This should be obvious. As Anna Williams points out below, the only person who holds the blame for today’s shooting, whatever its motivation, is the shooter himself. No idea or cause, however noble, is immune from excess. John Brown killed in the name of freedom. George Tiller’s murderer killed him, with unequalled perversity, in the name of life. And it seems increasingly likely that the FRC shooter shot a man in the name of tolerance.
My post earlier today (which has been misread by some as blaming same-sex marriage advocates for today’s events) makes a similarly equalizing point. One cannot tolerate one thing without being intolerant of another. One cannot promote one vision of the social good without working against another.
This should give pause to the most glib progressives, who want to paint their opponents as having a monopoly on intolerance. As Josh Barro said on Twitter, “We should tolerate some things and not others. The question is what to put in what box.” Josh gets this, and good for him. But I’m afraid many others who favor same-sex marriage just don’t.
August 15th, 2012 | 8:43 pm
” One cannot tolerate one thing without being intolerant of another. One cannot promote one vision of the social good without working against another.”
So you’re simply saying intolerance is a good thing in the marketplace of ideas.
August 15th, 2012 | 10:33 pm
[...] [...]
August 15th, 2012 | 10:41 pm
Nonetheless, it IS a hate crime.
August 15th, 2012 | 11:17 pm
Yes. Errors and evil are never to be tolerated. Unlike people, who always should be. But you asked only about ideas…
August 15th, 2012 | 11:54 pm
Matthew Schmitz: I understood your previous post on the subject to be under a progressive persona. That is, progressive strategy seems to be “do unto some as I think they are doing unto me.” Hence if, say a person who self-identifies a “gay,” believes they are subject to shaming and shunning, they shame and shun in turn.
I found the reversal, feeding progressive cant directly back to the originators, to be quite effective. Unfortunately for them hyperbole used consistently becomes the narrative rather than furthering a narrative.
August 16th, 2012 | 1:14 am
I would have to disagree with “one cannot tolerate one thing without being intolerant of another.” While I have always advocated inclusiveness over tolerance, the idea that if I am tolerant of, say, someone’s belief that humans are the main cause of temperature variations means I have to be intolerant of people who are skeptical of the motives of those making money off the idea just isn’t true. Some things are a zero-sum game, some things aren’t.
In my observations, I have to say that I have seen this all-or-nothing on all sides of the political spectrum, but more vocally and radically enforced on the “left.”
August 16th, 2012 | 6:57 am
Joe, there would not be a marketplace of ideas if there were not a tension between tolerance/intolerance. One cannot love without hating the antithesis of that love. Tolerance and patience are not the same thing.
August 16th, 2012 | 8:46 am
Intolerance is a good and necessary thing. Slavery shouldn’t be tolerated. Murder shouldn’t be tolerated, or taking the lives of any other innocent segment of the human family, including the child in the womb. Sorry, Joe, but some things just shouldn’t be tolerated.
August 16th, 2012 | 9:12 am
Tolerance is bad in proportion to the evil it facilitates. Nearly no one would argue in favor of tolerance of genocide – at least genocide of adults. Would anyone argue that we should tolerate domestic violence or widespread poverty?
August 16th, 2012 | 9:40 am
Tolerance presupposes that there is something wrong with what one tolerates. That’s why I oppose tolerance. Either there is nothing wrong with something, in which case there is nothing to endure, or there is something wrong with it, in which case it should not be tolerated.
It seems that people are elevating taking offense to an art form. This applies to gays, more to Christians, but most of all, to Muslims – many of whom call any criticism of their religion ‘Islamophobia’, or worse, racism.
It is not ‘Islamophobia’ or ‘persecution’ to criticize your religion. Your religion is a belief system, and as such, it should be open to rational questioning.
August 16th, 2012 | 10:33 am
This should give pause to the most glib progressives, who want to paint their opponents as having a monopoly on intolerance. As Josh Barro said on Twitter, “We should tolerate some things and not others. The question is what to put in what box.” Josh gets this, and good for him. But I’m afraid many others who favor same-sex marriage just don’t.
I am still not sure I understand Matthew Schmitz’s point. Is he saying that those who advocate same-sex marriage are intolerant of those who oppose it? And those who oppose same-sex marriage are intolerant of those who advocate it? So if proponents call opponents intolerant bigots, they are correct, and if opponents call proponents intolerant bigots, they are correct, too? And consequently, no one has a monopoly on intolerance? So when either side accuses the other of intolerance, it’s the pot calling the kettle black?
What is it that those who favor same-sex marriage don’t understand?
August 16th, 2012 | 11:12 am
In a way, though, the libertines are responsible for the shooting. Had basic social norms been retained such that there was no legal abortion, no out-of-the-closet movement, etc. FRC wouldn’t have come into existence.
August 16th, 2012 | 12:09 pm
The Southern Poverty Law Center and other progressive organizations have labeled the FRC “a hate group.” Some commentors on this blog recently drew comparisons between the Ku Klux Klan and those who defend traditional marriage. No one should be surprised that this incident occurred, for the left, while quick to label those on the right, have a blind spot when it comes to their own hatreds.
