Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[Chavez]

Student sues for right to speak out against sinful homos

 

Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

 

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

 

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

 

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

 

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.

 

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

 

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

 

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

 

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

 

Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.

 

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

 

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

 

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

 

"Think how marginalized racists are," (ah yes, the poor racists!) said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."

 

Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality "a natural part of God's created order."

 

Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.

 

The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.

 

In California, however, the university may have a strong defense in court. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Berkeley was justified in denying subsidies to the Boy Scouts because of that group's exclusionary policies. Eddie L. Washington, the lawyer representing Cal State, argues the same standard should apply to the university.

 

"We're certainly not going to fund discrimination," Washington said.

 

...and this should demonstrate why non-believers have such a low opinion of mainstream Christianity.

[junebugz]

Student sues for right to speak out against sinful homos

...and this should demonstrate why non-believers have such a low opinion of mainstream Christianity.

 

1413566[/snapback]

 

 

 

did a Christian bite you in the keister recently?

[Duchess Jack]

I was wondering where Blitz went

[Yukon Cornelius]

read my sig

[Chavez]

Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

Hey, if you want these guys to take us where the Taliban took Afghanistan, go right ahead. Don't expect me to stand there and cheer about it.

[Doc Holliday]

Student sues for right to speak out against sinful homos

...and this should demonstrate why non-believers have such a low opinion of mainstream Christianity.

 

1413566[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I sort of agree, but if you want to hate a religion for hating gays you can just hate all of them.

 

You can also hate most agnostics and athiests as the majority of them also cannot stand gays.

 

You can basically just about hate a majority of the population on earth.

[spain]

You can basically just about hate a majority of the population on earth.

 

1413592[/snapback]

 

 

 

I know that I do..

[Codwagon]

Student sues for right to speak out against sinful homos

...and this should demonstrate why non-believers have such a low opinion of mainstream Christianity.

 

1413566[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that you are being intolerant to their intolerance, right?

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

You can basically just about hate a majority of the population on earth.

 

1413592[/snapback]

 

 

 

my dad called it the 90% rule

 

90% of the people u meet are momotards

[Doc Holliday]

I know that I do..

 

1413595[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with being a equal oppurtunity hater.

[Doc Holliday]

my dad called it the 90% rule

 

90% of the people u meet are momotards

 

1413603[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, and the other 10 % are just pretending they are not.

[rbmcdonald]

Student sues for right to speak out against sinful homos

...and this should demonstrate why non-believers have such a low opinion of mainstream Christianity.

 

1413566[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I have always found it interesting that in the bible, Christ spent most of his time with "recognized" sinners (seems to me that the bible says all men are sinners). I also do not recall him criticizing them. In fact, if my memory serves me correct, the only people Christ ever really criticized or was angry at, was the "righteous" elite, in his own church.

 

However, all that Christ stuff was so long ago. It is just so much easier for people to listen to people that are alive today, right. I mean, they give their money to them, because they are religious leaders, right? They must know what they were talking about. They probably figure that Christ was a little confused. They must be so happy to have someone alive today, to set it all straight.

[Chavez]

You do realize that you are being intolerant to their intolerance, right?

 

1413600[/snapback]

 

 

 

I am more than willing to be hypocritical on that subject.

[billay]

Baaaaaaaaa!

[Yukon Cornelius]

Baaaaaaaaa!

 

1413634[/snapback]

 

 

 

are u looking for spain???

[billay]

are u looking for spain???

 

1413635[/snapback]

 

 

 

[tonorator]

homosexuality should not be treated like race or gender. they are fundamentally different. race and gender are not defined by behavior where sexual preference is clearly a behavior.

 

all of these words like tolerance, anti-defamation, acceptance, etc. should not be applicable to someone's behavior. we clearly have behaviors as a people that we don't support and are not expected to tolerate.

 

under this definition, any sexual behavoir, be it beastiality, tree-humping, etc. should all be tolerated, because the person was born with the behavior trait.

 

i don't see christians here just dying to put down gays, i see them wanting the right to express their religious beliefs. i also don't think they are walking around with "kill fags" t-shirts, because if they were, they wouldn't be true christians. they want the right to express their religious beliefs without being punished for it. freedom of expression. and if they are true christians, they would then want to enter a dialogue to talk about the bible and the beliefs found within.

 

whether the right to express themselves should be granted or not is a subject for debate, but casting christians as dying to be intolerant and wanting to bash homosexuals is inaccurate. this article could be written in an entirely different light if desired, but, as so often it is done today, our media likes to paint christians as fanatics and intolerant people who want to condemn. it just is not true.

[Pope Flick]

I have always found it interesting that in the bible, Christ spent most of his time with "recognized" sinners (seems to me that the bible says all men are sinners).  I also do not recall him criticizing them.  In fact, if my memory serves me correct, the only people Christ ever really criticized or was angry at, was the "righteous" elite, in his own church.

 

However, all that Christ stuff was so long ago.  It is just so much easier for people to listen to people that are alive today, right.  I mean, they give their money to them, because they are religious leaders, right?  They must know what they were talking about.  They probably figure that Christ was a little confused.  They must be so happy to have someone alive today, to set it all straight.

1413621[/snapback]

 

All those right wing fanaticos love to scream about the Ten Commandments, but have conveinetly forgotten about The Beatitudes, which are something of a hallmark of christianity.

 

Matthew 5: 3-12

 

Blessed are the poor in spirit,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

Blessed are they who mourn,

for they shall be comforted.

 

Blessed are the meek,

for they shall possess the earth.

 

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,

for they shall be satisfied.

 

Blessed are the merciful,

for they shall obtain mercy.

 

Blessed are the pure of heart,

for they shall see God.

