problem comes?

[*Lulu*]

It's not a sin that's necessarily any bigger than any other sin. The problem comes because some people say it's not a sin at all. And that's the rub. I am a Christian. I believe it is wrong. Most people can agree on certain things that are right and wrong.... Lying, stealing, cheating, etc. I think we can all sit down and agree, yes, those things are wrong. But when it comes to s€xual activity, the whole gamut -pre, extra, homo, etc., there is no general consensus.

I can think of several other issues where Christians have no consensus, and are willing to call damning.

 

Sola vs Prima Scriptura

Young vs Old Earth

Women wearing pants

Women being ordained ministers

Headship of husbands

 

 

And that is pre-coffee number two, off the top of my head.

[lionfamily1999]

Soooo, let's picture a middle school kid getting called a faggot every day as he walks home from school. Maybe a group of kids follow him for blocks, taunting him mercilessly. No violence, but name calling about his " deviant" sexuality. There are no parents there to stop or help. Obviously public manners are lacking. Months go by, things worsen. School won't help because its off their property. His parents cant get the bullies parents to stop. The child is depressed and traumatized.

The child attempts suicide... This is a type of free speech you would defend in a public square? So we want the gay child to speak to his bullies, and this is the beautiful thing of free speech? How far would you let it go before its not such " a beautiful thing?" I'm sorry, but really, this makes me want to vomit. I seriously need to leave this thread-- I've known for a long time that there were out of the ordinary viewpoints on this board, but some of these posts are bone chillingly scary.

What you are describing is harassment, which I'm pretty sure is illegal without regard to the subject matter.  Iow, if a middle school kid is getting called a goody-goody every day as he walks home from school by the same person or people, then he is being followed and harassed.  If, for some reason, he lives in Never-never Land where there are no grown-ups, then the laws may not apply.  However, in the US, his parents could report the people or persons to the police or he could report them to the school authorities, for harassment.

 

Even a middle school kid who might be followed home every day heckled as a "homo-phobe", because he has said that he believes homosexuality is a sin is protected by harassment laws.

[texasmama]

I can think of several other issues where Christians have no consensus, and are willing to call damning.

 

Sola vs Prima Scriptura

Young vs Old Earth

Women wearing pants

Women being ordained ministers

Headship of husbands

 

 

And that is pre-coffee number two, off the top of my head.

 

I am pre-coffee number two, as well.

 

Add:

baptism (dunking vs. sprinkling, infant baptism vs. adult baptism, etc)

musical instruments in church

What day is the Sabbath to be observed?  How do we "keep the Sabbath"?

 

[Vera]

It's not a sin that's necessarily any bigger than any other sin. The problem comes because some people say it's not a sin at all. And that's the rub. I am a Christian. I believe it is wrong. Most people can agree on certain things that are right and wrong.... Lying, stealing, cheating, etc. I think we can all sit down and agree, yes, those things are wrong. But when it comes to s€xual activity, the whole gamut -pre, extra, homo, etc., there is no general consensus.

I read that a couple times and I still don't understand. The baker would make a cake for someone marrying the person they had been cheating with but not a gay couple. Why? Why is homosexuality a bigger sin than adultery?

[bettyandbob]

I read that a couple times and I still don't understand. The baker would make a cake for someone marrying the person they had been cheating with but not a gay couple. Why? Why is homosexuality a bigger sin than adultery?

 

No. Just easier to ignore. Also easier for the couple making the purchase to conceal.

[LizItaly]

The Civil Rights movement and in the various anti-discrimination laws that were enacted were absolutely necessary.  Period.  But I do not agree that the past predicts the future.  I would prefer the word "informs."  The past teaches.  We learn from it.  Germany was responsible for a Holocaust that eventually claimed 10 million lives, 6 million of them Jewish.  Would you tells Jews today not to live there?  Probably not.  Yet there are still neo-Nazi groups in Germany.

 

It's true, there are. There are also strong laws governing their speech, actions, and use of their symbols in an effort to ever prevent that kind of horror from ever gaining ground again. Kind of like we have here in the US!