August 16th, 2012 | 12:56 pm
Publius, who called “defend[ers] of traditional marriage” that? I would disagree with that. However, that is no defense of the FRC – which absolutely, positively is a hate group.
Unless you want to say that wanting to jail gay people, or “export” them from the United States, or to oppose efforts to stop the gay death penalty bill in Uganda is just “supporting traditional marriage”. If you do, then you would be the one giving advocates of traditional marriage a bad name. Some people oppose two men marrying for sincere, non-hateful reasons, and they should not have their names besmirched by people who have a very different agenda.
August 16th, 2012 | 2:16 pm
Max, Jailing gay people, exporting gay people, and support for the death penalty in Uganda are not positions taken by the FRC. This is the problem with broad brush allegations that the FRC is “absolutely, positively” a “hate group.” You can point to people who gave money to the FRC and who may have once belonged to the organization who support those positions, but that is no more valid than saying President Obama wants to overthrow the U.S. Constitution because he used to visit with Bill Ayers or spent some time with the Rev. Wright. Guilt by association is the last refuge of the scoundrel, as Joe McCarthy was forced to learn.
August 16th, 2012 | 4:06 pm
Publius, I was not talking about anyone who gave money to the FRC. I was talking about the organization itself, which spent tens of thousands of dollars to fight against a House resolution condemning the Uganda bill. It subsequently stalled. I am talking about the organization’s president, who lied on the radio and proclaimed that the Uganda bill did not say what everyone knew it to say, because its text had been around the internet for a while. Hell, Tony Perkins himself attacked Obama for opposing the Uganda bill, claiming that it would “uphold moral conduct”.
As for the other points, may have once belonged? No. Individuals proclaiming that they would like to “export” homosexuals from the United States and who supported jailing them had senior positions within the FRC, and hold them to this day, without as much as a public reprimand by the FRC. Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies is one such person. In any moral organization, you would be out on your behind after such a statement, but not in one that is absolutely, positively a hate group.
I will defend people who are not hateful and sincere in believing that marriage is between a man and a woman from the charges of bigotry (which you claimed was your concern). Why will you not condemn an organization guilty of the abovementioned outrages, and more?
August 16th, 2012 | 6:35 pm
Max,
If advocacy in Congress to kill a homosexual rights bill with a distant impact on the oppressed in Uganda constitutes the actions of a “hate group” how would you characterize the following actions that occurred inside the United States by anti-proposition 8 (the proposition approved by the voters of California affirming that marriage is a compact between a man and a woman) in 2008 — death threats directed against contributors to the traditional marriage campaign; powder mailed in envelopes to contributors to the traditional marriage campaign; threats directed against Rick Warren and the Catholic Bishops for their support of traditional marriage; an “anti-gay blacklist” directed against businessmen and women who supported/contributed to the traditional marriage campaign; Christian evangelicals chased out of the Castro district in San Francisco (feel free to watch the Youtube video); see also the Youtube video of anti-Prop 8 supporters stomping on a cross after ripping it out of the hands of an elderly man; see also the harassment of members of the L.A. theater community who had the courage to defend traditional marriage and were basically put out of business. Now let’s see, if one crackpot minister associated with the FRC is worthy of its being classified as a hate group, when will we see you and various progressives demand that those homosexual rights organizations affiliated with these coercive/violent actions be classified as “hate” group?
August 16th, 2012 | 8:38 pm
It seems symptomatic to me of a broader zeitgeist construction of permission-giving beliefs legitimating violence against those identified as religious in a non State-neutered sense. Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, they all supposedly are child abusers if they raise children in their religion.
August 16th, 2012 | 8:51 pm
So you’re simply saying intolerance is a good thing in the marketplace of ideas.
Honesty is a good thing in the marketplace of ideas.
The original antithesis might have been
but today’s antithesis is more often than note
August 16th, 2012 | 8:51 pm
The original antithesis might have been
tolerance intolerance
but today’s antithesis is more often than note
“tolerance” truth; honesty
That must have been an HTML command?
tolerance intolerance
“tolerance” truth;honesty
(supposed to be a two-way arrow in between)
August 16th, 2012 | 9:16 pm
What one moment ago made you call me a scoundrel, you now freely admit. So the mask is torn off! You came here, proclaiming the injustice of the FRC being called a hate group for supporting traditional marriage (I agreed with that). Two posts later, you proclaim the great injustice of the FRC being called a hate group for aiding and abetting the murder of gay people in a “distant” place (geographical distance makes it a whole lot better). And that calls itself pro-life. How my heart bleeds for the FRC!
But wait… someone took a cross out of a man’s hand and stomped on it. How dare you compare that to aiding and abetting the killing of innocent human beings? Have you no shame, my good friend?
You should not at all be surprised.
August 17th, 2012 | 6:54 am
I’ve got to say that if what Maximilian says is true about the FRC, that is pretty serious as a failure of love. Can anyone imagine Jesus sitting back and saying he would like to ‘export’ homosexuals? Among the first to denounce the Uganda laws was Exodus International.