 

Blessed are the peacemakers,

for they shall be called sons of God.

 

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

 

And this whole "I have a right to be intolerant" bs was quite well addressed in The Federalist #"s 10, 51 and 85 all of which deal with the accomadation of peoples while preventing the (in)famous "Tyranny of the Majority."

[Duchess Jack]

homosexuality should not be treated like race or gender.  they are fundamentally different.  race and gender are not defined by behavior where sexual preference is clearly a behavior.

 

all of these words like tolerance, anti-defamation, acceptance, etc. should not be applicable to someone's behavior.  we clearly have behaviors as a people that we don't support and are not expected to tolerate.

 

under this definition, any sexual behavoir, be it beastiality, tree-humping, etc. should all be tolerated, because the person was born with the behavior trait.

 

i don't see christians here just dying to put down gays, i see them wanting the right to express their religious beliefs.  i also don't think they are walking around with "kill fags" t-shirts, because if they were, they wouldn't be true christians.  they want the right to express their religious beliefs without being punished for it.  freedom of expression.  and if they are true christians, they would then want to enter a dialogue to talk about the bible and the beliefs found within.

 

whether the right to express themselves should be granted or not is a subject for debate, but casting christians as dying to be intolerant and wanting to bash homosexuals is inaccurate.  this article could be written in an entirely different light if desired, but, as so often it is done today, our media likes to paint christians as fanatics and intolerant people who want to condemn.  it just is not true.

1413639[/snapback]

I guess that all depends on whether you believe people are born ghey

[tonorator]

I guess that all depends on whether you believe people are born ghey

1413650[/snapback]

 

or born to have sex with kids? or animals? or trees?

 

if you believe ghey, then you have to believe all of these and then you have to be tolerant of all.

[billay]

or born to have sex with kids?  or animals?  or trees?

 

if you believe ghey, then you have to believe all of these and then you have to be tolerant of all.

1413659[/snapback]

 

 

No you don't.

[Chavez]

homosexuality should not be treated like race or gender.  they are fundamentally different.  race and gender are not defined by behavior where sexual preference is clearly a behavior.

 

all of these words like tolerance, anti-defamation, acceptance, etc. should not be applicable to someone's behavior.  we clearly have behaviors as a people that we don't support and are not expected to tolerate.

 

under this definition, any sexual behavoir, be it beastiality, tree-humping, etc. should all be tolerated, because the person was born with the behavior trait.

The main difference being that adult homosexuals do no harm to anyone - much like tree-humpers, unlike bestiaphiliacs. I think (or at least had thought) it's obvious that as long as a sexual behavior is performed by two consenting adults it should be left alone - you don't have to endorse it, but it should be tolerated.

i don't see christians here just dying to put down gays, i see them wanting the right to express their religious beliefs.  i also don't think they are walking around with "kill fags" t-shirts, because if they were, they wouldn't be true christians.  they want the right to express their religious beliefs without being punished for it.  freedom of expression.  and if they are true christians, they would then want to enter a dialogue to talk about the bible and the beliefs found within.

What is there to talk about? "I read the Bible, it says a man shouldn't lay with another man. Discuss."

whether the right to express themselves should be granted or not is a subject for debate, but casting christians as dying to be intolerant and wanting to bash homosexuals is inaccurate.  this article could be written in an entirely different light if desired, but, as so often it is done today, our media likes to paint christians as fanatics and intolerant people who want to condemn.  it just is not true.

1413639[/snapback]

I know many Christians who are accepting and supportive of gay friends and family; I know many who do great work helping the poor and exemplify the values that Jesus espoused (well, for the most part - Jesus was a helluva guy). The problem is these small-minded, judgemental, reactionary twats get the press, drive the bus (this is the base that the GOP - y'know, the party that holds the reins in the executive, legislative, and judicial branch? - caters to) of public policy, and attempt to drag the US into their little world where our country should be a theocracy with laws adhering strictly to the Bible.

[tonorator]

No you don't.

1413666[/snapback]

 

sure you do. same thing with sex with multiple partners and needing to have multiple wives/husbands. so is a predisposition to group sex. all of these could be classified as "born with" natures of which we should all be tolerant.

 

the fact is, we are not tolerant of these things, so we have constructed a society to be specifically intolerant of certain kinds of behavior. based on this, homosexuals cannot use the "we were born this way" defense. if so, murderers could use the same defense.

 

you could use the "consenting adults" avenue if you like (which doesn't help those who were born to have multiple partners), which is a far different argument than the "we were born this way." go with that one, and you open a big can or worms.

 

no can of worms is open with "born this way" when you talk about race/gender. they are what they are.

[Caveman_Nick]

or born to have sex with kids?  or animals?  or trees?

 

if you believe ghey, then you have to believe all of these and then you have to be tolerant of all.

1413659[/snapback]

 

 

That's a little extremist of you, there. Your general point is one that I agree with regarding homnosexual behavior as something different than racism and other forms of persecution. But homosexuality doesn't hurt the 2 adults involved so long as they consent.

 

Pedophiles tend to prey on childern that don't yet even understand sex. It's wrong, and the gap between the behaviors is as wide as a gap can get.

 

Let's be clear as well...we aren;t talking about 22 year old teachers bomping 15 year old students when both parties are willing participants. We're talking "hey kid, do you want to go to the zoo and get in my white, unmarked van" type of creeps.

[billay]

sure you do.  same thing with sex with multiple partners and needing to have multiple wives/husbands.  so is a predisposition to group sex.  all of these could be classified as "born with" natures of which we should all be tolerant.

 

1413678[/snapback]

 

So you think polygamy and pedophelia are analogous?

Edited April 10, 2006 by billay