 

Laws do not always a restraining effect on those determined to do harm.  My point is that if the neo-Nazis in Germany felt strong enough to act on their principles, a few speech restrictions wouldn't stop them.  Neo-nazis still exist, but Germany itself has changed so radically since WWII that their presence is no longer a threat to the German Jewish community.  And no, their laws are FAR more restrictive than ours.  We do not ban Nazi symbols, nor do we ban racist speech, per se.

 

Are there still racist Americans?  Of course, and they come in all colors. But this is not the 1950's and the 1960's. If a store put up a sign reading, "No blacks allowed," how long do you think that store would survive?  I'd give it a month at most.  In the age of Twitter and Facebook, such a business would be besieged by protesters, local and otherwise.  I would predict that the hypothetical owner would face not only the failure of his store, but also total personal failure.  For who would ever want to be associated with him?  

 

Um, lots of people. Do you think racism again blacks has been eliminated in this country? You have only to watch the news to know that's not true. Again, I reference Stormfront.org. 300,000 members. Slogan: "Every month is white history month." If we rescinded anti-discrimination laws, not only would there be business owners putting up signs like that, there would be supporters flocking to them. Every one of the businesses that has refused to serve gay patrons has been besieged by supporters. The baker that TM keeps referencing has said repeatedly in news articles that although he has stopped selling wedding cakes, his business is thriving in every other way. 

 

If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I am not suggesting that racism has been eliminated in the States.  That is evident from my two sentences in the above quote.  I also note that there is not only one type of racist.  Racism exists in many forms.  Math is not really my thing, but 300,000 Stormfront members in a country of 315,000,000 is a tiny drop in the ocean.  It's less than 1% (someone PLEASE check my math!).

 

Twitter got Mozilla's CEO fired for Prop 8 support.  Sterling is no longer the owner of the L.A. Clippers because of comments he made.  Where was Stormfront (a group I had never heard of before today) then?  

 

As far as I know, the businesses that have refused to provide services for gay marriages have stated that they would provide services for non-marriage events, such as birthdays.  In other words, they do not object to the client but to the particular event.  You can debate the justice of that, but I don't think it is accurate to say they refused to serve gay customers.  

 

I am not a true Libertarian; there are times when the government should step in to protect vulnerable groups.  But I believe in the ability of the market to correct wrongs, and in a way that teaches more forcefully.  Imminent and unchanging poverty is a very convincing instructor.

 

I really, really hope this country never has to find out how wrong you are.

 

And I support your right to disagree with me!

 

 

LizItaly, on 09 Dec 2014 - 1:11 PM, said:

There is nothing magical about the free market.  It will not work to correct all social ills.  But I cannot imagine a situation in America in which a business openly refusing serve black people, for example, would survive.  One person calls CNN.  Another person tweets.  And in no time, people and groups of all stripes will descend upon that store.  It would be a terminal case.

 

Again, do you imagine that people and groups of the opposite stripes would not also descend? Can you not imagine the battleground that would turn into? 

 

In the case of anti-black racism, I cannot imagine much of a battleground.  I think the vast majority of people would not care to spend their money in such an establishment, or associate with the owner.

 

Frankly, rather than shutting down free speech, I would like to see a return to widely accepted standards of polite behavior.  But I'm not holding my breath.

 

A RETURN to those standards? Those standards you imagine existed were only considered polite because holders of non-mainstream opinions were afraid to speak out due to the consequences that would rain down on them. 

 

I am talking about polite behavior.  I am not sure what you are talking about.  In my family, money, religion, and politics were not discussed with people whom we didn't know well because it was considered impolite.  I never assume that my interlocutor will share my opinions on the above subjects, and I am uninterested in being offensive.  I believe that if you have nothing nice to say, you should be quiet.  I think polite behavior extends to dressing appropriately and showing respect for other people's sensibilities.  I reserve my right to extensive free speech, but it doesn't mean that I have to say everything I am thinking.  There are many who do not follow these guidelines.  I find it frustrating when people speak as if all intelligent people agree with them, or make assumptions about my beliefs.  I prefer to give the world the benefit of the doubt.  Unless you go after my kids, in which case I go for the jugular.

 

Consider, too, that there are many who disagree with you who stay silent out of fear of consequences.  It works both ways.

 

[Momof3]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input... 

 

I'm not angry here...just going to speak my mind. :)

 

I agree with creekland's first comment. I am a conservative Christian. I'm not reformed (I don't believe that the Church fulfills God's promises to Israel and so we need to establish a Christian nation, etc.)... Most Christians in my circle vote against homosexuality because

 

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too. 