August 17th, 2012 | 8:21 am
Max,
The FRC is no more of a hate group than any other group in Washington that lobbies for its positions, even if you happen to disagree with their positions. We have a first amendment in the United States that protects free speech, including speech you happen to disagree with. Your discomfort with pluralism is apparent, but that discomfort is no grounds for labeling speech that you don’t like as hate speech. The actions of the anti-Prop 8 gay rights groups, which you completely avoided in your last post, included threats and acts of violence. Again, how about showing some consistency and labeling these groups as “hate groups”? Your double standard speaks volumes . . . Have you no shame?
August 17th, 2012 | 9:42 am
David, here are two videos:
Exporting homosexuals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6JuKnXJGTc
Criminalizing homosexuality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTFEzzuj-VQ
Publius:
“We have a first amendment in the United States that protects free speech, including speech you happen to disagree with.”
Pathetic straw man. I did not say that they didn’t. I am using my First Amendment rights (and the graciousness of First Things in allowing opposing voice to be heard) to point out that the FRC is absolutely, positively a hate group for aiding and abetting the murder of gay Ugandans, and having top officials who want to jail and “export” homosexuals.
“The actions of the anti-Prop 8 gay rights groups, which you completely avoided in your last post”
Yes, you compared the murder of innocent people in Uganda to stomping on a cross, or… Heaven forbid! Boycotting a business that contributed to Proposition 8.
“Have you no shame?”
Have you no originality?
In short, you entered, claiming to be outraged over the fact that the FRC would be called a hate group for supporting traditional marriage (an outrage which I would share), and you ended by being outraged over the fact that it is called a hate group for supporting murder in Uganda, and wanting to jail and “export” homosexuals. I think it is very clear where your true passion lies – not with protecting traditional marriage.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:44 am
Yes, you compared the murder of innocent people in Uganda to stomping on a cross, or… Heaven forbid! Boycotting a business that contributed to Proposition 8.
In the wake of Proposition 8, almost a dozen Mormon temples were hit by arson, with or without accompanying vandalism.
Mormon homes and cars were vandalized.
Two Mormon teenagers in an Arizona park were beaten to the point of hospitalization by someone they’d never met, who asked them whether they were Mormon before beating them.
A temple in Colorado found a Book of Mormon had been set on fire and left on their temple steps.
I am also against using American power to influence Uganda’s domestic affairs. While I do not believe homosexuality should be a sin punishable by death, I also believe that usurping another nation’s sovereignty is clearly destructive. However good the original intent, the result will be destructive and harmful (and probably especially toward the gays who will be appropriated by us as “mascots”, but not given real protection).
August 17th, 2012 | 11:52 am
Two posts later, you proclaim the great injustice of the FRC being called a hate group for aiding and abetting the murder of gay people in a “distant” place (geographical distance makes it a whole lot better).
Like it or not, Uganda is not within our jurisdiction.
Whether or not they ought to support the death penalty – and what crimes ought to count as serious enough to warrant the death penalty – is not ours to decide.
Likewise, I don’t see you doing much about the purging of Christians throughout too many parts of the world. But I don’t think that makes you a murderer – even if you actively opposed a plan to rescue persecuted Christians using American resources. Opposing such a plan does not make someone guilty of murder (especially if the plan is not a well-constructed plan, or relies on a philosophical justification that is of questionable legitimacy, or if the concern for the population to be ‘helped’ is really just a pretext and the real agenda is about something else altogether).
It’s also worth noting that, if and when there is a world government, your opinion will not necessarily be worth more than any other.
August 17th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
Max,
Again, despite what you may think, FRC does not support murdering people in Uganda or exporting or killing gays. If you can cite any official document from the organization supporting murder or jail or deportation the readers of this blog might find that beneficial. Anything short of that is McCarthyism at its worst. And again what do you have to say about the violence in California short of thinking that it was no big deal to stomp on a cross….?
August 17th, 2012 | 12:19 pm
While I do not believe homosexuality should be a sin punishable by death
I meant to write “crime”, not “sin”.
Either way, I believe the people of Uganda are within their rights to make specific sexual behaviors a crime, if they wish.
August 17th, 2012 | 12:21 pm
Pathetic straw man. I did not say that they didn’t. I am using my First Amendment rights (and the graciousness of First Things in allowing opposing voice to be heard) to point out that the FRC is absolutely, positively a hate group for aiding and abetting the murder of gay Ugandans, and having top officials who want to jail and “export” homosexuals.
It’s not a pathetic straw man.
You’re using your First Amendment rights to slander them, and he’s using his First Amendment rights to point out that your logic is flawed.
August 17th, 2012 | 12:51 pm
Publius, nice attempt at using the Etch A Sketch – but you earlier admitted what you now contest. “If advocacy in Congress to kill a homosexual rights bill with a distant impact on the oppressed in Uganda” This is how you referred to the Congressional resolution to condemn the gay killing bill in Uganda. After that, you said that they just lobby for their “positions”.
As for stomping on the cross, the only thing I have to say about that is that I am astonished that even you would compare stomping on a cross to snuffing out innocent human lives. Aren’t you supposed to be pro-life? Then be pro-life.
