Politics, philosophy, history, pop culture, and general mayhem.
Iconic,By your reasoning the NAACP was using "Nazi tactics" in the Montgomery Bus Boycott (not to mention conservatives boycotting Heinz products during the Election of 2004 or the boycott of Ford Motor Co. by American Jews in the 1920s because Henry Ford's anti-semitism). I think you should think your position through before you post, this is embarrassing.
*buzz* logic fail.Did Chik-Fil-A refuse to serve a chicken sandwich to someone because they were gay? No they did not. Therefore it is not an equivalent situation to the bus boycotts (or lunch counter sit ins, or any other example that arose from a refusal of service situation).They are, however, being singled out for their religious beliefs, which is EXACTLY the situation in the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.Jesus Christ already...either learn the history or learn how to make an historical analogy. The ability to do both would be best.There IS no good argument for the anti-Christian side here, and I will warn you I don't allow free reign to bigots on this blog.
Icon,What about the other examples I gave of boycotts? The Jews of Ford Motor Corp, for example? Were they proto-Nazis?How about the Florida Family Association's 2011 boycott of Lowe's because it purchased commercials on TLC's tv show All-American Muslim? Were these Christians engaged in "Nazi tactics"? They were not refused service, they were just protesting the actions of a corporation. (What they were really doing is protesting the notion that Muslims could be portrayed as "All-American" -- an actual case of religious bigotry.)How about the Christian boycott of Disney Co. which was organized by the Catholic League and endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention 1995-2005? Is this an example of "Nazi tactics"? They were protesting the equal treatment Disney Co. gave to gay employees as well as what they considered pro-gay movies and "Gay Days" in the company's amusement parks. These people were not denied service. They were objecting to the beliefs and practices of the company.How about the free produce movement by Anglo-American abolitionists who boycotted products made with slave labor? These abolitionists were not denied service. (They were also predominantly Christian.) What do you mean the "anti-Christian side"? The protest against Chick-Fil-A is not "anti-Christian"; it is anti-homophobe. There are literally millions of Christians who are opposed to discrimination against (and demonization of) LGBT community, and no doubt thousands of them are participating in the boycott. You don't seem understand that there is great diversity of opinion about homosexuality in the Christian community.The notion that Christians are a persecuted religious group in the United States is ridiculous, indeed it is risible. Muslims? Yes. Sikhs? Yes. Atheists? Yes. Christians? No. Christians run this country and they have always done so. It is most the religious country in the Developed World (with the possible exceptions of Ireland and Poland) and it is dominated by Christians across the board: in politics, economics, culture, etc. The notion of Sikh, a Muslim, or an Atheist mounting a serious presidential campaign is almost too absurd to contemplate.By the way, African Americans were not refused service on Montgomery, AL buses. Their ridership was absolutely vital to the bus company, which helped to make the boycott effective.Lastly, there is a sort of irony in you describing a boycott of a homophobic business owner as "Nazi tactics," especially in the area of gay rights, when I would regard "Nazi tactics" as being the persecution of gay people, including forcing them to wear pink triangles, imprisoning them in work camps, and killing them off.
Bullshit. They are defining orthodox Christianity as "homophobic", therefore the only way NOT be a "homophobe" (so we are told) is to NOT hold orthodox Christian beliefs.That is anti-Christian.It would be the same if someone claimed "Anyone who holds the tenets of the Democratic Party Platform is a fascist." It isn't a reasonable standard. Therefore such a belief would have to be called "anti-Democratic" (with a capital D). As for that "Christians cannot be persecuted against because there are a lot of them" nonsense...oh my good God, grow up already. The only "hate speech" I've ever encountered in a college classroom in six years of teaching has been against Christians. Its fucking intolerant, wrong, and should not be considered an acceptable part of a democratic society. But people like you MAKE HATE ACCEPTABLE by claiming this or that group is by definition impossible to discriminate against! Its nonsense, and dangerous nonsense to boot. What kind of ideological outlook must someone have to feel confident to claim in public "Christians should be exterminated." (which is one of the statements I heard made by a student)?And, yes, I do think 99% of the time boycotts are not appropriate in a democratic society. You tell me, what is the difference between a political party sending out a list of businesses to be "avoided" because they sent money to "the other side", and the Nazis painting Star of Davids on shop front to "warn" people they were Jewish owned businesses? The answer is not a whole hell of a lot. Democracy cannot long survive these ever increasing attempts to make of our fellow citizens "the alien other."And the attempt to equate the public policy decision to what constitutes "marriage" when it comes to property and custodial care decisions with slavery is absurd.
Homophobia is not an integral part of orthodox Christianity. It is based on passage in Leviticus right next to admonitions against sharing a dwelling with menstruating women, eating shellfish, and stoning to death children who speak back to their parents. The idea that we should adopt the superstitions of bunch of nomads from the Bronze Age is ludicrous. There are literally millions of gay Christians, including clergy and bishops. There are tens or even hundreds of millions of pro-gay rights Christians. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is Jesus's love, not the hatred of homophobic bigots like yourself.
Zut do me a favor and start thinking for yourself. I too have seen this "argument" floating around Facebook and it is nonsense on stilts. By its "logic" because Christians don't follow the Bible concerning shellfish they should be ok killing people as well. Yeah, that makes sense.And, for example, the Catholic church doesn't call homosexual acts sinful because of Leviticus. And anyone who would claim they do is simply pig ignorant of Church teaching.Zut you obviously have a problem with Christians, don't fucking pretend you don't. You are every bit as much of a bigot as those racists who used to say "Well, some blacks are ok, but you know how the rest of them are." You are even using the exact same kinds of constructions and equivocations.My original complaint was that these sort of tactics make for a more intolerant society. So that makes me a "homophobe"? What a mindless crock of bullshit. You are walking, talking, typing proof that I was correct.So go off and pleasure yourself while chanting about what an open minded fellow you are. It seems to me you just an asshole.
This thread is closed.
This thread is closed. If you want to yell at me feel free to use email.
Post a Comment