The End of Free Speech in Canada?
December 21st, 2007 at 01:32am Mark Noonan
Just frightening to see this sort of totalitarianism in an allegedly democratic nation:
Another Canadian publication has come under attack for its opinions through the agency of the government-funded Canadian Human Rights Commissions (HRC). Closely following an uproar in the media against government-sponsored censorship via HRC against Maclean’s magazine and columnist Mark Steyn and an Alberta HRC judgment ordering Alberta news media to not publish any comments on homosexuality by a Christian pastor, Toronto’s Catholic Insight magazine has reported they stand accused in an HRC complaint of “targeting homosexuals”.
Catholic Insight is a Catholic political and cultural general interest magazine that regularly and accurately expounds orthodox Catholic teaching, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on homosexuality as well as harmful consequences to individual persons and society of the active homosexual “lifestyle”.
The magazine now reveals that Rob Wells, a homosexual activist associated with the Pride Centre of Edmonton, in February this year filed a nine-point complaint against Catholic Insight. Wells alleges that the magazine made “negative generalizations” about homosexuals; portrayed them as preying upon children, as dangerous and “devoid of any redeeming qualities and…innately evil”.
Catholic Insight (CI), however, bases its editorial policy very strictly on Catholic Church teaching which is at pains to separate what it says is the deviant behaviour and disordered inclination of homosexuality from the person.
In Canada, if you file a complaint against some one or some entity with the Human Rights Commission, your case is carried forward entirely at taxpayer expense - a huge incentive for activists to use the HRC as a tool of intimidation against persons or groups they find offensive for whatever reason. Boiled down, what Catholic Insight did was teach standard Catholic doctrine on the subject of homosexuality - and it now is on trial merely because of this expression of opinion. This is in Canada - but it is the sort of thing the political left wishes to bring here with their campaigns for “hate crimes” laws and changes to anti-discrimination laws to include “sexual orientation”.
Fundamentally, this is what we get when hatred is allowed the free use of lies to get its way - Rob Wells hates the Catholic Church because of the Church’s views on homosexual sex. Because of this unreasoning hatred, Wells wants to lash out at the Church - and his tool of choice is a lie. It is patently absurd for anyone to claim they feel threatened by Catholics stating the Catholic position on homosexuality. One might feel offended by it, but no on has a right to not be offended - Wells doesn’t feel threatened; and he knows he’s lying when he says otherwise. The Catholics under attack by Wells know he’s lying. The members of the Human Rights Commission know he’s lying. His friends and family know he’s lying. You, dear reader, know that he’s lying and, of course, I know he’s lying. But the farce will be maintained - everyone will proceed as if Wells weren’t lying. And in the by and by, we might see the Canadian HRC ruling in Wells favor because they, too, hate the Catholic Church and will use whatever comes to hand - even a transparant lie - to hammer the Church.
If anyone wonders why I fight so ardently against the left it is because of this - because of the hatred and dishonesty in service of hatred so prevalent on the left. The American left has been partially stymied in their attempts to make us a carbon copy of Canada and/or the EU, but it is what they want, and for the same reason - because they hate.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues
104 Comments
1. Ricorun | December 21st, 2007 at 1:56 am
I don’t think we should allow any Canadian citizens to vote in the upcoming elections here in the US. That’ll teach their canuck asses, eh?
2. Christian Wright | December 21st, 2007 at 5:37 am
Hate speach should not be allowed in any society. Christian hate speach in the form of Passion Plays made it easy for the Germans to turn against the Jews.
Hate speach against gays makes it easier, almost justifies, violence against gays.
3. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 6:00 am
Canada’s C-250 hate crimes bill is a large step towards thought control. To sum it up, It allows the government to criminalize opinion and religious beliefs.
Their strict gun control laws give them a low rating on the fun-o-meter and freedom index. Not the place for me, I’ll stay right here in the U.S.
4. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 6:38 am
I was just wondering if teenage girls in Canada could now file suit against their fathers, in light of the Aqsa Parvez incident.
5. Greg-O | December 21st, 2007 at 6:46 am
Christian Wright wrote:
“Hate speach should not be allowed in any society. Christian hate speach in the form of Passion Plays made it easy for the Germans to turn against the Jews.”
This is patently absurd, and yet another myth that has been repeated enough that some believe it, instead of investigating like Bruce Walker did in this article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_and_christianity.html
FTA: “Christianity had declined severely in Germany at the time the Nazis came to power, which is why the Nazis were able to come to power.”
With the German people devoid of an important moral compass, Hitler filled that vacuum with another one of actual hate and malice. I encourage anyone and everyone to read the article at that URL, because if it happened in Germany, it can happen in Canada, and even here.
God bless, and Merry Christmas
6. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 7:08 am
Christian,
Do you suppose that Islamic hate speech could have anything to do with Islamic extremists?
And why wont you criticize Islam with the same vitriol you criticize Christianity, if in fact you believe that hate speech should not be allowed in any society?
7. Retired Spook | December 21st, 2007 at 7:15 am
And why wont you criticize Islam with the same vitriol you criticize Christianity
Pretty simple really. CW knows that Christians will turn the other cheek while Islamic extremists will cut off BOTH cheeks as well as that part of the anatomy to which they’re attached.
8. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 7:16 am
“… it is the sort of thing the political left wishes to bring here with their campaigns for ‘hate crimes’ laws and changes to anti-discrimination laws to include ’sexual orientation’”.
ABSOLUTELY ! ! !
We have more than enough and adequate laws to cover actual crimes against people. Hate crime laws (thought crimes) are intended to solely to intimidate and suppress free speech and opposing views — until Liberals can complete the indoctrination and reprogramming of the youth and future voters — just as Hitler did!
“… if it happened in Germany, it can happen in Canada, and even here.”
And IT WILL HAPPEN HERE — if Liberals (Democrats) are not stopped! ! !
Anyone who doubts it is naive and blind to the truth… an idiot… or a lying, conniving Liberal (Democrat)!
AAR
9. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 7:54 am
Spook,
Exactly. Did you see the interview with Hugh Hewitt and Lawrence O’Donnell?
