Oh Mr. Roach. You're like a drug I can't quit. I haven't slept in two days, but I think I've got a post left in me yet...
You claim that 'hate crime legislation was used to single out Christians'. Okay. Now, stretch your imagination and consider exchanging the word 'Christian' in ever sentence in your OP and relating articles with the word 'Muslim'. Switch 'God' with 'Allah'.
Now, try it with 'Hindus' and 'Shiva'. Makes a little less sense that way, but still...
The issue at hand was NOT that the protesters were Christian. The issue was that they were yelling inciting, rude, and often cruel things at a bunch of people who had lawfully and peacefully gathered at a celebration. The fact that they were Christians may be the reason they were there, but it was NOT the reason for their arrest, or for the hate crime charges which were AFTERWARD applied by a judge and later dropped.
If a black man gets caught after robbing a bank, do we let him off the hook when he says 'They only arrested me because I'm black!'? If a female driver is speeding and gets pulled over and given a ticket, can she legitimately say 'I was only pulled over because I'm a woman!'? Yes, there are stereotypes that unfairly categorize people. On the other hand, if you've actually done something wrong, you can't (or at least shouldn't) be able to hide behind your race, your gender, your sexuality, or even your religion.
And yes, the protesters did many things wrong. They disobeyed police directives, tried to incite violence, and screamed nasty things at people through bullhorns. I think the volunteers were rather clever at keeping them hidden with the pink cardboard and the whistles. If a jerk came to your birthday party, started shouting obscenities and waving a sign that said 'YOU SUCK', would you be as patient? The protesters were even allowed to behave in such a way by the police (as evidenced by their asking the parade-goers to break their human chain), and only arrested after their behavior became completely unacceptable.
And then, after they were arrested, all the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.
So, in essence, you are claiming that when eleven people get in trouble for shouting obscene things at other people in public and disobeying the police, have fair charges leveled against them and then are released without punishment, this constitutes an attack on the whole religion of Christianity?
Seriously. Come on.
On to the protesters at the church. Now, I must say I don't agree with their tactics, if only because they were probably trespassing and churches, being uncontrolled by the government, are not places to exercise one's free speech. I think they should have been charged with trespassing, but I suspect that the case would have gotten the same result as the one above--thrown out due to insufficient evidence, and maybe the courts not wanting to deal with all this malarky.
The interesting thing is that you seem to think the gay activists should be charged with hate crimes. In neither their manifesto, nor anything else I've read about the incident, do they say anything like 'Christians are evil scumbags!' or 'God is a weenie!' They neither insulted nor attacked the people or the faith. Most of their slogans can be equated to 'Hey, we're okay people too!'
Got news for ya. That's not hate speech.
Now, I love how indignant you are about this episode. Let's get back to the party metaphor, eh?
Let's say you have parties, and this guy always comes with his big rude sign, yelling rude things while you're trying to have a good time. When he's not ruining your parties, he's telling everyone in town that you shouldn't be allowed to even have parties, also you're evil and immoral. You've complained to the police several times, but since you have your parties outside and he can just stand on the street, they can't legally make him go away. This goes on for about a year.
Then you find out he's going to have a party, and at the party he's going to tell everyone how much you suck and how evil and immoral you are. Most of the town is going to be there. In fact, most of the town believes him.
How does that make you feel?
The point is the hate crimes law was applied to the Christians, and no attempt at any prosecution appears to be forthcoming for the gays.
My point is that this Bash Back group would not even exist if there hadn't been some seriously foul play on the other side first. It's a fight fire with fire response. Granted, it's not going to work very well. (I tried to fight fire with fire once. Burned my bloody dinner.) But can you really blame a dog for biting you once you've kicked it in the stomach a couple times?
Again with the insistance that anyone who still sees sexual perversion as sexual perversion is in actuality doing something spiteful against gays. Notice how it has grown from gays, to gays and bisexuals, to gays and bisexuals and transexuals and any other perverse sexual behavior that can be bundled together without outright revolt ensuing amongst the general population. Pederasty was even included briefly before it became evident that that was going a bit too far, NAMBLA being a prime example of an organization the socialists ejected when they realized it was not going to fly. There are still intellectuals who claim there is nothing wrong with it.
I'm refuting your 'fact'! Whee!
Refutation and denying simple facts are not the same thing. The facts are that the Christians were originally charged with hate crimes, and this only changed after it became evident that they could not expect any public support for it at that time, and lacked the political clout to ram it through anyhow.
Now, there is an interesting fact that actually is a fact, and that is that many gay people are also Christians.
You know full well that discussion of this subject is forbidden here. Are you inviting me to break CF rules? All I can say to your assertion is that the Bible does not affirm any such blanket statement.
1 Cor 5:11
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat .
KJV
What else was there... oh yes! Kiddie inappropriate content.
There was a website of lawsuits on this issue, I shall look for it in my spare time. Thing is, why are there laws against child inappropriate contentography and pedophilia in the first place? Answer: Because they hurt children.
Drawn images? Stories? 3-d movies? Not real children. No one is hurt.
And, as it happens, when no one is hurt by something people are saying, drawing, writing, or looking at, people have the freedom to say, draw, write, and look at it. No matter how much you dislike it. Deal.
(That wasn't all in exactly the same breath, but I suppose you were pretty close.)
The obvious reasons being that the attacks are ridiculous.
Contrary to what you might think, I have as much sympathy for Christians as I have for anyone else. People are people in my book, all of them deserving of love, dignity, and respect.
Man, that is the LAST thing I want to do right now. Zzzzzzz.
(Bonus points! Mr. Roach, I will personally Rep your post if you actually respond to the points I've made individually for once instead of blanket replying to the whole thing with a short pithy paragraph. Let not my sleep deprivation be in vain!)
A supporter of gay rights who also supports animated kiddy inappropriate content. I am supposed to be overcome with the wrongheadedness of my concern now?
In any event, the point is that political speech is being interefered with by using supposed civil rights arguments concerning gay marriage and also by the use of "hate crimes" legislation while inappropriate content is being proliferated under "freedom of speech". You ably demonstrate that the irony of this is lost on those who want to destroy Christianity.
It does not surprise me that many deny this accusation. I still maintain that it is largely true. Nothing is ever absolute, except the fact that nothing is ever absolute, other than the times when something does indeed to turn out to be absolute.
It's all a lot of words and going around in circles.
The clear agenda is there for anyone with eyes open to see.
Upvote
0