Friday, March 25, 2011

Why is the Left Ignoring Church Burnings and 'Near Genocide' of Christians?


Many of you are familiar with Lisa Graas and her work, both from her comments here and from my blog roll. She is an amazing lady, and the story of how we met 13 years ago (my first internet "friend"!) is a story in itself. We have quite a history together, and now we both have blogs, ha ha ha. Lisa, a convert to Catholicism and a disabled single mother of four, also writes for David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog. As you know, I don't post on politics too often (although I am a political animal at heart), but I asked Lisa to write this guest post for me because she is practically alone out there writing on this topic. 

Please, please, if anyone on the left can explain why the Left's dislike of Christianity is so strong, and yet their defense of Islamists so vocal (despite Islam's violent hatred toward liberal moral values), I would be so grateful. I have some ideas of why leftists cast their lots with Islam over Christianity, but I would love to hear it from someone here.

+++++++

From Lisa Graas....


On the Left, the end justifies the means. Abortion, which many acknowledge is not a good thing, is 'necessary' in order to protect the 'greater good' of 'choice'. Rationing of healthcare, which they also acknowledge is not a good thing, is set forth as a 'solution' to serve the 'greater good' of 'universal coverage'. Even our Catholic compatriots on the Left have become caught up in this erroneous thinking that 'the end justifies the means', having adopted the confused thinking that the 'greater good' is equivalent to the 'common good'. So it is that the vulnerable are trampled underfoot, even with assistance from within the Catholic community.

One of the most powerful leftists in history, Josef Stalin, killed millions to serve the 'good' of the state.*

Millions died as a result of Stalin's famine and purges which came about due to the leftist ethos that 'the end' (in this case, the goal of 'equality') always 'justifies the means'. What Stalin might have believed was the 'common good', in reality was a reflection of 'the greater good' being sought, no matter the means.

Is it this belief -- 'the end justifies the means' -- that accounts for the silence of leftists in America today as the Islamic Egyptian army attacked Christian monasteries? After all, this news would have spoiled their good feelings as they cheered the 'revolution' in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

Is it this belief that 'the end justifies the means' that urges the Left to press continually for America to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq even as the Christian community there faces 'near genocide'? (Have they even heard of Adam of Baghdad?)

I think it is...and the silence continues even now as the Left continues to be actively engaged in defending the 'good name' of Islam while refusing to raise so little as a whimper about the burning of 69 churches in Ethiopia with 10,000 Christians being now displaced as they flee Muslim wrath.

Obama's White House team and the mainstream media have turned a blind eye to the spilling of innocent Christian blood.

What 'crime' did these Christians commit to 'merit' the torching of 69 churches, a Bible school and an orphanage?

The violence erupted after a group of Muslims falsely accused Christians in the area of desecrating the Quran. 

Those on the far left would say, "These attacks were justified because a Christian probably really did desecrate the Qur'an."

Those who are just left of center will probably either look away or resign themselves to calling our mention of it "Islamophobic", which I have come to realize is the 21st century leftist version of 'Der ewige Jude'.

The wise understand that book burning leads to the burning of people, but truly....it takes a hardcore leftist to argue that in our quest to protect books from damage, we must sometimes burn Islamophobic churches and kill Islamophobic Christians.

Those on the Left, tell me where I'm wrong, because I desperately want to be wrong on this.






*To address the problems of hunger and poverty, in 1928 Stalin initiated the first of five "Five-Year Plans" that he would implement during his long reign as the leader of the USSR (the others would cover the periods 1933-37; 1938-42; 1946-50; and 1951-55).  This first Plan nationalized all aspects of Russian industry and commerce, with the goal of quickly industrializing the economy and collectivizing agriculture. Collectivization meant the confiscation of all private land and the organization of agricultural production by state-run "collective farms." The idea that drove this program was Marx's fantasy of social equality and social justice. In practice it meant that 25 million peasant farmers would not be paid any wages for their labor, but would instead produce their agricultural output entirely for the state, which would in turn allow them to keep a modest share for their own survival needs. Stalin's vision entailed the systematic replacement of small, unmechanized farms with large, mechanized alternatives that would theoretically produce food much more efficiently. In practice this meant that a nation which had once been Europe's breadbasket would experience famine and chronic agricultural scarcity for the next sixty years, until the system collapsed.


154 comments:

  1. I might have actually been interested in your point here if I hadn't been stopped in my tracks after reading the first two paragraphs. Comparing liberals in this country to the fascist regime of Josef Stalin completely tarnishes any credibility you may have as a political writer.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gwen, we are merely asking why the Left is silent on Christian genocide but is a big defender of Islamists?

    You always seem to find a way out of answering the questions. I will always answer yours, no matter how difficult. Please do the same for me?

    You know we are reasonable here on this blog, even if you disagree with us, and you have stuck with us. So, please help us understand? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Miss Gwen, I hope you understand that she was talking about principles. The liberal principle of "the ends justifies the means" so long as we get to a greater good, is a disordered principle which can lead to horrific things being justified. Can you see that point? Can you tell me if you reject "the ends justify the means" as a principle? Or are you okay with it? That is the point, that the principle leads to ugly things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In this case I have no answer Leila, other than to criticize the main news/media outlets in this country that don't report enough on pressing global issues (those here will no doubt argue they are too liberal). I'm not entirely sure this all boils down to a "left versus Christian" situation.
    Regardless, I find it difficult to even get into this debate b/c of the mismanaged comparison of liberalism to Stalin. It's a red flag to me that although there may be a "glimmer" of real news here, it's completely diluted by poor understanding and shoddy research.

    Sorry but that's all I have

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fair enough, Gwen, and I thank you for piping in. I wish you would at least touch on the principle, though, but maybe in another post? Also, do you see a fondness for Islam by the Left in this country that is not afforded Christianity?

    You don't have to answer, but I will put that out there for anyone else to field.

    Thanks, and I mean that Gwen. I am always happy to have you in the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do not criticize "liberalism". I am a classic liberal myself. Today's left is not "liberal". They have co-opted the term "liberal".

    Claiming that I compared "liberalism to Stalin" is "shoddy".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Get on a plane, Lisa and go fix the mess!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The only use of the word 'liberal' in the entire post is Leila's reference to Islam's "hatred of liberal moral values". There is no other reference.

    This post is not about 'liberalism'. It's about "the Left".

    Examples of individuals would be Grover Furr, a Marxist professor at Montclair State University; Leo Huberman, editor of the Monthly Review; and Carl Davidson, of United for Peace and Justice.

    Gwen should not have taken this personally at all. It's not about 'liberalism'. It's about 'the Left'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Whoa, Lisa, that link to the definition of classical liberalism makes me so sad, because I am a classical liberal, too. Dennis Prager says that all the time, that liberalism is not the liberalism he grew up with. I am sad that terms have changed so quickly yet again. It's like speaking of the "liberal arts"... the Church is the champion of the liberal arts, the way they were intended to be understood.

    I think that itself deserves a post, how (classical) liberalism and the modern Left are not the same.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous, I hear frequently from persecuted Christians around the world who thank me for speaking out, as so few are willing. They ask for only two things: (1) That we pray for them, and (2) that we lift up our voices and inform others about their plight. That is all they want.

    Right now, as I write, these persecutions are not being reported at ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN or any of the movement media blogs like HuffPo and Mother Jones. Why the silence? All the Christians want is our prayers and our voices. Even this, they are refused.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For Catholics who want to provide material assistance, I endorse Aid to the Church in Need...but even more importantly, it is endorsed, and under the direction of, the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. Having said that, most of the work now being done through the organization is most likely for the Christians of Iraq who are suffering most of all. Please pray for them. They need our prayers...and our voices in the public sphere.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That was a powerful article Lisa. Your continual research on the horrors of the Muslim wrath against Christians is one of the lone voices. It makes me wince when I hear people call Christians controlling.

    Leila, I hope there are some explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Welcome home, Tridentine Wife. ;-) I'm a convert from agnosticism myself. Blessings!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very informative. Thank you. I know my husband will really enjoy reading this later this evening. Then we'll get into a long discussion...which I love.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Lisa and Leila....
    when you two ladies find the answer PLEASE I beg you to share it with the rest of us, K?
    Tridentine wife, I am going to have to visit you....I have always wondered if there were converts from islam to Catholicism!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. theresa, I would love an answer, and I also am dying to find out. I pray someone will at least attempt an answer at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Miss Gwen, if you are still here, could you answer the question I posed on the other post about the culture that you have been studying? I truly am interested. I don't just ask the question rhetorically, I want to learn and gain knowledge so I can readjust my understanding of things if they are faulty. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gwen - you should have seen the website the articles linked to! Our Lisa here is the Noam Chomsky of the Right.

    sorry - but come on.

    -L

    ReplyDelete
  20. L, noooooo, not you too, avoiding the question! Please, please, can't someone simply answer the question instead of skirting the issue or discussing links of links? Pleeeaaassse? Pretty, pretty please???? Show us where she is wrong!

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am sooooo sad and frustrated. Why won't anyone ever answer a question? I promise to answer anything you ask!

    ReplyDelete
  22. The majority of people around the world are just like you and me. Civilians shouldn't be the target of our fear and hatred. Most Muslims are regular civilians. The Left warns against persecuting people and ramping up the hate crimes on people in head scarves and burning mosques. Do you disagree? Shall we attack Muslims?

    Also, in regards to Ethiopia... I hate to break this to you but MILLIONS have been slaughtered there. Genocide, warring factions, tribal warfare, Sudan... Do a google search. ALL the stories are there. They are all being killed over there and the Left has tried to draw attention to it.

    I believe this is a FoxNews baby because they like to hate on Muslims and promote Christianity and wonder how "God" makes the tides rise and the sun come up every day. (And that is direct from Bill O'Reilly, I am not exaggerating.)

    I believe America hesitates to get involved after incidents like Rawanda. Also, Africa's stability just doesn't seem to be top priority for business in America, like the Middle East is. (I do not think that is good, for the record)

    Lisa Graas' website is a little hub of misinformation, speculation, bias and accusation. Places like that (but with other slants) are the reason we have 911 truthers, anti-vaxxers, Ron Paul enthusiasts, and all other forms of fearful zealotry. If you show me a link with sidebar titles like "How to Stick it to your Leftie Friends on Facebook" I CANNOT take you seriously.

    Just like when you link a euthanasia site with a link to buy a book called "Euthanasia: False Light" It's over.

    And NO ONE thinks it's cool to burn a person for burning a book. For the love of ... Pete!!! These statements are why I want to give up on this blog.

    The Religion part makes sense, but the politics are out of the realm of sanity.

    There's your answer. Goodnight -

    -L

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ummmm, you think I support "Whites Only" America-hating Ron Paul because I want the media to report on Christians being slaughtered in Iraq and 69 church burnings in Ethiopia?

    Slapping self on forehead.

    I'm a Kentuckian. I wrote in a candidate for U.S. Senate here because I could not, in good conscience, vote for Rand Paul or the Democrat.

    Noam Chomsky is on my list of people worthy of strong criticism.

    Does anyone want to attempt a legitimate response to my post? Anyone? This is argumentum ad hominem from 'L'.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, L. I just wanted to know why the Left is so disdainful of Christians (who are the target of the vast majority of all religious persecution in the world today, and mostly targeted by Islamists), but are very protective of Islam. One side is killing the other daily, and it's not even close. By the way, it's Islamists who are killing Christians, in case you were unclear.

    So, that is my question: Why is Islam protected and seen as a "victim" religion, when a sizable percentage of Islam would behead the practitioners of modern liberalism given the chance? Why are Christians always seen as the oppressors of Muslims? I do not get any of that answered from what you wrote.