August 17th, 2012 | 1:06 pm
Blake: “Either way, I believe the people of Uganda are within their rights to make specific sexual behaviors a crime, if they wish.”
Do you believe that the people of Egypt are within their rights to punish being a Christian with death, if they wish?
August 17th, 2012 | 3:04 pm
As best as I can tell, the reasons FRC is being called a “hate” organization are that some affiliated folks
1. want to reinstate laws against homosexual acts;
2. want to use a particular type of legal consequence if those laws are reinstated; and
3. have opposed efforts to get the US to sanction an African country over proposed criminal laws.
By the first two, then MADD could be described as a hate organization relative to drinkers. The third one smacks of cultural imperialism.
Disagreement over whether a behavior should be allowed is not in itself hatred. The distinction between this and Saudi criminal sanctions against non-Moslems is quite simple: free exercise of religion is a fundamental human right (not only per the US Constituion, but even by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), while free expression of sexuality isn’t.
August 17th, 2012 | 4:20 pm
Blake: “Either way, I believe the people of Uganda are within their rights to make specific sexual behaviors a crime, if they wish.”
Do you believe that the people of Egypt are within their rights to punish being a Christian with death, if they wish?
Well, I oppose the death penalty, so I don’t think anyone is within their rights to impose death.
But the real question in this scenario would be a question of when it is justified to violate the sovereignty of another nation, and – if intervention is justified – how it should be done.
August 17th, 2012 | 4:41 pm
Gregg, how very revealing. Is intervening to stop the murder of innocents “cultural imperialism”? That’s as atrocious as the Christian governor of India, who outlawed burning widows (sati). Would you also condemn that?
The comparison with MADD is absolutely ridiculous, and I think you know. FRC is not trying to outlaw same-sex relations in a car, so that innocent people won’t be hit, like MADD is.
August 17th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Gandhi
August 17th, 2012 | 5:51 pm
Blake: Well, I oppose the death penalty, so I don’t think anyone is within their rights to impose death.
But you have argued that it is within their rights to enact prison sentences for homosexuality. Can I conclude from that, that you do not oppose criminal sanctions for homosexuality?
Blake: But the real question in this scenario would be a question of when it is justified to violate the sovereignty of another nation, and – if intervention is justified – how it should be done.
Would you support cutting off or threatening to cut off the $2 billion a year aid the US gives Egypt, to prevent a genocide against the Copts of Egypt?
August 17th, 2012 | 7:07 pm
The state is entrusted with the authority to enforce criminal laws and punishments for violations thereof. The proposed laws were not authorizing individual vigilante action, so calling the proposal “murder of innocents” is false in this case, though it certainly would apply as to suttee. It would be the enforcement of sentences against criminals by the judicial system. If the judicial system failed to provide for fair trials, then it could be classified as judicial murder.
The MADD example simply illustrates that proposing a criminal law is not the same as hatred of people who engage in the behavior that could be banned.
August 17th, 2012 | 7:15 pm
The comparison with MADD is absolutely ridiculous, and I think you know.
Maximilian,
You are absolutely right it’s ridiculous! I have to commend you for taking on all these arguments. There must be people out there reading who agree with you but aren’t speaking up. Or at least, I’d certainly like to think so!
August 17th, 2012 | 11:18 pm
Would you support cutting off or threatening to cut off the $2 billion a year aid the US gives Egypt, to prevent a genocide against the Copts of Egypt?
As a general rule, I oppose using foreign policy as a bludgeon with which to manipulate other nations’ domestic issues.
If you want to see the problem solved – either problem, gays or Copts – you have to actually come up with a solution that is better than the usual left wing “who cares if it works, as long as you are doing something that sounds good that’s all that matters”. I think it may be true that this approach always does more harm than good. I might be wrong about the “always”, but I don’t know – I think maybe always.
You can’t make other nations approve of homosexuality through the use of coercive force. Trying to do so, using American foreign policy as a weapon, is only going to make things worse. It will neither enable homosexuals to leave the environment, nor will it offer any real guarantee that homosexuals’ rights will be protected, nor will it do anything to change anyone’s minds about homosexuality (bullying does not really change anyone’s mind about anything, and withholding foreign aid is going to be perceived as bullying). We do not have the power to protect them. All that you will have accomplished is to set them up as scapegoats. You might as well paint a big bulls-eye target on each one.
If you want to see the problem solved, there are only three possibilities: you could find a way to get gays out of the country, you could find a way to guarantee their safety, or you could find a way to make the people not want to kill gays any more. Those are the three options. American foreign policy does not have any one of these three within its power.
One should not make promises one can’t keep, and one should make rules one can’t enforce.
August 18th, 2012 | 9:19 am
Blake: As a general rule, I oppose using foreign policy as a bludgeon with which to manipulate other nations’ domestic issues.
I asked you a specific question. Why won’t you answer it? Would you favor cutting off of threatening to cut off the $2 billion of aid to Egypt, if the people of Egypt made moves to exterminate the 8 million Copts who live there? Will you answer the question now?
“You can’t make other nations approve of homosexuality through the use of coercive force.”
