The PC Agenda...

[Cris413]

What circumstances or situations that one is expected to adhere to PCness that make you uncomfortable...as a Believer...

Mine is work. I talk to lot's of people all day long...and sometimes I struggle with the propriety of PC over what I'd really like to say...

Especially this time of year...

[flyingsum0]

Im fortunate...my job is extremely physical so I say what I like and if they have an issue with what Im saying, they better be bigger than me ...I call it aggressive negotiation :D

[Sleaker]

Heh yah, I work with people who don't even bother with PCness whatsoever so I don't really have a problem there. Not sure that I have a problem being PC anywhere though, usually I just don't say things if people might take it the wrong way.

[flyingsum0]

Yeah Im with Sleaker....when Im around normal human beings (which isnt a lot)

I just don't say things if people might take it the wrong way.

[MaidforHim]

One of the things that bothers me is that it seems to be politically correct to say "God" because our society is pushing the "All gods are the same god philosophy" but if you say "Jesus" some people get real uncomfortable.

Makes me consider getting a Jesus tattoo ^_^

Ok, I don't personally like tattoos, but if I were to get one, that'd be it. I'm thinking a T-shirt would be good though!

Another PC agenda gone wrong is this:

At Christmas time any and all religion or atheists group is allowed to put up what ever "anti-Christian look at me display" they want right next to nativity scenes etc as if to say... "you should consider xyz religion instead" EVEN THOUGH our government allows other religions or atheists to have holidays or celebrations of there own.

AND I would be that in most cases if there were to be some Buddhist display on one of their holidays and a Christian were to put up a sign that said "Jesus is God" right next to it most city governments would take it down. Other people or religions can disrespect or distract from Christmas all they want, but you try the same thing and I think you'll find a double standard.

[spiritfilledjm]

If a job is going to prohibit me from saying Merry Christmas than I quit. I've done it numerous times. White is White, Black is Black, and Christians have a right to say whatever they want to just like anyone else.

[flyingsum0]

If a job is going to prohibit me from saying Merry Christmas than I quit. I've done it numerous times. White is White, Black is Black, and Christians have a right to say whatever they want to just like anyone else.

Yo Amen to that Bro

[Cris413]

If a job is going to prohibit me from saying Merry Christmas than I quit. I've done it numerous times. White is White, Black is Black, and Christians have a right to say whatever they want to just like anyone else.

I would have to agree...it would be hard to continue in a job that denies freedom of religion.

I'm fortunate my boss isn't like that. However, people have suggested it was not appropriate to change our VM message "Our office is closed for Good Friday"...or "Our office is closed for Christmas" stating it would be more appropriate to say "The Holiday" as not to offend our Non-Christian clients.

It was also fortunate I didn't get any resistance when I insisted that it was Good Friday and Christmas...just the same as if it were Thanksgiving or the 4th of July...and if a client was offended by that...well...there wasn't much I could do about it...

[blueguy]

What circumstances or situations that one is expected to adhere to PCness that make you uncomfortable...as a Believer...

Mine is work. I talk to lot's of people all day long...and sometimes I struggle with the propriety of PC over what I'd really like to say...

Especially this time of year...
I agree, since we're being paid we have to go along with the PC agenda blessed by Management. I also struggle with it daily.
One thing is for sure, we are no longer free.

[Cris413]

Im fortunate...my job is extremely physical so I say what I like and if they have an issue with what Im saying, they better be bigger than me ...I call it aggressive negotiation :D
who would argue with a 350 lb waffle eating machine?...LOL

:hug:

[Svt4Him]

I don't like PC in the church, I think it is a way to soften the gospel and sin. For instance, I got a post deleted when I said someone who told an untruth was lying. They were simply mistaken, and didn't change what they said. Or when Christians say one thing and do another, they're not hypocrites, they're human.

[Svt4Him]

How many times in the pulpits have I even heard strong pastors say this "I'm sorry to have to admit this, but God says

How many times, as I've never heard it.

[Cris413]

I remember on several occasions...My Pastor teaching...as we go exponentially through the Bible...there's something in here to offend everyone...

And if we were going through something that was not PC...he would say...with no apologies...that if you find this offensive...then you have a problem with God...not with me.

Then he would expound on the importance of the teaching...firmly supporting the Scripture.

This is why I absolutely love exponential teaching...nothing is left out simply because it might offend someone.

IMHO...if you're a Believer...nothing in God's word will offend you...convict you maybe...but never offend...

(ooops...I think there was already a thread about that)

[Nadiine]

Im fortunate...my job is extremely physical so I say what I like and if they have an issue with what Im saying, they better be bigger than me ...I call it aggressive negotiation :D
I'd like to know who's going to tell Sum0 that he isn't PC enough :eek: :help:

[Nadiine]

I don't like PC in the church, I think it is a way to soften the gospel and sin. For instance, I got a post deleted when I said someone who told an untruth was lying. They were simply mistaken, and didn't change what they said. Or when Christians say one thing and do another, they're not hypocrites, they're human.
And this is what's feeding the attack on God for calling sin what it is... and pushing the Universalist teaching that "everybody gets saved eventually" false doctrine.

If you can't see how evil SIN actually is (nevermind even spotting it to call it sin) - then of course God can't punish "good" people.
This is how PC is going to fit in with the New World Order - ANYBODY that uses harsh derrogatory religious statements is a monster that has to be suppressed.

You're a "fundy". I think PC has to flourish so that the antichrist is accepted; all religions are "good" and lead to God.... we all "arrive", so it's the intolerant fundy's that need to be silenced.
(not caring to notice that it's their INTOLERANCE that suppresses those who don't think like them or agree with them)
;)

That's just my spin on how I think it will fit in & why I don't think PC is going away - I think it's working into the hands of Satan directly.

[MaidforHim]

I would have to agree...it would be hard to continue in a job that denies freedom of religion.

I'm fortunate my boss isn't like that. However, people have suggested it was not appropriate to change our VM message "Our office is closed for Good Friday"...or "Our office is closed for Christmas" stating it would be more appropriate to say "The Holiday" as not to offend our Non-Christian clients.

It was also fortunate I didn't get any resistance when I insisted that it was Good Friday and Christmas...just the same as if it were Thanksgiving or the 4th of July...and if a client was offended by that...well...there wasn't much I could do about it...


I believe God puts us in these places, or puts these types of people in our lives on purpose, no accidents, whether it's your job or your neighborhood etc. I think he's placed you right where he wants you, where His light can shine through your and those who "need to" can see your witness.

After a few bad church experiences as a child it was people like you Cris who showed me that there was something very special about a true believer! Something I wanted a part of! I have no doubt you bring reason and a brighter perspectve to what would otherwise be an overly PC environment. :thumbsup::clap:

[MaidforHim]

And this is what's feeding the attack on God for calling sin what it is... and pushing the Universalist teaching that "everybody gets saved eventually" false doctrine.

If you can't see how evil SIN actually is (nevermind even spotting it to call it sin) - then of course God can't punish "good" people.
This is how PC is going to fit in with the New World Order - ANYBODY that uses harsh derrogatory religious statements is a monster that has to be suppressed.

You're a "fundy". I think PC has to flourish so that the antichrist is accepted; all religions are "good" and lead to God.... we all "arrive", so it's the intolerant fundy's that need to be silenced.
(not caring to notice that it's their INTOLERANCE that suppresses those who don't think like them or agree with them)
;)

That's just my spin on how I think it will fit in & why I don't think PC is going away - I think it's working into the hands of Satan directly.


AMEN SISTER! :amen:

[MaidforHim]

I'd like to know who's going to tell Sum0 that he isn't PC enough :eek: :help:


Not me! You go Brother!!! :clap:

[MaidforHim]

I remember on several occasions...My Pastor teaching...as we go exponentially through the Bible...there's something in here to offend everyone...

And if we were going through something that was not PC...he would say...with no apologies...that if you find this offensive...then you have a problem with God...not with me.

Then he would expound on the importance of the teaching...firmly supporting the Scripture.

This is why I absolutely love exponential teaching...nothing is left out simply because it might offend someone.

IMHO...if you're a Believer...nothing in God's word will offend you...convict you maybe...but never offend...

(ooops...I think there was already a thread about that)

This is so TRUE!!! Most of the churches and teaching I got as a kid came in the form of long winded sermons where what the Bible said and what the preacher was saying were indistinguishable from each other, at least from my point of view. I don't think I learned nearly enough and would have learned so much more if the teaching had been exponential. When the teaching comes straight from the word of God it's pretty hard to miss the point unless your trying to avoid it.

Since God didn't make mistakes in His Word the teaching that comes directly from it is right on target.:clap:

[Cris413]

I believe God puts us in these places, or puts these types of people in our lives on purpose, no accidents, whether it's your job or your neighborhood etc. I think he's placed you right where he wants you, where His light can shine through your and those who "need to" can see your witness.

After a few bad church experiences as a child it was people like you Cris who showed me that there was something very special about a true believer! Something I wanted a part of! I have no doubt you bring reason and a brighter perspectve to what would otherwise be an overly PC environment. :thumbsup::clap:
awww thank you sister for your encouragement...:blush: You are a blessing as well...

Praise God...it's all about Him...otherwise...I'm pretty much a mess...:pink:

:hug: Blessings sister!

[flyingsum0]

I'd like to know who's going to tell Sum0 that he isn't PC enough :eek: :help:


Sumo is very PC at times like this morning this little skinny dude was gonna take the last Boston Cream Donught so I was like, "Yo man of smaller stature than I...please relinquish that tasty donought before I break off your honorable fingers in the most loving way..."

He got a jelly donought instead...I hate jelly donoughts, I usually wind up wearing the jelly all day long...If I'm wearing a shirt to work that day...

[Nadiine]

^_^

:p

[Athene]

I think sometimes these PC police do more harm then good, for example in Birmingham a few years ago a few PC zealots decided that Birmingham wouldn't celebrate Christmas but instead would celebrate Winterful - Birmingham has a high muslim population and these PC police decided that Muslims are offended by Christmas, the majority of Muslims were offended at the suggestion that they are offended by the word 'Christmas' not to mention this decision stirred up a lot of bad feeling towards the Muslim community which frankly they could do without. You'll be pleased to know common sense prevailed, Birmingham celebrate Christmas again.