    What I think it perfectly absurd is this:

    The Left warns against persecuting people and ramping up the hate crimes on people in head scarves and burning mosques.

    This is absurd. Do you know of a Christian or conservative movement that wants to persecute Muslims and ramp up hate crimes against women in scarves and burn mosques? I don't know of any. But I know of Islamists who want to bomb, burn, behead and kill Christians... Oh, yeah... they are doing it every day and the media is silent! But still you say things like what you said above. As if the Christians are the ones to be afraid of (as Rosie O'Donnell and her crazy ilk have said).

    I would love some evidence. Any evidence. Please? Again, which group is burning, attacking, murdering, bombing, persecuting whom?

    Do we live in the same world?

    By the way, I use liberal sources for facts all the time (Guttmacher, anyone?) and I ignore any links to their sites, any ads. We all know that ads are beyond the control of the sites. Some of the Catholic blogs even have Komen ads on the side of their posts against Komen! So, I think that's a cop out argument, L. Let's just talk facts and we will be just fine.

    I am frustrated, it's true. It's the liberal talking points of "Christians are oppressive and Muslims are peaceful." When the evidence does not in any place on this planet bear this out.

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Clarifying:

    "The Left warns against persecuting people and ramping up the hate crimes on people in head scarves and burning mosques. Do you disagree? Shall we attack Muslims?"

    The absurdity, to be clear, is the implication that liberals are trying to protect the Muslims against.... Christians!

    ReplyDelete
  26. L, and everyone:

    http://www.acnuk.org/news.php/205/ukinternational-new-report-reveals-75-percent-of-religious-persecution-is-against-christians

    Christians are the most persecuted religious group. Do you speak out against that? In the way that liberals speak out against persecution against Muslims? The press talks about the plight of Muslims but is silent on Christians. Why? That is my question.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Leila's numbers are global, mine from America.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Maybe I'm not being clear:

    Christians are being SAVAGED every day in this world by Islamists, and the numbers are rising. Men, women and children are being butchered! Their homes and churches are being burned by the hundreds! This is happening right now!

    So, why is the Left silent about these atrocities against innocents, but are reliable and consistent apologists for Islam?

    Anyone at all? Can anyone else help me understand?

    I hope I am being clear. I hope my question is clear.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. L, here's a clue. Search NewsRealBlog.com , where I work, for "Ron Paul". Nobody there cares much for him.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You know, I would not be frustrated even if given an answer like this:

    "I really don't know; I never thought about it/noticed."

    That alone would soothe my heart. Seriously.

    I am just left so frustrated.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Leila, progressives have fought Christendom for so long, they don't know how to defend Christians against slaughter.

    They have no idea where the idea of human rights came from.

    Birth of Freedom

    Thank goodness we have Dr. Alveda King to remind us that her uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would be appalled.

    They're offended by the Stalin reference and have no idea how many university professors are Marxists...and how today's so-called 'liberals' embrace them. They are just in the darkness....united in hate as my colleague Jamie Glazov has explained in his book.

    They hate Christendom more than they love freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  32. One more thing, L:

    And NO ONE thinks it's cool to burn a person for burning a book.

    Actually, there are tens of millions of Islamists who would have you killed for burning their book. It's on the record, a thousand times over.

    Yes, there are millions and millions of wonderful Muslims. But if even ten percent of the Muslim population is radicalized, then we have a huge problem. In other words, we have a huge problem.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Leila is correct.

    Don't burn the Qur'an. Read the Qur'an...and make sure that you read it scientifically, using reason, not bias.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'll try one more angle:

    I can tell by reading and watching the liberal news and progressive political blogs that they care very much for the protection and health of Muslims. I do not see very much care or concern for the Christians of the world (who are the primary targets of persecution, mostly at the hands of Muslims). I am just wondering about this dichotomy.

    I hear concern and care for Muslims.
    I hear no concern or care for Christians.
    I am wondering why.

    Perhaps if a liberal reader here would simply take the time to take some notes over the next few days, counting how many times concern for Christians is shown by the mainstream and progressive media, and how many times concern for Muslims is shown.

    Just for truth's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Leila

    I don't know if I can offer any insight into the left anymore, I used to be a leftist, but not all that informed on Middle Eastern political issues.

    My explanation for leftists' skewed views towards Islam vis a vis Christianity is how they are educated about the issues both by the media and in the Universities. Most lefties, myself included at some point, are nursed on narratives of evil, oppressive Christians basically causing misery wherever they went, from the Spanish Conquest of the America's to George W. Bush. In the left's narrative of history they are the oppressors. This is why my comment about wishing "everyone was Catholic" was so shocking to the lefties on this board.

    Muslims, however, are seen as innocent victims. They fit all of the lefty criteria for victimhood: they're dark-skinned, (at least in media portrayals, although there are white Muslims from Eastern Europe) they're poor, and they have suffered some forms of oppression in the past, particularly after 9/11.

    Remember when I mentioned before about "thinking points". Lefties see the world in images and narratives. The central narrative of modern liberalism is of an evil oppressor and a pure and innocent oppressed. The images of the oppressor is: white, rich, powerful, Christian and usually male, the pure victim is dark-skinned, poor, powerless and of a religion that is neither Christian nor Jewish.

    An oppressor is characterized as evil so even when he performs acts of charity or kindness it is turned around as "paternalism". A victim is characterized as pure so even when he or she commits an act of terrorism, it's turned around as "a terrible act of desperation that must be lain at the feet of the oppressor, because the pure victim wouldn't have done so if he felt he had another choice".

    Thus the state of Israel is criticized by the left, not merely because of its actions, but because its rich and the Palestinians are poor, they are the oppressors in the narrative, even if the state of Israel is the only democracy in a region of benighted Islamic dictatorships where sharia law allows women to be stoned to death for adultery. Muslims are the pure victims, so even if they are blowing up embassies, its because "their poverty forces them to do it".

    ReplyDelete
  36. Barbara, thank you. That is the only thing that makes sense to me, and it goes back to what my daughter is learning at her college:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/08/unpacking-liberalism-interview-with-my.html

    Race, class, gender instead of truth, goodness and beauty.

    It's such a terribly destructive paradigm.

    I hope that Gwen or L or another on the left can give us a response.

    (And the irony is that so many of the Muslim terrorists are not even poor!)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Coming in late but great post Lisa! My husband and I tall about this all the time. It's mind-boggling that lefties so vehemently defend a religion that is so against everything they hold sacred.

    Barbara -brilliant oppressor/victim analysis! It still makes me wonder though - why?? Why are those classifications as such?? It's not like Muslims don't have their own aggressive, oppressive history! And like Leila said, most of the Muslims in charge planning out the attacks aren't poor!

    So frustrating!

    ReplyDelete
  38. And when I say "a religion that is so against everythig they hold sacred" I mean, many lefties in this country who are defending Islam would be stone to death for their beliefs if we lived in a Muslim society. Ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. *stoned. Ugh. Writing on my iPod!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Leila

    I understand your frustration on what is a very sensitive subject. I really wish I could offer my own opinion or an answer for you, but this subject is so above my head--I'm having a hard time processing it all.

    It is a horrific thing that innocent people are being slaughtered and because I am so ignorant, I didn't even know this was happening. I cringe to hear the truth, but it's important to know these things.

    My reason for my commenting is to ask you a question. This may be off subject, but I don't think it is.

    A very good and learned priest here in the Twin Cities, is Fr.Robert Altier. He is somewhat of a local celebrity here, known both for his holiness and his intelligence. He has a way of speaking of the most complicated things in a most simple way. For this reason, he's a favorite of mine. :-)

    Last week in his sermon he brought up how people are being "forced" to convert to the Muslim religion. He talked about how people are being martyred for believing in God and that hundreds of Catholics over there are "converting" to the Muslim religion to save their own skin.

    Then he said that this will happen here too one day. I am not really sure if he meant that we will have to convert to the muslim religion, or if he just meant that people who hate God (and I'm not necessarily talking about atheists or anyone of different religions-but just people who literally hate God)will force us to choose between our faith and this world. He was talking in a very literal sense that we would have to choose to die for Christ or not.

    Please don't take it that I'm trying to insinuate that this man is a prophet or something, but he seems to know something that the rest of us don't know. Or maybe it's just common sense, I don't know. The point of his sermon is how Christianity is fading away, that in some parts of the world, only 40% of people claim to believe in God.


    My question to you is this: is this subject what you are talking about now the same as what he was talking about in his sermon? I realize that it's hard to tell having not heard the sermon yourself, but it seems that what you're talking about and what he's talking about are very similar.

    All in all, I will agree with my husband on this comment that he had about the Lefts and Rights; that it's all very broad, like a huge umbrella with people under it who you necessarily don't want sharing your umbrella with you.

    If you have time, check out Fr.Altier as he has a lot of his sermons on CDs. One of them might have the answers you're looking for.
    http://www.fatheraltier.excerptsofinri.com/

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sorry, one more small point to hopefully clarify Fr.Altier's point:

    He said that the Church is being persecuted, mocked and scourged. And that one day it will be crucified too. By this he then went on to say how we will have to become martyrs for our faith.

    Hopefully this helps a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lisa - Your website doesn't support Ron Paul, but websites LIKE yours are the reason we have much misinformation and disinformation swirling about the net. I find it interesting that after your article (and all that research) you couldn't really say much to me. Good thing you have Leila to defend your position. It is not an ad hominem attack if I am simply telling you my evidence for your bias.

    Leila - banner ads are different than sidebar links/ads. The ads I referenced were in complete control of and promoted by the site. I am very media savvy & know the difference.

    Okay, let me break it down for you. As far as Africa is concerned, it is not a Christian vs. Muslim war. Religion has very little to do with why factions are slaughtering each other over there. The problems are political in nature. Most of it stems from colonialism, bad trade agreements and limited resources to control. So when a group of Christians is murdered, no one is crying "Muslims are killing Christians!" Because it is not a religious-themed murder. It is factions in North Africa (who are Muslim) clashing with factions in South Africa (who are Christian). So while the statement is technically correct, the sentiment is NOT. A reputable news source will try their best to broadcast the correct portrayal of what is going on over there.

    As a matter of fact, it can all boil down to politics. See, what happens is groups in power want control (and vice-versa). They need their subjects to be loyal. The easiest way to achieve this is to have a religion or ideology-state where every civilian is on the same nationalistic page (or so downtrodden they can't fight). Therefore in a Muslim country, the Christian is the minority and might not obey. Therefore - persecution. This happens in the Middle East and China and Korea and some areas of Russia. HOWEVER, along with Christians - I would say even moreso is ethnic groups. Or the different types of Muslims - Sunni & Shiite. Both cases would be seen as a threat to power because of their different traditions & beliefs. Family and God are the strongest ties, so they need to be broken.

    The Catholics and Christians have done the same for power grabs in the past. As a matter of fact, they've done it to each other. How much blood was spilled during the reformation and between factions of Christianity since? You all do a mighty fine job of killing yourselves, too, you know. Go ask Ireland.

    As far as AMERICA is concerned, we are pretty much a Christian country. Christians aren't getting persecuted in the least and if you say they are I will never come back to this blog. Mormons and Jehovas' Witnesses, MAYBE - but no one is murdering them.

    However, after 9/11 people got nuts and suddenly the Muslims in America were being targeted by our fearful citizens. SO THIS IS WHY YOU GET WARM & FUZZY MUSLIM SENTIMENT.

    Everyone rails against the stonings and the creepy things the Muslims do to each other overseas.And when I spoke of the book burning, I am talking about America.

    You are taking the soft and kind American Muslim sentiment and trying to stick it on the atrocities going on in another country.

    TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS.