The question wasn’t “approv[al]“, and you know that, the question was killing. We cannot make the Egyptian Muslims like the Copts, but we can stop them from killing. Should we?
“bullying does not really change anyone’s mind about anything”
That a follower of the Nazarene who preached love for his fellow man, would characterize efforts to save innocent human lives as “bullying” – even from the perspective of the targets – is enough to explode one’s head.
August 19th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
Maximilian,
I watched the video links you posted and they were interesting. What on earth did Mr. Sprigg mean by saying he would like to export homosexuals and not import them because he believes they are harmful to society? If he believes they are harmful to society, that is not very neighborly of him to want to export them to others to harm others’ societies. But really, how much can one determine from a soundbite so short and un-contextualized? Perhaps it was a clumsy phrasing, nevertheless revealing. The second position outlawing sodomy is an old one and to conflate that with hatred is not right, especially if a person thinks sodomy debases a person like prostitution and so believes it is a defense of human wellbeing and dignity to outlaw it. That position might be held in a clearly well wishing sense, not one of KKK-like hatred. The desire to deem such the equivalent of KKK-hatred is transgressive though clearly one might believe that sodomy is wrong AND hate homosexuals.
August 20th, 2012 | 9:39 am
David: But really, how much can one determine from a soundbite so short and un-contextualized?
Is there a context that can justify expressing a liking for deporting your fellow citizens? Is there a context that can justify wanting to jail people for the gender of the person they love?
David: The second position outlawing sodomy is an old one and to conflate that with hatred is not right,
If only something be old, it cannot be hatred, is that your view?
David: especially if a person thinks sodomy debases a person like prostitution and so believes it is a defense of human wellbeing and dignity to outlaw it.
You’re not even claiming that they have a point, you’re simply conceding it and proceeding to justify their response. Well, if I believe that religion debases a person in that manner, am I justified in advocating for jailing religious people? If someone believes that heresy debases a society, is he justified in advocating for burning “heretics” at the stake? If Muslims believe that Christians debase their pure, Islamic lands, are they justified in killing the Christians?
David: That position might be held in a clearly well wishing sense,
Yes. Wanting people to languish in a prison cell for the gender of the person they love may be “well wishing”. Nay, it’s love and charity. Where would the world be, without the love and charity of invading a person’s home, and taking them to a squalid prison on account of the gender of their lover? You make me very glad that I am not a Christian. I practice actual love and charity. Some merely use the words at every opportunity, while advocating for their diametric opposite.
August 20th, 2012 | 1:20 pm
Maximillian,
It is useless to try to make a big deal out of a one line soundbite that could be a gaffe, especially if you are trying to characterize an organization by it. To try to urge this only reveals your prior commitment to loathing them.
“Well, if I believe that religion debases a person in that manner, am I justified in advocating for jailing religious people?”
I should think so! If you believe Christianity spreads disease like prostitution and undercuts marriages, and undercuts the prostitute’s dignity as a human person and if you think criminalizing Christianity would serve as a deterrent, I would not be surprised if you criminalized Christianity, although I would consider you deluded. Frankly, I think a lot of gay rights activists would be glad to prosecute people for believing sodomy degrading. It is harder however to prosecute for forced sodomy of a woman now if she was having consensual sex before because of the overturning of sodomy laws. A side effect of your tolerance: everyone must love sodomy, despite it’s being one of the most sexually risky behavior to health there is.
You’re the only one who said anything about killing.
You may think this bizarre but I actually think those who help people master desires which subvert their sex are more loving in their stance toward slaves of those desires than people like you who teach people to embrace their inner captivity. If our forefathers criminalized such disease infested behavior, especially given the absence of contraceptives, but did so hoping and providing for a person’s escape from unruly desires, then they were better than you and you doctrine of democratic plurality of sex. A handmaiden of this liberal open ended embrace of all sexual desire save rape is that is the erosion of any concept of sexual self-control. Count me out of your ‘love’fest orgies of indiscriminate thought and wastage of bodies and lives. I’ll whatever the price for being labeled a hater by bigots.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:06 pm
David Alexander: It is useless to try to make a big deal out of a one line soundbite that could be a gaffe, especially if you are trying to characterize an organization by it.
Isn’t it funny, that respectable organizations never make such “gaffes”? Later on, you say: “Frankly, I think a lot of gay rights activists would be glad to prosecute people for believing sodomy degrading.” So your baseless suppositions is reason enough to condemn people, while coming out straight in favor of jailing gay people is just a “gaffe”.
David Alexander: I would not be surprised if you criminalized Christianity, although I would consider you deluded.
I did not ask whether you would be surprised. I asked whether I would be justified? Of course you would not strain yourself to make excuses for my conduct, as you are doing for Sprigg. And you’d not be defending me from charges of hatred. Instead, you’d be saying ‘persecution’ day and night, as some Christians today frivolously level this charge at literally everyone.
David Alexander: If our forefathers criminalized such disease infested behavior, especially given the absence of contraceptives, but did so hoping and providing for a person’s escape from unruly desires
Yes, your forefathers burned gay people, because of their love and charity. The mind boggles. Every word, every breath of yours make me rejoice in the fact that I am not a Christian. I solemnly request that you be as vocal as possible about your beliefs, so that more people may turn to atheism, like me.