[Nadiine]

I view the extreme PC people the same as I view the Westborough people who go out picketing against military soldiers at funeral services.

I truly believe they want to live in a strict socialist country - and if so, they should just move to one and see how fun it is before they push to promote it elsewhere.

[Svt4Him]

There was a poster that said when he was an AOG preacher, he'd preach things he didn't believe. When I said he was a hypocrite then, he reported my post. I was amazed, because sometimes you have to call the bucket of kaka a bucket of kaka. Ha, can't even say that proper.

[desmalia]

I was doing some Christmas shopping today, and while standing in line at the checkout, heard the cashier saying "happy holidays" to every customer as they left. So when I got up there and she said it to me (hehehe) I made a point to wish her a Merry Christmas. As I was walking away I heard her say sheepishly "I'm not allowed to say that". So I turned around with a grin and said "I'd say it anyway!". So she did! It was kinda fun. She was very young, and trying so hard to be PC. I don't think she was expecting to encounter any trouble for doing it.

The scary part is... I totally reminded myself of my mother when I did that. Eeeeek!

[Galle]

I think sometimes these PC police do more harm then good, for example in Birmingham a few years ago a few PC zealots decided that Birmingham wouldn't celebrate Christmas but instead would celebrate Winterful - Birmingham has a high muslim population and these PC police decided that Muslims are offended by Christmas, the majority of Muslims were offended at the suggestion that they are offended by the word 'Christmas' not to mention this decision stirred up a lot of bad feeling towards the Muslim community which frankly they could do without. You'll be pleased to know common sense prevailed, Birmingham celebrate Christmas again.

I was doing some Christmas shopping today, and while standing in line at the checkout, heard the cashier saying "happy holidays" to every customer as they left. So when I got up there and she said it to me (hehehe) I made a point to wish her a Merry Christmas. As I was walking away I heard her say sheepishly "I'm not allowed to say that". So I turned around with a grin and said "I'd say it anyway!". So she did! It was kinda fun. She was very young, and trying so hard to be PC. I don't think she was expecting to encounter any trouble for doing it.
Absolutely! I'm so glad that so many Christians are realizing just how terrible PCism is today and that CHRISTmas is a Christian holiday, and that America was founded on American principles, and that we Christians should not be discriminated against like this!

Thankfully, some brave Christians stood up to the PC police recently, only to be opposed by a Muslim student:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html

[Cris413]

<snip>
Thankfully, some brave Christians stood up to the PC police recently, only to be opposed by a Muslim student:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html

I'm gonna assume you're joking here and that you're not taking a jab a Christians....

I would not label someone a Christian simply because they say "Merry Christmas"

There was nothing Christian nor brave about this blantant act of violence and anti-semitism...

What does encourage though...is a Muslim coming to the aide of a Jew...

[Nadiine]

I was doing some Christmas shopping today, and while standing in line at the checkout, heard the cashier saying "happy holidays" to every customer as they left. So when I got up there and she said it to me (hehehe) I made a point to wish her a Merry Christmas. As I was walking away I heard her say sheepishly "I'm not allowed to say that". So I turned around with a grin and said "I'd say it anyway!". So she did! It was kinda fun. She was very young, and trying so hard to be PC. I don't think she was expecting to encounter any trouble for doing it.

The scary part is... I totally reminded myself of my mother when I did that. Eeeeek!
O......... ya. I catch myself doing stuff like my mom while I'm out too. Not that it's a bad thing - just SCARY becuz back then I detested it & thought "I'll never do that". :blush: (of course, I was a rebellious snot at the time, funny things happen when God gets a hold of your heart) :clap:

Anyways, ya, and again, what does PC do? IT REMOVES THE RIGHTS & SUPPRESSES FREE SPEECH & FREEDOM OF PEOPLE.
What does PC claim to do? Liberate, make everyone equal & unoffended.

Sorry, I see it doing just the opposite in it's suppressive nature. I see more things we CAN'T do than we can anymore. I wonder why people can't see that fact & rebel against it.

[Cris413]

<snip>
Anyways, ya, and again, what does PC do? IT REMOVES THE RIGHTS & SUPPRESSES FREE SPEECH & FREEDOM OF PEOPLE. You couldn't be more correct!
<
What does PC claim to do? Liberate, make everyone equal & unoffended.

Sorry, I see it doing just the opposite in it's suppressive nature. I see more things we CAN'T do than we can anymore. I wonder why people can't see that fact & rebel against it.That would be the veil of deception emanating from the enemy...just a guess.

[jive4005]

Just speak love and truth... that is what Jesus always did. Did it "cost" Him? Certainly, but His priority is/was that of the Father. So how does PC pandering to anyone promote our own mission... which is the Great Commission.

It always sad to see supposed Christians calling a cat a dog just to save their own position in the "world"?

rev

[Cris413]

There was a poster that said when he was an AOG preacher, he'd preach things he didn't believe. When I said he was a hypocrite then, he reported my post. I was amazed, because sometimes you have to call the bucket of kaka a bucket of kaka. Ha, can't even say that proper.
perhaps it would have been more PC to say he was "being hypocritical" than to actually call him a hypocrite...;) :pink:

Seriously though...being polite or diplomatic isn't necessarily the same as being PC...

Same as revealing someone's sin...what's more appropriate...or what's a better witness...

Calling someone a retched sinner...or sharing the truth in love?

'Specially since we're all retched sinners and we all can be hypocritical at times...

[Nadiine]

perhaps it would have been more PC to say he was "being hypocritical" than to actually call him a hypocrite...;) :pink:

^_^

being non PC around here equals FLAMING. hehe :P

[Cris413]

Ya know what really baffles me...

Why the PC Agenda is only outraged...and I mean outraged...when it comes to Christianity...

For instance...had our office closed on MLK day...

and changed the VM...our office is currently closed in observance of MLK day...

shouldn't we be concerned it would might offend our racists clients?

or how about Yom Kippur...

shouldn't we be concerned it might offend our anti-semitic clients...

or President's Day...

shouldn't we be concerned it might offend our anti-government-conspiracy theory clients...

or 4th of July...might it offend our British clients...

or how about Thanksgiving...might it offend our client's of American Indian descent? We shared a nice meal with them....and then took their land...

Strangely enough...being Christian...a true believer...you would not be racist...you would not be anti-semitic...you would not be an anti-government activist...you would not be all holding a grudge cause the US won in the Revolution...

...Now the American Indian currently living on the Reservation may still have some issues...but who could blame them...

We can close our office on every other non-christian religious holiday and state as such on our VM and be praised for our diversity.

...I personally think we should all close our offices on L Ron Hubbard's birthday as well as the day Dianetics was published...

....ooops...did I offend anyone who's not a Scientologist?

[Cris413]

How many would be offended if someone wished you a "Happy Publishing Day" ?

[Nadiine]

All I have to say is, I pray the Lord keep me away from the big Koolaide bowl these people are drinking from.
:bow: :bow: :bow:

[Cris413]

All I have to say is, I pray the Lord keep me away from the big Koolaide bowl these people are drinking from.
:bow: :bow: :bow:
...and I prolly should have stayed away from the 4th cup of coffee...LOL :doh:

[Nadiine]

...and I prolly should have stayed away from the 4th cup of coffee...LOL :doh:
*:eek:*

*Note to self: just agree with Chris today, she's hepp'd up on Caffeine :P

[MaidforHim]

Ya know what really baffles me...

Why the PC Agenda is only outraged...and I mean outraged...when it comes to Christianity...

For instance...had our office closed on MLK day...

and changed the VM...our office is currently closed in observance of MLK day...

shouldn't we be concerned it would might offend our racists clients?

or how about Yom Kippur...

shouldn't we be concerned it might offend our anti-semitic clients...

or President's Day...

shouldn't we be concerned it might offend our anti-government-conspiracy theory clients...

or 4th of July...might it offend our British clients...

or how about Thanksgiving...might it offend our client's of American Indian descent? We shared a nice meal with them....and then took their land...

Strangely enough...being Christian...a true believer...you would not be racist...you would not be anti-semitic...you would not be an anti-government activist...you would not be all holding a grudge cause the US won in the Revolution...

...Now the American Indian currently living on the Reservation may still have some issues...but who could blame them...

We can close our office on every other non-christian religious holiday and state as such on our VM and be praised for our diversity.

...I personally think we should all close our offices on L Ron Hubbard's birthday as well as the day Dianetics was published...

....ooops...did I offend anyone who's not a Scientologist?

I think if we check the "PC Guide for Fakers and Manipulators" we'll see that rule #1 is "anything Christian is offensive". Rule #2 would be "everything non-Christian is warm and fuzzy". :doh:

It's how the secular world attempts to quiet the small still voice of God's pure truth as it shines light into the darker regions of the hearts and minds of un-believers. Being reminded that their lives lack Jesus while their spirit secretly cries out for Him, while at the same time their secular minds refuse Him is a situation that's gotta hurt on some level.... it also lacks all reason.... :swoon:
I think that's why their PC double standards make no sense either. They are so conflicted on a spiritual level they are choosing to bypass eternal life with their creator. How confused do you have to be to make that choice? Seeing anything that reminds them that they are refusing the one and only living God offends their lofty minds that refuse Him daily. How sad is that :cry:

[Cris413]

I think if we check the "PC Guide for Fakers and Manipulators" we'll see that rule #1 is "anything Christian is offensive". Rule #2 would be "everything non-Christian is warm and fuzzy". :doh:

It's how the secular world attempts to quiet the small still voice of God's pure truth as it shines light into the darker regions of the hearts and minds of un-believers. Being reminded that their lives lack Jesus while their spirit secretly cries out for Him, while at the same time their secular minds refuse Him is a situation that's gotta hurt on some level.... it also lacks all reason.... :swoon:
I think that's why their PC double standards make no sense either. They are so conflicted on a spiritual level they are choosing to bypass eternal life with their creator. How confused do you have to be to make that choice? Seeing anything that reminds them that they are refusing the one and only living God offends their lofty minds that refuse Him daily. How sad is that :cry: I just absolutely LOVE you sister! :hug:

...taking notes from Maid...how to get a point across without going into a rant....