    ReplyDelete
  43. So my answer, Leila, is the situation is more complicated that how you put it. These incidents are part of the giant monster that does get reported by many news outlets all th time. this is the reason for the "silence" you hear on the left when it comes to denouncing Muslims.

    Barbara - "This is why my comment about wishing "everyone was Catholic" was so shocking to the lefties on this board." NO - let's pop the ol loafer on the other foot. What if I said "Gosh, I hate how Religion entices people to such anger and war - I wish we were all Atheists. What a great society that would be..." (for the record, I am Agnostic, but still) You would be like "Aw, h-e-double hockeysticks NO!" No one wants to be forced to live someone else's way.

    Also, I do agree with the victimhood reference to a point. Everyone roots for David over Goliath.

    But here is the bigger problem: Politicians use Religion to control the masses. They rile everyone up (god & family is humanity's top heartstrings) and bam! Persecution ensues. American Media is just as guilty of this, but we all laugh because the violence hasn't affected our shores so much. But when we turn around and suddenly LEFT VERSUS RIGHT is at WAR (a made up war so one political party can do as they wish)... it won't be long before we are just like the nuts in the Middle East.

    This is why I get so angry. You are feeding right into the us v them mentality. You are helping construct the strawmen. You are arming yourselves, thereby causing the other side to feel the need to arm up as well.

    I am not commenting on this again. My silence isn't solidarity with "them" - it is the refusal to debate a complex topic that you have whittled down to "Muslims kill Christians!"

    -L

    ReplyDelete
  44. I have a question. Is it just the "liberals" that is silent on this? My sister is a pretty liberal atheist and her big concerns are what's going on in Wisconsin right now and the environment. I wouldn't say she's a big defender of Islam. I think many atheist liberals disdain ALL religions. Not just Christianity. I think Barbara made some good points too on the "liberal" world view.

    ReplyDelete
  45. woah, L, you don't think Christians are getting persecuted in America? No-one here is getting killed for their faith to be sure, but there are other ways of persecuting and silencing people. (through the law and abuse of power) I hear it often---(and I find it hard to believe that you don't)---"Boy suspended for refusing to take off Cross in public school", "Girl protesting 'homosexuality awareness day' at her school told to stop by school authorities.", "College student handing out pro-life materials kicked off campus"...I hear it all the time. Perhaps that's not persecution in your eyes but it is in mine.

    Myn

    ReplyDelete
  46. L, Barbara wasn't saying anyone should be "forced" to be Catholic. You probably think if everyone thought like you and believed in the same moral principals you believed in, then the world would be a better place. That doesn't mean you think we should all be "forced" to think like you and believe in the same moral principals you believe in. See the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi Leila,

    I think the reason you havent had a lot of lefties comment on this is because we DONT defend the media for not covering 'church burning and the near genocide of Christians.' I imagine, L, Ms. Gwen and just about every liberal thinks that the issue should be on TV, we don't believe the persecusions of Christians, or any people, should be ignored. We also think the idea that the left loves Muslims or is trying to impose a Stalinist regime is kind of absurd.

    To your point, most lefties don't believe that a girl who is protesting homosexuality awareness day and told by her school to stop is being persecuted. Why? Because no one should go to school and feel their indentity is protested. Lefties would tend to think the girl is being bigoted.

    Public schools are not religiously affiliated. And because the main argument against homosexuality is that 'God doesn't like it' schools cannot promote heterosexuality over homosexuality, in their minds they should both be equal

    ReplyDelete
  48. College Student - You say you don't defend the media for not covering this issue, but there's no one condemning the Islamic violence anywhere. The deafening silence everywhere is the problem. Sure, we all know mainstream media won't touch it, but neither does cable news, leftie blogs, print newspapers, etc. You don't hear about it at all unless you read conservative blogs or listen to talk radio!

    "Public schools are not religiously affiliated." You're right. But that just means they don't teach or promote a religion. It doesn't mean that kids don't have a right to practice their religion or values at school. True, that's what it's turning into thanks to the Left. But the First Amendment still exists.

    "Because no one should go to school and feel their indentity is protested." But apparently this doesn't apply to the Christian girl???

    "Lefties would tend to think the girl is being bigoted." Do you realize you just proved our point? Christians are bigoted because of our beliefs??

    This is the prevalent attitude. People say "Christians are bigots" just because we're not liberals. But saying "Christians are bigots" is bigoted against Christians! Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  49. "...schools cannot promote heterosexuality over homosexuality, in their minds they should both be equal."

    But they're not being treated equally. Are there "heterosexuality awareness" days? "Marriage is sacred" days? No...the liberal agenda is rampant, allowed, even pushed. The conservative agenda, as you pointed out so well, is muzzled.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I find it interesting that I am being judged based on the publication I work for. Most of the people who work at NRB have completely different values from me. We agree on very few things. That Ron Paul is bad for America is one of the things we agree on. That the Marxist agenda is alive and well in America is another thing we agree on. We also agree in freedom of thought. Other than that, there is almost nothing we agree on. Instead of judging me for working for NRB, why not praise NRB for hiring someone like me despite the other problems you might have with them, and actually address my points? Wouldn't that be the more fair thing to do?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Nicole, we agree it should get more coverage from the media.

    "Public schools are not religiously affiliated." You're right. But that just means they don't teach or promote a religion. It doesn't mean that kids don't have a right to practice their religion or values at school. True, that's what it's turning into thanks to the Left. But the First Amendment still exists."

    I agree that schools should not abridge the religious expression of students, if that expression is not overtly offensive or harmful to other students. However if it is, we have a problem. If a Muslim girl said 'hating white people' was part of her religion would that mean anything to you? Does she have a right to practice that in school? Merely because something is a religious principle doesn’t mean it necessary garners respect from other people, nor should it. Religious groups, not just christians, but muslims, jews, and people who make up their own religions, can theoretically justify any action my saying 'God doesn't like this..' we on the left think this is a slippery slope.

    "Because no one should go to school and feel their identity is protested." But apparently this doesn't apply to the Christian girl???

    This girl feels her identity is dependant on protesting gay people?

    "Lefties would tend to think the girl is being bigoted." Do you realize you just proved our point? Christians are bigoted because of our beliefs??

    If your beliefs ARE bigoted, than yes.

    This is the prevalent attitude. People say "Christians are bigots" just because we're not liberals. But saying "Christians are bigots" is bigoted against Christians! Get it?.

    If people think Christians are bigoted, and then feel an aversions to them because of it, its not really bigotry. I.e. people who fight bigotry are not bigoted because they don't accept the opinion of the bigot as valid. Most people dislike racists or sexists. Do you think that’s a problem. Do you think people who dislike the behavior or white supremacist are bigoted?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Come to think of it, I think the bigotry of the Left has just been proven here. I'm not considered based on who I am and the individual ideas I set forth. I'm completely rejected because of the "group" that I am a part of...meaning NewsRealBlog.

    That's the bigotry of the Left on full display. If you're not a bigot, judge me as an individual and consider my points. Debate them. If you're a bigot, reject me outright because I'm a part of a group you hate. Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  53. For the record,

    I don't think Christians are bigoted. However, I just don't think we can assume people are not bigoted simply because they are christian.

    Actions have to be evaluated on their merit. Imagine what the world would like if people could do whatever they wanted and say "god told me to"

    ReplyDelete
  54. Poo, nicole

    I wrote a very long response to you that didn't get published. Don't have time to re-wire it now but hopefully i can re create it later

    ReplyDelete
  55. Whoa - Just read a comment above about how Christians in America aren't being persecuted. I'm thinking about how Christians all over America are labeled bigots, haters, ignorant, closed minded, oppressive, sexist, "religulous" for not changing with the times and embracing an evolving view of what constitutes "life", "marriage" and "family". Our beliefs our not only mocked and dismissed, but we ourselves - as individuals - are so often labeled ignorant, intolerant, judgmental and even downright evil for our beliefs. Not for attacking those we disagree with - but just for actually holding opposing beliefs about what is right and wrong, and daring to say so and to vote accordingly.

    South Park animates Jesus Christ and mocks him. Despite some outrage, the show goes on. South Park animates a big teddy bear in which Mohammed is supposed to be hiding. We all hear about it even before the episode airs. Outrage and widely publicized death threats result, and the show is cancelled, never aired (as far as I know.) It's a painful thing to accept - that society has the right to mock not just our beliefs, but our God and Savior Himself, in such a disgusting way. And society does.....more and more routinely in recent years. I've heard of no Christian organization planning retribution or condoning any violence in response. We're raising our children in a society that mocks or dismisses our ideals left and right, on TV, in music, in the school library, and our only defense - our only way to continue to raise our children in the faith - is to keep speaking clearly on what we believe and why, to counter the chipping away of our beliefs and ideals by society.

    It's an absurd statement, from my perspective, to say Christians are not persecuted in America. I absolutely feel persecuted at times. It takes quite a bit of courage to speak up and defend my beliefs despite the accompanying labels that society is eager to attach to me, personally, for them.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lisa,

    I am not bigoted against you. You are very much being judged on your own merits, you compared the democratic agenda to Stalin’s 5 year plans. This is laughable, and I can assure you I am judging you on this and not the place you work for. We aren’t debating you because you’re being provocative and there isn’t much to be gained from a dialogue between us.

    Nicole,

    "Public schools are not religiously affiliated." You're right. But that just means they don't teach or promote a religion. It doesn't mean that kids don't have a right to practice their religion or values at school. True, that's what it's turning into thanks to the Left. But the First Amendment still exists.

    I believe that students should have a right to practice their religion in school, so long as it is not overly offensive or harmful to others. If An Islam girl hates white people, because Islam told to her, should she practice that in school? I don’t believe so. Christianity is not the only religion, if we let Christians talk about how god doesn’t like homosexuals; we need to let Muslims talk about how God doesn’t like Americans. Anyone can say their god doesn’t approve of another group of people. This is problematic.

    "Because no one should go to school and feel their identity is protested." But apparently this doesn't apply to the Christian girl??

    This girl’s identity is tied to not liking homosexuals? her identity? really

    "Lefties would tend to think the girl is being bigoted." Do you realize you just proved our point? Christians are bigoted because of our beliefs??

    If their beliefs are bigoted than yes.


    This is the prevalent attitude. People say "Christians are bigots" just because we're not liberals. But saying "Christians are bigots" is bigoted against Christians! Get it?

    If you think a group is bigoted, while it may technically be bigoted to oppose them, it is never bad to disagree with bigots. Do you think people who don’t like racists, or sexists are bigoted. Do you think we should embrace people we truly think are bigoted are we bigoted if we fail to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think Leila put this post up for me, so I'll comment on a few things.

    The gist of my opinion can be summarized in a response to Nicole C's comment. Nicole C said:

    And when I say "a religion that is so against everythig they hold sacred" I mean, many lefties in this country who are defending Islam would be stone to death for their beliefs if we lived in a Muslim society. Ironic.

    Let's see, where do I start here? I'll start with the ACLU. The ACLU fights for the rights of Christians, Muslims, and the non-religious to practice their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs in the case of the non-religious). Anyone care to disagree with me on that point?

    Actually, I'll just stop right there. Let's argue that point. Liberals (the Left?) -- well, me anyway, and people who tend to think like me -- want equal rights for everyone. I will fight for your right to practice your religion, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right to practice theirs.

    Nicole C - you are saying, basically, that we should not protect the rights of a group of people because some of those people would kill us.

    What I am saying, counter to Nicole's statement, is that even if some Muslims have a policy of infringing on rights of others, all Muslims should not be persecuted because of that.

    Muslims should have a right to practice their religion as long as those parts do not infringe upon the rights of others. So, burning churches - right out. Stoning me, right out. I will fight against them stoning me. Praying five times a day - ok, fine. I will fight for their right to pray five times a day if they like.

