The christians have the RIGHT, not Priviledge, to actively practice their religion. As do the muslims, jews, hindi's, buddist, etc. It shall not be infringed.
But it CAN be infringed. That was my point in comparing it to your stance on other forms of expression. If my religion requires that I regularly perform human sacrifice (a "widely distributed and historically enduring" practice), I'm not allowed to do that. "Freedom of Religion" is not a blanket statement that permits anything under the label of "religion."
So what determines if a religion is "legitimate?" It is not the place of government or society to decide what religion is or is not "legitimate," and as such we need to base what we allow on the actions of that religion, not whether or not it is a religion.
Just ftr, let's not paint all Christians with the same brush. PCUSA (my church) allows open ordination of partnered gay people.
This girl in ASU, it's a tough call for me. It all depends on what the girl plans to do in her counseling.
One of the biggest problems I have with some people's attitudes towards gay people is that somehow, being "gay" is a "Special Sin" that makes a person categorically unfit for their church.
We're ALL sinners, I was always told, and none of us are free of sin. But if you have sex with a dude, then to some people, you're in a different class of sin.
You can be alcoholic, you can be a wife beater, personal injury attorney, etc. and still be Christian, a Christian who commits daily acts of evil. But a dude having sex with a dude is just a whole different league somehow.
Most Christian churches don't look down on guys sharing a non-sexual love and bonding that's as close as anything that a man & woman might share. They can share lifelong friendship, beers together, ride the Marlboro trail together, and share the rapture of landing on the moon together.
But for SOME churches, if they touch each other's willies, if they engage in play & touch that might result in the big O, then they are monsters. They can touch their own tool, and spend tons of time in close physical contact sharing their greatest emotional joys, but physically "pleasuring" another dude is a special sin that makes you different from liars, serial seducers of virgins, murderers, cheats and child-beaters.
Makes me think of that old question: "If disease were no issue, would you suck a **** for a thousand dollars? 10 thousand? Million? Billion?" And I always think, it's looney to not take big money for that. It's just a physical act far less extreme or difficult than many I've had to suffer through in my life, and putting such extreme value judgment on a biological function not that different from masturbation is just nonsense to me.
If homosex is so weird and special because it distorts normal sexuality, then celibacy should be equally a sin (and the resultant disasters with the Catholic priesthood that arise from forced celibacy clearly supports my view).
I just don't get that.
I think that if a counselor is going to graduate from that program, she needs to only offer her personal religious conviction (represented as such) on that issue if it's directly solicited.
At least that's how I feel now, and am open to hearing other arguments.
-
As for the Netherlands thing, what laws and rights they have is determined by their own government and people, and not mine.
One of the biggest problems I have with some people's attitudes towards gay people is that somehow, being "gay" is a "Special Sin" that makes a person categorically unfit for their church.
note: I'm not arguing (here) one way or the other that Homosexuality is a sin, I'm trying to clarify the difference that some people see between the "sins" and why the openly gay pastor (for example) is not allowed in some churches.
I think the difference is between being "proud" of the sin, vs. being ashamed of it. If a church sees homosexuality as a sin, then it can't allow an ordained person to openly practice it. the same would be true if an ordained person openly practiced and advocated for drunkenness, wife beating, etc. The issue isn't that they have to be holier than others -- as you said everybody sins, the issue is that they can't be claiming something isn't a sin when their church says it is.
So what it boils down to is: its not the fact that its a sin that gets people riled up against it, its the fact that the person doesn't think its a sin and is actively taking pride in doing it.
I konw this isn't the way all anti-homosexuals think, but it is a rational reason for why a church would be opposed to it, and one that is used as a justification by the majority of churches opposing homosexual minsters.
You can be alcoholic, you can be a wife beater, personal injury attorney, etc. and still be Christian, a Christian who commits daily acts of evil. But a dude having sex with a dude is just a whole different league somehow.
Being homosexual is a whole heck of a lot more than "having sex with a dude."
Most Christian churches don't look down on guys sharing a non-sexual love and bonding that's as close as anything that a man & woman might share. They can share a beer together, get drunk together, ride the Marlboro trail together, and share the rapture of landing on the moon together.