David Alexander: I’ll whatever the price for being labeled a hater by bigots.
Yes, David, yes. Your desire to put people in prison for the gender of the person they love is not hateful, but anyone who calls you out on it is a “bigot”. The mind boggles at such mental gymnastics.
August 21st, 2012 | 7:28 am
I acknowledged the man’s quote raises a question mark but you would like to say it is enough. Are you addressing me as a human being with a critical faculty or trying to overwhelm me with an emotional appeal that is impatient with parsing details.
You would not be justified to jail Christians because you would be deluded and delusion is not a valid basis for jailing people. Do I have to walk you through it? Can you not consider a perspective outside of this historical moment? Is this time parochialism? You think everyone who does not share your perspective about homosexuals hates them and wants to murder them?! You do not seem to me to broach the question of how rival claims to truth about sexual reality contain within them disparate prescriptions of how to love.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:49 am
David: You would not be justified to jail Christians because you would be deluded and delusion is not a valid basis for jailing people.
Yet Sprigg’s delusion is justification enough?
David: Are you addressing me as a human being with a critical faculty
Yes, and all such addresses you ignore. For example, you want to jail gay people, and that is not bigotry, but anyone who calls you out on it is a bigot. I called you out on this inconsistency, and you completely ignored it, possibly because it’s indefensible. “All I want to do is imprison gay people, and this BIGOT is calling me a hater for it.”
David: or trying to overwhelm me with an emotional appeal that is impatient with parsing details.
I am not appealing to you at all, merely expression my personal revulsion. It seems to me that you are too far gone to be saved, and even if you could be, I don’t think I would want you on my side. Besides, you create more positive environment for atheism as a Christian, than you would as an atheist.
David: You think everyone who does not share your perspective about homosexuals hates them and wants to murder them?!
I didn’t mention murder, I pointed out that the “forefathers”, whose wisdom you were extolling, burned gay people at the stake. Remember? It occurred after you praised them for how charitable and loving they were to try to make gay people “escape”.
Also, stop using euphemisms. I don’t care about what perspective you have. I care about the fact that you want to put them in prison. But that would make you look less good, not? “You think that everyone who wants to imprison homosexuals hates them?” Why would you hide behind ‘does not share your perspective’?
August 21st, 2012 | 8:23 pm
I never said I am for jailing homosexuals and I am not. You jumped to that conclusion when I was trying to goad you to consider how someone might be for jailing homosexuals if they believed in its deterrence value. It is bigotry to assume that all people who have ever been against sodomy and who have been for penal deterrence of it must be raving, blood-lusting KKK-like haters of homosexuals who perforce must be for burning them at the stake, which appears to me to be your position.
Actually you did mention murder in all of the posts in response to me after I responded to your links.
Is it not time parochial of you to approach history merely by seeking out the most heinous acts and then coloring al the humble, wise and meek with these? It just suggests to me a close mindedness to learning from the past, a moral dismissal of them as all murderers. Tell me how this can be anything but bigotry?
I was not using a euphemism but you were by claiming I would jail people for love of the same gender rather than claiming I would jail people for sodomy, which need not imply love. I do not endorse either of these but was only speaking against your outright condemnation of all who hold or have ever held in history this position. To you it’s one and the same but to me, that’s not the maximum of differentiation. Your animus against me is unfortunate, and not mutual, but what can I do about it? “The truth serves only it’s slaves.”
August 22nd, 2012 | 8:20 am
David: I never said I am for jailing homosexuals and I am not.
It sounded very much like it. But if you are not, then can you explain why it is legitimate for Peter Sprigg to advocate for jailing homosexuals (with which you disagree), because he thinks that homosexuality will bring down civilization, but not for someone to advocate for jailing Christians (with which you disagree), because he thinks that Christianity will bring down civilization? The latter view you called delusional, the former you have only defended – made evident by the fact that this is the first time you even make clear that it is not your view.
You will accuse people of “bigotry” for much less than advocating jailing Christians – simply criticizing you. So can you explain to me why criticizing you is bigotry, while advocating jailing gay people is not?
David: It is bigotry to assume that all people who have ever been against sodomy and who have been for penal deterrence of it must be raving, blood-lusting KKK-like haters
I didn’t say ‘ever’. A thousand years ago, maybe people didn’t know any better. Now, there is no excuse. Also, note the irony in your comment. I do not doubt that you would cry persecution if I said: “It is bigotry to assume that all people who have ever been against Christianity and who have been for penal deterrence of it must be raving, blood-lusting KKK-like haters”
David: Actually you did mention murder in all of the posts in response to me after I responded to your links.
Well, you said that Sprigg’s beliefs are justified because of “sincerely held religious beliefs”. Naturally, I asked you whether burning heretics at the stake would be justified, because of “sincerely held religious beliefs”.