    I can do both of those things (fight against stoning and fight for a Muslim's rights) and still be on the political left. In fact, I think that MAKES me a part of the political left.

    I can say the same things about Christianity. Nicole also said:

    People say "Christians are bigots" just because we're not liberals. But saying "Christians are bigots" is bigoted against Christians! Get it?

    We are saying you are bigots when you infringe upon the rights of someone else. Homosexuals, to be specific. I will fight for your right to pray in your home or in your church or even in a group of people who are like you. And I will fight for homosexuals' rights to be who they are without interference from Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sorry that last post was from MaiZeke.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Wow, I haven't even read most of the comments today. I have been gone. I did just let two comments out of spam jail, in case anyone missed them.

    I will say this from the two or three comments I skimmed:

    When Christians cannot say "no thank you, I'd rather not be the photographer at your gay wedding" or "no I will not print the flyers for your abortion clinic" without getting into trouble with the law, then yes, the beginning of Christian persecution has begun (sorry L, if you leave because of that.)

    Also, Mai, if you infringe upon the rights of child molesters to peddle kiddie porn or have sex with children (let's say they are willing!), then are you a "bigot" against pedophiles? Because they should be who they are without interference from you, right?

    Also, no Catholic is interfering with a homosexual who is engaging in sex acts or living with their partner. Do you see Catholics arresting or fining those folks? Or do they live freely with their partners? (Answer: Yes, they do.)

    ReplyDelete
  60. If a Muslim girl said 'hating white people' was part of her religion would that mean anything to you?

    Are you comparing Christian belief in marriage to "hating gay people"? Just curious if you think Christian teaching is hate speech. Because in Canada and England, it is often against the law to speak the truths of our faith, due to "hate speech" laws.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mai, you said:

    "Let's see, where do I start here? I'll start with the ACLU. The ACLU fights for the rights of Christians, Muslims, and the non-religious to practice their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs in the case of the non-religious). Anyone care to disagree with me on that point? "

    Yes, I care to disagree. The ACLU routinely refuses to speak on behalf of pro-lifers who peacefully assemble at abortion clinics. In fact, they take the side of PP against the praying Christians exercising their free speech rights. I can give you LOTS more examples, if you would like. Just say that word.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Nicole C - you are saying, basically, that we should not protect the rights of a group of people because some of those people would kill us.

    No, Mai, she is not basically saying that. Not in the least. Who said Muslims should not have the same protections as everyone else? Color me confused.

    What I am saying, counter to Nicole's statement, is that even if some Muslims have a policy of infringing on rights of others, all Muslims should not be persecuted because of that.

    Amen. We all agree. Now, what about the question at hand? The post?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Becky, I would agree that soon America will follow the example of Canada and England and other parts of Europe, where exercising our freedom of speech and religion will be considered "hate speech" and legislated as such.

    Then, we have a decision to make. Denounce our faith, or face fines, prison, etc. I have no doubt that my children will see that day, since many Western Christians already have seen that day.

    http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/elevenchristiansjailed.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

    ReplyDelete
  64. What if I said "Gosh, I hate how Religion entices people to such anger and war - I wish we were all Atheists. What a great society that would be..."

    L, I would expect any atheist to say that. I would think that everyone would want their own ideas and beliefs to be the norm. Why would that be odd or shocking?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Wow, I’ve been gone and have a lot to catch up on! Luckily Leila made most of my points for me. A few things:

    I’ll first address College Student:

    “I agree that schools should not abridge the religious expression of students, if that expression is not overtly offensive or harmful to other students.” So practicing Christian beliefs can be overtly harmful to others? I don’t care if a Muslim girl said she hates white people. Yes...I guess she’d have every right to hate white people. As long as she’s not calling people names or physically harming anyone, she can hate whoever she wants. Yay America! If a Christian girl is protesting “homosexuality awareness day,” she should have that right as long as she’s not calling people hurtful names or physically hurting them. We really, really need to make the distinction between practicing our values respectfully and intentionally harming people. A lot of the leftist agendists (yes…it’s made up) don’t do this.

    “This girl feels her identity is dependant on protesting gay people?” Are you serious?? Her Christianity is her identity. I think you know that’s what I meant. Let’s be serious.

    “If your beliefs ARE bigoted, than yes.” Here we are again. Just b/c you believe marriage is sacred between a man and a woman you’re a bigot? That’s bigoted.

    “If people think Christians are bigoted, and then feel an aversions to them because of it, its not really bigotry.” I’ll not address right now how hypocritical this is, but instead go the route to say that Christianity doesn’t “dislike” gay people just because they believe marriage is a sacred institution.

    ReplyDelete
  66. One more thing to CS:

    "I don't think Christians are bigoted. However, I just don't think we can assume people are not bigoted simply because they are christian.

    Actions have to be evaluated on their merit. Imagine what the world would like if people could do whatever they wanted and say "god told me to"

    Totally agree!! And I'm not condoning any type of bigoted behavior in the name of God. What does bother me is when lefties peg Christians as bigots just b/c of their Christian values.

    If a boy went to school and beat up a gay kid and said, "Well it's because I'm Christian and we think homosexuality is wrong...God told me to." Um...that's NOT OK. And it's NOT Christian. We still believe in human dignity.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Leila,

    No I don’t think Christian teaching is hate speech. I think “God Hates Fags” signs are hate speech.

    Also, I found this article about the TV show glee, does anyone agree with the author that this is hate speech against Christians. The article digresses after a while but talks about hate speech towards Christians in the first few paragraphs

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/25/glee-promoting-planned-parenthoods-sex-education-agenda/

    Ps I apologize, I inadvertently posted the same comment a few times.

    ReplyDelete
  68. On to Mai:

    Leila addressed the ACLU’s liberal leanings, but let me address this point: “The ACLU fights for the rights of Christians, Muslims, and the non-religious to practice their religious beliefs” first by asking what this has to do with my comment. I was referring to more of the liberal culture: media, Hollywood, the elites. For instance, people get stoned in Muslim countries for being gay. But I’m currently on this comment thread arguing with liberals who are calling Christians bigots for being against gay marriage. Do you realize you or the people you’re defending would be stoned in Muslim countries for saying this stuff?? Christians don’t want gays to be stoned!!! We just want marriage to remain sacred!!

    “Nicole C - you are saying, basically, that we should not protect the rights of a group of people because some of those people would kill us.” WHAT??? Who said anything about not protecting rights of groups of people??? I never said that. Please tell me where I said anything about not protecting basic rights and freedoms. Of anyone. That was some interpretive liberty you took!

    In fact, no one here is saying that – that’s not even what the original post is about!! We’re just asking, why isn’t the bad, terroristic behavior of Muslims against Christians being talked about??

    “And I will fight for homosexuals' rights to be who they are without interference from Christians.” AGAIN. We’re not saying “being gay” should be illegal!!! It’s about MARRIAGE!!! *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  69. College Student - thanks for clarifying!! I thought that one anonymous comment was you re-answering (real word??) mine, so I'm glad I don't have to address it twice! Haha!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Nicole,

    I just realized we never talked about what this girl protesting homosexuality awareness day looked like. This is important. Did she submit a letter, did she try to incite an anti-gay riot. Surely what she did was not nessesarily bigoted, but it could have been, it really depends.

    Ultimately We have to decide what homosexuality is like:

    It is a minority, but is it a minority like being black or like being a pedophile. This is VERY important. If it is like being black than its really NOT ok to have people protesting it. Leila, said before that christians can get intro trouble for not photographing a gay wedding, this makes sense if homosexuality is like pedophelia. However, if homosexuality is like being black, well those photographers are bigoted and wrong. I am black, if I met a nice photographer who didn't believe in negro marriages for religious reasons,, I would absolutely get the law involved

    ReplyDelete
  71. Religious freedom trumps 'equal protection'. Example: I use a service dog and am Catholic. I believe the Church's religious freedom trumps my right to bring a service dog into the church building.

    Same with a Christian photographer and gay couples. The religious freedom of the Chrstian photographer trumps "equal protection".

    ReplyDelete
  72. I used Stalin's Five-Year Plans to demonstrate the evil in the "ends justify the means" concept.

    It's perfectly valid to point to the dogmas of Stalin that are embraced by today's progressives.

    Catholicism rejects the "ends justify the means" dogma. Progressives embrace it........as did Stalin. The only way to warn people of the dangers of their evil dogmas, sometimes, is to demonstrate how it has been used in practice.

    Laugh if you will. It is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  73. College Student, you're absolutely right. That's why I tried to clarify in my last comment (one of them!) that we really have to distinguish between Christian values and hateful behavior - Christian values does NOT EQUAL hateful behavior. If someone uses hateful behavior in the name of Christianity, he is wrong.

    I agree with Lisa. Religious freedom trumps "equal protection." Yes, I do believe that if a photographer (a privately owned business) refused to photograph the wedding of ANY kind of individual - black, Jew, homosexual, Muslim, Native American, German, even Christian - he has an absolute right to do so.

    HOWEVER! (Hopefully I can state this coherently.) I'll say it again. Christians are NOT anti-gay people. We're anti-gay marriage. Because we believe in the sanctity of marriage that exists between a man and a woman. So the refusal to photograph a gay wedding is far different than, say, a store clerk refusing to ring up a gay man at the checkout.

    There's no Christian value that says in any way shape or form that blacks aren't allowed to do something whites can't do, so I would argue that refusing to photograph a black person's wedding is heinous. But, because we're America, a photographer has a right to refuse that business...right or wrong.

    I hope all that came out right!!

    ReplyDelete
  74. I have a question for the progressive commenters. Even if Christianity were "bad".........is it okay for Muslims (or anyone) to slaughter them?

    Secondly...is it okay to VERBALLY condemn a religion that calls for people outside that religion to be murdered?

    ReplyDelete
  75. College student, please remember one thing:

    Being black is a state of being.

    Having homosexual relations is a behavior.

    So, being black (a state of being) is not comparable to having gay sex (a willfully chosen act). I know several black Catholics who find that comparison to be an insult to them and the Civil Rights movement.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Aah...see, Leila just said in 2 sentences what I was rambling about above! Regardless of how it came out, that's what I was getting at! :)

    ReplyDelete
  77. Disability is also a state of being.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Photographers don't have the right to refuse service to blacks. They also don't have the right to refuse service to Jews and Catholics, because again, religious freedom trumps their right to deny service to some.

    ReplyDelete
  79. But Lisa, "being racist" isn't a crime, is it? As I said, it's heinous, but not a crime. No one is required to take business from anyone. The business probably wouldn't want to disclose WHY they're denying their services, haha! But that's just b/c it's bad for business - no business is required to provide services to anyone!

    And some would argue that sexual orientation trumps their right to deny service.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Sort of off topic, but not really.

    I was debating with an atheist the other day, and he told me that he believed I was abusing my children by raising them Catholic.

    That's what scares me about turning into a "secular" society. How long 'til CPS has to start investigating couples for raising their children to believe in God?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Thoughts, actions and states of being are three different things.

    I can't help being disabled any more than I can help being white. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice....and one that is easily hidden.

    Everyone, no matter who they are, has a right to engage in commerce, otherwise they will starve to death because the grocery stores and agricultural stores would deny them service. We all have a right to engage in commerce. But we do not have a right to make other people accept our lifestyle choices.

    The American system of government is imperfect and always will be. There will always be competing interests in our jurisprudence. In heaven, there are no competing interests.

    I try to seek a world that God is pleased with when He looks down on it. I don't believe God is displeased when he sees a Christian photographer denying service to someone because they are openly homosexual. I do believe He is displeased when He sees a black farmer being refused service for merely attempting to buy seed to grow crops to feed his family.