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

Has anyone mentioned yet... The mayor of Houston recently demanded the SERMONS of PASTORS who spoke out against homosexuality. In Canada, pastors are being JAILED for SPEAKING against homosexuality. (Once again, not angry here, just trying to be heard in what I feel is a largely one-sided conversation.) Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A? 

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

[fraidycat]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input...

 

I'm not angry here...just going to speak my mind. :)

 

I agree with creekland's first comment. I am a conservative Christian. I'm not reformed (I don't believe that the Church fulfills God's promises to Israel and so we need to establish a Christian nation, etc.)... Most Christians in my circle vote against homosexuality because

 

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too.

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

Has anyone mentioned yet... The mayor of Houston recently demanded the SERMONS of PASTORS who spoke out against homosexuality. In Canada, pastors are being JAILED for SPEAKING against homosexuality. (Once again, not angry here, just trying to be heard in what I feel is a largely one-sided conversation.) Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A?

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

Just.

 

Um.

 

Wow.

 

I really have to get to work right now, but this may be the post to shut the whole conversation down. The beginning of the end.

[Cammie]

Well, have a feeling it is all going to go downhill from here...too bad.

[texasmama]

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

 

The bolded has not been my experience at all.  I know many homosexuals, and many of them also identify as Christian.  You are allowing a few people who may be outspoken in the media to represent the entire group of homosexuals.  This is not an accurate representation of homosexuals as a group any more than Pat Robertson or the Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians. 

[*Lulu*]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input...

.

I strongly suggest you read farther than the first page on a fourteen page thread before you post an opinion on the one-sided condition of a conversation.

 

It has been a discussion with much reasonable and respectful disagreement from both sides.

 

It has been much more respectful and nuanced than:

 

"OMG those crazy Christians"

 

"America is being destroyed by "the gays""

 

"Nuh-uh"

 

"Yeah-huh"

 

"I saw it on the Internet"

 

"Well Fox News reports it differently"

 

 

Seriously, it has been a good discussion.

Let's not shut it down by talking AT each other instead of TO each other.

 

 

 

Eta- oh autocorrect, why do you hate me?

[bibiche]

Me, I just feel sorry for the children of these people. :(

[zoobie]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input... 

 

I'm not angry here...just going to speak my mind. :)

 

I agree with creekland's first comment. I am a conservative Christian. I'm not reformed (I don't believe that the Church fulfills God's promises to Israel and so we need to establish a Christian nation, etc.)... Most Christians in my circle vote against homosexuality because

 

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too. 

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

Has anyone mentioned yet... The mayor of Houston recently demanded the SERMONS of PASTORS who spoke out against homosexuality. In Canada, pastors are being JAILED for SPEAKING against homosexuality. (Once again, not angry here, just trying to be heard in what I feel is a largely one-sided conversation.) Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A? 

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

 

What the what? Where on earth do you get #2? What's to look at with Chick-fil-A? People used their free speech to protest CFA's donating to a hate organization. It had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. There is nothing hateful, bigoted, or militant about deciding not to eat at a fast food restaurant!

[texasmama]

Also, turn it around.  How would you respond to hearing "Christians are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-gay people in this country".

 

Your statement isn't true.  It isn't kind.  It doesn't promote the cause of Christ.  It turns people further away from Christ and Christians.

[Word Nerd]

Also, turn it around.  How would you respond to hearing "Christians are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-gay people in this country".

 

Your statement isn't true.  It isn't kind.  It doesn't promote the cause of Christ.  It turns people further away from Christ and Christians.

This is almost exactly what I was going to post. 

[sunflowerlady]

Anti Christian? I better tell that to all the gay people I attended church with recently. They're obviously living their lifestyle all wrong by attending church, singing hymns,praying and collecting food for charity.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

I would like to keep this thread open, so let me encourage those of you who are being thoughtful and patient to continue in the same vein. 

 

SWB

[Tanaqui]

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

 

Oh, I bet there is. For generations, Christians have had special privileges that other groups didn't, and yes, now some of those privileges are being taken away. Christians can't have it all their own way anymore.

 

But cutting the pie into even slices isn't taking away freedom. It's just making things fair.