Furthering the confusion over free speech, a suit against a youth pastor in Canada, brought under a hate crime statute, alleges "hate" for sending the following text to a local newspaper, which was published in Letters to the Editor:
Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.
For this crime, he may be fined up to $7000 and serve jail time. Regardless of the outcome of the case, he says he will refuse to pay.
This type of judicial idiocy is dangerous to us all, both gay and straight. I hope he wins his case. The court should review my post on What is Hate? to help make their decision ;)
First of all, I really doubt that public schools are passing out "pro-homosexual" literature. What would that even be?
"Hey kids! Being gay is awesome! You should be gay, too!"
Of course not. What he really meant, but wouldn't say, was that public schools are teaching children that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, and that no one should be ashamed of who they are, or who they're attracted to (or will be attracted to, such as the case may be with pre-adolescents).
How exactly is that psychologically damaging? And more bizarrely, how is it physiologically damaging? The very idea boggles the mind.
By claiming these things, this YOUTH PASTOR is tacitly arguing that the concept of homosexuality is so repugnant, so wicked, that public school systems could actually be hurting students by even acknowledging its existance.
So, in fairness, I hope he loses the case. And I also hope that nobody in their right minds — particuarly a court of law — ever listens to a goddamn thing you have to say.
… oh, I almost forgot to add a stupid emoticon, just so you didn't think that I was actually infuriated with your disgusting, homophobic drivel.
;)
Idiotic hate speech should be allowed to be published. Legislating against it is stupid. However, supporting that moron is friggin ridiculous. He's an idiot who believes in a God that creates everything and yet loathes some of his creations. Doesn't make much sense.
Typical Canadian horse-manure. Glad I don't live there, even if they do have health care…
Sam, you keep mentioning what I consider to be a straw man argument for homosexuality. It certainly is not based in the xian view of God, but in a view that everything that is created is as it should be.
But xians argue that although we were made in the image of God, we are also fallen, and so is all of creation. That is why it is hard to look at nature and say "God intended that."
Even if evidence finally shows that homosexuals are born that way, as you now believe without evidence (i.e. faith), that does not mean that it is intended by God.
However, God did not intend them to be that way any more than he intended cancer. It's just part of the problems we've caused. The bible teaches that even death was Adam's fault, and not intended.
But then you get into the problem of evil, which is a tough theological subject.
Here's an introductory list of gay activisim in the schools.
BTW, here's Mission America's checklist to measure how gay-friendly your school is.
Seeker,
How did man CREATE cancer? Seems like an allknowing God capable of creating the world in 7 days would have had to create cancer…and aren't you an ID supporter? How does ID explain homosexuality?
Of course, this guy is a christian. More evidence (as if more was needed) of the deep hostility christianity has for homosexuality and gay people. I wish I could live on a planet with NO religion, particularly monotheism.
I also wish I were Canadian.
1. Disease
Disease and death, theologically speaking, entered the world through sin – think about it – if you smoke and get cancer, did God make you sick? Admittedly, this is not a simple subject, and it is fraught with questions.
2. ID and God
ID is not really a Christian/Creationist thing – as I have said, it is also consistent with deistic-evolution. But you raise a good subject – if viruses like AIDS seem to be designed, did God design such things? Are they proof of a molevolent God? Or are they merely nature gone wrong due to our mishandling of animals and such?
3. ID and Homosexuality
As I said, ID is not some world view that answers everything, it is merely a statistical challenge to mindless evolution. I don't think it has anything to say about homosexuality.
4. Living without religion
Unfortunately, that will never happen. Check out Huston Smith's Why Religion Matters:
5. Living In Canada
Well, it's legal and easy to move there from the U.S., so no one is thwarting anyone's wishes to go there.
None of the people here who are arguing with you need to "think about it" — the idea that disease is somehow caused by bad behavior is totally ludicrous. No amount of thinking will change the fact that bacteria and viruses do not spontaneously generate. Not only that, but their existence pre-dates mankind's by several hundred-million years. Of course, you don't believe that, because you cling to the baseless notion that the entire planet is actually somehow younger than a number of the civilizations that are known to inhabit it.
The only questions that this subject is fraught with are ones like, "Why would anyone believe such an absurd, unevidenced idea?"
I was just expressing an idle wish. Of course, we will never rid ourselves of religion. As long as people need a baby-sitter to hold their hands, and as long as we need reasons to hate other people, we'll have religion.
After all, the two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
The link between behavior, environment, and disease is, um, well documented. Perhaps you are meaning that you don't think we can modify our genetics through our choices? Are you saying that smoking doesn't cause genetic changes? Or that it does not cause inheritable changes? The latter I agree with.
But if you believe that *random* mutations can cause an increase in complexity, despite the fact that almost all mutations are deletrious, you already believe in the fantastic.
It is more likely that exposure to environmental pathogens, by accident or by behavior, could and does introduce inheritable disease conditions.
Louis, the view that only infantile, dependent, and unducated people need faith is arrogant and misses the point that all of us feel the need for spiritual experience, even the need for God. I think that is why religion will never go away – we need God as much as we need love.
PHHHT! If you define "spiritual" broadly, we can get it through artistic experience. "Spiritual," meaning supernatural or non-existent, we can do without.
Before I challenge your second sentence I'd like to hear your definition of "God."
God: A personal, transcendant, benevolent God of love and truth.
Substituting beauty for God is called idolatry – as Paul said in Romans 1, worshipping the creation instead of the creator.
Ha! Tree: A leafy tree with a bark-covered wooden trunk.
Big deal. Who cares?
So i give you my definition of god and you say "who cares"? I'm glad that you find my definition one that is simple and generally acceptable. However, if you ask Buddhists, they would disagree with that definition. What more do you want?
Louis, I know I've said this before in threads with you, but you consistently apply critques to Christianity as a faith based upon failures of individual Christians-a valid argument, but only a partial one.
If you are waiting for the "perfect" Christian, you'll never find them, since that's the entire reason for the faith. Neither side is falsifiable, making your arguments as logical as the faith you protest.
just a thought.
"…as logical as the faith I protest"?
Ha! You can't define something by including it in the definition. That's something seeker missed. "God is a god of…etc." (my point about the tree). I asked for a definition of "God" not a description. Of course he missed the point! Christianity is NOT logical. That's why I gave up.
And christianity, while claiming to be the only faith, the perfect faith, the "Truth" which puts all other views to shame, continues to produce suffering and injustice in the world just as it always has. And it's not just "individual" christians who, of course, are imperfect, but the religion itself which is so flawed.
Plus, there's not a shred of evidence for its claims.
Louis, you are nit picking and not answering my questions. Just replace the "god" in my definition with being. Happy now? Does my definition now pass your "logic" test? Sheesh.
I didn't define it by itself, I took two distinct views and found a common flaw in their logic. In other words, given the tenets of Christianity, your logic about Christianity is equally illogical.