But for SOME churches, if they touch each other's willies, if they engage in play & touch that might result in the big O, then they are monsters. They can touch their own tool, and spend tons of time in close physical contact sharing their greatest emotional joys, but physically "pleasuring" another dude is a special sin that makes you different from liars, serial seducers of virgins, murderers, cheats and child-beaters.
This paragraph makes it pretty clear that the reason you "just don't get it" is because you haven't taken the effort to actually understand the teachings of those other churches. I'd suggest starting with the largest and most well documented -- Roman Catholic -- if you truly want to understand why churches oppose it, and not just make wild assumptions.
If homosex is so weird and special because it distorts normal sexuality, then celibacy should be equally a sin (and the resultant disasters with the Catholic priesthood that arise from forced celibacy clearly supports my view).
You are aware that biblically (New testament wise) Celibacy is explicitly considered laudable, while homosexuality is the opposite?
note: I'm not arguing (here) one way or the other that Homosexuality is a sin, I'm trying to clarify the difference that some people see between the "sins" and why the openly gay pastor (for example) is not allowed in some churches... <snip for brevity>... So what it boils down to is: its not the fact that its a sin that gets people riled up against it, its the fact that the person doesn't think its a sin and is actively taking pride in doing it.
That sounds good, but it's not really true.
Doesn't cover why some churches won't accept gays into their fold (as opposed to being an ordained minister). Plenty of people are openly defiant of of church opinions on what is and isn't a sin and quite proud of it.
You know that many Protestant churches consider it a sin to have pictures of Jesus... yet there's plenty of protestants in those churches who flout that. And the Catholic church considers it a sin to use condoms... but there are plenty of people who are Catholics who openly flout that. Same with divorce... and masturbation...
A sin is a sin, and there are plenty of church members who disagree with what the church considers to be a sin, and finds some of them to be ridiculous throwbacks. Yet people aren't rejected by church even for openly disagreeing with the church's doctrine on HELL. How many countless Christian moms openly defy church teachings on hell by telling their kids that they believe in a loving god that doesn't send non-Christian kids to Hell?
Plenty of people sin proudly and openly against church doctrine. But those sins are not quite so bothersome as gayness to some middle aged suppressed closet Gay Church official, now, is it?
I konw this isn't the way all anti-homosexuals think, but it is a rational reason for why a church would be opposed to it, and one that is used as a justification by the majority of churches opposing homosexual minsters.
"Rational"?
The word you're actually looking for is "rationalization".
Being homosexual is a whole heck of a lot more than "having sex with a dude."
Of course it is.
But guess what. The only part the church has a problem with is the "SEX with a dude".
Church has no problem if a single man lives with his best friend, or even sleeps in the same bed.
Many men, including priests and monks, for all practical purposes, live a "celibate gay" lifestyle where they love a man and feel closer to a man, than any other human. But as long as they don't have sex with them, so it's all cool with the church.
This paragraph makes it pretty clear that the reason you "just don't get it" is because you haven't taken the effort to actually understand the teachings of those other churches. I'd suggest starting with the largest and most well documented -- Roman Catholic -- if you truly want to understand why churches oppose it, and not just make wild assumptions.
Actually believe me, I have. I went to a private Catholic High School and took 4 years of religion classes from a Catholic sister. I probably know more about Catholicism than most people in this thread, though I can't speak to any individual in the thread who might know more about it than I do.
It's during religion classes that I discovered many gems about life and belief systems: One of them is that anybody in a church (or ANY organized body dictating morality) who claims permanence of their very specific viewpoints about lifestyle is naive. If the pope of 2010 says one thing and the pope of 1910 said something different, and the pope of 1810 something entirely different still... then I can tell damn straight that the pope of 2050 will have something different still to say.
No priest or sister was ever able to give me a SATISFACTORY answer to that rather obvious discrepancy to the "permanence" of the teachings of the Catholic (or any other) church.
On any of the deep philosophical questions, I always have a healthy dose of skepticisim and doubt, based on the fact that there were plenty of smart guys who lived in the past that believed very different things. Paradigms change and even "common sense" can change over time, and we can make assumptions even when we think we are making none.
You are aware that biblically (New testament wise) Celibacy is explicitly considered laudable, while homosexuality is the opposite?
Yeah, and I think it's an idea that came from the culture and the time, culturally based, just as many of the changes in the Catholic church over time, are culturally based.