    That's how I look at it. We have a Constitution in America. I try to read it exactly as it says, and where it is silent, I try to work for what God would want.

    If someone asks me if I am for or against "Whites Only" signs......it's not a hard question for me.

    ReplyDelete
  82. JoAnna, it's like the secular English society which recently ruled that a sweet old black Christian couple could no longer be foster parents. Why? Because they are Christian! That and only that!

    It is like the Twilight Zone.

    But some say there is no Christian persecution in the West. Hmmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  83. AAHHH!!! Lisa - I agree with you on the "God would be pleased/displeased" issue!! That's why I was trying so hard to make clear that I don't think it's RIGHT to refuse service to blacks/disabled people/etc!! I agree with the "state of being" and "lifestyle" differentiation!

    I'm strictly talking about the LEGAL aspect. I just clarified with my husband, who's an attorney, that I am correct in stating that any business has the right to refuse service. To anyone. For any reason. Because it's America. I support an atheist photographer's right to not photograph a Catholic wedding. I really do. Because if we force one person to violate their beliefs, we can force anyone to. I don't know...maybe I'm coming off callous but I do believe in individual rights and conscience protection...whether I agree with that person's conscience or not.

    "We have a Constitution in America. I try to read it exactly as it says, and where it is silent, I try to work for what God would want."

    ME TOO!!! I'm not saying I would refuse service to a black/disabled/etc. person! I seriously hope you understand what I'm saying!!!

    ReplyDelete
  84. well actually the instance I was thinking about went like this:

    Public School has "homosexuality awareness day". On this day students are encouraged to wear clothing, jewelery, ect promoting homosexuality. This girl wears a shirt or carries a sign (or something) which basically says that homosexual acts are wrong. She is told to stop displaying *her beliefs* and is kicked out of the school for not complying.

    I'm not sure if I have all the details right but I think the persecution and the stifling of her rights is pretty clear.

    sorry for not clarifying! I didn't think that it would be latched onto so. ;)

    Myn

    ReplyDelete
  85. Nicole, what I am saying is that no one has a God-given right to deny service to blacks, whether they believe they do or not. Blacks have a right not to be humiliated because of their skin color. Homosexuals don't have a right not to be humiliated for their behavior. Our laws should reflect that. I happen to think that the Constitution prohibits businesses from discriminating against those who are black........and further......I believe that if it doesn't.....then it SHOULD.

    Thank goodness, most people agree with me that 'whites only' signs are unConstitutional...but even if it were not Constitutional....it should be Constitutional, because blacks have that right not to be humiliated and degraded for something they have no power to change.

    That's what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Correction: If it were not unConstitutional to deny service....then it should be made unConstitutional to deny service.

    Amending the Constitution is............Constitutional.

    Justice prohibits me from defending unjust laws. I will never defend an unjust law.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Sorry to have such a lapse in time between posts on this particular subject.

    Lisa, have you read Marx and Engels, Gramsci's Prison Notebooks and Giddens? I'm just curious because the site you linked in your response to me earlier (when you listed people like Huberman) is not such a good source methinks. In fact, it supports my opinion that your research is still rather shoddy.
    L-I see what you mean!!!!

    Leila, I'm not well versed in Ohkay Ohwingeh beliefs but I have read a little about it. I will do my best to post an answer for you.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  88. Gwen, I'm sorry, I have a lot of work to do. I'd like to just focus on the 'ends justify the means' doctrine of the Left and the slaughter of Christians, if you don't mind. Thanks.

    I realize I went off course on the 'whites only' thing but it always catches me off guard when people make that argument.

    I really need to get to work. If you could just address 'ends justify the means'....and why you think the media is not covering Christian slaughter? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I have never had too much of an opinion on homosexuality/homosexual marriage one way or another so I have been really just playing devils advocate from most of this conversation.

    But I guess now really thinking about it, the comments on this page sort just make me sad. I think marriage in America is becoming somewhat of a joke, but because of what straight people have done to it not what gay people have done to it. We have sex before marriage, children before marriage, cheat on our spouses, divorce our spouses, swing with our spouses, and we do all this of our own accord, and totally without the gays.

    Ultimately, I don’t think I can condone treating someone differently than I would want to be treated. Nor do I personally like the idea of keeping someone else from being married so that my marriage means more. Its not that I don’t understand where you’re coming from, and its not that I don’t believe in God, but I think God has different priorities. I think God hates so much of what America is doing, but not because we are on the verge of legalizing Gay marriage but because: we take more of his resources than the citizens of any other nations, we invest in drugs like Viagra instead of those that could save lives. We debate and debate these stupid issues, while Churches are being burned in the Middle East, and women in the DRC are chopped to death with machetes.

    There IS a lot of disdain for Christians in most educated/liberal factions of society. But its because you’ve aligned yourself with issues deemed of trivial importance. Lets see the Evangelicals/Christians vote as a bloc in the next election on the platform of ending Poverty in America or Genocide in Sudan, you will surely find your reputation and your respect restored.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Lisa - I agree that no one has a God-given right to refuse to service to anyone. I guess what concerns me is that if we amend the Constitution to say that no one has a right to deny service to anyone for any reason, this would automatically include the Christians who don't want to photograph at the homosexual wedding. Realistically, a Constitutional amendment couldn't distinguish between a "state of being" and a "behavior." That would never happen. Too many people believe that homosexuality is a "state of being." So, again, I'm not saying it's right. But we have to recognize what the consequence would be if we said no one has a right to deny service (ie: the Christian obeying his conscience would be lumped in). It would be all or nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I guess I'm arguing from the perspective of the Christian business. If we say every business is required to service anyone who wants to be serviced (again, a Constitutional amendment would be all or nothing), then everything becomes a right and no one is able to run their business according to their conscience anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  92. College student, I address some of this in my next post.

    Also, the issue of sexuality and its proper use is not a "silly issue". Just ask the millions of unborn babies who have died because of it. Wait, we can't ask them, because they are dead. Not to mention all the other abuses of sexuality which lead to the very miseries you mentioned, in how even heterosexuals have messed up marriage (I agree!!).

    The use of sexuality is at the core of our humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Lisa-this is a wonderful post. I admire your courage and convictions greatly. It saddens me that speaking plain, simple, factual truth now has to be done with large amounts of courage. That is a very bad sign.

    Leila, as always, I'm so impressed with you and everything you say. You're amazing.

    Barbara-my husband is in academia and I have to say that you are ABSOLUTELY right. He has been forced to teach his students what largely amounts to crappy literature (with a few notable exceptions) in the name of diversity. Shakespeare has been edged out in favor of anything written by an African. I'm not joking. And let me just say, before I'm accused of racism, some Africans are fantastic writers. One of my favorite writers, in fact is African (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie). But she's not Shakespeare and shouldn't be treated as if she is simply because of where she comes from. Shakespeare's enormous talent and skill shouldn't be downplayed because he's white and male, just as Adichie's skills (which are prodigious) shouldn't be blown out of proportion because she's black and Nigerian and female. What is that if not racism masquerading under the guise of tolerance?

    And I'm sorry but I just went way off topic. Suffice it to say, I think Barbara is right that this problem was born and bred in academia. My husband in in the trenches of our cultural battle. Anyone who thinks that Christians aren't persecuted in our country should spend a day in his shoes. He is despised by nearly everyone because he is white, male and Catholic. Everything that's evil in the world. He's been denied scholarships, classes, admission to conferences, so many things because of who he is and what he believes. I've been asked why I would marry "a person like him." And we put up with it all, including living below the poverty level and having nearly everyone we come into contact with at his university hate us, because we believe that we'll never be able to correct the course of our culture unless we correct the foundations of academia that are forming the minds of our youth.

    My husband thinks that all of this, Lisa, all the "tolerance", hatred of Christians, defense of all cultures except the West, etc. can be traced back to ideas in literary criticism. I've actually had a few professors believe this, and it's hard to argue with when you see the evolution of thought in literary criticism and then see the broad cultural shifts that take place twenty years or so after those thoughts begin to circulate among academics. These are the people who are forming the minds of our country, after all.

    That's my two cents. Thanks for a great discussion once again, Leila.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I'd also like to clarify that I'm not for "whites-only" anything. I think using that phrase is very misleading to what I'm arguing and quite frankly, a bit offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Calah, thank you for this! Your husband is a hero. He goes out and faces disdain and ugliness every single day, by those who supposedly value "diversity".

    My sister's husband has been a teacher for almost 30 years. He is a professor at a community college here. He is a white, male, Catholic, like you said... all that is considered evil in academia. He has stories, too. He basically has to keep his mouth shut and his head down every day.

    Anyway, tell your husband if he ever wants to do a guest post.... :)

    ReplyDelete
  96. Calah, I appreciate that, and tell your white, male, Catholic husband that I appreciate him, too.

    Courage isn't necessary and is actually not the best thing to have. The best thing to 'have', if you will, is a 'lack' of fear......but I will let Leila explain what the difference is between the two, if she can. She explains things much better than I do.

    Back to work! (I know, it's late...but I work late.)

    Blessings!

    ReplyDelete
  97. FYI: I submitted a piece tonight at The American Catholic that is related to this one. How Reasonable Debate on Islam is Crippled by the Far Left

    ReplyDelete
  98. Calah,

    I'm finding this as well. I'm a PhD student in Latin American Studies who converted while in Academia and the whole experience was like having the ground I was walking on yanked right out from under me. Right now I'm surviving by keeping my head down and writing it in...that is doing what I need to do but spending as little time in University environments as possible. It helps that I'm an ABD working on my dissertation and living in another city. I travel to the University twice a week by ferry, but there I teach my class, check the library, work on my diss. meet with my advisor and get the hell out of dodge as fast as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Calah and Barbara, I just can't help but wonder how Miss Gwen or L feel when you tell what it's like to be a conservative in "tolerant" academia? I really do want to know if this is surprising to them, because it's well-known to conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Lisa, I found this interesting in your new article:

    Many on the Left will leap to the defense of Islam at every turn. It is true even in this case, even though the leaders of the mosque themselves argue that Florida law should hold precedence. Why would the Left press for Islam when the mosque itself argues the contrary?

    It is truly perplexing, this love of Islam by the far Left. It's actually weird (considering they'd be stoned in a Muslim nation, as many have mentioned!).

    Love the "melting pot" vs "multiculturalism" part. Years ago I learned those distinctions and it stuck with me. No one has talked about them much lately. I sure do love the melting pot, as did/does my immigrant father. "Multiculturalism"? Not so much....

    ReplyDelete
  101. L, Gwen, college student, thanks for sticking ny. I really enjoy your post and your discussions even thought I don´t agree with them.

    I recently had a discussion with a Muslim mother. She was so appreciative because her daughter in a Catholic school was able to recite her own prayers while the other children did their prayers. She could also read her Koran while the other children read the Bible. My thought were how many Muslim countries would allow that same respect?
    (For those of you who are appalled of a Muslim in a Catholic school; It is actually a public funded, French School District that overseas, 2 public schools-no religion taught and the rest are catholic. The reason the mother is sending her child there is because they are primarily French Speaking and wish to transmit the language.)I´m in Canada.

    I learn learn a very important bit of information the other day. Muslim have a high respect for the Virgen Mary.

    Regarding the priest who mentioned that one day the Church will be crucified and Christians will need to choose between their lives or their faith, ask him if he has heard of Pelianito or Mark Mallett. Both are modern time "prophets". They are in complete submission to the Authority of the Catholic Church.