At least he had the courage to reveal the liberal cowardice. And that is the primary reason liberals want to “end the war”. They are afraid.
10. plainjane | December 21st, 2007 at 7:56 am
With respect to the neocon posters here that like to get into everyone else’s business without solving problems in America, there is a President Bush appointed twit over at FCC allowing wholesale corporate consolidation of our media markets. This is very dangerous, today wingnuts control most of the media, but tomorrow with a few acquisitions we could be listening to China financed propaganda. But go ahead and solve Canada’s problems first. You did so well in Iraq.
11. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
>>>>This is very dangerous, today wingnuts control most of the media - plain<<<<<
I couldn’t agree more. The NYT, LAT, Seattle PI, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. are all very dishonest and dangerous media outlets.
12. Bigfoot | December 21st, 2007 at 8:37 am
But go ahead and solve Canada’s problems first.
If solving Canada’s problems prevents those problems from entering the U.S., then let’s by all means do so.
13. Retired Spook | December 21st, 2007 at 8:40 am
Neo, I think Jane meant “right” wingnuts. See, in her parallel universe, up is down and down is up, right is left and left is right.
14. plainjane | December 21st, 2007 at 8:41 am
. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 7:54 am
And that is the primary reason liberals want to “end the war”. They are afraid.
What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say, do you have any concept of history? Are you saying the party of Wilson which took the Germans down in WWI, the party of Roosevelt which fought three rightwing powers Nazis, Fascists, and Imperialist at the same time during WWII, the party of Truman which stopped the wholesale slaughter of South Korea, the party of Kennedy which looked the treat of nuclear war in the eye and made the Russians blink during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the party of Clinton which stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia “is afraid” of battle when the cause is just?
We want to end our involvement in this five-year war, because we have been lied too since the beginning. Base on these lies, we preemptively invaded another country that was not a threat to the sovereignty of the United States.
15. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 8:46 am
plain,
The current occupants of the Democratic party are nothing like the previous occupants. FDR and JFK would certainly be Republicans today.
Have you ever rad FDR the “Four Freedoms” speech?
Do you remember JFK saying:
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”
Now tell me how the litany of liberal entitlement programs supports JFK’s vision.
16. plainjane | December 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
12. Bigfoot | December 21st, 2007 at 8:37 am
If solving Canada’s problems prevents those problems from entering the U.S., then let’s by all means do so.
You always know what is best for everyone else. If you believe in such a cause, by all means contact Congressman Tancredo, he is not busy right now. He can put you in contact with someone in the Pentagon to begin plans for a Canadian invasion. I would target their hockey sticks. That would really tick them off.
17. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 8:53 am
The following is an excerpt from the Four Freedoms speech. Can you imagine John Edwards giving this speech today?
Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to “give to the Congress information of the state of the union,” I find it unhappily necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents.
18. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 8:54 am
With NAFTA and international laws, we may have to embrace their way of doing things and roll out the red carpet to this type of socialism, and thought control.
19. Retired Spook | December 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
Jane,
Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy wouldn’t recognize their party today under the likes of Pelosi and Reid.
and the party of Clinton which stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia
That’s too funny.
20. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 8:57 am
Plain,
Tell me how Bosnia threatened the sovereignty of the US.
21. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 8:59 am
Plain,
Do you honestly think that Edwards, Clinton or Obama would “gallantly wage an armed defense of democracy” on other continents?
22. Retired Spook | December 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Jane,
So far around 17,000 bodies have been found in mass graves in Bosnia while our “clean” war from 15,000 feet resulted in between 100,000 and 150,000 civilian deaths. I know, I know — it’s the intent that matters, not the results. I’m curious as to what your reaction would have been if we’d used ethnic cleansing as our sole justification in Iraq.
Oh, and I’m waiting with baited breath for you to answer Neocon’s question in #20.
23. eliXelx | December 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
Recently I was (pardon the pun!) dragged to a gay bar by one of my pals, and you should have heard the things that were lisped there about straights, muslims, jews, christians, cops and wanting to keep the age of consent at 16 (the local consensus was that it should be reduced to 11 for boys and he onset of menarche for girls!).
It was retch-inducing to hear that heterosexual parents and politicians were being mean-spirited about this because they were incapable of pulling pre-pubescent poontang, something which all those present earnestly desired to do or were able to do or had done in the past! Oh! such envy!
The idea was then bandied about that lowering the age of consent should be the next big campaign that LGBT organizations should espouse!
Hate speech?!! You have no idea!!
24. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 9:34 am
For starters let me just say this. You either have free speech or you do not. PERIOD.
Here are a few points about the freedom of speech:
1. It covers all speech whether you like it or not, except that mean to incite a riot, sedition or treason and that which is false and causes direct harm to a person (slander).
2. You do not have to listen to it if it offends you.
3. ‘Hate Speech’ does not exists. It is the opinion of one party though it may seem offensive to the whole.
4. Banning of certaun tyoes of speech and literature was one of the FIRST steps the Nazi’s took. If you want to use the Nazi argument, know your history.
5. It is one of the few, directly referenced and plainly stated, constitutionally protected rights that we have. It is not an enumeration of the ‘living, breathing’ constitution, nor is it the opinion of some judge.
25. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 9:50 am
Let’s just come out and say it guys.
Gay people are sinners. They are going to hell unless they stop being gay. They deserve to contract AIDS because the disease itself was created by God to punish them for their sins of laying with another person of the same sex. It is your duty as Christians to minister to them and show them the way before it is too late. It is an unfortunate byproduct, however, of this that some may take to violence and hatred towards gays sometimes ending in gruesome murder.
Oh and they can’t serve their country in the military either or even commit to one another through the vows of marriage.
Right? Do I get a gold star from the head-up-the-ass Christian Conservative here?
High five buds. Happy Friday.
26. mdgop | December 21st, 2007 at 9:53 am
In Canada you don’t have a freedom of speech but a freedom from it. I wrote a article on the secularization of America and Canada. Canada is by far one of the most horrifying countries when it comes to their free speech and due process rights. Canada is a great example of why the Democrats represent a dangerous future. Imagine NOW or The Westboro Baptist Church getting free legal means to sue practically anyone they want. Tort reform should be a top priority for any Republican candidate.
27. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 9:57 am
SteaM,
At least your consistent with your ignorance of conservatism and Christianity.
I found it extremely ironic how you WERE THE ONLY ONE to actually say what you assume to be the Christian conservative position.
Not one conservative here has actually said that, have they?
But apparently, through the distorted liberal prism in which you view issues, Christians are homophobes and Iraqis are incompetent. Have I got that about right?
28. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 9:59 am
plain,
What’s the matter? Are you now realizing that your current crop of pathetic Democratic leaders resemble nothing of what the Democrats use to stand for?
29. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
neocon,
Buddy, it comes from being a born-again Southern Baptist church member for 18 years of my life. Born into a Reagon loving, Vietnam war loving (police-the-world-with-a-gun-to-the-head), prejudice and bigortry spreading, anti-gay, anti-Clinton, and Republican through and through family.
Now tell me, when my church led me to believe the very things I posted above. Does that mean I am just having some distorted view of christian conservatives?
Am I bitter? DUH. It’s taken me being into my 30s to start to shake off all of the wierd stuff I was told back then.
30. Retired Spook | December 21st, 2007 at 10:21 am
Neo, the crickets appear to have invaded plainjane’s keyboard.
31. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Steaming pile floating in the toilet
It is not hate. There is right and wrong.
Some of us can’t compromise on right and wrong.
You can move to Toledo, Ohio they are letting something kinda like gay marriage there. Or Massacheuts is a gay marriage state.
The democrats at their debate wanted to tell everyone that 2nd grade kids reading books with two princes kissing each other is ok.
Dude, It not ok
That is wrong, a kid that young doesn’t need to be learning in school that boys kissing boys is ok, come on Steamer are you really against a standard normal regular traditional family type, with a husband and wife and kids. do you want our 2nd graders to be gay? Is the goal to turn everyone gay?
32. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am
EricT,
Tolerance: Accepting and respecting others who are different.
http://www.tolerance.org
My goal is not to “turn” anyone gay but rather to not judge someone for being gay if they chose to be. It is their right to pursue happiness in this country. Who are you take away that right in the name of a so-called Loving God?
And does it not make you curious when you read of all of the closeted gay Republican congressman? Or the closeted gay church Ministers? How about the actions of Haggart?
In my area I hear of married church going men who run off to parks to have gay sexual encounters. It’s because they are ashamed to be who they are. Because people like you tell them it’s wrong and they live their lives believing that. This also sometimes causes people to commit acts of violence towards people who are gay. Especially when someone’s children have been raised believing that these people are living in sin. Hate breeds hate.
33. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am
um… AAR… I don’t think that tying a gay person to a pickup truck with barbed wire and dragging him to death because he’s gay is “freedom of speech.”
I also don’t think that lynching blacks and Jews is freedom of speech.
I only support hate crimes in cases of violent crimes because homophobia, racism, religious hatred, and sexism are irrational hatreds of entire groups of people. When people show a willingness to act on those irrational hatreds, it creates an additional risk to society because not only does that person pose a threat to people who have given him at least some “rational” motive, people who just fit into that group(s) that he irrationally hates would also be at risk. Because of that, I would definitely support putting people who commit violent acts out of racism, religious hatred, sexism, or homophobia away for longer than people who commit violent crimes for other reasons.
But I don’t see a reason to limit “hate speech” that doesn’t incite violence. You can saw all of the disparaging things about gays that you want, and I can saw all of the disparaging things about Christianity, Islam, and other religions that I want to.
However, a religious authority calling homosexuals “wicked” could very well be construed as possibly inciting violence, but I’ll let various courts decide that, as I only know what the article told me, and, frankly, it’s a little bit biased.
Also, the Christian view on Homosexuality is inherently threatening… In Romans, it specifically says that homosexuals, and those who support them, deserve death… that is a wee bit threatening.
That being said, the next time I see a post on here about anti-Christian speech, I am going to bring this post up and call the writer a hypocrite.
34. Kahn | December 21st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Rana, no it’s not. It’s murder. Got a law to cover that…. murder. Get it?
Was the firebombing of Republican offices, slashing the tires of Republican vehicles, and the ransacking of and shooting into Republican offices during the last Presidential election cycle “hate crimes”. You people seem to put us into some giant evil mish mash, and you certainly harbor extreme and ignorant hatred towards us. When that spills over into violence (as it often does), is that a “hate crime”?
When those leftist assholes marched in Oregon with those “F$%k the troops” banners and burned a soldier in effigy, was that a “hate crime”?
Because using your own definitions, it sure looks that way. Thats the thing about the law. It’s all about defining things. You define something one way to fit your little liberal toad minds, and the definition applies to other things.
35. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Kahn,
Do you have a link to back up your, “soldier burned in effigy” remark (I’ll not consider it until you substantiate that claim)? Is a “(Expletive Deleted)the Troops” (Ed.Note: C’mon, Rana, you know better than that) banner inciting violence? I know that preaching that god says that gays deserve death comes pretty close to inciting violence, if someone actually has the balls to act in the way that the Bible tells them to.
The actions against Republican offices and vehicles were suppression an intimidation of voters, which I believe is a separate crime in and of itself. Also, with the exception of shooting in to Republican offices (which I would like you substantiate with a link), those are crimes directed at property, not people, which I don’t think (I could be wrong; please tell me if I am) fall into a different area of law than crimes directed at people.
But I don’t see why violence against people based on political affiliation is different than violence against people based on religious affiliation.
My issue isn’t with giving groups of people preferential treatment, it is with the increased risk that people who commit acts of violence based on and only on irrational hatred pose to society.
If you just don’t care that much about public safety, then that’s your thing.
36. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am
Steam
many times the gays are the ones doing the victimizing. Look at prison rape, there are instances with the priests or foley or the two guys and boy in wyoming. It wrong, 100yrs from now it’ll still will be wrong. It don’t need to be something kids need to be exposed to. It is adult material, just like alcohol, or porn, pushing it on T.V or kids books is wrong. It is not G rated family stuff.
37. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Rana,
I don’t think that tying a gay person to a pickup truck with barbed wire and dragging him to death because he’s gay is “freedom of speech.”
I also don’t think that lynching blacks and Jews is freedom of speech.
You’re right! That is not speech, it is MURDER!
And as Kahn correctly pointed out, we have laws against that. And, further, if you Liberals would stop trying to eliminate the death penalty, the murders will get the punishment they deserve!
And why do you think a white, make, heterosexual, Christians deserves less protection under the law???!!!
However, a religious authority calling homosexuals “wicked” could very well be construed as possibly inciting violence, but I’ll let various courts decide…
Also, the Christian view on Homosexuality is inherently threatening…
Clearly, those like you DO WANT to RESTRICT and LIMIT SPEECH! Make the laws very general and vague, and allow the liberal courts impose YOUR agenda!
Clearly, those like you DO WANT TO RESTRICT and LIMIT FREE RELIGIOUS SPEECH!
Clearly, those like you ARE ATTACKING CHRISTIANS and you want MORE LAWS to AID YOUR ATTACK!
Hypocrites? That would be a person who claims to support free speech for themselves while restricting the free speech of others!
How about Hate Crime Laws to stop the Democrat’s hate campaign against President Bush, our military, and America?
Wake up Christians!
Wake up America!!!
AAR
38. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
EricT-
Violence against children is always wrong, whether or not it is done by straights or gays. However, there have not been any scientific studies that show that homosexuality actually has any negative affect on society at large when the homosexuals don’t commit other crimes like child molestation. If you want to argue that homosexuals are more likely to commit those types of crimes, then you should find evidence to back that up.
Homosexual love doesn’t need to be censored just as heterosexual love doesn’t. I’ve been exposed to a lot of gays (I went to an arts magnet highschool), and I’m not gay… Sex is another thing, but love needn’t be censored.
39. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am
Rana
The issue is the Canadian government trying to censor the Church. It not about censoring love or telling people they can’t engage in homosexual sex. The their government is trying to say you can’t engage in Christianity and its teachings. This is where mind control, thought police, and brainwashing are the real topic.
40. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am
AAR-
I don’t think that white, christian, heterosexuals don’t deserve as much protection… I never said that. If they are attacked only because they are white, christian, and/or heterosexual, then their attacker should be given a greater punishment than if a crime was committed against them for some other reason.
Here’s a question for you… if I said, “You are a Christian, therefore you deserve to die,” would you perceive that as a threat?
How is asking that you not incite violence hindering your religious beliefs?
41. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
EricT-
That is not what you said in your earlier post.
You specifically said that you shouldn’t put homosexuality on TV… regardless of whether or not it was sexually explicit.
42. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Rana
that was me responding to Steam attacking Christians, “as people who have their head up their rear”
I’ll stand by what I said there. There is a age where kids don’t need to be exposed to any kind of sexual material, gays, lesbians, straights, kids don’t need to be exposed to that stuff period. In their teenage years, its different. Young kids NO. We don’t need a gay Barney show, you know what I saying.
43. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Does anybody know if Islam is censored to up there too. or just Christianity?
44. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Society is generally about establishing a moral standard that everyone has to follow. Some people feel that it is acceptable to live their life in the nude, but society in general frowns upon this practice and it is not acceptable in most settings.
Tollerance is one thing, but claiming tollerance to force your force censorship upon the ideas of others is hypocritical itself. You want to preach tollerance? Then you MUST be tollerant of the Christian belief that homosexuality is immoral and sinful, even if you do not have a similar view. You do not have to agree with it or support it, but if you are truly interested in tollerance you must accept it and not try to oppress it.
Religious people have as much right to believe that homosexuality is immoral and sinful as gays have to believe that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle.
Society has the right to define what is morrally acceptable and tollerable to the majority of it citizens. In states where gay marriage has been voted into law, then it is legal there. That standard should not be forced upon states that have voted down same sex marriage bills.
You cannot regulate thought or speech just to satisfy one group or another. You cannot say it is acceptable to protect the beliefs of homosexuals by oppressing the beliefs of religous ones. If there is a question about homosexual marriage, put it to a vote in the state in question and let the people decide. That is how our government was meant to function.
Whether you are believe in a devine power or not, you must realize that homosexuality is a perversion from the norm. It is not behavior that our species was either designed for or has evolved for, no matter your position on evolution. We are not an monosexual species and our procreation is specifically designed for male and female partners, whether through evolution or by the hand of the devine, it matters not. If certain societies choose to accept this alternative behavior, then that is their choice. For those who choose not to accept it, it cannot be forced upon them by the minority.
45. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
This is not true.
46. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
How is that not true. Can two males or two females concieve children independently and continue propagation of the species?
47. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Steam- God did not create Adam and Steve,
If your a missing link, evolution guy. How do two guys procreate
48. Jonathan | December 21st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
To the idiot who said this: homosexuality is not some perversion. Some people are just born gay.
Get over yourself. Seriously.
49. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Guys, science observes animals performing bi-sexual and homosexual acts all the time. Including other mammals like monkeys.
They do it all the time. It’s not something they are concerned with. Look it up. There are a few wikipedia pages that discuss it but I’m sure you can find more.
So whether you think we are designed for it or not it doesn’t mean it’s unnatural or a perversion from the norm.
Maybe they don’t do it for procreation. Maybe they do it for other reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
50. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I am simply speaking from a logical point of perspective here. I am not trying to put for judgement.
I offer you to make your argument, base on evolutionary principals how homosexuality is normal behavior. According to Darwinian principals, those who posses traits that will not allow them to procreate are erased from the evolutionary tract and thus the triats they posses do not become part of a species evolutionary chain. If something makes an animal LESS survivable and LESS able to procreate, it is naturally selected out of the species genome.
Therefore, basing the statement soley on evolutionary principals, homosexuals are a variant of the species that would be parsed out of the human genome by natural selection. They are a variation of the normal process of human evolution. Simple science.
51. Web Smith | December 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
If you believe in free speech only as it applies to you and what you want to say, what you fail to realize is that the free speech of others is more valuable to you than your own free speech because once in a while, you will realize that you are wrong. Once you realize that you are wrong, your life will be better.
If you believe in free speech only as it applies to you and what you want to say, then once you have power, you will be less inclined to respect the right of free speech in others. This will lead to your own moral decay and demise because you will fail to realize that improvements to society, in all areas, and advancements in knowledge, have only occurred when people thought differently than the status quo.
This tendency in humans, as they have gained power as a result of their free speech, is clearly visible in our society today. Any white person who criticizes a minority group is called a racist. Any non-Jew who criticizes a Jew or Israel is labeled anti-Semitic. Any man who questions a woman’s role or capabilities is called a chauvinist. Whites support this ostracization process because they don’t want to be called names. As a result of not listening to criticism, ethic groups and women fail to advance.
This limiting process can also be seen in the scientific community. A Catholic Priest first suggested the Big Bang Theory almost 100 years ago. Scientists have since spent most of their time trying to prove the theory and have now labeled it as fact and proof that there is no god. The theory is not proven yet and many scientists don’t even know that a Catholic priest first suggested it making it most unlikely to be proof of god’s nonexistence. Anyone who dares to suggest that the theory is wrong is labeled illiterate and no new theories have been developed. The same process has developed around the Theory of Evolution, which is now being taught in our schools as fact while creationism is banned. Science now has the power and prefers to toil trying to prove unproven known theories and not entertain any other ideas. Rather than being ostracized, the rest of the world leaves them alone. No new theories have been developed for 100 years.
Now that Bush has power, arguably as a result of free speech, anyone who disagrees with him is called a lefty, extremist, liberal, socialist, communist, traitor, un-American, and the cause of everything gone wrong in our political process. Not one Bush supporter asks why, with Bush in power, is anything wrong?
By labeling instead of listening to people who don’t agree with you, you are attempting to restrict their right to free speech and ultimately destroying your self.
52. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Regardless, that is still considered aberhent behavior.
I am not arguing that it does not occurr in other species. I am aguing that it is not the NORMAL behavior for any species. As you said in your example, 8% does not constitute normal behavior for an entier species. You cannot argue that those Rams that choose male partners over female ones will pass their traits on to future generations. They are selected out if they do not breed with Ewes.
53. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
So what? I’m saying that it is very normal in animals. You are saying it’s unnatural and a perversion. I am saying that is incorrect. It’s very much natural.
54. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
As an example, I am a diagnosed narcoleptic. About 6.6% of people are assumed to suffer from narcolepsy, with about 4.8% actually being diagnosed. Narcolepsy is a nerological disorder that you are born with that is closely related to epilepsy. It can be hereditary but is not always so.
This is an abherent condition. It is a perversion of the normal neurological makeup of the human species. It is NOT NORMAL for humans.
55. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
It is not very normal in animals. All animal species may exhibit it, but by your own example 8% of the Rams showed sexual preference. That is not very normal. That is the extreme exception to the rule and it is by its very definition abnormal behavior.
56. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I should correct that above comment:
Your post cited the follwoing:
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).
Even the scientist conducting that research realize that it is abnormal behavior.
57. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Ok, I see that we are going in circles here.
All I am saying is that it is not a perversion. It is not wrong. It’s not something that anyone should be ashamed of. It’s not something that God frowns upon considering a certain percentage of the rest of his creation does it all the time and the world still turns.
58. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
And any animosity towards it or declaration of it being a “perversion” is often a creation of organized religon.
59. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I never, ever stated the right or wrongness of homosexuality. I have not been arguing the moral merits at all.
My point was simple that it is a minority and that by definition it is abnormal behavior, thus should not be forced upon a society that does not want to accept it. If a state vote to allow it, fine. You cannot impose it on those states that do not.
Much as my brain does not function as it is supposed to do when it comes to the narcoleptic symptoms. I have very abnormal behavior, cataplexy, hypnogogia, sleep paralysis, etc. There are certain jobs that I am not allowed to perform. My driving licesne is restricted and if I have more than one medical related accident within five years, it can be taken from me. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with being narcoleptic. I am not bad for being that way, but I am also not ‘normal’ as my brain does not function like the other 93% of humanity’s does.
60. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
>>>>And any animosity towards it or declaration of it being a “perversion” is often a creation of organized religon. - SteaM<<<
Or the word of God.
61. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
By classifing being gay as an abnormal perversion (which is your opinion) is not enough to take away someone’s right to pursue happiness which is mentioned in our declaration of indepence. A fundemental right that goes back to the core beliefs this nation is founded on.
Unless it is violates the rights of others.
62. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Allow me to offer one more thing. If it were ‘normal human behavior’ then it would allow procreation. There would be no need for opposite sexes and we would be and asexual species. The human sexual organs are designed to be compatible with organs from the opposite sex, not from the same one. Our natural evolution has led to the development of two sexes and complimentary sexual organs. Thus, homosexual acts are not ‘normal’. They are infact sexual deviations that go against the natural development of our species. That is not a statement to pass judgement but a simple scientific, biological fact.
One odd thing to take into consideration is polygamy. The practice of having multiple wifes is not a sexual deviation from our evolutionary design and can in fact be found more readily and is more common place among animals. There are many species where the dominate male has multiple female mates and visciously defends agianst other male agressors.
Yet, society has generally declare polygamy as immoral and unacceptable thus it is illegal in most communities through out this country. What right to we have to allow same sex couples to have legally recognized marriages, but deny multiple couple unions? Would that not be descrimination against those that believe there is nothing wrong with polygamy? Are we not oppressing them? Is speaking out against polygamy not to be considered hate speech?
No, society can determine what it deems acceptable. If your community does not accept gay marriage and you feel oppressed by that, you are welcome to move to one that does. You are not welcome to force your view of morality upon society.
63. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
>>>You are not welcome to force your view of morality upon society. - CC<<<<<
The one-liner of the day! Well done.
64. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
No one is trying to take away their right to be gay or live with who they choose. Society has no responsibility to confer the same rights and priveleges to same sex partners as it does married ones. There is no constitutional basis for that argument. If you want that changed, bring it to a vote, but be prepared to live by the decision of that vote.
You are garunteed the right to pursue happiness. So get to persuing it. No where does it say you will be garuanteed it or that no one will oppose your pursuit of it. No where do you have the right not to be offended or spared the judgemnet of someone who believes you are wrong, no matter the subject. No where are you granted the right to oppress those with whom you do not agree or silence the opposition when they fight your beliefs.
65. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Steam
So if I disagree with you, relating to what the author wrote about Canada, should my religious beliefs and opinions be criminalized, like they are doing up in Canada.
Or I’m I allowed a different view than what you have on the issue?
66. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
SteaM,
If animals and monkeys are your role models, take them into your bedroom, close the door, and have at it!
AAR
67. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Rana,
If they are attacked only because they are white, Christian, and/or heterosexual, then their attacker should be given a greater punishment than if a crime was committed against them for some other reason.
So, if a person kills another because they don’t like something about that person, it’s a greater crime than if they just killed them for the fun of killing?
If a person kills another and says I hate rich people while committing the murder, that is a greater crime than if they had said I would sure love to be rich?
If a person burns a family’s house down because they hate their kids, that is a greater crime than if they burned the house down just to watch it burn?
If a person rapes a woman or child and said they hate women while committing the crime, that rape carries a greater punishment than if they had said they love women?
If a criminal is going to commit a crime, they should avoid minorities, women, gays, and any other group identified as a “protected species” under the hate crime laws, just to make absolutely sure they receive the minimal sentence if they are caught!!!
That’s nuts! Decide what the punishment is for murder, rape, arson, theft or whatever the crime. Give them the death penalty if you like, but to set different sentences based on the reason for the crime or what a person may have been thinking is something only a nutty Liberal can dream up.
The fact is… hate crime laws are intended to repress and suppress speech, to intimidate, and to “reprogram” society to YOUR beliefs!
Would you rewrite and reword the Bible to the way you believe it should be written, or would you just arrest anyone who reads and says the words which you don’t want said?
If a person tells another “you deserve to die”, then you believe we should arrest and imprison them? Using your logic, I’ll bet we could search through the Liberal websites and start rounding up some of the extremists and hate-Bush crowd for trial!
Ministers, priests, and preachers need to start devoting a few minutes of their sermon each week and alerting their members to the real threat Liberals pose!
AAR
68. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
It’s not something that God frowns upon considering a certain percentage of the rest of his creation does it all the time and the world still turns.–by steaM
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
And to Rana,
Romans 1:28-32
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God , he have them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have becoe filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Now, listen, Rana, listen very carefully…
If God condemns it, it’s WRONG…Do you understand??
Romans 2:2–
Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
What do you think God meant went He told Lot’s family not to look?
He knew if they looked back, that they were still part of them, and therefore, God turned Lot’s wife to a pillar of Salt, and took her out of the gene pool. He removed every last one of those Sodomites.
Thus, God commands us–
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master; because you r are not under law, but under grace.
You were bought with a price, you need live like it.
~ Jeremiah
69. Canuckguy | December 21st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I am wondering about Concerned Citizen’s statement:
– “solely on evolutionary principals, homosexuals are a variant of the species that would be parsed out of the human genome by natural selection. They are a variation of the normal process of human evolution. Simple science.–
So after a million plus years of evolution, why do we still have homosexuals?
70. Eric T | December 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Jeremiah
We need leadership for this country that will not allow attacks on Christianity, like what the Canadian government is allowing in their land. We don’t need their liberalism spreading here and infecting our government. We don’t need liberals monitoring church sermons and trying to censor bible passages they don’t agree with.
71. Mark Noonan | December 21st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Rana,
Do you know the Chrsitian view on homosexuality?
In case you’re just going on hearsay, I’ll provide it for you:
Sexual relations, properly conductied, have a twofold purpose - unitive and procreative. While there is a possibility of homosexual realtions being unitive (though given the fairly large number of sexual partners a majority of homosexuals has over the course of a lifetime, such unitive aspects are relatively rare), it is absolutely impossible for homosexual relations to have a procreative aspect, and thus they are, as the Church states, inherently disordered. Do keep in mind that two heterosexuals engaging in extra-marital sex are being just as disordered as two homosexuals because their sexual acts lack a unitive element.
While some Christians - and some who call themselves Christians, but really aren’t - get off the ranch (as it were) on the subject of homosexuality, the plain fact of the matter is that homosexuals are just as much the children of our Heavenly Father as everyone else and thus share in the inherent dignity of mankind, as well as access to the salvation provided by Our Lord. But in no way, shape or form can Christian teaching on homosexuals and homosexuality be construed as threatening - and anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed, or lying.
72. Jonathan | December 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
The real threat, AAR, that the liberals pose are the stereotypes you create in your mind.
73. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Mark-
I’m not going on hearsay; I’m going on the bible…
I know if a religious person told me that their god said that I was deserving of death, I would fell a wee bit uncomfortable to say the least, and if they were imbalanced enough to act on it, that’s all the worse…
Let me ask you guys a couple of questions…
Do you think that homosexuals deserve to die (as the bible states)?
If your friends asked you to worship other gods, then would you beat him to death with rocks?
74. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
that should be…
“…if your friend…
75. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Do you think that homosexuals deserve to die (as the bible states)?
Rana,
If God done that, then we would all have to be given the Death Penalty.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
In other words, all have told lies, all have slandered, all have cheated.
But…He’s given us an escape from the clutches of death, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
He does, however, say that all those who are in sin will die a Spiritual deah , which is the senond and final death.
So what do you do in this instance?
You reach out and share God’s message of hope to them.
Should we be silenced from putting forth God’s message about the evil that Sodomy is? Of course not, or else homosexuals would not be afforded a chance to hear the truth, and have that escape from the clutches of hell.
~ Jeremiah
76. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
We need leadership for this country that will not allow attacks on Christianity, like what the Canadian government is allowing in their land.
Absolutely, Eric!
~ Jeremiah
77. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Jonathan,
The real threat to America are Liberals (Democrats) like you, your Liberal agenda, and YOUR religion — Liberalism!
AAR
78. Kahn | December 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Rana said - ” Kahn, Do you have a link to back up your, “soldier burned in effigy” remark (I’ll not consider it until you substantiate that claim)? Is a “(Expletive Deleted)the Troops””
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/03/moonbat_extracu.html
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only
You know, the military consists of less than 1% of the nation. Thats a minority. That makes this hate speech.
About 1/3rd of the nation is Republican. That means we’re a minority. Violence against us should then be classified as hate crimes.
Just taking a point to it’s logical conclusion.
79. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Rana,
I know if a religious person told me that their god said that I was deserving of death, I would fell a wee bit uncomfortable to say the least, and if they were imbalanced enough to act on it, that’s all the worse…
Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda told — and showed — you exactly that!
Democrats say there is no war on terror.
It’s only a “policing action”, right?!!!
AAR
80. Kahn | December 21st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
By the way. Has anyone else noticed how shortly anything demonstrating liberal hatred and or insanity lasts on the net? Time after time I’ll go to look for a news item like the story above only to find it’s been seemingly wiped from the Net save a few blogs.
81. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 11:51 pm
AAR-
That herring was so red, it was on fire… seriously, that’s the best you could come up with? I point out a dirty little thing about the bible, and you throw Islamists into the mix? Deflection is not a valid tactic, idiot…
Also, nobody answered my question…
If your friend were to walk up to you and ask you to worship another god, would you kill them?
Surely there must be a Christian here who would have the courage to act on the bible’s teachings…
82. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 am
Rana,
Nothing red about it… Just your inability to understand.
As for your silly little question… It doesn’t warrant a response.
AAR
83. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 am
If your friend were to walk up to you and ask you to worship another god, would you kill them?
Rana,
That’s the dumbest question I’ve ever heard of.
I already explained to you that your question does not apply to Christians! PERIOD!!
You’re question does, however, fit to the demands of the Islamist community.
You walk up to an Islamist in Syria somewhere, and you ask them if they would like to accept Christianity, and nine times out of ten you’re going to be lucky to keep your head above water.
If an Islamist comes up to me and says, accept Islam, and I just say–
Well, I appreciate that, but I’ve accepted Christ as my personal Savior, would you like to accept Christ?
No anger, No hate. Just sharing the love of Christ with a sinner in need.
You’re arguing against the wrong people Rana, and the only thing you will accomplish is call down the thunder.
…..and a Merry Kookmas!
:D
~ Jeremiah
84. Rana Quijotesca | December 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 am
AAR-
“red herring
1. A smoke-cured herring.
2. (idiomatic) A clue that is misleading or that has been falsified, intended to divert attention (from the use of smoked herrings to mislead hounds following a trail).
“Gall, the guy that does the hyp act is too shrewd, I think, to have committed such a smart murder and left himself with his pants down with no other red herring around.” –Svengali Kill [1]”
Let’s see… we were talking about the Biblical stance on Homosexuality, and you started talking about Islam… Now tell me, how is Islam in any way related to a conversation about the Biblical stance on Homosexuality?
Just so you know, I don’t think we are fighting a war on terror, I think that we are fighting a war against fundamentalist Islamists…
Also… the bible explicitly states:
Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10
(I added the brackets around the numbers)
Since I assume that you believe that the bible is the infallible word of god, asking if you would act on that belief and carry out the action it prescribes in the above passage. It’s not a silly question at all, it is a test of your faith. You’re just too afraid to put yourself on the record going against the bible, because I would hope that you wouldn’t resort to murdering someone over their religious beliefs…
85. Rana Quijotesca | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 am
Jeremiah-
Why doesn’t my question pertain to Christians (you never explained that earlier in this thread)? The New Testament says (Romans 10:5):
86. Rana Quijotesca | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 am
Crap… I forgot to close the blockquote… you should be able to figure out where that goes…
here is the link…
87. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 am
Rana,
You guys can keep bringing that up all you want, but you’re still never going to get us to (a) agree we should stone homosexuals or (b) believe the Bible is in error. There’s a New Testament for a reason, ya know?
88. Rana Quijotesca | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 am
Mark-
I never said that you should stone homosexuals… I said that, if you believe in the Bible (including the New Testament, because Romans 10:4-10:5 says that you should follow the laws of Abraham, as laid out in Deuteronomy), then you should kill your friend if he were to attempt to entice you into worshiping other gods.
If you refuse to do that, then you are tacitly implying the Bible’s wrongness…
89. Greg-O | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
As is usually the case, context is important in regards to Scripture, and these verses from St. Paul’s letter to the Church in Rome teach something that Rana Quijotesca apparently misses:
Romans 10:5-10 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
The Apostle illustrates the justification by faith in Christ that all Christians have, and by invoking Moses, also illustrates that this justification is found in Christ alone since it was Christ who fulfilled the Law, where none of us could being sinners.
This does not mean the Law is unimportant, or void, as Christ said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Indeed, it was Christ’s obedience to the Law that validates Him as Savior of Christians. What it does mean is that we are no longer living under penalty of the Law if we belong to Christ, because Christ has fulfilled it.
Hope that helps,
Merry Christmas
90. Rana Quijotesca | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
So… Greg-O, you should still follow the law (as Christ says), but you don’t because you won’t be punished for it?
91. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Rana,
You must be reading the Liberal (Democrat) version of the news. I haven’t heard about any roving bands of Christians stoning homosexuals in America! You really should stay off those conspiracy theory sites!
You are also unable to distinguish between a person’s opposition to your homosexual agenda and lifestyle and stoning a person to death, but that’s nothing new.
Today’s complacent Christians won’t even stand up and fight to keep God in America, the Ten Commandments in public parks, prayer in our schools, and atheism out! The majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but they refuse to take the actions necessary to stop it — while you Liberals reprogram and indoctrinate their children in the public schools to impose your own agenda on America.
Today’s Christians won’t even support School Vouchers so parents can place their children in quality schools which do not support and teach your atheistic views, beliefs, and agenda.
Unfortunately, today’s Christians can’t see beyond today or understand the actions needed to stop Liberalism and atheism. Most of today’s Christians won’t even speak up and speak out for Christian values and beliefs — let alone fight for them!!!
Perhaps you should be more concerned about Muslims! Muslims believe in their version of the Bible. They are still willing to die for their faith — and to kill the infidels who attack their beliefs, religion, and lifestyle! Perhaps they will be the ones to stop Liberalism and your anti-religion campaign… if Christians won’t!!!
God believed in and enacted the death penalty. Re-read (or read) Sodom and Gomorrah! It’s just one example of many.
As for YOUR Bible, rewrite YOUR version to suit YOUR views!
AAR
92. Greg-O | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Rana Quijotesca, (as Christ says) in which verse specifically?
The Law was given to Israel in a theocratical context, and the lesson was to teach Israel that none of them were able to keep the Law, thereby their need for a Savior. The Law pertains to that context, which was still extant when Christ was here, but Christ pointed out that Israel had kept the letter of the Law, but had missed the spirit of the Law (the lesson). Recall that Christ stopped the execution of a woman caught in adultery, which was what the Law prescribed, but not because the Law was wrong (indeed Christ said that the woman was guilty and this was what the Law said to do), but because those who were about to execute her were not without sin themselves, i.e., not righteous before God (the lesson).
Homosexual behavior is still sinful, as reiterated earlier in Romans, as is all sexual behavior not between husband and wife. Since none of us are without sin, and cannot keep the Law, so we cannot righteously execute homosexuals for practicing the sinful behavior.
93. Kahn | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 am
Rana - I posted links to pictures of liberals carrying F the Troops signs and burning a soldier in effigy. Is this a hate crime? Less than .8% of the nation chooses the military lifestyle…..
94. Eric T | December 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
AAR
Vouchers are what we need to keep these missing links, libs, and people that take their packin’ seriously, from destroying young minds
95. Faceplant | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“Rana - I posted links to pictures of liberals carrying F the Troops signs and burning a soldier in effigy. Is this a hate crime? Less than .8% of the nation chooses the military lifestyle…..”
You can post this all you want, it still isn’t indicitive of the VAST majority of self described liberals in the country.
I can post pictures of a self described conservative blowing up an abortion clinic. Does that mean that Republicans condone blowing up abortion clinics?
You are trying to set up a strawman, that nobody is going to knock down.
96. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Eric T,
Christians had better get their act together and unite in support of those things which they can agree on like traditional marriage, keeping the Ten Commandments in public view, prayer in schools and at school events, traditional Christmas, and schools which teach Christian moral and values, and which permit discussions about God and His role in creation –and not those schools which teach young children the ways and lifestyle of Liberalism, atheism, and anti-Americanism.
Democrats oppose all of those things, especially School Vouchers which would permit poorer Americans and those with average income to send their children — and future voters — to quality schools of their choice, including ones which teach and support their own family values!
Unfortunately, Christians are easily mislead by Liberals and they vote for the very Democrats who are attacking Christians and who are working to destroy and remove Christianity from public view, public life, and eventually from America!
AAR
97. pelirrojo | December 22nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Jeremiah, ok, so ranas question doesn’t apply to Christians….because of the new testament right?
ok, so should we all fear jews?
98. Kahn | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Faceplant, I’m not claiming it is. I’m asking if it’s a hate crime. Is it?
99. Kahn | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Long enough. This is a blog string about laws in Canada. It turned into an attack on conservatives for non-existent positions.
The truth is, this new severe restriction in Canada may seem like a good idea to liberals who are oh so sure of their own infallibility. But as the posts above showing radical liberal hatred demonstrate, this law can be turned against the left just as easily as it can be turned against the right.
None of you would give your opinion as to the “F” the Troops banners and the burning a soldier in effigy is hate speech. Well, here in the USA it’s debatable. But under this new Canadian law it’s not debatable. This clearly is CRIMINAL hate speech.
AGAIN, thats the thing about laws and legal definitions - they exist outside the political agenda that creates them. Liberals in Canada create a law to help them enforce their view of the world. But the law can then be used by anyone to help them enforce their view of the world.
If you feel you can honestly defend this loss of freedom, go ahead. Choosing a position like gay rights could help you do that. But remember, it’s not gay rights you’re arguing for. You’re arguing for restriction of free speech. And that could (as I’ve demonstrated) apply to you equally as much as us.
That’s the end of Civics 101 for tonight, thank you.
100. FmrMarine | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
SOOOOOO
yes indeed, slowly the marxist (atheist) are “outing” themselves.
The hatred and vitriol aimed at “conservative Republicans” is really HATE against Christians, who remain the only roadblock to UN BRIDLED SEXUAL deviancy.
“In the last days the truth will be called a lie, and a lie the truth”.
Slowly the TRUTH is exposed, and the darkness is shown for what it really is, DEATH! both physical and spiritual.
101. evpogvsm&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 5:27 am
evpogvsm
evpogvsm
102. John Gilmore | February 10th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Christians need to concentrate on loving their neighbors as themselves and taking care of the poor, as Jesus told them. When they do that someone will listen to their advice on other issues. Too many christians advocate war, vote against programs that would end poverty, and usually the majority, the institution, anyway, upholds facism and the suppression of human rights. They were on the wrong side of the civil rights movement and slavery, the women’s rights movement, and just about anything that supported the people the way Jesus would. They should stop worrying about whether people have abortions or not, or whom they marry and do what the real work is supposed to be: Living the Kingdom of God in this lifetime and getting rid of the things that cause people to have abortions.
103. Victor | February 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Deleted - off topic.
104. f8b9bc86658e689e518196960&hellip | April 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
f8b9bc86658e689e5181969600aba4c9
f8b9bc86658e689e5181969600aba4c9