Celibacy is something that we'll eventually realize is abnormal by any common sense measure.
When something becomes the norm and common sense, the church changes, and thus avoids becoming irrelevant.
I trust that sometime before the population of the world hits 14 billion, the Catholic church & the pope will somehow change its mind on contraception.
This trite and ridiculous statement needs to stop being quoted. You might as well say: "Hate the fact that he is black, not him for being black." You realize just how offensive that would be to black people, right? That is about as "loving" as calling people who are mentally handicapped r****ds.
Harkius
The difference between race and "sin" is that race is not a "sin," but rather a concept of duality. It's in effect the same sort of deal on liberal justice where people are to suspend judgment and seek to use the rule of law. While "church law" with excommunication and other sorts of "church justice" is still a part of some communities, it's been widely dropped. The only Christian sect that really has any form of alternative justice system with teeth are the Amish and other such Anabaptists. Even then, the Amish and other Anabaptists will still turn people over to the "secular authority" when certain lines are crossed such as murder.
The whole "redemption" part of their theology I don't find trite at all, certainly there are bad practices of this philosophy used for public image such as not handing over Catholic pedophile priests to the "secular authority." However, the "hate the sin, not the sinner" is something that is particularly missing from our justice system. The Quakers had a good justice system historically, because of their focus on punishment with rehabilitation that puts our remittance rate to shame.
Any idea around long enough will produce good and bad results, the key is to scientific thinking is to sift through the garbage and find the exemplars to hold up and say "emulate this."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
This trite and ridiculous statement needs to stop being quoted. You might as well say: "Hate the fact that he is black, not him for being black." You realize just how offensive that would be to black people, right? That is about as "loving" as calling people who are mentally handicapped r****ds.
Harkius
In order for you to convince anyone of this[who doesn't already agree with it obv.], you first need to convince them that homosexuality isn't a choice. The phrase hate the sinner, love the sin isn't trite at all and makes perfect sense if it is a choice. In the end the act is a choice. Theres no question about that, the issue is whether the inclination toward the act is a choice.
Plenty of people sin proudly and openly against church doctrine. But those sins are not quite so bothersome as gayness to some middle aged suppressed closet Gay Church official, now, is it?
Look I can tell from this statement you don't actually want to discuss the issue with me, but instead just want to bash on "evil gay hating Christians." {I know you claim to be Christian -- I use claim because thats the best we can say about anyone on the internet, not because I doubt that you consider yourself one -- thats why I used the phrase "gay hating" as a modifier to the word Christian}
So I won't discuss it with you. If and when you want to stop slinging mud and discuss the issue, odds are I'll be here to actually talk about it. Until then, have fun and stay classy.
Plenty of people sin proudly and openly against church doctrine. But those sins are not quite so bothersome as gayness to some middle aged suppressed closet Gay Church official, now, is it?
Look I can tell from this statement you don't actually want to discuss the issue with me, but instead just want to bash on "evil gay hating Christians." {I know you claim to be Christian -- I use claim because thats the best we can say about anyone on the internet, not because I doubt that you consider yourself one -- thats why I used the phrase "gay hating" as a modifier to the word Christian}
Actually, no. You don't like how tough it is to refute most of what I wrote, and you would rather cherry-pick one comment that obviously was not directed at most Christians, but rather at the (mostly male, middle age to older) sources of the most bitter anti-gay rhetoric.
When I was younger, I used to hear gay people claim that the most bitter anti-gay guys were closet gays themselves... and I didn't believe a word of it. Actually now, I do believe that the really most militantly anti-gay people have an agenda that's based on self-hatred and loathing (or are mad about a family member): After Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr, I just throw up my hands.
I feel that extreme intolerance is often a sign of psychological pathology(I don't say always or even usually, obviously being extremely intolerant of child predators is a normal, good thing. Being intolerant of NAMBLA is a normal, good thing. Some things just shouldn't be tolerated, though that's a whole nother debate) : Not to be trite, but mommy didn't love you enough, somebody knocked over your sandcastle, or you didn't get to live your dream because of X, Y, or Z people, blah blah blah.
So I won't discuss it with you. If and when you want to stop slinging mud and discuss the issue, odds are I'll be here to actually talk about it. Until then, have fun and stay classy.
Actually I've written Multiple paragraphs that are not "mud-slinging", and you've not added your insight to any of it. I guess I'll have to learn to live with that. Oh however shall I survive?
I think if you are "intolerant of the gay lifestyle", it's most often about what you've been culturally taught, just as hatred for gypsies or jews or Martians is. You were told Gypsies behave badly and are evil, and you believe it. Now somebody might argue that hating gays is different because gays can "change" their behavior... but that's really beside the point. The REASON you hate them is based on what you were taught about them. Whatever logic you use to justify it is based on presuppositions you were taught.
I don't think a PCA christian and a PCUSA christian are so inherently different as a human, yet one is taught to be intolerant of gays. The other is not taught that. We've just been taught different.
Actually I've written Multiple paragraphs that are not "mud-slinging", and you've not added your insight to any of it. I guess I'll have to learn to live with that. Oh however shall I survive?
I honestly didn't read a single word beyond the part I quoted. It became clear to me what you appeared to be trying to do, and I didn't feel like "feeding the troll" as it were. The only reason I posted is so that nobody can come back and say: "You don't like how tough it is to refute most of what I wrote." Because its not true.
I'm not defacto "wrong" because I didn't refute your points. I try my best not to go around feeding trolls -- in this case thats the perception of your post I got. If it was wrong, oh well, it still came across that way.
In order for you to convince anyone of this[who doesn't already agree with it obv.], you first need to convince them that homosexuality isn't a choice. The phrase hate the sinner, love the sin isn't trite at all and makes perfect sense if it is a choice. In the end the act is a choice. Theres no question about that, the issue is whether the inclination toward the act is a choice.
Okay, then I could just as easily say that I hate Christians, because they're Christian. That's a choice. See how irrational and stupid that is?
Huh? your 'analogy' isn't analogous and doesn't make any sense.
In order to be analogous you would have to say: I hate the practice of Christianity, but love the Christians. hating the act and hating the actor are not the same thing. Hence my statement that as long as someone believes that the act is a choice it is an entirely rational position to hate the act, and not hate the person who performs it.
how is that hard to understand?
Let me ask you something: take the phrase away from the concept of homosexuality and apply it to something else that Christians consider a sin (anything -- premarital sex, robbery, whatever). Do you think its "worthless trite" and makes us "ignorant rednecks" if its used in that context -- in other words if its used in its original context?
"I don't hate people who have sex before they get married, but I do hate the practice of having sex before marriage."
Edit: I ask becasue it appears you are having difficulty differentiating between the person doing the action, and the action itself.
sidenote: Is there an easy way to do "nested quoting"? would like to have the context of what I said in here as well
About the "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing, I posted a thread here.
This basically is an issue of whether she would allow her religious beliefs to interfere with her practice as a counselor. A doctor cannot recommend a patient not to have surgery just because s/he's Jehovah's Witness. This is obviously not okay, and is the same situation here.
If she was disciplined only for espousing her beliefs, the university is in the wrong. If she made it clear that she would tell her clients that homosexuality is a sin, then she is in the wrong. Since we don't have the facts, we can't make a judgment on the situation. Anyone disagree with this?
If she was disciplined only for espousing her beliefs, the university is in the wrong. If she made it clear that she would tell her clients that homosexuality is a sin, then she is in the wrong. Since we don't have the facts, we can't make a judgment on the situation. Anyone disagree with this?
We do have the facts, at least according to the article we do. She said that she would refer the homosexual client to a different counselor because she didn't think she could provide adequate care.
One of the things brought up in the comments to the article is someone claiming to konw her, and claiming that she has said that she would need to refer homosexual clients to other counselors because she would be unable to provide un-conflicted care.
Sorry, I missed this. If that's the case then the university seems to be in the wrong.
It's a logical question! Do you stand idly by while an injustice is happening? Do you sit quietly while someone is being chastised for being gay or for their ethnicity? No.
It's a logical question! Do you stand idly by while an injustice is happening? Do you sit quietly while someone is being chastised for being gay or for their ethnicity? No.
It was spam not because you said something "wrong" but because, quite literally, all you did was rephrase the original poster without adding anything to the debate.
The issue the titular question is addressing is absolutism, rather than intolerance itself. As others have already pointed out, it's painfully obvious that intolerance of intolerance is, by definition, intolerant.
The underlying question, instead, is - is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? Unless one is maintaining the absolutist view that intolerance is ALWAYS undesirable, there is nothing hypocritical about defending tolerance on many fronts, and being intolerant of other things.
Additionally, intolerance of intolerance is very important to society. One good modern example of this is with gay rights. Some well-meaning individuals are deferential to homophobic views of religious people. Because of this, in a large majority of US states, no gay partnerships are granted under the law. No civil unions, no arrangements that represent a token attempt at granting some benefits, nothing.
People need to be held to account. Intolerance has its place in society.
This girl in ASU, it's a tough call for me. It all depends on what the girl plans to do in her counseling.
One of the biggest problems I have with some people's attitudes towards gay people is that somehow, being "gay" is a "Special Sin" that makes a person categorically unfit for their church.
We're ALL sinners, I was always told, and none of us are free of sin. But if you have sex with a dude, then to some people, you're in a different class of sin.
You can be alcoholic, you can be a wife beater, personal injury attorney, etc. and still be Christian, a Christian who commits daily acts of evil. But a dude having sex with a dude is just a whole different league somehow.
Most Christian churches don't look down on guys sharing a non-sexual love and bonding that's as close as anything that a man & woman might share. They can share lifelong friendship, beers together, ride the Marlboro trail together, and share the rapture of landing on the moon together.
But for SOME churches, if they touch each other's willies, if they engage in play & touch that might result in the big O, then they are monsters. They can touch their own tool, and spend tons of time in close physical contact sharing their greatest emotional joys, but physically "pleasuring" another dude is a special sin that makes you different from liars, serial seducers of virgins, murderers, cheats and child-beaters.
Makes me think of that old question: "If disease were no issue, would you suck a **** for a thousand dollars? 10 thousand? Million? Billion?" And I always think, it's looney to not take big money for that. It's just a physical act far less extreme or difficult than many I've had to suffer through in my life, and putting such extreme value judgment on a biological function not that different from masturbation is just nonsense to me.
If homosex is so weird and special because it distorts normal sexuality, then celibacy should be equally a sin (and the resultant disasters with the Catholic priesthood that arise from forced celibacy clearly supports my view).
I just don't get that.
I think that if a counselor is going to graduate from that program, she needs to only offer her personal religious conviction (represented as such) on that issue if it's directly solicited.
At least that's how I feel now, and am open to hearing other arguments.
-
As for the Netherlands thing, what laws and rights they have is determined by their own government and people, and not mine.
note: I'm not arguing (here) one way or the other that Homosexuality is a sin, I'm trying to clarify the difference that some people see between the "sins" and why the openly gay pastor (for example) is not allowed in some churches.
I think the difference is between being "proud" of the sin, vs. being ashamed of it. If a church sees homosexuality as a sin, then it can't allow an ordained person to openly practice it. the same would be true if an ordained person openly practiced and advocated for drunkenness, wife beating, etc. The issue isn't that they have to be holier than others -- as you said everybody sins, the issue is that they can't be claiming something isn't a sin when their church says it is.
So what it boils down to is: its not the fact that its a sin that gets people riled up against it, its the fact that the person doesn't think its a sin and is actively taking pride in doing it.
I konw this isn't the way all anti-homosexuals think, but it is a rational reason for why a church would be opposed to it, and one that is used as a justification by the majority of churches opposing homosexual minsters.
Being homosexual is a whole heck of a lot more than "having sex with a dude."
This paragraph makes it pretty clear that the reason you "just don't get it" is because you haven't taken the effort to actually understand the teachings of those other churches. I'd suggest starting with the largest and most well documented -- Roman Catholic -- if you truly want to understand why churches oppose it, and not just make wild assumptions.
I
You are aware that biblically (New testament wise) Celibacy is explicitly considered laudable, while homosexuality is the opposite?
Doesn't cover why some churches won't accept gays into their fold (as opposed to being an ordained minister). Plenty of people are openly defiant of of church opinions on what is and isn't a sin and quite proud of it.
You know that many Protestant churches consider it a sin to have pictures of Jesus... yet there's plenty of protestants in those churches who flout that. And the Catholic church considers it a sin to use condoms... but there are plenty of people who are Catholics who openly flout that. Same with divorce... and masturbation...
A sin is a sin, and there are plenty of church members who disagree with what the church considers to be a sin, and finds some of them to be ridiculous throwbacks. Yet people aren't rejected by church even for openly disagreeing with the church's doctrine on HELL. How many countless Christian moms openly defy church teachings on hell by telling their kids that they believe in a loving god that doesn't send non-Christian kids to Hell?
Plenty of people sin proudly and openly against church doctrine. But those sins are not quite so bothersome as gayness to some middle aged suppressed closet Gay Church official, now, is it?
"Rational"?
The word you're actually looking for is "rationalization".
Of course it is.
But guess what. The only part the church has a problem with is the "SEX with a dude".
Church has no problem if a single man lives with his best friend, or even sleeps in the same bed.
Many men, including priests and monks, for all practical purposes, live a "celibate gay" lifestyle where they love a man and feel closer to a man, than any other human. But as long as they don't have sex with them, so it's all cool with the church.
Actually believe me, I have. I went to a private Catholic High School and took 4 years of religion classes from a Catholic sister. I probably know more about Catholicism than most people in this thread, though I can't speak to any individual in the thread who might know more about it than I do.
It's during religion classes that I discovered many gems about life and belief systems: One of them is that anybody in a church (or ANY organized body dictating morality) who claims permanence of their very specific viewpoints about lifestyle is naive. If the pope of 2010 says one thing and the pope of 1910 said something different, and the pope of 1810 something entirely different still... then I can tell damn straight that the pope of 2050 will have something different still to say.
No priest or sister was ever able to give me a SATISFACTORY answer to that rather obvious discrepancy to the "permanence" of the teachings of the Catholic (or any other) church.
On any of the deep philosophical questions, I always have a healthy dose of skepticisim and doubt, based on the fact that there were plenty of smart guys who lived in the past that believed very different things. Paradigms change and even "common sense" can change over time, and we can make assumptions even when we think we are making none.
Yeah, and I think it's an idea that came from the culture and the time, culturally based, just as many of the changes in the Catholic church over time, are culturally based.
Celibacy is something that we'll eventually realize is abnormal by any common sense measure.
When something becomes the norm and common sense, the church changes, and thus avoids becoming irrelevant.
I trust that sometime before the population of the world hits 14 billion, the Catholic church & the pope will somehow change its mind on contraception.
The difference between race and "sin" is that race is not a "sin," but rather a concept of duality. It's in effect the same sort of deal on liberal justice where people are to suspend judgment and seek to use the rule of law. While "church law" with excommunication and other sorts of "church justice" is still a part of some communities, it's been widely dropped. The only Christian sect that really has any form of alternative justice system with teeth are the Amish and other such Anabaptists. Even then, the Amish and other Anabaptists will still turn people over to the "secular authority" when certain lines are crossed such as murder.
The whole "redemption" part of their theology I don't find trite at all, certainly there are bad practices of this philosophy used for public image such as not handing over Catholic pedophile priests to the "secular authority." However, the "hate the sin, not the sinner" is something that is particularly missing from our justice system. The Quakers had a good justice system historically, because of their focus on punishment with rehabilitation that puts our remittance rate to shame.
Any idea around long enough will produce good and bad results, the key is to scientific thinking is to sift through the garbage and find the exemplars to hold up and say "emulate this."
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
In order for you to convince anyone of this[who doesn't already agree with it obv.], you first need to convince them that homosexuality isn't a choice. The phrase hate the sinner, love the sin isn't trite at all and makes perfect sense if it is a choice. In the end the act is a choice. Theres no question about that, the issue is whether the inclination toward the act is a choice.
Look I can tell from this statement you don't actually want to discuss the issue with me, but instead just want to bash on "evil gay hating Christians." {I know you claim to be Christian -- I use claim because thats the best we can say about anyone on the internet, not because I doubt that you consider yourself one -- thats why I used the phrase "gay hating" as a modifier to the word Christian}
So I won't discuss it with you. If and when you want to stop slinging mud and discuss the issue, odds are I'll be here to actually talk about it. Until then, have fun and stay classy.
When I was younger, I used to hear gay people claim that the most bitter anti-gay guys were closet gays themselves... and I didn't believe a word of it. Actually now, I do believe that the really most militantly anti-gay people have an agenda that's based on self-hatred and loathing (or are mad about a family member): After Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr, I just throw up my hands.
I feel that extreme intolerance is often a sign of psychological pathology(I don't say always or even usually, obviously being extremely intolerant of child predators is a normal, good thing. Being intolerant of NAMBLA is a normal, good thing. Some things just shouldn't be tolerated, though that's a whole nother debate) : Not to be trite, but mommy didn't love you enough, somebody knocked over your sandcastle, or you didn't get to live your dream because of X, Y, or Z people, blah blah blah.
Actually I've written Multiple paragraphs that are not "mud-slinging", and you've not added your insight to any of it. I guess I'll have to learn to live with that. Oh however shall I survive?
I think if you are "intolerant of the gay lifestyle", it's most often about what you've been culturally taught, just as hatred for gypsies or jews or Martians is. You were told Gypsies behave badly and are evil, and you believe it. Now somebody might argue that hating gays is different because gays can "change" their behavior... but that's really beside the point. The REASON you hate them is based on what you were taught about them. Whatever logic you use to justify it is based on presuppositions you were taught.
I don't think a PCA christian and a PCUSA christian are so inherently different as a human, yet one is taught to be intolerant of gays. The other is not taught that. We've just been taught different.
I honestly didn't read a single word beyond the part I quoted. It became clear to me what you appeared to be trying to do, and I didn't feel like "feeding the troll" as it were. The only reason I posted is so that nobody can come back and say: "You don't like how tough it is to refute most of what I wrote." Because its not true.
I'm not defacto "wrong" because I didn't refute your points. I try my best not to go around feeding trolls -- in this case thats the perception of your post I got. If it was wrong, oh well, it still came across that way.
Huh? your 'analogy' isn't analogous and doesn't make any sense.
In order to be analogous you would have to say: I hate the practice of Christianity, but love the Christians. hating the act and hating the actor are not the same thing. Hence my statement that as long as someone believes that the act is a choice it is an entirely rational position to hate the act, and not hate the person who performs it.
how is that hard to understand?
Let me ask you something: take the phrase away from the concept of homosexuality and apply it to something else that Christians consider a sin (anything -- premarital sex, robbery, whatever). Do you think its "worthless trite" and makes us "ignorant rednecks" if its used in that context -- in other words if its used in its original context?
"I don't hate people who have sex before they get married, but I do hate the practice of having sex before marriage."
Edit: I ask becasue it appears you are having difficulty differentiating between the person doing the action, and the action itself.
sidenote: Is there an easy way to do "nested quoting"? would like to have the context of what I said in here as well
Way to restate the OP. Spam warning.
This basically is an issue of whether she would allow her religious beliefs to interfere with her practice as a counselor. A doctor cannot recommend a patient not to have surgery just because s/he's Jehovah's Witness. This is obviously not okay, and is the same situation here.
If she was disciplined only for espousing her beliefs, the university is in the wrong. If she made it clear that she would tell her clients that homosexuality is a sin, then she is in the wrong. Since we don't have the facts, we can't make a judgment on the situation. Anyone disagree with this?
We do have the facts, at least according to the article we do. She said that she would refer the homosexual client to a different counselor because she didn't think she could provide adequate care.
Sorry, I missed this. If that's the case then the university seems to be in the wrong.
It's a logical question! Do you stand idly by while an injustice is happening? Do you sit quietly while someone is being chastised for being gay or for their ethnicity? No.
It was spam not because you said something "wrong" but because, quite literally, all you did was rephrase the original poster without adding anything to the debate.
The underlying question, instead, is - is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? Unless one is maintaining the absolutist view that intolerance is ALWAYS undesirable, there is nothing hypocritical about defending tolerance on many fronts, and being intolerant of other things.
Additionally, intolerance of intolerance is very important to society. One good modern example of this is with gay rights. Some well-meaning individuals are deferential to homophobic views of religious people. Because of this, in a large majority of US states, no gay partnerships are granted under the law. No civil unions, no arrangements that represent a token attempt at granting some benefits, nothing.
People need to be held to account. Intolerance has its place in society.
It was more of a paradox, which aren't, strictly speaking, logical.
However, as has already been pointed out, general intolerance is not injustice. Some things should really not be tolerated.
Like, for example, disruptive behavior on this forum.