David: Is it not time parochial of you to approach history merely by seeking out the most heinous acts
Who brought up your ‘forefathers’? You did. You praised them for their ‘wisdom’. I only pointed out what they did, namely burn gay people at the stake. Why does that upset you so much?
David: I was not using a euphemism but you were by claiming I would jail people for love of the same gender rather than claiming I would jail people for sodomy
The issue was that you called advocacy for either “not shar[ing] your perspective on homosexuality”. That’s a euphemism, and an enormous one.
David: Your animus against me is unfortunate
When at first you don’t succeed, pull out the “persecution” card.
August 22nd, 2012 | 5:33 pm
Maximilian,
I don’t know Sprigg’s reasoning from your soundbite link, just that he said something to the effect that he was for jailing homosexuals. I simply argued that a person could hold such a position but not hate homosexuals. I don’t know why this was hard for you to understand. Because I did not respond at first to your automatic attributions, is that supposed to be some kind of evidence? I do believe homosexuality is harmful to those it grips and that sodomy is very risky health behavior and is degrading partially because of this physical nature of it. The question of whether jailing would deter someone from this behavior is a separate one from whether the behavior is good or degrading. I believe it is degrading but do not support jailing people for it. I believe I love homosexuals despite my belief that sodomy is degrading and homosexual acts subvert one’s sex. From this belief I can see how some who also believe it degrading might seek to deter homosexual acts by a penal code and still not hate homosexuals. This has been my point all along, to question what seemed to me to be an assertion by you that support for penal deterrence of homosexual behavior was automatically equivalent to KKK-like hatred for homosexuals. You qualify your statements now by not applying them to past. That’s fine but I reject your notion that people cannot hold such views today without being KKK-like haters. Perhaps Sprigg hates homosexuals like you say but I am going to preserve my virgin reticence to jump to a conclusion against what seems to me to be your over certainty.
I am calling bigotry the intemperate attribution of KKK-like hatred to groups for merely holding that homosexual behavior is degrading.
“The issue was that you called advocacy for either “not shar[ing] your perspective on homosexuality”. That’s a euphemism, and an enormous one.”
I didn’t intend a euphemism. It honestly seemed to me that you are for calling groups hate groups for merely holding a position that homosexuality is degrading, apart from the question of whether they are for penal deterrence. Let me ask you: Would you call a group like Exodus International a hate group though they are against penal deterrence as far as I can tell?
August 23rd, 2012 | 11:06 am
David Alexander: I simply argued that a person could hold such a position but not hate homosexuals.
That much has been made clear to me. However, you have still not answered my question. If someone believed that Christianity is destructive to society and degrading, and thus advocated for its deterrence by penal means, would you say that this person is not a “bigot” or a “hater”?
If so, then it’s very interesting. Because then, me calling Peter Sprigg a hater is bigotry (as you have claimed), but calling for him to be jailed for simply being a Christian is not bigotry. And if you would say that such a person is a hater or a bigot, then you are being inconsistent – special pleading for your religion.
David Alexander: being KKK-like
No one mentioned the KKK, but you (6 times in this thread). Hate groups come in many forms, and not all are exactly the same as the KKK.
David Alexander: It honestly seemed to me that you are for calling groups hate groups for merely holding a position that homosexuality is degrading,
The question was not even raised, I have been very narrowly focused on Sprigg’s comments, how can it seem to be like this, to you? Is this the ‘persecution’ card again?
The answer to the question that follows is, insofar as I know, no. Unscientific, yes.
August 23rd, 2012 | 11:02 pm
It is useless to try to legitimate actions without an appeal to their rootedness on truth.
I can conceive of a paternalistic atheist group trying to sincerely steer Christians to give up their faith and doing so using penal methods. There were probably Communists of this stripe who didn’t hate Christians but pitied them and sought to redeem them from their ‘degrading beliefs.’ If I loved a person who was jailing me for my beliefs I would not excuse him for his sincere but deluded belief but I hope out of love and a generous spirit of one who had been forgiven much I would acknowledge what was creditable to those who jailed me such as a freedom from a vicious hatred. I think a person might be called a bigot still accurately in such a circumstance but maybe it would not be charitable to do so. The validity of a position depends more on its truth than the measure of tenacity with which it is held but a self sacrificial love is not first about rights or being right. I would hope that like Joseph jailed by Potiphar unjustly, I would pray for and will the good of my captors and trust my life ultimately to God.
Referring to the KKK is a good way to evoke an visceral idea of a hate group and because of the penchant for likening the gay movement to the Civil Rights movement, I think it the a logical ascription of the analogy.
I don’t think your position about homosexuality is indeed scientific from what I can make of your stance. Science does not support a deterministic view of homosexuality and science does support that sodomy is the riskiest form of sex (excluding the brazen intention of harm). It seems to me that you probably like most derive your views of homosexuality from a sacralization of democratic process in which the process begins to provide directives about the content, in this case about how to view the phenomenon of homosexuality. Perhaps this is more a case of incompatibility between democratic and authoritarian world views and not primarily about sex.
August 24th, 2012 | 11:02 am
David Alexander: It is useless to try to legitimate actions without an appeal to their rootedness on truth.