    I was in complete eye rolling mode regarding "the end of times" speech but I do remember taking notice of the comets that fell a few years ago. It does seems that we are heading into a perfect storm of a global change or mess. This year I recently learned that the poles were switching. (They are presently moving at 55km of year). Scientist mentioned that we are long overdue for this to happen. This might be influencing the erratic weather and strange animal deaths. They also noticed that in the past three months there has been as many earthquakes as in the past year and there has been funny things happening with the sun and its flares. (They affect our satellites and all the other electromagnetic stuff we relie on.) The weird weather is highly important as it doesn't really take much to ruin a crop and we are a VERY global world and import/share a lot of food.

    Between the economic collapse, strange nature and now social disturbance in the Middle East, I have a hard time believing things are going to get better in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Wow! Lots of spelling mistakes. Sorry!!!

    ReplyDelete
  103. I just looked at Mark's Mallett new webcast and it address our current topic somewhat. It talks about the role of the Church and the State. I thought some of you may be interested in it. Here is the link.

    http://www.markmallett.com/embracinghopetv/

    ReplyDelete
  104. Someone mentioned "hate speech". I think we're in dangerous territory if we seek to ban speech that offends people. No one should go to jail for saying "God Hates Fags" or "God Hates Catholics" or even fined or otherwise prohibited from saying what they really think. Threats of death, on the other hand, yes, people should be punished for that. But these days, death threats are treated as free speech (re: death threats against Conservative McGill at McGill University) while other forms of speech are under threat. Unless we seek to protect people from violence, instead of trying to force people not to hate things they disagree with, that's a recipe for tossing dissidents into ovens (as the Nazis did) or asylums (as the Communists did).

    ReplyDelete
  105. Regarding my statement that the ACLU is fighting for the rights of everyone, Muslims, Christians, Athiests, Women, etc. Leila says:

    Yes, I care to disagree. The ACLU routinely refuses to speak on behalf of pro-lifers who peacefully assemble at abortion clinics. In fact, they take the side of PP against the praying Christians exercising their free speech rights. I can give you LOTS more examples, if you would like. Just say that word.

    Here is a list of the cases that the ACLU has participated in to defend self-identified Christians practice their faith: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression.

    Here is another article "The ACLU is not Evil" from Christianity Today, with the quote: "More to the point, the ACLU is often right about the First Amendment's free exercise clause, taking on fights that others refuse. It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians."
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html

    Regarding the ACLU limiting anti-choice rights around an abortion center, in those cases, the rights of two groups of people are being considered. In these cases, the rights of a woman to obtain a legally-allowed abortion trumps the rights of an anti-choice demonstrator to block her entry into the clinic. Similarly, stalking is also not allowed under free speech rights. Once you start interfering in someone else's rights, yours go away.

    MaiZeke (and by the way, my name is MaiZeke, please use the whole thing)

    ReplyDelete
  106. Help me understand what Nicole C means when she says this, then:

    And when I say "a religion that is so against everythig they hold sacred" I mean, many lefties in this country who are defending Islam would be stone to death for their beliefs if we lived in a Muslim society. Ironic.

    Your point is more that Christians wouldn't stone people. So Christians are better than Muslims? At least we don't kill homosexuals or people who support homosexuality? Is that the point? At least we won't kill you if you are a homosexual?

    That's even better. I'll deny you your rights (to marry, to purchase the best photographer), but at least we won't kill you.

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  107. That's even better. I'll deny you your rights (to marry, to purchase the best photographer), but at least we won't kill you.

    MaiZeke (sorry, I am usually in a hurry and I love to abbreviate when possible, but I will honor your request),

    Are you actually saying that refusing to condone sinful behavior (even of someone you love) is almost the same as , oh, stoning people to death??

    Ummmm, okay?

    As for the ACLU, I never said they did not "ever" defend Christians. But they often will not. A good friend of mine, Alan Sears, runs the Alliance Defense Fund. He knows a heck of a lot about the ACLU, since he is probably their number one adversary. He even wrote a book about them. I will have to do a whole post on that. Maybe I will interview him and get some of those facts out there for you. Thanks for the prompting and opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Oh, it's hard to read these things and want to join in, knowing I don't really have the time!

    I was going to cover a few points, but have already run out of time with just this one below. I have to say, Leila, feel free to delete it if you feel it is too harsh. But I get so tired of receiving the same slams again and again, and they are based on complete ignorance. Here goes:

    From college student: "Lets see the Evangelicals/Christians vote as a bloc in the next election on the platform of ending Poverty in America or Genocide in Sudan, you will surely find your reputation and your respect restored."

    This kind of thing bothers me, college student. If you don't mind my saying so, it is arrogant. Oh, if we Christians would just become as sensitive and caring as you liberals are, we'd find our reputation and respect restored. I don't care about obtaining your respect, college student. I care about the truth. Do you have any idea at all how lacking in facts your opinion is? Do you even care about facts, or only about repeating old canards? Conservatives give much more to charity than liberals do. It's been reported on, more than once, even in the NY Times. I firmly believe that giving to a charity that has to answer for how my money is used, or lose my money, is a much, much better way to help the poor than to endlessly feed the federal beast. Do you really, really think that the government can more efficiently serve the poor than a private agency can? Do you really, really like giving your tax money to an entity that can and does waste with abandon, and still confiscates more and more money from you? And tells you that the problem is that you are not sacrificing enough? Has poverty gotten better as our government has grown? Have you noticed that the government is beyond broke? Kind of hard to help the poor when one is bankrupt, college student. The number of those living in poverty has GROWN since the "War on Poverty" began. Government does not have the competence to help the poor beyond a very limited role. That's why I don't support giving that job to the government. That doesn't mean I don't care about the poor and that I don't help them. I do care, and I do help them. But you just can't,for some reason, believe that.

    Are you aware of what the Catholic Church does to try to help the people of Africa? Do you have even the slightest idea of what the hated-by-liberals George W. Bush did to help the people of Africa? Do you care at all about the truth? Even a tiny little bit?

    Please just drop the argument that you care more about the poor than conservatives do. It simply, absolutely, demonstrably is not true.

    Your comment about Christians obtaining your respect reminds me of the Pharisees at the foot of the Cross:

    "Come down off that cross! Then we will believe!"

    No you won't. Your opinion is set, just like the Pharisee's opinion was already set. The truth is there, and you have already chosen to ignore it.

    I am sorry to get off the topic of this blog entry! But it's not really all that far off the topic. Liberals choose to see a particular reality (and Barbara's post is excellent in pointing out a reason why they see it as they do, because it is drummed into them by the educational establishment - they are "taught" to "think" it - and I do use those terms loosely.) and they do not want to be bothered by the facts. And I suppose a post like mine doesn't help because it will be seen as too harsh! But you know, sometimes nonsense just has to be answered....

    ReplyDelete
  109. MaiZeke, let me try to make it even clearer:

    I refuse to condone the sinful behavior of my children because I love them and want the best for them.

    Islamists stone, behead, burn and bomb people because they hate them and want them dead.

    Do you see any distinction there? Even a nuance of distinction?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  110. Sharon, you will love my latest post, so check it out! You could even cut and paste much of what you just wrote and put in on that post, too! You are correct in your facts, and I totally get your frustration.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Mai, Yes, Christianity is a non-violent religion. It proclaims the dignity of each human person (no matter what they believe, no matter their sin, no matter what.) While I wouldn't say every Christian person is a better person than every Muslim person, I would say that Christianity is better than Islam.

    And yes, I think everyone could agree that it would be better to be denied service from a photographer you like than to be stoned to death.

    What exactly is your point here?

    ReplyDelete
  112. I'm rereading Lisa's article, at Leila's request. I have to agree with Gwen and L, it's just so out there that it is hardly worth addressing directly. I personally think no religion should have that much power to control others (neither Christians nor Muslims).

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  113. MaiZeke, thank you.

    If you could be sure to answer the question of why the Left ignores the slaughter of Christians when you know very well it would be reporting 24/7 if it were the Christians daily slaughtering the Muslims.

    Also, Complicated Life has it exactly right, so I will ask you: Do you think that atheism is better than Islam? If not, then why are you an atheist and not a Muslim?

    I hope you will address her points and others' points.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I like this story of mine, so I'll just tell it. Quite a few years ago, I was in charge of organizing my small-town's Optimist CLub fundraising event of selling deep-fried cheese curds (yes, it was in Wisconsin). Proceeds went to benefit local kids organizations.

    The second day of the fair, the health inspector dropped by for a visit. He said, "This is how you wash your hands and the utensils?" pointing to the hose attached to a sink (no hot water, no bleach rinse). And, "This is how you keep flies away?" pointing to our pathetic flystrip, no screens or anything. He gave us a citation, and said we need to be more sanitary or we wouldn't be able to do this at the next event in a few months.

    I was young, and relatively new in the organization, and I was relating the story at the next weekly meeting. One of the old-timers said, "Tell them they should have seen it five years ago!"

    Laughter. Ha ha. At least we aren't as filthy as we were five years ago, so they should give us a pass now.

    My point is, and I'm not surprised you can't see it, is that just because you aren't doing something worse doesn't mean what you are doing is good. Just because our cheese curd cart is much cleaner than five years ago, that still doesn't mean that the health inspector shouldn't fine us. And, just becuase you aren't killing people doesn't mean that denying them their rights is a good thing.

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  115. MaiZeke, what "rights" is Leila denying Muslims or anyone?

    You never answered the question from LONG ago: If you daughter wanted to bring her friends to your home for a "cutting" party, would you let her do it? Would you tell her "Of course! I don't want to deny your rights!" Or would you say, "No, I am sorry I cannot condone that." And, if the latter, would you think I were out of line if I said, "What you are doing in denying her this, is just a few degrees away from literally taking a sharp blade and beheading her."

    Do you see my point yet? I will try again if not.

    Also, if you could answer Lisa Graas' points at 2:33 above, and 2:21, I would be appreciative.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  116. The right to marry, of course!

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  117. MaiZeke,

    First, I have no power to "give rights" to anyone.

    Second, aren't you, then, denying the right of pedophiles to marry? Aren't you denying the rights of a father to marry his daughter? Aren't you denying the right for a man to marry his horse? Because if I am denying the right of two men to marry, then you are doing the same with these other groups. If I'm wrong, help me see the difference.

    Also, the subject of "rights" is interesting to me, because I have had other atheists tell me that rights come from governments or other people. So, no one has inherent "rights". It's up to others to tell people they have "rights" (even the right to life). So, how do gays have a "right" to marry, if a society hasn't given them the right? Where do rights come from?

    It is a question that I have not yet been able to understand.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  118. MaiZeke, let me try to make it even clearer:

    I refuse to condone the sinful behavior of my children because I love them and want the best for them.

    Islamists stone, behead, burn and bomb people because they hate them and want them dead.

    Do you see any distinction there? Even a nuance of distinction?

    Thanks!


    Earlier, I said the above to you.

    If I am understanding your response correctly (at 8:04) is that both things are bad, and that I should condone my kids' bad behavior. Otherwise, I am only a little better than Islamists who hate and slaughter. Is that right?

    I'm not being snarky, I'm serious. That's what I think you are saying, but it can't be right?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Chantal, I haven't welcomed you and thanked you yet! Glad to have you here! I am getting ready for mass (along with kids) and have my father-in-law in town too (MaiZeke, he's an atheist, and we get along pretty well), so I am not fully "here" right now!

    ReplyDelete
  120. Mai, I understand what you're saying, and I think Leila has responded to it just as I would have. I hope you'll respond.

    Also, you might just consider articulating things as you did when I asked for clarification on it in the first place. You'll be easier to understand the first time around if you don't use, what I believe to be, sarcastic responses.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Leila: You said "Also, the subject of "rights" is interesting to me, because I have had other atheists tell me that rights come from governments or other people. So, no one has inherent "rights". It's up to others to tell people they have "rights" (even the right to life). So, how do gays have a "right" to marry, if a society hasn't given them the right? Where do rights come from?"