:thumbsup:

[Cris413]

*:eek:*

*Note to self: just agree with Chris today, she's hepp'd up on Caffeine :P
Yep...it's all about balance...and the proper caffeine level...:pink:

[MaidforHim]

I just absolutely LOVE you sister! :hug:

...taking notes from Maid...how to get a point across without going into a rant....

:thumbsup:


Thanks for the kind words sister, but I think there are some situations that cry out for a rant too! At the very least a good solid vent :thumbsup:

Just thinking about the PC double standard dance makes me wish there was a little smiley with steam rising from it's little head ^_^

[Brother Jason]

or President's Day...

shouldn't we be concerned it might offend our anti-government-conspiracy theory clients...



Now I'm offended, that wasn't very politically correct of you!:P

[Galle]

I'm gonna assume you're joking here and that you're not taking a jab a Christians....
It was a jab at those complaining about the "PC agenda" and the war of Christmas, demonstrating the silliness of their specious complains and unsupported assertions.

Read the thread, Cris413. It's long on accusations and assertions and rather short on facts. Is there anything Christian about encouraging a persecution complex?

There was nothing Christian nor brave about this blantant act of violence and anti-semitism...
Indeed so. And anyone who seriously presented this of a case of Christians defending themselves would be quite dishonest, since it was the Christians who were attacking.

Perhaps you should think about that for a while...

[Galle]

Ya know what really baffles me...

Why the PC Agenda is only outraged...and I mean outraged...when it comes to Christianity...

For instance...had our office closed on MLK day...

and changed the VM...our office is currently closed in observance of MLK day...

shouldn't we be concerned it would might offend our racists clients?

or how about Yom Kippur...

shouldn't we be concerned it might offend our anti-semitic clients...

or President's Day...

shouldn't we be concerned it might offend our anti-government-conspiracy theory clients...

or 4th of July...might it offend our British clients...

or how about Thanksgiving...might it offend our client's of American Indian descent? We shared a nice meal with them....and then took their land...

Strangely enough...being Christian...a true believer...you would not be racist...you would not be anti-semitic...you would not be an anti-government activist...you would not be all holding a grudge cause the US won in the Revolution...

...Now the American Indian currently living on the Reservation may still have some issues...but who could blame them...

We can close our office on every other non-christian religious holiday and state as such on our VM and be praised for our diversity.

...I personally think we should all close our offices on L Ron Hubbard's birthday as well as the day Dianetics was published...

....ooops...did I offend anyone who's not a Scientologist?
So what you're saying is that the PC Agenda respects blacks, patriots, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, and non-Christians in general, but excludes Scientologists, conspiracy theorists, and racists?

Thanks! You've demonstrated the complete invalidity of the complaints against "the PC Agenda" right here. You've shown that there is no PC agenda, only people who have the temerity to act decently toward each other even when dealing with minorities. Such ethical action isn't an insidious conspiracy, it's a rejection of bigotry. If you're going to sit there and lump Christianity with racists, bigots, and Scientologists as "victims of the PC police", I'd say you're not really helping the rest of us Christians who can act ethically toward minorities. I'd say more, but the mods don't like it when you say true things about fundamentalists.

[desmalia]

Just speak love and truth... that is what Jesus always did. Did it "cost" Him? Certainly, but His priority is/was that of the Father. So how does PC pandering to anyone promote our own mission... which is the Great Commission.

It always sad to see supposed Christians calling a cat a dog just to save their own position in the "world"?

rev
This is what it really comes down to, isn't it?
The PC agenda makes it more difficult to simply speak with kindness and respect. We must now always check ourselves to make sure that's really what we're doing, and not giving into the PC movement brainwashing. Countering the PC movement doesn't mean speaking harshly or being rude, etc. We continue to speak in love, but we must make sure we're speaking the TRUTH in love, and not let it be watered down by societal pressures. Souls depend on it!

Has anyone read Tammy Bruce's "New Thought Police"? It's quite an eye opener. Did you know it was a lesbian political group that had Dr. Laura's show shut down? They boycotted (with nasty letters, etc.) the show's sponsors until they all backed out. And all this because she wasn't PC enough for their liking. Incredible. What's fascinating is the book is written by an extremely left-wing lesbian woman who has seen the inner workings of the PC movement.

[Cris413]

It was a jab at those complaining about the "PC agenda" and the war of Christmas, demonstrating the silliness of their specious complains and unsupported assertions.

Read the thread, Cris413. It's long on accusations and assertions and rather short on facts. Is there anything Christian about encouraging a persecution complex? want to discuss unsupported assertions...I believe your next comment fits the bill quite clearly

Indeed so. And anyone who seriously presented this of a case of Christians defending themselves would be quite dishonest, since it was the Christians who were attacking. This comment is completely unsbustantiated...(my bold emphasis)

Nowhere in the article did it even elude that these young thugs were Christian. This is your assumption.

And...might I add...and odd assumption coming from someone with a Christian icon....:scratch:

As I previously noted: NO true believer would would attack anyone and certainly not a Jew for shouting Happy Hannukah.

Simply because someone says "Merry Christmas" does not make them a Christian.

Pretty much the same as someone can attend church regularly or proclaim themselves to be Christian are not necessarly true Christian Believers...those who pretty much present themselves full of hate and hostility and anger...certainly not fruit of the Spirit...you can always tell a tree by it's fruit

[Cris413]

So what you're saying is that the PC Agenda respects blacks, patriots, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, and non-Christians in general, but excludes Scientologists, conspiracy theorists, and racists?

Thanks! You've demonstrated the complete invalidity of the complaints against "the PC Agenda" right here. You've shown that there is no PC agenda, only people who have the temerity to act decently toward each other even when dealing with minorities. Such ethical action isn't an insidious conspiracy, it's a rejection of bigotry. If you're going to sit there and lump Christianity with racists, bigots, and Scientologists as "victims of the PC police", I'd say you're not really helping the rest of us Christians who can act ethically toward minorities. I'd say more, but the mods don't like it when you say true things about fundamentalists.

I'm sorry my post confused you. The point is the PC double standard...

...as well as noting that true Believers are not racist, nor anti-semitic...nor are we offended by the belief systems of others...

We may not support these belief systems...but we are certainly not offended by them ...and certainly would not go out of our way to abolish nor hinder their right to freedom of religion...

does that clear things up a bit for ya...

And BTW...I think the mods only have problems with personal attacks and flaming...and please...feel free to PM me your thoughts anytime...

You have been on my heart a lot lately...and I would be more than happy to discuss any concerns you may have.

Peace :hug:

[Galle]

This comment is completely unsbustantiated...(my bold emphasis)
Wrong again. You really ought to stop this obvious projection, you know.

Nowhere in the article did it even elude that these young thugs were Christian. This is your assumption.Yeah, right. I'll bet it was a coven of Wiccans which beat up a Jew because he said "Happy Hanukkah" instead of "Merry Christmas". And I hear those Wiccans are rather hostile against the Jews because "the Jews killed Jesus".

Get a grip on yourself. These thugs were Christians, and they were clearly upset at the "discrimination" that Christians suffer in the War on Christmas and the PC Agenda in general.

And...might I add...and odd assumption coming from someone with a Christian icon....:scratch: Why is it that some people have such difficulty with language? The fact that these criminals were Christian is no more an assumption than evolution. You can't handwave away inconvenient facts by falsely claiming that they're "assumptions" or "opinions".

More to the point, the fact that I am a Christian does not mean I'm obligated to defend every action that every Christian undertakes. Nor does it mean I must defend Christianity's honor with No True Scotsman fallacies. You see, just because I'm a Christian does not make me dishonest.

[Nadiine]

This is what it really comes down to, isn't it?
The PC agenda makes it more difficult to simply speak with kindness and respect. We must now always check ourselves to make sure that's really what we're doing, and not giving into the PC movement brainwashing. Countering the PC movement doesn't mean speaking harshly or being rude, etc. We continue to speak in love, but we must make sure we're speaking the TRUTH in love, and not let it be watered down by societal pressures. Souls depend on it!

Has anyone read Tammy Bruce's "New Thought Police"? It's quite an eye opener. Did you know it was a lesbian political group that had Dr. Laura's show shut down? They boycotted (with nasty letters, etc.) the show's sponsors until they all backed out. And all this because she wasn't PC enough for their liking. Incredible. What's fascinating is the book is written by an extremely left-wing lesbian woman who has seen the inner workings of the PC movement.
Yes I did know that Des. It's pathetic isn't it? I remember watching Dr. Laura's show & I remember all the news headlines about the lesbians that were after her.

Yep, if you aren't with us, we'll cut off YOUR free speech & shut you down. They're hypocrites

(Des. the hazmat suit is so YOU!) :thumbsup: lol

[Cris413]

<snip>

Why is it that some people have such difficulty with language? The fact that these criminals were Christian is no more an assumption than evolution. You can't handwave away inconvenient facts by falsely claiming that they're "assumptions" or "opinions".

I will agree evolution is an assumption...

It is not, however, a fact these criminals were Christian...

snip from the article:


Two women who were with a group of 10 rowdy people then began to verbally assault Adler's companions with anti-Semitic language, Hellerstein said.

One member of the group allegedly yelled, "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus," she said.


This comment was not made by any Christian...even the most unlearned and Spiritually deficient "christian" would know better...


More to the point, the fact that I am a Christian does not mean I'm obligated to defend every action that every Christian undertakes. Nor does it mean I must defend Christianity's honor with No True Scotsman fallacies. You see, just because I'm a Christian does not make me dishonest.

I personally do not expect you to defend anything...but it would be nice if you stopped painting such bias and unfounded allegations and labeling them "Christian"

Now...it seems kinda obvious having a civil and rational conversation with you is beyond reasonable expectation...

so...I respectfully op-out...

[Galle]

I will agree evolution is an assumption...
You've just proved my point. You can try to paint facts that you personally don't like as "assumptions" or "opinions" and "bias", but you're only damaging your own case.

