School Board member in hot water over anti-gay status

But with liberty comes responsibility. We can't shout "Fire" in a crowded store, for example. We can't joke about firearms when going through airport security. And individuals should not be allowed to incite violence against a particular group.

 

We had an incident a while back where a Moslem imman was attacked and beaten. The guys who did it were all Black. The police were all wanting to charge it as a "hate crime", because "obviously" these guys hate Moslems. Well, the Imman himself said that was crazy. These guys were looking for trouble, and would have attacked ANYONE who came by. It was by chance that the next person was Moslem.

That's the trouble with "hate crimes". It's ALL OBJECTIVE. ANYONE who says ANYTHING that "offends" can be considered hate. I can say that homosexuality is a sin. Does that mean I "hate" homosexuals? Well, it does if a homosexual hears me and takes offense (ie: has his poor little feelings hurt that I won't affirm him 100%).

Nor do I consider Canada "free" when people and pastors are muzzled in preaching what the Bible says for fear of arrest.

Again, I DO feel this guy is over the line. But it's up to those he works for to censure him, not the government.

 

I disagree. I think that's a dangerous mindset.

Because that is the "logic" behind not allowing pastors to preach the word: after all, there are gobs of religious idiots who use scriptural justifications for violence against sinners.

NO, I don't condone violence, but I also believe that every person should have the right to speak their mind!

 

(BTW, Steve, many, many, many people might consider your "women parking lot" post 'hate speech.' I mean, obviously someone who would post something so offensive and stereotypical hates women)

 

Yes. It was a risky thing to post at this forum - but Brits do have a weird sense of humor and are willing to laugh at themselves as much as at anyone else. Your point is well taken, though: What is humor versus what is bigotry? What is opinion versus what is discrimination? What is free speech versus what is hate speech? Who gets to decide? In 99% of cases, it's probably obvious. It's those 'gray' cases that hit the headlines and cause controversy.

 

I don't think it IS easy to decide. Yes, there are cases that are obvious. But the vast majority of situations are in that "gray" area. And those are the ones where someone is "offended", or when a person takes another person's words to the extreme so obviously the original person must be at fault for "inciting".

 

Case in point:

Many of you know this story, so sorry to be redundant....

My niece is gay. Her older girlfriend has lived with her for four years. (It should be noted that my niece turns 19 next month). Obviously my SIL has a very skewed view of right and wrong. But that's not the point here.

We have NEVER EVER treated Ashley any different since she 'came out.' EVER. We love her to pieces. Buy her birthday gifts and such. The boys make her cards and drawings all the time. We have bowed out of attending her GF's birthday parties a couple of times, but only because we had other things going on and she's not family, so we didn't feel bad. SIL took offense because to her, this girl IS family. But that's another story...

Last March, we were gathered at MIL/FIL's for a birthday dinner for DH. There was a show on where basically this guy who was VERY femm. was going door to door in the heart of the rural midwest. He was not well-received. DH commented that the show would probably do better if they sent someone who'd be better received, given how femm. this guy came off sounding. Grumpy old farmer-types aren't too into social progress

Anyhow, SIL flipped out. I mean, totally and completely went ape crazy! She was yelling and screaming at DH about how he hated gay people and how he obviously hated his own nieces and on and on. She stormed out, declaring that she was taking her gay daughters home, away from all the hate. She continued to mutter about how they should be safe and loved in their own family.

It was truly bizarre. DH was talking about the reality of a froofy-guy trying to illicit the cooperation of backward old men on the buckle of the Bible belt. He wasn't talking about gay people or our niece or anything.

When he tried to apologize to SIL and our niece, SIL sent him a NASTY email (I mean, she said our boys would have better off having been aborted than to be born to us as parents!). She went on and on and on about hate speech and how our cult promotes it, etc. (Our cult being Christianity).

Anyhow, hate speech laws would be taken advantage of by people like SIL who are just plum loco. And there are entirely too many people in the world who ARE like her. If she had her way, DH would have been jailed over that. In truth, if she had her way, all Christians who dare say homosexuality is a sin would be jailed.

 

I believe that this is because she KNOWS the behavior is not normal. And as a result, she needs to have people around her to validate the opposite. I believe that's why the Gay agenda IS NOT about "tolerance", but about acceptance. You practiced an appropriate tolerance with your neice, but it wasn't enough. It never will be.

 

Sorry to make this an "all about me" thing... but the part I found most fascinating about the whole situation is that MIL/FIL, who are pagan and proud (Earth-worshipers, that is, not just generic "pagan" meaning non-christian) had serious issues when Ashley came out. FIL especially went on and on about how unnatural it was. I mean, he really berated her. And he was very not happy with SIL for letting the GF move in when Ashley was barely 15. But WE'RE the ones who are intolerant?!

Ok.. enough about me and this crazy mess. Back to the regularly scheduled thread.

 

i've never met anyone who thought that canada wasn't a "free" country before. :lol:

frankly, i'm glad that we have those hate speech laws ~ keeps people like *fred phelps and his crew from sprouting up around here. [heck we kept them OUT when they tried to get into the country before.]


