Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

Um, you might want to check the context and read a bit of the thread?

Same with me, Jaaman, and welcome.

I am answering your previous reply to me here as I fear it might get overlooked otherwise (so many posts since then)... Look, bigotry is separate from what you feel is demanded of those you don't like. Separation and seclusion is a demand, just as killing, though it is a much less violent demand. The only question to ask to determine if you are a bigot is if you do not like people based on who they are or what they do, barring transgressive behavior.I'm not sure why that is so hard to admit. I have to say it seems humorous to find people reminding you not to throw stones when they themselves do the same thing (they too are bigots), but your sense of denial is rather odd. One would think you should be proud of your beliefs even if they include some bigoted attitudes.Bigotry is required for ANY select group... that's how they remain a select group.In any case, I will move on to address your issues of how bigotry should be instituted. We allow all sorts of different groups the freedom to assemble and protest and celebrate. That is in the Constitution. Whether you are a Xian or not, if you are an American that is something you have to accept, even if you'd rather they stay behind closed doors.This only benefits you so that if/when they finally come to power, YOU can still parade down the street regarding your beliefs.Its sort of a quid pro quo kind of deal. As far as I know, gays are not asking for any special status. Here is where you run off the rails. While I certainly back the notion that gay marriage would be a new tradition, the lack of a 6000 year old history does not mean it must not happen, nor that there was a 6000 year old history of persecuting people for trying to have gay marriages.Do you know what has a 6000 year old history? Polytheism, Polygamy, Prostitution, Group Sex, Open and Free Homosexuality, etc etc...What does not have a 6000 year old history is Xianity nor Judaism nor Islam.At some point they became new traditions and had to fight just as the gays are now for the right to form their traditions. Now if you want to pull rank on gays for being the new kids on the block then you are not only being hypocritical, but I'll thank you and pull rank on you since compared to me, YOU are the new kids on the block.In that case open homosexuality will be allowed even if we do not have gay marriage, and you guys can go back to worshipping in secret ceremonies in the back of caves near the desert... sound fair? I agree that bigots are human beings. I just argued that all humans are bigots about something. To attack anothers personal beliefs is then human, as that is what bigotry is.To attack a bigot for being a bigot, rather than the nature of the bigotry would be a bit hypocritical I must admit. But isn't that what you are doing?And doubly so, you wish to deny the service provided by public streets and places to others who you call bigots, because of their beliefs. Does that make you worse than the bigots that are worse than bigots?The head swims.In any case, I do agree that attacks on another system of beliefs within a civil society, should be restrained to debate and personal seclusion (that is YOU keep YOURSELF away from the others). Attacks which take physical form or denial of common use is not very wise, in that it isn't very practical or consistent.I do not see how an owner of a private business, denying service to a customer he does not want to serve is necessarily wrong. That is his business and so his personal space. The only exception IMO, is if it receives public support of some kind or acts as a public service.What I would like to hear from you is if you support the new "faith based" initiatives which the Bush administration has put in place? On top of enforcing that Xian organizations can be in your face to everyone, indeed one is forced to go to them to let them get in your face, it also allows those organizations to FIRE or DENY EMPLOYMENT to nonXians. Is that right or wrong? Hey, I'm the one of the few allies you have here. I am arguing that people should leave each other alone. You are a bigot, just like the rest of them (and me) and we should all leave each other alone regarding each other's beliefs and practices so that we can form a functional civil society.Can you explain how CV was championing the virtues you just espoused by asking a musical be denied service? Even if you agree with why they disliked it, the attacks do seem to make them worse than bigots (according to you).This message has been edited by holmes, 06-27-2005 06:07 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, as another member of the British public, I say bobbins is spot on.From personal experience, I'd say it is easy to say positive things about tolerance and inclusion in the abstract (such as when being asked about them in surveys) but this is very different from being confronted with them personally. This happened to me a few years back, and I personally found it quite depressing that actually living by my treasured egalitarian principles was a lot harder than I would have liked. I got there, but it was a sobering lesson.My take on the current mentality of the British public is that there's a lot of people out there who would LIKE to be tolerant of homosexuality (or even think they are) - but that does not mean they find it easy to actually BE so. Many people still, in their gut, feel uncomfortable. Our politicans are (quite rightly, for once) acting on the desire of the people (as shown in surveys) rather than the actuality (as shown by the actions described by Bobbins and Charles).edit: changed 'difficult' to 'easy'This message has been edited by gengar, 27-06-2005 01:37 PM

I agree with the assessment going on regarding the duality of public and private commentary, however... Tolerance does not equal acceptance or comfort, it is allowance for things that make one uncomfortable.If every one accepted or felt comfortable with homosexuality then it would not need to be tolerated.AbE: Forgot to finish my point...Thus the public and the reps are working for tolerance by creating legislation which allows for activities that most would grumble privately about to themselves and friends.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-27-2005 07:53 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, but the list you've given is not quite the same thing as a dislike of homosexuals (say). I would think there's a rational reason for disliking hypocrites as a group, assuming such could be identified, but no rational reason for disliking homosexuals as a group.

Agreed. But people can struggle to make that allowance, equating their discomfort with 'that's wrong' rather than 'that's not how I'd choose to live' (I hope that's not splitting hairs too much!).Especially when some of the laws of the land appear to reflect their discomfort.