This comment was not made by any Christian...even the most unlearned and Spiritually deficient "christian" would know better...
No True Scotsman is a fallacy. We've already covered this.

Incidentally, it's also incredibly hypocritical. If being unlearned prevents one from being a True Christian, what does that say about you, Mr. "evolution is an assumption"? If being spiritually deficient prevents one from being a True Christian, what does that say about the people in this thread who have been painting tolerance for others as a "PC agenda" which entails discrimination against Christianity?

I personally do not expect you to defend anything...but it would be nice if you stopped painting such bias and unfounded allegations and labeling them "Christian"

Now...it seems kinda obvious having a civil and rational conversation with you is beyond reasonable expectation...
Oh, but I do defend plenty of things. I defend honesty, tolerance, and the utility of facts and logic in discussion. In fact, I've been defending these virtues in this very thread. I'm just not trying to defend fallacies or the immoral actions of my fellow Christians.

Nor do I paint bias and unfounded allegations as "Christian". In fact, I've been the one saying that bias and unfounded allegations are anything but Christian! Perhaps you'd better settle down before making such unfounded and ugly accusations.

When you refuse to act civilly or discuss rationally, you really can't be surprised that it's impossible to hold a civil and rational conversation with others. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to tell you, but this impossibility is simply not the fault of others.

[Cris413]

You've just proved my point. You can try to paint facts that you personally don't like as "assumptions" or "opinions" and "bias", but you're only damaging your own case.


No True Scotsman is a fallacy. We've already covered this.

Incidentally, it's also incredibly hypocritical. If being unlearned prevents one from being a True Christian, what does that say about you, Mr. "evolution is an assumption"? If being spiritually deficient prevents one from being a True Christian, what does that say about the people in this thread who have been painting tolerance for others as a "PC agenda" which entails discrimination against Christianity?


Oh, but I do defend plenty of things. I defend honesty, tolerance, and the utility of facts and logic in discussion. In fact, I've been defending these virtues in this very thread. I'm just not trying to defend fallacies or the immoral actions of my fellow Christians.

Nor do I paint bias and unfounded allegations as "Christian". In fact, I've been the one saying that bias and unfounded allegations are anything but Christian! Perhaps you'd better settle down before making such unfounded and ugly accusations.

When you refuse to act civilly or discuss rationally, you really can't be surprised that it's impossible to hold a civil and rational conversation with others. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to tell you, but this impossibility is simply not the fault of others.
Blessings...and peace be with you friend...:)

[Nadiine]

smart girl ;)

[desmalia]

Yes I did know that Des. It's pathetic isn't it? I remember watching Dr. Laura's show & I remember all the news headlines about the lesbians that were after her.

Yep, if you aren't with us, we'll cut off YOUR free speech & shut you down. They're hypocrites

(Des. the hazmat suit is so YOU!) :thumbsup: lol
Thanks. Hehe. And my background image is the Titanic. Get it? :cool:

You know the direction this thread has taken is really fascinating. On this forum we have the PC requirement that when someone uses a Christian icon or even suggests they follow one Jesus or another, members are required to accept that without question. But in the real world, we are called to judge that by each other's fruit and act accordingly. If we see someone who is calling themselves a Christian, but spouting racist comments, we can make a reasonable assumption that a) this person likely does not truly know Jesus, or b) this person is sinning, but as a believer does want to glorify God. And so we as members of the body need to come along side him or her to offer correction. Note, I'm not saying this gives us license to point fingers or condemn them to hell, of course. But it does give us the opportunity to recognize them as a potentially lost soul and minister accordingly. This is really important because we are called to different responses depending on whether a person is a believer or not. If they are, we are called to hold them to accountability. If they are not, it's an entirely different situation. What we are never called to do is turn a blind eye in the name of "tolerance".

[Nadiine]

Thanks. Hehe. And my background image is the Titanic. Get it? :cool:
oh my lol, I didn't know that was the background... yer weapon there in the front is so big that I can't see back there. ^_^

I agree w/ the post too - definite issues at this forum (thus, the Exodus we saw & yer appropriate sentiments & symbols). ;) :thumbsup:


Lots of hugs :hug:

[flicka]

Yes I did know that Des. It's pathetic isn't it? I remember watching Dr. Laura's show & I remember all the news headlines about the lesbians that were after her.

Yep, if you aren't with us, we'll cut off YOUR free speech & shut you down. They're hypocrites

(Des. the hazmat suit is so YOU!) :thumbsup: lol
Just out of curiosity is there difference between lesbians protesting because Dr Laura called them "biological errors" and deviants, and Christians protesting stores because the workers are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas? It seems like exactly the same thing to me....people protesting because they don't like what someone is saying. Are both of these groups pathetic and hypocritical? :confused:

[PeacaHeaven]

Just out of curiosity is there difference between lesbians protesting because Dr Laura called them "biological errors" and deviants, and Christians protesting stores because the workers are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas? It seems like exactly the same thing to me....people protesting because they don't like what someone is saying. Are both of these groups pathetic and hypocritical? :confused:
I think you should ask Desmalia this since it was her post that brought them up

[jive4005]

God has seen fit to give us caffine... and it's a blessing to me!!!

rev :thumbsup:

[Nadiine]

Just out of curiosity is there difference between lesbians protesting because Dr Laura called them "biological errors" and deviants, and Christians protesting stores because the workers are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas? It seems like exactly the same thing to me....people protesting because they don't like what someone is saying. Are both of these groups pathetic and hypocritical? :confused:
So in other words, the MINUTE you say anything that's negative or against something/someone, it's automatic grounds to get them shut down & silenced?

In other words, there should be NO freedom of speech to people who don't agree with lesbians (or any PC leftists)? Again, this is the whole point of the PC agenda isn't it? POWER to women...? Freedom to express your views? Freedom to go against whoever & whatever you want no matter who you are? PC leftists sure do their fair share of picketing against people & attacking them openly....
But those poor folks are supposed to lay down & take it --& just "go away".

Your post actually does more damage for Lesbians than help support them becuz it makes them look like hypocritical little babies who can't take the fact that other people disagree with their lifestyles and have the AUDACITY to voice it publically!!!
GOD FORBID. :eek:

[Cris413]

I've almost finished my second cup of coffee...so I haven't quite reached the rant stage...LOL

This situation with Dr Laura is yet another fine example of the PC double standard.

When a Believer or even Average John and Jane Q Public have a problem with public broadcasting...ie...homosexuality, violence, language or adult situations and such...

The PC response is...YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE CHANNEL....

However, when it comes to broadcasting that is anti-any of these things...

The PC activist rally the troops and file legal action or taunt and harass until the broadcast is either removed or simply goes away...

Didn't anyone tell these women they had the right NOT to listen to Dr Laura?

[Cris413]

Just out of curiosity is there difference between lesbians protesting because Dr Laura called them "biological errors" and deviants, and Christians protesting stores because the workers are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas? It seems like exactly the same thing to me....people protesting because they don't like what someone is saying. Are both of these groups pathetic and hypocritical? Where are these Christians that have rallied the troops and protesting stores?...I haven't seen any legal actions or demonstrations by Christians for any stores for saying "Happy Holidays"

I musta missed that on the Evening News. I think Christian Activists would make headline news...at least in the "look at these bad, bad Christians" slant...

Now the AFA does actively work to bring awareness to the goals of the PC Agenda...but rather than demanding that broadcasts change to meet their standard...they simply bought their own Network...

They don't (not that I'm aware of) take legal action either but rather the AFA brings the issues to view, provides the proper contact information and encourages people to voice their thoughts and opinions.

The only Christian legal action I'm aware of is in defense of Christians who have been discriminated against.

i.e...a young girl who was told she couldn't wear her cross to school...but a pentagram on a t-shirt or a button on a backpack that says "born beautiful... Gay by choice" with a happy rainbow....is totally acceptable...

This apparently is such an escalating problem...there are Christian Law Offices offering pro-bono services to Christians that are being discriminated against...

[Nadiine]

Where are these Christians that have rallied the troops and protesting stores?...I haven't seen any legal actions or demonstrations by Christians for any stores for saying "Happy Holidays"

I musta missed that on the Evening News. I think Christian Activists would make headline news...at least in the "look at these bad, bad Christians" slant...

Now the AFA does actively work to bring awareness to the goals of the PC Agenda...but rather than demanding that broadcasts change to meet their standard...they simply bought their own Network...

They don't (not that I'm aware of) take legal action either but rather the AFA brings the issues to view, provides the proper contact information and encourages people to voice their thoughts and opinions.

The only Christian legal action I'm aware of is in defense of Christians who have been discriminated against.

i.e...a young girl who was told she couldn't wear her cross to school...but a pentagram on a t-shirt or a button on a backpack that says "born beautiful... Gay by choice" with a happy rainbow....is totally acceptable...

This apparently is such an escalating problem...there are Christian Law Offices offering pro-bono services to Christians that are being discriminated against...
Beeeeeeeeeeeengo! :thumbsup: (the ACLJ).

The hypocrisy is that the platform of the left is to promote complete tolerance of ALL people and all speech & that ALL are free to believe and express their beliefs --- but the actions contradict the platform of tolerance when they start attacking anyone who is against what they want and believe.

To preach tolerance while being interolant (of the exclusivists) is hypocrisy.

It's a contradiction of 'biblical proportion' (no pun).
;)

[desmalia]

Just out of curiosity is there difference between lesbians protesting because Dr Laura called them "biological errors" and deviants, and Christians protesting stores because the workers are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas? It seems like exactly the same thing to me....people protesting because they don't like what someone is saying. Are both of these groups pathetic and hypocritical? :confused:
I'd be happy to answer this. Thanks for suggesting it Nadiine. :)

Look at these two comparisons carefully. They're actually both examples of denial of free speech if you think about it. In Dr. Laura's case, the sponsors gave in to the threats of the Lesbian group, and Dr. Laura was effectively muzzled. In the case of department stores forcing their staff to say only "happy holidays" this is another denial of free speech, which makes many staff members very uncomfortable, and forces Christian staff members to make a very difficult choice between employment and recognizing Christ's birth openly. I don't know of any Christians who have boycotted these stores because they say happy holidays. As I posted earlier, I will shop at them and happily say merry Christmas, regardless of what they say to me. Neither greeting is offensive. It's being forced not to say one that is the problem. Heck, even my Muslim and Jewish friends have no problem with the greeting Merry Christmas, and even say it to me. So for stores to force their employees not to say it really is a form of oppression. Now if stores were forcing their employees to SAY Merry Christmas to every customer, that too would be oppressive.