    That gets right to the heart of the issue. I just wanted to highlight and and say it again. (And again, and again...in my own life, when the topic comes up.) Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  122. I think I've been arguing this point pretty coherently, and Leila and others have addressed it lately, but I have to mention that one of my pet peeves is this new trend of affording "rights" to anything anyone wants to do (except Christians, of course!).

    MaiZeke, you said, "And, just becuase you aren't killing people doesn't mean that denying them their rights is a good thing."

    What "rights" are you talking about? The "right" to marry? The "right" to be given any service you request?

    Please show me in the Constitution where either of these things are stated as inalienable individual rights, and then I'll start to listen. The real right is afforded to the Christian business who has a right to practice business as they see fit, and according to their conscience. They can't be forced to provide a service at the whim of whoever wants their service. (Aren't liberals always talking about that "right to privacy??") That's the principle of the free market. If you don't like the fact that the business is run by Christians - don't patron that business.

    Let me give you an example: Augusta National Golf Course. For years, they didn't allow black members, pretty much until Tiger Woods came onto the scene. They still don't allow female members. So for a long time, no businesses would sponsor The Masters. So Augusta paid for the air time and all of the overhead themselves to get The Masters on television. Sponsors boycotted the tournament on principle b/c they didn't like the fact that Augusta didn't allow blacks and women. But it was Augusta's right to have those membership rules. I'm not saying it's right, OK, or that I agree with it. What I'm saying is that, as a private business, Augusta has the right to refuse service to anyone as they see fit. And the free market worked. They finally realized, when Tiger came along, that it was in their best interest to allow black members! That's what I'm saying.

    Also, you need to realize, that if there were such a "right" for homosexuals to force Christians to photograph their wedding, the "right" would also apply to Catholics who want an atheist to photograph their wedding, even if it's against the atheist's conscience. I wouldn't want to live in that society.

    Sorry...that was a bit long-winded. My whole point in saying this is that "marriage" and "business services" are not individual Constitutional rights. Just because people use the phrase "right to marry" doesn't make it so.

    ReplyDelete
  123. MaiZeke...two things:

    It may surprise you to hear this but *everyone* has the same rights when it comes to marriage...that is everyone has the right to marry any person of the opposite sex who is not a blood relative. This is why the whole comparison between anti miscegenation laws and anti-gay marriage laws is faulty. The law as is already applies to everyone equally. Using "rights talk"' around the gay marriage issue is not about giving people rights they don't have, its about creating a special category of rights based on the sexual proclivities of a minority of the population, proclivities which are just that, desires or feelings. Marriage law has never been about "feelings", its about making sure couples who commit to forming families have the support and protection of the state.


    Also, please don't use the ridiculous statement "anti-choice" to refer to people who oppose abortion. That phrase gets under my skin because its a calumny and a lie. I, nor any other pro-lifer have a problem with women making decisions about their lives. I am opposed to that decisionmaking power being used to take the life of another person which is, in reality, the natural boundary of the law. Its not illegal for me to punch the air, it is illegal for me to punch a person. The fact that spousal murder is illegal doesn't mean the state is taking away my "right to choose" to kill my husband. It's as offensive and misleading as calling a person who supports access to abortion "pro-baby killing".

    ReplyDelete
  124. From barbara: "Also, please don't use the ridiculous statement "anti-choice" to refer to people who oppose abortion."

    Then please do not use the word "pro-aborts" to refer to people who are against allowing women the right to reproductive freedom. It gets under my skin the same way it gets under yours. I am only using anti-choice because you all use pro-abort.

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  125. Regarding "rights".

    Leila says, she doesn't "give rights" to anyone. Well, the government does. Who you vote for influences what laws can be made. They make rights. The constitution gives congress the ability to enact laws, and the supreme court interprets the constitution. Suggesting that all rights be listed in the constitution is not practical. The DOMA passed by congress actually very specifically denied a whole group of people the right to marry.

    Women currently have the RIGHT to have an abortion, and you want to take that right away. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that women have the right to have an abortion, but the Supreme court interpreted the constitution to allow it. A fetus does not currently have a right to exist at the expense of the mother, but you want to GIVE it that right. You want to give the fetus more rights than the government allows. When I say that you are trying to give them the right, I mean of course that you will vote, and you will try to convince other people to vote, in order for lawmakers to bring this about.

    Leila complains about not having free speech rights, in order to exist outside an abortion clinic. Apparently you think that the government gives you that right, but the government currently does not give you that right. You are being denied that right.

    Then Barbara says, "Using "rights talk"' around the gay marriage issue is not about giving people rights they don't have, its about creating a special category of rights based on the sexual proclivities of a minority of the population, proclivities which are just that, desires or feelings."

    Aaargh! A minority of the population? THey are people. They are men and women. I would take that statement and apply it to your desire to create a special category of rights for something that is NOT a person, the fetus.

    How can you say that I can't use the word "right" for a group of people, and you think you can use it for a group of beings that aren't even people?

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  126. More on rights.

    Leila says First, I have no power to "give rights" to anyone.
    I used the word deny. Homosexuals and liberals are requesting the right to marry, and you are supporting government officials who will continue to deny that request.

    Second, aren't you, then, denying the right of pedophiles to marry? Aren't you denying the rights of a father to marry his daughter? Aren't you denying the right for a man to marry his horse? Because if I am denying the right of two men to marry, then you are doing the same with these other groups. If I'm wrong, help me see the difference.

    Pedophila is illegal, the child isn't consenting. The APA also says this, and continues to have pedophilia as a mandatory reporting issue. And there you go again with marrying a horse. Do you know anyone who wants to marry a horse? Are people requesting the right to be able to be legally allowed to marry a horse? I can't waste time on this line of questioning.

    Also, the subject of "rights" is interesting to me, because I have had other atheists tell me that rights come from governments or other people. So, no one has inherent "rights". It's up to others to tell people they have "rights" (even the right to life). So, how do gays have a "right" to marry, if a society hasn't given them the right? Where do rights come from?


    People request them, we vote on the topic, and either the right is granted (it is made legal) or the request is denied. Gays do not currently have a right to marry, and you are working very hard to continue to deny that right. Which I think is bigoted, as above.

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  127. MaiZeke...for the record I try never to use the term "pro-abort", so if I did by accident I'm sorry. I usually say "pro-choicer".

    As for your comment on "rights". Please read what I said in context. My point was that gay people already have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage. They have the right to participate in a fruitful marital relationship with someone of the opposite sex who is not a family member. What they do not have the right to do is force society to dismantle the concept, laws and praxis of marriage to suit their "feelings". My point about them being a minority of the population is not to say they aren't people or important, its to say that they are a statistically small group who is trying to make a sweeping, radical change to a long-lived primary social institution. Marriage is and always has been oriented towards ensuring the well-being of the next generation, not to affirm the sexual preferences of adults.

    I don't see homosexuality as an "identity" I, and the Church, see it as a psychological condition. A person has same sex attraction, a person is not gay. People have intrinsic rights such as the right to be free of discrimination and violence, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to practice whatever faith they choose or no faith at all, the right to travel where they will, the right to associate with whom they choose. These rights do not extend to enshrining their behaviors or conditions as social norms. Alcoholic's don't have the right to drink with impunity because they're "born that way" either.

    ReplyDelete
  128. MaiZeke, I actually use the term pro-"choice" (with quotations marks, as it is a euphemism and doesn't actually mean what it implies), not pro-abort. However, I do think there are many in the abortion lobby/leadership who are truly pro-abortion. Maybe not most pro-"choicers", but the leadership? Yes. Read my latest post, where I made the following point:

    I believe that you don't want abortion. I believe that many liberals don't want abortion. However, the leaders of the pro-"choice" movement are not exactly saying that. They are saying "Abortion on Demand and Without Apology". Some of them call abortion a "sacrament" and a "blessing". The abortion lobby convinced the Democrats to take the "rare" out of "abortion should be safe, legal and rare" in their party platform. Planned Parenthood issues "Choice on Earth" cards, equating (and mocking) the "peace" brought by Christ on our holy day to the "choice" of abortion.

    Does any of that sound like "abortion isn't good"? I beg you to read what the abortion lobby, the feminist movement, and academia write and think about abortion.


    Also, look at the second video on the post entitled "Watch, and pick a side". Do you think those folks are not pro-abortion? If so, what evidence do you have that they want abortion to be rare, or that it is a tragic "choice"? I don't see any evidence of it, but I am willing to stand corrected if you can show me anything.

    As to the question of "rights" I think Barbara said a lot of what I would say. I would just add that your vision of what a "right" is is extremely confusing to me. It seems like a "right" is anything anyone wants, as long as enough people vote it in as a "right". And apparently, a "right" is a "right" even before people vote it in as a "right". (You say homosexuals have a "right" to marry, but how can that be, if no one has yet given them that "right"? I thought "rights" were not inherent, but voted on?)

    So, you tell me that the APA still has not approved pedophilia, so you are not a bigot for denying them their sexual "rights". But by that logic, can't I say to you that the citizens of America has still not approved gay marriage, so I can't be a bigot for denying them their sexual "rights", right? How can you have it both ways? I'm seriously asking.

    Of course, I see rights as something totally different than you do. But I'm trying to even understand your vision of rights, so please help me out.

    By the way, you skipped the one example: Aren't you a bigot for denying the "right" of a father and daughter to marry (adults, both)? Why won't you vote them their rights? If you don't that means you are withholding their rights, right?

    As for the horse, what about this guy?

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/sc-man-sent-to-prison-for-again-having-sex-with-horse/1

    Maybe he wants to marry his horse, instead of being arrested and jailed. And, what about the bestiality farm near Seattle?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/douglas-spink-arrested-in_n_541379.html

    Are you a bigot for denying them their rights to have sex how they please?

    Please, I am seriously asking. If we are bigots, then you are a bigot, too. Or tell me why not.

    ReplyDelete
  129. leila says:
    So, you tell me that the APA still has not approved pedophilia, so you are not a bigot for denying them their sexual "rights". But by that logic, can't I say to you that the citizens of America has still not approved gay marriage, so I can't be a bigot for denying them their sexual "rights", right? How can you have it both ways? I'm seriously asking.

    A few things. It isn't illegal to be black, but when a person says that a black person is somehow less (less intelligent, less worthy, whatever) than a white person, that person is a bigot. Being legal is not the only thing.

    The other thing about pedophilia is that the other person in the equation is a CHILD who is, but all definitions, not capable of making a legal decision to marry by themselves. Also, continuing to compare homosexuality to pedophilia and to bestiality is so completely belittling of homosexuals, I'm becoming disgusted. Just like you get upset about black people being comapared to homosexuals, I'm getting upset about you implying that homosexuals are sexual deviants like pedophiles or bestiality people. Please, be humane.

    Leila, you want more "rights" for a fetus. You want the fetus to be declared a whole, living breathing person. I'm saying it should not be. It is the same situation. You want something that isn't in place, and you use words like "right" for that fetus, and you talk about the fetus as if it is already a person. When it isn't. How you can turn around and say I'm being illogical when I use the word "right" to describe the push for gay marriage is completely beyond me. That's how politics and pushing for what you think is correct goes. You are doing it, and then asking me why I'm doing it. Completely irrational.

    I know people are disturbed by me around here, so I'll let you all argue in peace with people who are more like you.

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  130. Mai, here is what I don't understand: I ask a question and you don't answer the direct question. Then, you tell me that you are deeply disturbed by me. Then you say that people are disturbed by you and so you are leaving.