*yes i realize that fred and his followers do not represent christianity. he just makes a good example of why i'm glad that my country has those laws.

 

so without any sorts of "hate speech" laws (is this correct? that there are no laws specific to hate speech anywhere in the states? or is it something that would be state by state?) .... what happens to people who do indeed try to incite hatred?

let's say someone actually starts up an organization designed to promote hatred against a specific X group of people - and i don't mean people saying X is a sin according to my faith. i mean people who are saying that X people deserve to be killed. when one of the X people does die (accident/old age/etc) - the hate group celebrates publicly.

stuff like that.

it's just...allowed?

what if they blanket the town with fliers that show an X person hanging from a noose?

what if they display a big "ALL X PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE" in the window of their meeting place?


i'm just curious - how do the laws handle that kind of thing?

 

...and why do i keep landing in the "controversy" threads? :lol:

(it was the canadian prostitution laws thread before ~ and then i lost this site for a bit because i went to a new macbook pro and didn't have all my websites. now i find this one ah well, i love to chat!)

 

Hmmm.... Maybe it's because you just "hate" Americans and want are so totally intolerant to us :lol:. Seriously, you raise some good questions. Do we err on the side of less freedom, or on the side of trusting people to ignore idiots?

I've no doubt that God will deal with Fred Phelps some day! My Bible teaches that lmercy and justice are two sides of the same coin; unfortunately Fred has a double-headed coin. Plenty of "justice", but no mercy.

But the fact still remains that pastors in Canada are not permitted to preaching the truth about homosexuality, for fear of offending someone and being charged with a hate crime.

 

I would rather endure someone telling me I deserve to die because of my faith (which, is essentially what my SIL said about my boys, in saying they should have been aborted rather than grow up in a Christian home) than have to endure jail time because of my faith.

Truth is, speech should be protected. Period. That's why I believe Fred Phelps should retain the right to be a bigoted jerk. Because his right to say what he wants protects my right to say what I want. And no one on this Earth is going to keep me from speaking truth!

 

Actually here if someone were to incite violence because of hate speech they could and likely would be charged with a hate crime. The difference though is that here in the US a person can say whatever they want, but if they act on those sayings that's what gets them in trouble. So someone could say all people of x belief/color/race/gender/whatever deserve to die. However if violence against x occurred that person would be a suspect. Now a person can not say to a crowd of people kill all x people because then that is considered inciting violence against another and it illegal.

The real point of this thread IMO is that he is a public official, and they just like preachers, judges, police officers, and others are held to a higher standard than the average person. As a public official he is entitled to his opinion, but is he entitled to broadcast it to the internet? Most would say probably not. I don't have a problem with him having an opinion, or even stating the opinion, I have a problem with his obvious intolerance and hatred. To each his own I guess, but to me his own is more than a little 'off' IYKWIM

 

Where is the like button when you need it?

 

haha ~ some of my best online friends are americans so i can't hate yous that much :lol:

(i don't at all - and i've actually been to the states when i was twelve and i remember lots of lovely people and pretty scenery. and rides..since we were in disney world LOL)

fred phelps came to mind because i watched a documentary thing a while back about him - it made me angry, yep, but it also made me sad...very sad...not just for his obvious victims (the soldiers & their families, for example) but also for the younger people who have been raised by him/his family and don't know any different, for the way that some people will see him & his followers and assume that THAT is christianity in action (which it certainly isn't) and even for HIM.....to be living with so much hatred in his heart....

i'm curious about your last part...because i haven't seen that in action. i've attended church in the past at a few diff denominations and i've heard homosexuality discussed and stated as a sin... i'm not sure how the law applies there...i'm going to try looking it up though, as i'd like to know more.

 

i'm very sorry about what your SIL said and how she reacted to you guys ~ telling you that you should have aborted your kids is completely out of line (and no doubt incredibly hurtful), and it does indeed sound like she overreacted to your dh's comment --- i'm not quite sure what yous were watching, but it sounds like someone was trying to discuss GLBT issues with people who were known/expected/etc to be unsupportive? i'm supportive and even *I* would think that it might be best to have someone a bit less colourful make the first approach in that situation...i can see the common sense behind that. your dh's comment doesn't strike me as 'hateful' at all - just sensible given the situation that was being presented. if you want the old fashioned tough as mud farmer to be open to some conversation re: GLBT issues, send in someone they can identify with first....not the guy in the frilly pink shirt & heels. baby steps..baby steps! :lol:

 

I had to watch like a Dateline or some such thing about him for a class last Spring. The kids interviewed were going on about how God hates "fags." When the interviewer asked them, "So, what's a fag?" these little kids obviously didn't know. One responded, "I don't know. Probably like a Jew or something." Yes, that's a direct quote.

Any of his children or grandchildren who leave his church or move away from the town are immediately disowned. It really is a cult.

I often think that every Baptist church in the nation should bring about a class-action suit against him to force him to remove the "Baptist" part from Westboro Baptist.

 

BAM!!!!!!!!

You nailed it on the head!