What's often overlooked is that this whole 'you can only say happy holidays' means that you also can't mention Chanukah, Kwanzaa, or Ramadan for that matter either. Hm, smells like grounds for a law suit now, doesn't it?

[Cris413]

I think sometimes these PC police do more harm then good, for example in Birmingham a few years ago a few PC zealots decided that Birmingham wouldn't celebrate Christmas but instead would celebrate Winterful - Birmingham has a high muslim population and these PC police decided that Muslims are offended by Christmas, the majority of Muslims were offended at the suggestion that they are offended by the word 'Christmas' not to mention this decision stirred up a lot of bad feeling towards the Muslim community which frankly they could do without. You'll be pleased to know common sense prevailed, Birmingham celebrate Christmas again. Blue added for emphasis...

I think this is a great post.

I absolutely agree...sometimes it's only the opinions of a few (squeaky wheels) who are more interested in supporting their own agenda by blanketing a cause onto others...with no actual awareness of the beliefs or concerns of those they're supposedly supporting...

...and as you pointed out...ending up causing more strife than anything else.

Perhaps...the multitude is not as offended by saying Merry Christmas, public displays of Christianity and such as the squeaky wheels would like us to think...

:scratch:

[Nadiine]

Blue added for emphasis...

I think this is a great post.

I absolutely agree...sometimes it's only the opinions of a few (squeaky wheels) who are more interested in supporting their own agenda by blanketing a cause onto others...with no actual awareness of the beliefs or concerns of those they're supposedly supporting...

...and as you pointed out...ending up causing more strife than anything else.

Perhaps...the multitude is not as offended by saying Merry Christmas, public displays of Christianity and such as the squeaky wheels would like us to think...

:scratch:
Let's look at the "offense" issue -- do the PC people give a poop if they OFFEND me? other Christians? Secular people who like "Merry Christmas" or "GOD" in our pledge of allegiance?

The thing is, they aren't trying to keep people from being offended becuz in the process, they're offending many people and suppressing freedoms they once had.

They're trying to get God out is what this really is. You cannot keep everybody from being 'unoffended' & they're "rights' protected; in order to do that, some have to lose more rights and get offended in the process.
My 2 cents

[rmw8855]

Of course they aren't concerned about offending you Nadiine. As far as the PC crowd (or almost any activist group for that matter) is concerned, if you don't agree with them then you are wrong and must be silent. They aren't concerned about protecting anyone's freedom or defending anyone's rights but their own.

[Cris413]

Let's look at the "offense" issue -- do the PC people give a poop if they OFFEND me? other Christians? Secular people who like "Merry Christmas" or "GOD" in our pledge of allegiance?

The thing is, they aren't trying to keep people from being offended becuz in the process, they're offending many people and suppressing freedoms they once had.

They're trying to get God out is what this really is. You cannot keep everybody from being 'unoffended' & they're "rights' protected; in order to do that, some have to lose more rights and get offended in the process.
My 2 cents
Spot on...as my hubby notes...our rights end where someone else's rights begin...

Absolutely...it's not about PC...but the PC Agenda...which I believe is exactly as you state...the systematic removal of God...

One of the things weighing heavily on my mind today...

Why are not more Christians being "squeaky wheels" to effect change?

...and what I've come up with is that Christians for the most part do not seek the acceptance and approval of the world...

The acceptance and approval of God is all that we truly seek...

...understanding that however the world changes...it does not affect our "citizenry"... our place in the Kingdom.

Although we want to be good "neighbors" and not sit idly by as our "neighborhood" wastes away...our focus is on the Kingdom...not on the world...

just tossin' some thoughts out there...

[IisJustMe]

What circumstances or situations that one is expected to adhere to PCness that make you uncomfortable...as a Believer...All of it. PC promoters are trying to redefine "tolerance" so that it requires acceptance of the philosophy, as opposed to merely agreeing to disagree as has been the longtime intent of tolerating others' beliefs. This is nothing less than an effort to homogenize faith, religion, and doctrine so that it is all one colorless lump, eliminating God, Jesus, salvation, responsibility, and condemnation from the vernacular of the whole world. "PC"ness is nothing less than an attack on Christianity.

[PeacaHeaven]

All of it. PC promoters are trying to redefine "tolerance" so that it requires acceptance of the philosophy, as opposed to merely agreeing to disagree as has been the longtime intent of tolerating others' beliefs.

:amen: :thumbsup:

[Cris413]

I personally don't have a problem with PC as it pertains to racism and bigotry...

I don't think anyone would support discrimination and persecution of any group of people...

I'm interested...is there anyone out there that can reference a "hate crime" filed against someone for harassing or harming a Christian?

The article on the subway incident mentioned there was consideration that those young thugs might be charged with a hate crime as well as assault...

Personally, I don't think it should even be a question as to whether or not this was a hate crime...obviously these young criminals attacked this man solely because he is Jewish...

Now...in my mind there would be no question what so ever if the man were homosexual rather than Jewish that "hate crime" would be top of the list of charges.

Please don't misunderstand...I believe such an assault could be considered a hate crime as well...

I'm just considering...do hate crimes against Christians or Jews carry as much weight?

Which brings up the question of "hate crimes" all together...

Is this additional charge really necessary? Or is it merely a means to punish even more severly crimes committed against certain groups of people whose lives the PC police deem more valuable?

Shouldn't all crime be punished according to the crime...not necessarily according to the victim's race, religion or sexual orientation?


:help:

[IisJustMe]

I'm interested...is there anyone out there that can reference a "hate crime" filed against someone for harassing or harming a Christian?I hope not.The article on the subway incident mentioned there was consideration that those young thugs might be charged with a hate crime as well as assault...Again, I hope not. Here's what I mean. No one ever seems to give consideration that the sudden demand, and response from legislators, to define certain acts as "hate crimes" is a first step toward legislating thoughts. This is something to which I am adamantly opposed. Even the Ku Klux Klan or the Skinheads, or from the opposite side of the spectrum, such as PETA or GreenPeace members, are free to think whatever radical thoughts they want to think. Thinking is not a crime. We have laws on the books to cover harrassment, assault, battery, and murder. To define certain of those acts additionally as "hate" crimes is punishing the perpetrator for what he or she thinks. This is a very dangerous precedent.

[Nadiine]

I personally don't have a problem with PC as it pertains to racism and bigotry...

I don't think anyone would support discrimination and persecution of any group of people

(quote isn't displaying properly) :|

I think we SHOULD be able to discriminate some groups of people in non-threatening ways.
Here's why I say this, there were rumors of 2 lawsuits in the past that might be filed. One was against a homeowner who was renting out an apt. but refused to rent to 2 gay men.

Another was regarding businesses like TBN who only hire Christians for open positions. In both cases, I believe 'discrimination' is plausible and RIGHT.
I don't want to be forced to rent my guest house or apt. to gay couples (for several obvious reasons). If someone WANTS to rent to them, great - do it.

And Christian businesses should be able to hire only Christians due to other obvious reasons. Should they be forced to hire atheists?? I'd be upset if that were the case. When I go to a Christian place of business, that is the worldview I want presented there.

[Cris413]

[/color]I hope not.Again, I hope not. Here's what I mean. No one ever seems to give consideration that the sudden demand, and response from legislators, to define certain acts as "hate crimes" is a first step toward legislating thoughts. This is something to which I am adamantly opposed. Even the Ku Klux Klan or the Skinheads, or from the opposite side of the spectrum, such as PETA or GreenPeace members, are free to think whatever radical thoughts they want to think. Thinking is not a crime. We have laws on the books to cover harrassment, assault, battery, and murder. To define certain of those acts additionally as "hate" crimes is punishing the perpetrator for what he or she thinks. This is a very dangerous precedent.
OH MY GOODNESS...call me dense but I didn't even consider the "Thought Police"

I feel like crying now...:swoon: you are absolutely right...

Kinda 1984ish isn't it?

[Cabal]

[/color]Even the Ku Klux Klan or the Skinheads, or from the opposite side of the spectrum, such as PETA or GreenPeace members, are free to think whatever radical thoughts they want to think. Thinking is not a crime. We have laws on the books to cover harrassment, assault, battery, and murder. To define certain of those acts additionally as "hate" crimes is punishing the perpetrator for what he or she thinks. This is a very dangerous precedent.

And that freedom also applies to the people who don't think that way, who are entitled to want to expunge those kinds of attitudes from their society. Thinking in certain ways may not be a crime, but it's certainly a sin against the more important authority, God.

As to how this would affect Christianity, well, true Christianity would never fall into the same category as the KKK and PETA, (although with some groups, you'd be surprised....) and ideally it will protect us.

[Cris413]

I personally don't have a problem with PC as it pertains to racism and bigotry...

I don't think anyone would support discrimination and persecution of any group of people

(quote isn't displaying properly)

I think we SHOULD be able to discriminate some groups of people in non-threatening ways.
Here's why I say this, there were rumors of 2 lawsuits in the past that might be filed. One was against a homeowner who was renting out an apt. but refused to rent to 2 gay men.

Another was regarding businesses like TBN who only hire Christians for open positions. In both cases, I believe 'discrimination' is plausible and RIGHT.
I don't want to be forced to rent my guest house or apt. to gay couples (for several obvious reasons). If someone WANTS to rent to them, great - do it.

And Christian businesses should be able to hire only Christians due to other obvious reasons. Should they be forced to hire atheists?? I'd be upset if that were the case. When I go to a Christian place of business, that is the worldview I want presented there.

Definitely thoughts to ponder…

(it's OK...I'm not hepped up on caffeine.... )


I do agree that businesses should be able to hire whomever they feel is an appropriate "fit" on every level.