    ????

    I am not disturbed by your presence here at all! I welcome it! If I gave that impression, I apologize.

    I hope you will decide to answer my questions. Or maybe someone else will be willing to.

    As for rights of the fetus.... Remember, you and I have totally different views of what "rights" are and where they come from. I was trying to go with your understanding of rights when I questioned you about your own "denial" of certain people's "rights".

    Now let's switch to my view of rights: I believe that human rights such as the right to life are inherent in our humanity. Rights are given by God. Just because the United States of America does not recognize the right to life of the unborn does not mean that they don't have that right. They have a right to life. Just as the Jews always did in Germany, regardless of the law. And black people had the right to freedom inherently, even when the laws of the land said they didn't.

    Catholics believe that human rights are inherent. No government can take away or give inherent rights. Governments are merely supposed to protect people's rights.

    But your view (I believe) is that rights come and go, according to the society and the government. That there are no "inherent" rights. If I am wrong on that, I will be happy to stand corrected.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  131. *Sorry, I should have said MaiZeke. I have to break my old habit. I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Since you won't answer most of my questions, how about just this one?

    By the way, you skipped the one example: Aren't you a bigot for denying the "right" of a father and daughter to marry (adults, both)? Why won't you vote them their rights? If you don't that means you are withholding their rights, right?

    Help me understand. Correct me where I am going wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  133. MaiZeke, folding laundry, thinking...

    The Church would say that homosexuals have a disordered sexual attraction. The Church would say that pedophiles have a disordered sexual attraction and so do bestiality people. I think you would agree with the Church on those last two.

    Back in the day, homosexual acts were looked upon with the same disgust that pedophiles and bestiality folks are today. The only difference is public opinion. So, if the day comes when pedophiles and bestiality folks are given their sexual "rights" (as they are asking for, and as the APA came close to doing for pedophiles), then you will look like a horrible bigot for saying what you do about them.

    The Church looks horribly bigoted to you because she still says that all three categories are disordered.

    I agree that homosexuality is "better" in that it involves adults and humans. So, I don't mean to say they are identical disorders.

    It might come down to this, which might clear things up for me:

    What is your understanding of marriage? What is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? Why do people get married (or what would be the ideal reasons, in your mind)?

    That will help me think through this a bit more, and explain why I think we have such differences here.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Leila, I posted about why I don't think brothers and sisters shouldn't marry on my blog last September. The same holds true for fathers and daughters. I'm not going to answer it again.

    We always come down to the same argument. The church has absolute rights and truth (fetus has rights), and non-religious have reason. At this point, this discussion is about that again. I know, I know, you will say that you are using reason as well, but you reason AFTER God reveals to you the truth. You don't get to the truth by using reason, you receive the truth and then you use reason to try to convince others, or possibly yourselves.

    The point of the post is that you/Lisa are saying that the left goes easy on Islam and hard on Christianity. I disagree; I say we are fair on both. Christianity is gentler but more in my face. Islam is more atrocious, but my daily life and children's schooling is not (yet) being encroached upon by Islamic tendencies. Christians are everywhere in my immediate life, which is why I protest it more loudly (to you). However, I do also protest Islam's rights abuses to others (including to Christians).

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  135. MaiZeke, you last point/paragraph makes sense to me. Thank you! I still don't think it answers the question about why the liberal media do not report on this (when you know that if the slaughter were going in the other direction, they would be all over it).

    As to the other stuff.... the "rights" according to Christians was brought up simply because you seemed to be confused about what I was asking. For the purposes of my questions to you here, I don't mind if we only talk about "rights" from the atheists' perspective.

    Maybe I will try again, just once more:

    1) What is marriage for (from your perspective)?
    2) Why do you deny the "right" of a grown daughter and her father to marry (since you are not voting to give them rights), and does that make you a bigot?
    3) Since all "rights" come from other people/popular opinion/government, then aren't you denying "rights" to anyone who wants to get married but can't? If enough of us said that pedophiles have rights, then they would have rights, right? Does that make us bigots, since we won't work for them to have rights?

    I am being very specific, I think. I hope you can answer the questions directly.

    Also, since I have a fuzzy mommy brain, sometimes people do have to repeat themselves on this blog, if it's relevant to the discussion, and if it's been a while. Also, many readers are new and have not heard your responses from last year. I often repeat myself (like, A LOT) and I will continue to do so until it's very clear to the questioners. If you could afford me the same courtesy, I would be so grateful.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  136. you think marriage is for a man and a woman who have the correct parts that fit together. I think it is for two people to have a life together and raise children together if they choose to have children. marriage means being able to contribute to your spouse's 401k so that if you die first, she is financially stable (which is not possible for gays outside of marriage right now).

    2) Why do you deny the "right" of a grown daughter and her father to marry (since you are not voting to give them rights), and does that make you a bigot?

    Because, as I said in the blog or possibly here, when people so closely related procreated, freaks of society result. We strive for a healthy society. I do NOT advocate forced sterilization, which may get around the issue. They can't marry because society would get worse. You could ask the same question about if I think I'm a bigot because I think someone who rapes shouldn't be allowed to rape. In that case, the rapist is infringing upon the rights of the raped.

    Why we call you bigots is that there is no infringement of rights upon you for a homosexual couple to be married to each other. In fact, homosexual marriage does not infringe upon the rights of anyone. It does not create freaks of offspring. Yet still you want to stop it. And yet still you (perhaps not you specifcially, but christian parents) encourage their children to go to school and tell their homosexual friends either not to be homosexual or that they are sinning (bad, wrong, dirty) because of who they are. And who they are is not harming anyone.

    So the answer to your third question is in the answer to the second. denying someone rights because it causes harm to others (or their future children) is not bigotry. Denying someone rights because you just don't like them is.

    MaiZeke

    ReplyDelete
  137. MaiZeke, then by your last point, I cannot be a bigot. I don't "deny rights because I just don't like them." I have no personal animus toward any homosexual. I believe that changing the definition of marriage is harmful to society and children. Whew, so I am not a bigot.

    I'm not clear on number one. If marriage is about "having a life together", then can't a longtime friendship between old ladies who room together be "marriage" by that definition, too? Or a father and son who live in the same apartment for decades? Doesn't marriage mean a little bit more than that, though?

    Don't you think sex has something to do with marriage? You didn't mention that, even though you mentioned children. If marriage is just about two friends rooming together for life, then we have no reason to set "marriage" apart from any other union or friendship. Let's not even talk about "marriage" being something unique or different.

    Or, could you be a bit more precise on your definition?

    More coming...

    ReplyDelete
  138. Though there is one similarity between homosexuality, beastiality, incest and pedophilia, in that they are all perversions of natural sex, I also cringe to hear homosexuals likened to pedophiles. Children are victimized by pedophilia, and it's the government's (and society's) responsibility to protect them. Homosexuality is not illegal, nor should it be.

    I fear this comparison assists the frighteningly bold and growing pedophile support groups, who then attempt to use similar reasoning to justify their behavior.

    I do understand why the comparisons come up, but I think bigamy is a far better comparison in this regard, and one that isn't as easily dismissed by those who disagree in the 1st place.

    ReplyDelete
  139. MaiZeke,

    You used the terms "freaks of society" and "freaks of offspring" when describing human beings who were conceived in incestuous relationdhips. I have to take issue with talking about human beings in such dehumanizing ways. They are people, just like the rest of the human family. We are all human. We all have inherent dignity.

    I have seen plenty of these offspring in the news over the years, on talk shows, etc. Most are not "freaks" in any way. Is there higher chance that there will be congenital problems? Yes, but most are normal, functioning human beings, and they don't need to be called "freaks of society" any more than Downs babies were once called. The children of incest had no hand in their parents' sin. They are innocent.

    sweet jane: It's just my logical brain that has to present that comparison when nothing else seems to make sense. It is very true that NAMBLA and others are trying to normalize their behavior (they call them "gifts") in the same way the gay lobby did years ago. Yes, there is a difference, morally, I agree! It's the redefining of marriage and the meaning of sex that even gets us to this discussion. I think it's so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  140. One more thing... bigamy is a harder comparison, strictly speaking, because there is no "disordered" sexual attraction with biagmists, even though having multiple wives is a sin in Christianity. I also am not sure that atheists would be so against polygamy, really, since it doesn't seem all that different from swinging, in a way, which is all the rage in many circles, not just secular. But I could be wrong. Polygamy might be very unacceptable to MaiZeke and others. They can straighten me out on that, because I really don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  141. could you do some sort of post on homosexuality, and why the Church says it is wrong, at some point Leila? I'd be ever so grateful. :)

    ~Myn

    I would ask MaiZeke about when a fetus becomes a person in her opinion and the reasons she holds that opinion but that would be horribly off-topic and might cause her to ignore your fascinating questions. =P XD

    ReplyDelete
  142. Myn, I would luve to! It's something that will take sime time to craft well, as it's a big topic and I want to make sure it's simple and readable, and reasonably short. So, it's a tough one to pull together quickly, especially since it's a lightning rod topic.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Yeah, it's a lightening rod topic. This comment thread was supposed to be about Christian persecution and the mainstream media's lack of coverage on it. But here we are...and I'm not really sure anyone who would identify himself/herself as a liberal ever actually said, "Yes, it's wrong that the media doesn't cover this." I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

    ReplyDelete
  144. L,
    You said it all boils down to politics and that we are twisting it into, "Muslims kill Christians." Let's not forget that it was CHURCHES which were targeted for the burning of a KORAN. Sheesh.
    -A

    ReplyDelete
  145. A, thank you for this comment on your comment on the next post. I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Just saw this while at the Catholic Phoenix blog... seems appropriate for this discussion. :)

    "Liberalism defines freedom as the right to do whatever you please, and that is the way freedom is understood by 90% of young Americans educated in non-religious institutions. If freedom means that, it means anarchy." — Archbishop Fulton Sheen

    ReplyDelete
  147. oh and why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized, if you could...in that post or maybe another so it's not too long? ---cuz I was talking to some pro-gay-marriage people and I wasn't sure what to say. =(

    thank you so much!!!!! =D

    ~Myn

    ReplyDelete
  148. JoAnna, awesome quote! Myn, I need some real time to do that, and my schedule isn't breaking for a while.... But I promise I will try soon!

    Meantime, here is something to read and maybe you can find some good points there:

    http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

    ReplyDelete
  149. Myn,
    The short answer is this- The Church gets her authority from God.
    "And you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, I give you the keys to the kingdom and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven"
    Therefore, since the Church was established by Christ in order to spread the teachings of Christ, the Church CANNOT accept teachings that Christ Himself condemned. Christ said that Homosexuals WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, and Paul and others reiterated these points in their letters. Just as the Church does not have the authority to allow Priestesses to be Pastors at Churches because Christ's apostolic succession of priests were all male.

    It comes down to authority. I know that may seem harsh given today's societal standards, and the way the mainstream media portrays the Church as intolerant and bigoted. However, the mainstream media, in claiming such things and in pressuring the Church to compromise on these teachings, is being intolerant and bigoted toward the Church-the teachings that Jesus laid out for us to follow and that most of the world agreed with for almost 2000 years!

    If you will read the first couple of chapters of Romans, you will see that the bible is very clear about its stance on homosexuality. We do not condemn the person, we condemn the act. The Church calls those who feel these same sex attractions to carry them as a cross and overcome them. I have met people within the Church that have in fact overcome such feelings.
    If the Church was to give in and say, "alright, gay marriage is ok.." it would be acting on it's OWN authority apart from God. It's a non-negotiable.

    A

    ReplyDelete
  150. thank you A!

    take all the time you need leila! no big rush... =)

    ~Myn

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!