Adrian Warnock's UK Evangelical Bloghttp://www.adrian.warnock.info/...oice-banned-from-co-op.htm The entry goes on to quote what Christian Voice has to say.Connexions (a Methodist minister's Blog) agrees:
Page not found - The ConnexionEkklesia has more:
Page not found - Ekklesia I think that that attitude speaks for itself.

To continue this line of thought a little, let's take a more obvious case. I might say, for example, that I dislike all murderers, every single one of them, and I dislike them solely because they are murderers. I wouldn't call this bigotry, since I have a very good reason for disliking them--namely, that they murder.On the other hand, your dislike of prudes might qualify as a real bigotry. I am having a hard time coming up with a rational reason to dislike prudes, if by "prude" we mean someone who is excessively modest in regard to anything pertaining to sex. Prudes need not be homophobes. They might be, of course, but they need not be. They might be "sex-phobes"--fear of sex generally. They might go through life without a lot of fun, but such an attitude is hardly immoral.

Uhmmmmm, this sort of raises distinctions I've discussed at length in previous threads (not blaming you though for having not seen them).You are right that there is a difference between taste, moral value, and legal value.To my mind taste (I don't like X, or X is not how I would choose to live), is essentially the same as moral value (that is "wrong"). The difference being that in the latter case someone tries to elevate their shit above other people's shit so they can point a finger (or raise one). It is all simply an evaluation of another based on personal feeling.Both are completely separate from legal value (that is criminal) in that a group has decided to codify their tastes against something.I think tolerance is the ability to separate "taste and state".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not to be too sarcastic, but you should read my posts a little more closely.I stated that there was a possible, more rational, reason to dislike hypocrites (or any of the top 5 I mentioned) as opposed to other groups. They can have an overt, even if indirect impact on my life.I'm not sure I'd want to say there is "no" rational reason to dislike homosexuals as a group. Any dislike, unless directly effected by a group, is based on subjective nonrational feelings. But I think someone could argue that homosexuals in some indirect way, even if less that hypocrites, could effect their life and so have a "rational" concern.Certainly people used to have "rational" concern about homosexuals, as people currently have "rational" concerns about polygamists, hedonists, prostitutes, pornography, and pedophiles. It isn't based on some scientific evidence "rational" reason about harm, but rather about concerns of keeping a certain "tone" to a society.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Crash raised this point earlier and I already corrected my definition of bigotry. It was a little bit too inclusive on one hand (hating criminals), and not inclusive enough on the other (racism).Thus my corrected def is that a person dislike someone and want them treated different in some way due to who they are or what they do, barring those who have directly transgressed others in some way. It is and I admit it. I don't like them. I don't like being around them. And when I discover someone I know is a prude it really makes me lose interest in keeping them as a friend.They do affect my life in that they often find reasons to rationalize their body or sexual hatred, by disowning science and legislating their agenda to allegedly "help" others.Homophobes are a select group of prudes, but prudes nonetheless. You are correct that a prude does not have to be a homophobe (I have known gay prudes, and seen some here at EvC).Of course being a prude is different than simply being "prudish" about something. The latter is confined to recognizing personal limits, squeamishness, without moving into moralizing or evaluating a practice. I am prudish about certain practices, but am not a prude regarding them. Morality has nothing to do with being a bigot, at least not necessarily. While many do combine the two, I do not convert my tastes into moral rules so while I dislike prudes and am a bigot regarding them, I do not say they are "wrong" in some moral sense.My moral system is a value one and they are just as much moral actors as I am. They are "ascetic" while I am "hedonistic". Neither of us are morally correct.I do believe they are factually mistaken and prone to injuring themselves and others with their unnatural take on human sexuality... that it is something other than a natural function like eating, sleeping, and walking.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-27-2005 10:15 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

From your line this is what the group had to say about homosexuals and the police:

quote:

---

"-Homosexual police are involved in some of the most disgusting perversions imaginable; how can they bring clean hands to any police investigation?
-Homosexual police are corrupted by what they do; how can they investigate cases of corruption?
-Their whole life is lived in denial; how can they be expected to tell the truth in Court?
-Homosexual police are likely to seek sexual encounters in public conveniences and in the open (most homosexual men do); are
they going to take part in exercises against ‘cottaging’ and ‘cruising’?
-Their sexual behaviour is deviant and indecent; how can they uphold public decency and morality?
-The police are supposed to be impartial; does the deliberate recruitment of shamelessly homosexual men and women explain the recent explosion of cases brought against Gospel preachers and pro-life campaigners?
-Many homosexual men will have been interfered with at a young age, and be sexually attracted to boys of around that age as a result; are homosexual police going to be exempted from investigations into paedophile activities?
-The police serve the monarch of a constitutionally Christian country; how does the police force square that fact with the recruitment of officers who commit acts which are an abomination in the eyes of Almighty God?"

---

Maybe the topic has already run its useful course, and is now fragmenting into side topics.Anyway, in a little bit I'm going to give this topic a short term closure. Amongst other things, this will give people a change to catch up on what has already been posted.I suggest that members search for some "Post of the Month" material in the messages posted so far. I would certainly hope that there is at least one in all those messages. If so, please give it a plug at the June, 2005, Posts of the Month topic.Adminnemooseus

---

Regardless, topic reopened.Adminnemooseus