I am a little irritated that several jobs that I am totally qualified for were "off limits" to me because I don't speak fluent Spanish. My Espanole is muy mallo...LOL...But last time I looked...English was still the national language here in the States... I guess I could have grounds for a lawsuit…(kinda reminiscent of the days of Long Haired Freaky People need not apply…unless you speak Spanish…then we’ll make an exception…LOL).

I don't agree with reverse discrimination either...companies that are FORCED to fill their "quota" of certain ethnicities...and have to have the "proper ratio" and denying employment to equally qualified but less ethnic applicants.

I also believe people in the private sector should have every right to choose to whom they rent...

However...I do not believe that race nor sexual orientation nor religious affiliation should be a factor...

Example...in our office building...one of the business owners hired a Mormon...one of the women who worked for him thought it was a HUGE mistake as now they were unequally yoked in the office...(Not a Christian based business mind you)

Personally...I thought it was a GREAT opportunity to let the Lord shine on this young woman...

This was one of those PC crisis moments for me...I wanted so much to witness against Mormonism to this young woman...but considered how appropriate (not PC) would it be to criticize her faith to her in the workplace. I know I certainly would like to be able to go to work and not have my faith bashed.

As I prayed about it...what was placed on my heart was to allow the Holy Spirit to move and work and simply keep it in prayer and allow myself to be that useful vessel of the Holy Spirit...without any fear of condemnation.

It was pretty tense for me a couple times…as the “devout Christian woman” seemed pretty obsessed with bashing this young woman behind her back…this did not sit well with me at all. I guess this could be viewed as my falling into some “tolerance” trap but I don’t see it that way at all.

The young woman didn't stay long in the position...and perhaps a seed was planted...I'll never really know.

This young Mormon woman...was just as sweet as she could be...I wouldn't want to see her discriminated against...nor dealt with in such a way as she would be forced to leave her job because she's been spoon fed from childhood a whole big bunch of false of doctrine. IMHO…this in not buying into the PC Agenda…but simply seeing this woman for who she is…a member of the walking wounded, misled and deceived by false doctrine.

There are several of my friends that are homosexual...well...I'm not sure they still consider me a friend as they've severed all ties with me...but I still love them deeply and I would never want to see them denied housing nor employment because they're homosexual.

Now should Christian based businesses as you noted and Christian Book Stores and Gift shops and such, which are primarily owned and operated by individuals rather than corporations, be able to refuse employment to atheists and non-Christians?

Absolutely…

I guess…just like those “chesty” hot wing restaurants can refuse employment to old saggy waitresses…LOL. Should age and bra size be a deciding hiring factor? Sounds like a lawsuit to me…LOL

I’m not sure why an atheist or a non-Christian would want to work for a Christian based business…

Personally...I would not discriminate by not hiring an atheist...Who knows the seeds that would be planted working amongst believers all day...

Maybe I'm a bit naive...but this is the way I see it.

No business should be “forced” to hire anyone and no person should be “forced” to rent to anyone…for any reason.

Just throwing this out for conversation sake:

What if I applied for a job at an atheist organization…or atheist owned and operated business…should I be denied employment because I’m a Christian? Should they be forced to hire me?

It’s bad enough to be denied employment because I’m a saggy ex-waitress who doesn’t speak Spanish…LOL

Or…like my friend who owns a 2 family home… he lives on the top floor and rent’s out the bottom floor…He’s homosexual…should he be able to refuse tenant solely on the fact the applicants are heterosexuals?

‘Nuff to make one’s head spin…

I’m kinda thinkin’ if we all applied Biblical principles to our dealings…there would be far less lawsuits and far less confusion regarding such things.


Ooops…guess I am a little hepped up on something…guess I should pour the rest of this Coke down the drain…LOL

[desmalia]

Again, I hope not. Here's what I mean. No one ever seems to give consideration that the sudden demand, and response from legislators, to define certain acts as "hate crimes" is a first step toward legislating thoughts. This is something to which I am adamantly opposed. Even the Ku Klux Klan or the Skinheads, or from the opposite side of the spectrum, such as PETA or GreenPeace members, are free to think whatever radical thoughts they want to think. Thinking is not a crime. We have laws on the books to cover harrassment, assault, battery, and murder. To define certain of those acts additionally as "hate" crimes is punishing the perpetrator for what he or she thinks. This is a very dangerous precedent.
That's exactly what i was thinking too. It seems all nice and well to legislate hate crimes on the surface. Wouldn't it be great to be rid of racism and discrimination? But then you have the problem of defining what exactly hate crime is. And that's one giant can of worms. Worse than that, you cannot truly force someone to think differently. Certainly there are brainwashing techniques alive and well in our society. But things like sensitivity training do nothing but oppress the person who is forced to take it. They don't make this person let go of whatever hate they have. If anything they often increase that hate. This is not the way to deal with the problem. It must be dealt with on an individual basis and usually over time. I've known people who were racist when younger, but as they learned more about the cultures, etc. let go of that attitude. This is what we need. We cannot be afraid to know what we think and believe and be strong in that. We also need to always remain open to learning. But government forcing us to pretend we believe certain things is simply not going to solve the problem of hate and fear. And it can be used far too easily to limit our religious rights. This is already quite evident in my country where hate crime legislation has been voted in for some time now and becomes more and more restrictive over the years. Not good. It equates basically to Communism.

[flicka]

Where are these Christians that have rallied the troops and protesting stores?...I haven't seen any legal actions or demonstrations by Christians for any stores for saying "Happy Holidays"Apparently you missed the "war on christmas".
I musta missed that on the Evening News. I think Christian Activists would make headline news...at least in the "look at these bad, bad Christians" slant...You don't watch Bill O'Riley I guess.

Now the AFA does actively work to bring awareness to the goals of the PC Agenda...but rather than demanding that broadcasts change to meet their standard...they simply bought their own Network... OK
They don't (not that I'm aware of) take legal action either but rather the AFA brings the issues to view, provides the proper contact information and encourages people to voice their thoughts and opinions.OK
The only Christian legal action I'm aware of is in defense of Christians who have been discriminated against.

i.e...a young girl who was told she couldn't wear her cross to school...but a pentagram on a t-shirt or a button on a backpack that says "born beautiful... Gay by choice" with a happy rainbow....is totally acceptable... IF that happened it was the fault of stupid people and it wouldn' have taken "legal action" to correct.
This apparently is such an escalating problem...there are Christian Law Offices offering pro-bono services to Christians that are being discriminated against...No, it's really not as escalating problem. What's escalating is the victim mentality people are taught to have. It's not just with religion but will almost everything these days. A little common sense would go a long way to preventing 99% of this stuff.

[flicka]

Of course they aren't concerned about offending you Nadiine. As far as the PC crowd (or almost any activist group for that matter) is concerned, if you don't agree with them then you are wrong and must be silent. They aren't concerned about protecting anyone's freedom or defending anyone's rights but their own.
That's not true, just so you know. Truth is always better than hyperbole. :):)

[Cris413]

That's exactly what i was thinking too. It seems all nice and well to legislate hate crimes on the surface. Wouldn't it be great to be rid of racism and discrimination? But then you have the problem of defining what exactly hate crime is. And that's one giant can of worms. Worse than that, you cannot truly force someone to think differently. Certainly there are brainwashing techniques alive and well in our society. But things like sensitivity training do nothing but oppress the person who is forced to take it. They don't make this person let go of whatever hate they have. If anything they often increase that hate. This is not the way to deal with the problem. It must be dealt with on an individual basis and usually over time. I've known people who were racist when younger, but as they learned more about the cultures, etc. let go of that attitude. This is what we need. We cannot be afraid to know what we think and believe and be strong in that. We also need to always remain open to learning. But government forcing us to pretend we believe certain things is simply not going to solve the problem of hate and fear. And it can be used far too easily to limit our religious rights. This is already quite evident in my country where hate crime legislation has been voted in for some time now and becomes more and more restrictive over the years. Not good. It equates basically to Communism.
Yep...now "hate crime" is evolving into "hate speech"...as a chargable offense.

...if I'm not mistaken...

Does this mean a Pastor teaching homosexuality is a sin could be considered hate speech...and charged with some crime?

[desmalia]

Yep...now "hate crime" is evolving into "hate speech"...as a chargable offense.

...if I'm not mistaken...

Does this mean a Pastor teaching homosexuality is a sin could be considered hate speech...and charged with some crime?
Yep. That's the law now here. I haven't seen it enforced too much so far. But technically it is illegal for a pastor to preach any part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality.

[desmalia]

That's not true, just so you know. Truth is always better than hyperbole. :):)
Indeed. But when cultural bias is in conflict with Scripture, which do you believe qualifies as truth?

[Cris413]

Yep. That's the law now here. I haven't seen it enforced too much so far. But technically it is illegal for a pastor to preach any part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality.
Lord come soon...

[Cris413]

No, it's really not as escalating problem. What's escalating is the victim mentality people are taught to have. It's not just with religion but will almost everything these days. A little common sense would go a long way to preventing 99% of this stuff.I guess I did miss the "War on Christmas" stuff...will have to do a bit of research on that one...My hubby...the News Hound has not heard of it either.

And no...I don't watch the O'Riley Factor. There seems to be a lot of spin in that no spin zone.

Personally, I don't care much for spin in either direction.

I couldn't agree with you more regarding the "victim mentality"

I think it's a terrible shame that so many feel the need to blame everthing on everyone else and very few these days want to take responsibility or be held accountable for their own actions and choices.

It's the parent's fault. The problem is where they grew up. They never had a chance in that neighborhood. It's the teacher's fault...it's the government's fault...blah blah blah...

However...I do not consider the "victim mentality" is as applicable to believers...none that I know anyway...

Most Believer's I know pretty much consider that the systematic removal of God (along with our rights) from our societies...is nothing more than the beginnings of prophesy being fulfilled.

Most Believers I know do not consider themselves victims at all...but rather victors IN Christ Jesus.

We know who we are IN HIM and are willing and prepared to stand firm in the faith...

Mat 5:11 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luk 21:12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake.
Luk 21:13 But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony.
Luk 21:14 Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer;
Luk 21:15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.
Luk 21:16 You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death.
Luk 21:17 And you will be hated by all for My name's sake.