My problem with your initial point was that you argued the opposite: that actions can be legitimated based on the beliefs of the actor, not on truth. Your very first post argued as much: IF Peter Sprigg believes this or that, THEN it is legitimate to advocate for what he does. You may argue the truth of his belief, but not the IF-THEN connection. If I believe the person next to me is a devil, I am licensed to stab him. It doesn’t work like that.
David Alexander: I think a person might be called a bigot still accurately in such a circumstance but maybe it would not be charitable to do so.
It is not charitable to call someone a bigot who has jailed you for your religion, but it is charitable to call me a bigot, for calling out Sprigg as a hater?
Also, why do you object to me calling Sprigg a bigot, if you believe this. Is it more legitimate to jail people for the gender of the person they love, than people for their personal choice of religion?
David Alexander: Referring to the KKK is a good way to evoke an visceral idea of a hate group and because of the penchant for likening the gay movement to the Civil Rights movement, I think it the a logical ascription of the analogy.
And yet there are many more hate groups, to whose inclusion you do not object. For example, the Nation of Islam. Groups like the FRC are much more analogous to the white citizen’s councils, which were non-violent but extremely pro-segregation, than they are to the KKK.
David Alexander: Science does not support a deterministic view of homosexuality
Frankly, your understanding of science is more political/religious than anything – much like the ‘intelligent design’ movement. Perhaps you are playing with words (determinism is not a word I’ve heard used in this context), but science does support that sexual orientation is innate.
David Alexander: and science does support that sodomy is the riskiest form of sex
Not as it is traditionally defined. One of them is actually the least risky form of sex.
David Alexander: Perhaps this is more a case of incompatibility between democratic and authoritarian world views
I’m not much of a democrat. Think of me as a secular version of yourself (as you have expressed yourself in your last comment).
August 25th, 2012 | 11:16 pm
Maximilian:
“My problem with your initial point was that you argued the opposite: that actions can be legitimated based on the beliefs of the actor, not on truth. Your very first post argued as much: IF Peter Sprigg believes this or that, THEN it is legitimate to advocate for what he does.”
Actually, I didn’t. My point in my first was consistent with what I have said all along. Since I didn’t argue that, you’re wasting your time arguing against it.
“Frankly, your understanding of science is more political/religious than anything – much like the ‘intelligent design’ movement. Perhaps you are playing with words (determinism is not a word I’ve heard used in this context), but science does support that sexual orientation is innate.”
Frankly, I don’t think you know my views adequately to make a such a judgment, just that I say science does not support a deterministic view of homosexuality. I think it is remarkable actually of you hold a purist view of homosexuality as being wholly innate and I think you would have to be very committed against strong sociological data to the contrary to maintain such a view.
“David Alexander: and science does support that sodomy is the riskiest form of sex
Not as it is traditionally defined. One of them is actually the least risky form of sex.”
Sodomy, as in anal sex?
“David Alexander: Perhaps this is more a case of incompatibility between democratic and authoritarian world views
I’m not much of a democrat. Think of me as a secular version of yourself (as you have expressed yourself in your last comment).”
I am not very sanguine on your ability to read me. I was not talking in any case about the Democratic and Republican
Parties, but the formation of the soul by a democratic liberal polis/nation-state. Late democratic liberalism does seem to be opting for more coercive means but I am not for these.
August 27th, 2012 | 10:10 am
David Alexander: “Your very first post argued as much: IF Peter Sprigg believes this or that, THEN it is legitimate to advocate for what he does.” Actually, I didn’t.
Third post. Your first post to respond to me. “The second position outlawing sodomy is an old one and to conflate that with hatred is not right, especially if a person thinks sodomy debases a person like prostitution and so believes it is a defense of human wellbeing and dignity to outlaw it.” This is an argument predicated on the beliefs of the person having the beliefs, regardless of the merits of the beliefs.
David Alexander: Frankly, I don’t think you know my views adequately to make a such a judgment, just that I say science does not support a deterministic view of homosexuality.
Well, whenever religious people have absolutely no evidence for their claims, they proclaim that “science supports” this or that. Think of Mike Huckabee saying that “science has proven” that a fertilized egg is a child. It’s a joke.
David Alexander: I think it is remarkable actually of you hold a purist view of homosexuality as being wholly innate
I didn’t say ‘wholly’, I said that science supports the idea that it is innate. Also, reason and common sense support this view. Unless you think that gay people are actually attracted to the opposite sex and seek out the same sex to ‘persecute’ you, you acknowledge that it is innate.
David Alexander: and I think you would have to be very committed against strong sociological data to the contrary to maintain such a view.
Show me your ‘strong sociological data’.
David Alexander: Sodomy, as in anal sex?
Something else has also traditionally been defined as sodomy, and it is the least risky form of sex.
David Alexander: I am not very sanguine on your ability to read me.
In your previous post, you said that the truth is the most important thing.
David Alexander: Late democratic liberalism does seem to be opting for more coercive means but I am not for these.
Which coercive means do you oppose? For example, would you oppose giving a 12-year-old son of two Jehovah’s Witnesses a blood transfusion against their will, to save his life?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact