![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
I'm just linking to her post, it's easier.
Interesting quotes:
An article in Monday's Section A said Gregory S. Baylor of the Christian Legal Society viewed homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. In fact, he does not have a stance on that issue. As the article noted, he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race, gender and other inborn traits. He asserts that antidiscrimination policies regarding homosexuality are different because they protect people based on conduct. Baylor's organization seeks to exempt religious groups from those policies. —
Wait, wait, waittaminute. Does exempting religious groups from these policies mean he wants them to be able to say hateful things against gay people - or that he wants other people to be able to say hateful things about them? Because religion is *not* an inborn trait.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
Oh yes. Didn't you know? Christians are having to hide their faith! If they speak out about their religion, or attend church openly, they may be sent to re-education centers until they shape up!
"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.
Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Trying and succeeding. Isn't it weird how they're talking about the exact same thing gay people currently do experience, but none of them seems bright enough to put the pieces together? It's okay to be gay, so long as you're gay inside your house and don't let anybody know.
He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.
"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Every time you pass a tolerance law, God kills a racist. Please - think of the racists!
Seriously though, why *do* churches get tax-exempt status? Like, at all?
The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology.
Again, isn't this rather what gay people talk about when discussing marriage? That a lack of recognition for a committed relationship means a lack of actual, tangible benefits?
"If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.
...
But 'Christians' should be tolerated no matter what they say? Riiiiiiiight. Welcome to karma, sweetie.
There's a lot of good stuff in there. Scary stuff, but good if you take it little by little.
Interesting quotes:
An article in Monday's Section A said Gregory S. Baylor of the Christian Legal Society viewed homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. In fact, he does not have a stance on that issue. As the article noted, he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race, gender and other inborn traits. He asserts that antidiscrimination policies regarding homosexuality are different because they protect people based on conduct. Baylor's organization seeks to exempt religious groups from those policies. —
Wait, wait, waittaminute. Does exempting religious groups from these policies mean he wants them to be able to say hateful things against gay people - or that he wants other people to be able to say hateful things about them? Because religion is *not* an inborn trait.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
Oh yes. Didn't you know? Christians are having to hide their faith! If they speak out about their religion, or attend church openly, they may be sent to re-education centers until they shape up!
"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.
Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Trying and succeeding. Isn't it weird how they're talking about the exact same thing gay people currently do experience, but none of them seems bright enough to put the pieces together? It's okay to be gay, so long as you're gay inside your house and don't let anybody know.
He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.
"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Every time you pass a tolerance law, God kills a racist. Please - think of the racists!
Seriously though, why *do* churches get tax-exempt status? Like, at all?
The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology.
Again, isn't this rather what gay people talk about when discussing marriage? That a lack of recognition for a committed relationship means a lack of actual, tangible benefits?
"If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.
...
But 'Christians' should be tolerated no matter what they say? Riiiiiiiight. Welcome to karma, sweetie.
There's a lot of good stuff in there. Scary stuff, but good if you take it little by little.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 09:10 pm (UTC)My mother sent it to me and I think I literally shrieked at my laptop. Taking just one major issue, your rights to whatever -- freedom of speech, or freedom to assemble, or right to bear arms -- goes up until it starts infringing on the rights of others. Like, say, all those rights that guarantee our safety. This is why we have laws against harassment. Not to mention laws against rioting and murder.
And like you say, discrimination against the lifestyle choice of religion is clearly wrong when there's no discrimination against the "lifestyle choice" of homosexuality. *reads that sentence back* No, I can't even make that make enough sense to make ironic commentary on it.
Argh. [/rant]
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-16 09:10 pm (UTC)My mother sent it to me and I think I literally shrieked at my laptop. Taking just one major issue, your rights to whatever -- freedom of speech, or freedom to assemble, or right to bear arms -- goes up until it starts infringing on the rights of others. Like, say, all those rights that guarantee our safety. This is why we have laws against harassment. Not to mention laws against rioting and murder.
And like you say, discrimination against the lifestyle choice of religion is clearly wrong when there's no discrimination against the "lifestyle choice" of homosexuality. *reads that sentence back* No, I can't even make that make enough sense to make ironic commentary on it.
Argh. [/rant]
no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-17 12:57 am (UTC)