Please do not mistake sharing concerns for the current state of events and progression of such things as Believers considering themselves victims of any sort...

[Nadiine]

Yep. That's the law now here. I haven't seen it enforced too much so far. But technically it is illegal for a pastor to preach any part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality.
Something's gone terribly wrong when the govt. legalizes and helps enable people to take street drugs, yet forbids the church to preach the Bible message without fear of being charged with a crime.

For sure, we're close to the time Christ will be returning as prophecy continues to escalate.

[Cabal]

Cracking down on hate crime is not analogous to thought-crime. Hate crimes are crimes committed when people use their twisted views as a basis for crime, like, for example, verbal and physical assaults.

Yes, people are entitled to think what they like, but not act how they like. Once that line's been crossed, then people are entitled to boot them out of society if they fail to rehabilitate.

When you think about it, every crime is a "thought crime" - a lot of criminals commit their offences based on their attitudes to other people. We crack down on that, so why not crack down on the greater problems of racism etc in the same way?

[Nadiine]

Cracking down on hate crime is not analogous to thought-crime. Hate crimes are crimes committed when people use their twisted views as a basis for crime, like, for example, verbal and physical assaults.

Yes, people are entitled to think what they like, but not act how they like. Once that line's been crossed, then people are entitled to boot them out of society if they fail to rehabilitate.

When you think about it, every crime is a "thought crime" - a lot of criminals commit their offences based on their attitudes to other people. We crack down on that, so why not crack down on the greater problems of racism etc in the same way?
When does mere disagreement become "hatred"? The problem is in the misdefining.

[Cabal]

What's to define? Bigotry has no place in a civilised and enlightened society.

Speaking for myself, I don't want (seeing as they've been mentioned already) people like the KKK and PETA on the same planet as me, never mind the same society....

As for less pressing issues like saying merry christmas etc, it's not high on my list of priorities, as long as it is applied equally. As I've said in previous posts, there are more important issues at hand than that - like eliminating violent sectarianism from society. It's not like we're being stopped from celebrating it altogether.

[Cris413]

Cracking down on hate crime is not analogous to thought-crime. Hate crimes are crimes committed when people use their twisted views as a basis for crime, like, for example, verbal and physical assaults.

Yes, people are entitled to think what they like, but not act how they like. Once that line's been crossed, then people are entitled to boot them out of society if they fail to rehabilitate.

When you think about it, every crime is a "thought crime" - a lot of criminals commit their offences based on their attitudes to other people. We crack down on that, so why not crack down on the greater problems of racism etc in the same way?
I have to disagree...

crime is crime...I don't really care what the thought process was that led up to the crime...the end result is still the same...a crime has been committed.

Justice is blind...at least it should be...and should stay that way.

Should Lady Justice take peek from under her blindfold...and add penalties based on ethnicity or anything else considering who committed what crime against whom?

[Cabal]

I have to disagree...

crime is crime...I don't really care what the thought process was that led up to the crime...the end result is still the same...a crime has been committed.

Justice is blind...at least it should be...and should stay that way.

Should Lady Justice take peek from under her blindfold...and add penalties based on ethnicity or anything else considering who committed what crime against whom?

Justice isn't blind - motive factors into any prosecution, usually to confirm a suspect's involvement. This applies to any crime, regardless of whether it was a hate crime or not. You're talking about discriminating based on race, which is entirely different. All I'm saying is, look at the motives involved. This should have no influence on the sentence depending on the defendant's ethnicity or religion - only in the degree of severity of the (hate) crime.

Given that the Bible teaches impure thoughts that lead to impure actions, I really can't understand why the idea of "hate crime" confuses Christians so much.

[Cris413]

Justice isn't blind - motive factors into any prosecution, usually to confirm a suspect's involvement. This applies to any crime, regardless of whether it was a hate crime or not. You're talking about discriminating based on race, which is entirely different. All I'm saying is, look at the motives involved. This should have no influence on the sentence depending on the defendant's ethnicity or religion - only in the degree of severity of the (hate) crime.

Given that the Bible teaches impure thoughts that lead to impure actions, I really can't understand why the idea of "hate crime" confuses Christians so much.
Perhaps this topic warrants a thread of it's own...

but what constitutes a hate crime...as an additional charge...above and beyond the crime committed?

[Cabal]

'As defined in the 1999 NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey), "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct".'

A few second's wikipediage got me that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#North_America) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#North_America%29), which is a US definition....obviously, this is an informal definition. This definition does seem to involve motive. Also, I don't think it's a charge separate from the original charge.

But yeah, could maybe move this into another topic.

Shutting up now.

[IisJustMe]

'As defined in the 1999 NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey), "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct".'That's a very broad stroke with which to paint an act of violence, particularly when the alleged proof of such motive is thin at best. For example, the perception of the motives of the men who killed Matthew Shepherd was generated by a well-organized gay activist community, and resulted in the state of Wyoming's "hate crime" legislation. It later turned out that the men who killed Shepherd didn't even know he was gay. They saw him spending money with cash and credit cards that was way over the top for most people in that community. They were motivated by greed, not hatred. The Wikipedia entry for Shepherd still labels his murder a "hate crime" and it wasn't. It was a drunken act of stupidity committed for the sole purpose of robbery.A few second's wikipediage got me that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#North_America) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#North_America%29), which is a US definition....obviously, this is an informal definition. This definition does seem to involve motive. Also, I don't think it's a charge separate from the original charge.Yet another reason to reject anything on Wikipedia. It is not well-researched and is too open to people with an agenda being able to post something that is not entirely true. The US definition, and in every state with "hate crime" legislation has to define motive, and the "hate crime" category is the only one in US law that defines motive. This is in essense defining a thought process, and therefore is legislating thinking as a crime. That is the "dangerous precedent" I spoke of earlier.

Also, an act classified as a "hate crime" carries anywhere from an additional one third to double the punishment of the same crime not deemed an act of hatred, making it a more severe version of the same charge not labeled a "hate crime." Until now, the motive of alleged hatred was irrelevant to the punishment required of someone convicted of a crime. So-called "hate crime" legislation has changed that for the first time in American history. It is the crime itself that is illegal. Motive never was and never should be a "mitigating circumstance" for punishment, but merely a pinion upon which the prosecution must balance the proof of the crime, the others being opportunity and the means to carry it out. The perpetrator must be shown to have had all three in order to be legally proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example, under the regular laws used to charge someone with assault, the motive can be the perpetrator's dislike of a certain ethnic group. But it is the physical act of the assault that is already illegal and, provided there is sufficient evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" will result in a conviction. Distasteful as the perpetrator's prejudice is, it is not illegal. It is a distorted moral conclusion based on bad or insufficient evidence. In other words, stupidity. And that's not illegal either.But yeah, could maybe move this into another topic.Why? This nonsense is the direct result of the PC Agenda.

[Cris413]

I'm OK with this branch off of the OP...

If someone wants to start another Thread to discuss Hate Crime specifics of the PC Agenda...which is what I suggested earlier...

...only because I think it's a significant enough subject to warrant a Thread of it's own...(almost started one myself this morning)

...but as the OP...I have no problem with the conversation continuing here...

[Cris413]

There are many factors that are involved in determining motive and penalties...

The problem with assigning them to "protected groups" seems to validate one life above another as well as labeling these groups perpetual victims...promoting the "victim" mentality" discussed earlier.

Not to mention the progression of hate crimes to hate speech and so on...

Personally...the only groups I would like to see labeled as “protected” are children, the elderly and the disabled...those not able to defend themselves.

As it is now...in most states...someone can assault a senior citizen and be charged only with a misdemeanor...but assault someone in one of the "protected groups"...it’s a hate crime with, as IiJM noted, much stiffer penalties.

So attacking a 25 year old homosexual/certain ethnic person carries stiffer penalties than attacking an 85 year old senior citizen...

In what world does that make sense?

Does Christianity fall into the "religion" protected group?

[Nadiine]

All I'm saying is, look at the motives involved. This should have no influence on the sentence depending on the defendant's ethnicity or religion - only in the degree of severity of the (hate) crime.
I don't care what someone's motives are if they hate me... I ONLY CARE if they carry them out.
Hatred doesn't bother me until it's acted on.

Given that the Bible teaches impure thoughts that lead to impure actions, I really can't understand why the idea of "hate crime" confuses Christians so much.
It's one thing to know how sin is brought to completion, it's another to make it a "crime" to THINK something & openly disagree.
I know the concept - it doesn't confuse me, I just disagree with it where people are concerned. God will judge the heart & motive.
We can judge and sentence those who carry them out.

[Cris413]

Wow...I just realized how indoctrinated I've become into the PC Agenda...

Choosing to use the term "certain ethnic person" because I'm afraid the Thought Police will label me a racist if I mention any specific ethnicity....

IMO...The PC Agenda does more to harm the quest for unity than good...

...by continually shining a spotlight and focusing on the divisions under the guise of tolerance and diversity.

I felt kinda sad for Halle Berry when she won the oscar...all the hoopla about a black woman winning the oscar...

kinda over-shadowed her talent as an actor as being the reason she won....

If people stopped focusing on the division for just one second...perhaps the lines that have been drawn wouldn't be so glaringly apparent...

Then of course she got smacked down by the PC Thought Police for her remark about a distorted photo of her looking like her Jewish cousin...

Wow...comments like that can ruin a career...even though it was not meant as a slur...the Thought Police deemed it a slur...now we have to make public apologies...

I wonder if Halle has to attend tolerance and diversity classes or go into to therapy as to deal with her obvious bigotry?

Just like Isaiah Washington and Patrick Dempsy almost coming to blows over a "homophobic slur" Washington made regarding TR Knight...

Everyone seemed to want to blow it off...but noooo...the PC Police and media simply wouldn't let it go...

Am I the only one who considers this type of thing has gotten more than way out of hand?

[IisJustMe]

The PC Agenda does more to harm the quest for unity than good...

...by continually shining a spotlight and focusing on the divisions under the guise of tolerance and diversity.That's precisely what the individual minority movements have done: By focusing on their differences and demanding their rights to be "different" they have actually perpetuated the divisions others see between themselves and the minorities, and have therefore perpetuated racism. The message should be our commonalities, and our joint heritage as Americans -- not "African Americans" not "Native Americans" not "Irish Americans" and not "European Americans." Just "Americans."

I really believe it is a political agenda that others have manipulated behind the scenes.

I remember when Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition" started, he preached a message of self-reliance and the need to take personal responsibility for one's own financial and moral state. It was taking root among the nation's young black people. Then, suddenly, Jackson developed heretofore unknown political aspirations, and the message changed. I truly believe that a certain political party offered him power and prestige (that it had no intention of letting him realize) but first, they told him, he had to change his message to fit their "welfare state" gospel. So he did.

It's sad, because his original message was truly a vehicle of change in America, and the "powers that be" didn't want it preached, so they killed it by subverting the messanger.

[Cabal]

Yet another reason to reject anything on Wikipedia. It is not well-researched and is too open to people with an agenda being able to post something that is not entirely true.

That's why the real references are posted in a nice list at the end of each article.

The US definition, and in every state with "hate crime" legislation has to define motive, and the "hate crime" category is the only one in US law that defines motive. This is in essense defining a thought process, and therefore is legislating thinking as a crime. That is the "dangerous precedent" I spoke of earlier.

If the motive is fairly and well ascertained, then I see no harm in this. As I said before, bigotry has no place in a civilised society.

Distasteful as the perpetrator's prejudice is, it is not illegal. It is a distorted moral conclusion based on bad or insufficient evidence. In other words, stupidity. And that's not illegal either.Why? This nonsense is the direct result of the PC Agenda.


Hate crime legislation exists to protect groups that are shown to be more targeted for their way of life (religion/sexual orientation/race). Surely these are one of the modern day equivalents of widows and orphans (asides from the actual widows and orphans of course)?

[desmalia]

Hate crime legislation exists to protect groups that are shown to be more targeted for their way of life (religion/sexual orientation/race). Surely these are one of the modern day equivalents of widows and orphans (asides from the actual widows and orphans of course)?
I believe that according to the Scriptures, homosexual acts are sin.

Now, if I say that directly to a gay person, should you deduce that I hate gays and therefore send me to jail or at least to some sort of "tolerance retraining"?

[Cabal]

I believe that according to the Scriptures, homosexual acts are sin.

Now, if I say that directly to a gay person, should you deduce that I hate gays and therefore send me to jail or at least to some sort of "tolerance retraining"?

That's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about thoughts like those being used as the basis for crime.

[desmalia]

That's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about thoughts like those being used as the basis for crime.
See, but you are if you're suggesting that government has the ability to establish what a person is thinking based on a statement they make. As I said earlier, the statement I made earlier qualifies as "hate speech" in my country. Where exactly do we draw that line?

As Nadiine has pointed out, the criminal justice system needs to punish based on the action, not the supposed thought behind it. I think we can all agree that if someone is physically attacked, there is some degree of "hate" involved, whether it be for a minority or not. That is not why the attacker is punished though. It is for the act of harming another individual.

[IisJustMe]

As I said before, bigotry has no place in a civilised society.I agree, but as many who hold your position are fond of saying in regards to their pro-abortion stance, "You can't legislate morality." I happen to agree with that, and efforts to increase punishment for a crime committed because of a closely held opinion are nothing more than "thought control" and has no place in a free society. I would wish, for example, that abortion was outlawed, but not on moral grounds. Plainly and simply, because it should be classified as murder, because it does end a human life. I don't drag the Bible into my arguments, and no crime should be either "more illegal" or require more punishment because of the opinions that led to its commission.Hate crime legislation exists to protect groups that are shown to be more targeted for their way of life (religion/sexual orientation/race). Surely these are one of the modern day equivalents of widows and orphans (asides from the actual widows and orphans of course)?I can't believe you would make such a ridiculous comparison. Political activists are not the moral equivalent of "widows and orphans." Also, the crimes committed against someone for religious or any other preference are already against the law, so making them so-called "hate crimes" again goes back to thought control. We are punishing people for what they think, and I would think you of all people would be morally opposed to such efforts.

[Cabal]

I agree, but as many who hold your position are fond of saying in regards to their pro-abortion stance, "You can't legislate morality." I happen to agree with that, and efforts to increase punishment for a crime committed because of a closely held opinion are nothing more than "thought control" and has no place in a free society. I would wish, for example, that abortion was outlawed, but not on moral grounds. Plainly and simply, because it should be classified as murder, because it does end a human life. I don't drag the Bible into my arguments, and no crime should be either "more illegal" or require more punishment because of the opinions that led to its commission.

Good explanation. My question is - God judges us based on our thoughts - why shouldn't the courts of government? Not on all thoughts, but on those that are known to be of harm to a society.

(not what I believe in, but no-one seems to have addressed this point in this way yet)

I can't believe you would make such a ridiculous comparison. Political activists are not the moral equivalent of "widows and orphans." Also, the crimes committed against someone for religious or any other preference are already against the law, so making them so-called "hate crimes" again goes back to thought control. We are punishing people for what they think, and I would think you of all people would be morally opposed to such efforts.

Who says that all members of those groups covered by a hate crime law are all activists? The laws are there to protect known targeted groups. Or would it be preferable to allow troublesome groups like PETA and the KKK to exist?

[MaidforHim]

Good explanation. My question is - God judges us based on our thoughts - why shouldn't the courts of government? Not on all thoughts, but on those that are known to be of harm to a society.

(not what I believe in, but no-one seems to have addressed this point in this way yet)



Who says that all members of those groups covered by a hate crime law are all activists? The laws are there to protect known targeted groups. Or would it be preferable to allow troublesome groups like PETA and the KKK to exist?

Only God knows what your thoughts truly are, even more so than you yourself. Man however makes mistakes when judgeing simple facts, how much more likely would man be to make mistakes when judgeing someone elses thoughts? There is no way for a human to know what is really and truly deep down in someones heart and mind. The actions of an individual are adequate.

For example...
On Monday John Doe goes out and robs and kills a man at random out of 30 people walking by an alley..
On Tuesday John Doe goes out and robs and kills a man and chooses out of 30 people walking by an alley a man that is of XYZ race because he doesn't like them.

Is John Doe more guilty of the murder on Tuesday because he didn't like him, than he is of the random murder on Monday? Is the man murdered on Monday less dead than the man murdered on Tuesday that he didn't like or even hated?

Both men are just as dead, both robbed, should John Doe recieve an extra punishment for killing the man on Tuesday because he didn't like his race? Or is he just as guilty of killing both of them because it was a horrible thing to do regardless of the reason, because no reason is good enough to murder anyone, regardless of any misguided feelings toward the victim. Doesn't each victim deserve the same amount of justice or vindication?

I think the fact is what ever thoughts or feelings that drive or simply allow someone to commit murder are thoughts that are wrong. Hate or no hate, murder is murder so judging someone for their thoughts and feelings is just totally unnecessary and I think this translates to any crime.

[Cabal]

Another good explanation - however, noone here has answered my point that I would rather not have anything to do with the KKK or PETA. I would like to know how people can justify allowing groups like these to continue? I believe in hate crime laws because I think it's a far bigger deal to leave these groups to continue to spread their venom. There is a big difference between groups that spread hate to other groups and groups that seek to stop hate being spread to them.

[desmalia]

Another good explanation - however, noone here has answered my point that I would rather not have anything to do with the KKK or PETA. I would like to know how people can justify allowing groups like these to continue? I believe in hate crime laws because I think it's a far bigger deal to leave these groups to continue to spread their venom. There is a big difference between groups that spread hate to other groups and groups that seek to stop hate being spread to them.
Well as has been pointed out, government control and government regulations aren't going to get rid of groups like that. Certainly they can be punished for their violent acts. But that doesn't solve the issue of the groups themselves. The hate, fear, etc. is still there. That's part of living in a fallen world. Even if one group is dissolved, another will start up elsewhere. What we can do as believers is pray for them and pray for the chains of hatred and fear to be broken. I don't offer that as a consolation. We have access to the Creator Himself!

[Cris413]

Desmalia...:thumbsup:

Another good explanation - however, noone here has answered my point that I would rather not have anything to do with the KKK or PETA. I would like to know how people can justify allowing groups like these to continue? I believe in hate crime laws because I think it's a far bigger deal to leave these groups to continue to spread their venom. There is a big difference between groups that spread hate to other groups and groups that seek to stop hate being spread to them.
I guess...just like other freedoms we have in this country...you have the freedom to hate. You also have the right to voice your hate (so far) however, No one has nor have they ever had the right to ACT on that hate.

If this hate speech legislation gets going (my apologies I'm not that up on the current status) Then freedom of speech will be a thing of the past...

And whether or not we like everything individuals or groups have to say...freedom of speech is one of the foundations that makes our country a FREE country...

[Cabal]

Fair enough. Well put to both of you. :)

I still don't agree that the idea verges on "thoughtcrime", and some groups certainly need more defending than others for whatever historical/political/economic reasons - but several of you put across some good points for con.

[IisJustMe]

Good explanation. My question is - God judges us based on our thoughts - why shouldn't the courts of government? Not on all thoughts, but on those that are known to be of harm to a society. (not what I believe in, but no-one seems to have addressed this point in this way yet)
I thought I had addressed that by labeling it thought control. God can punish for a thought, because a thought can be a sin known only to Him and the one thinking it. The government doesn't have the power to unequivocally label "thought" a sin or against the law, not being able to actually know what the thought was, regardless of what a defendant may say. Therefore the courts should be barred from making such a judgment.Who says that all members of those groups covered by a hate crime law are all activists?You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say the people covered are all activists, I meant to say that it is the work of activists that has brought us to this point. My example was Matthew Shepherd, was not actually a victim of a so-called "hate crime" but was a "simple" (if there is such a thing) robbery-homicide victim.The laws are there to protect known targeted groups. Or would it be preferable to allow troublesome groups like PETA and the KKK to exist?The laws against assault, battery, terroristic threats, murder and the like already exist. There is no need to write identical laws with a "hate" caveat included. Again, ad nauseum, that's thought control.