Acceptable Bigotry?

[Alexandra 55]

What do you propose we do to accomplish this?

I actually like James Dobson and I appreciate that He has taken on the task of learning about what goes on in Washington. He is an advocate for Christianity, the same as any other sector has advocates. Why is it bad that he is there and not so bad that a non-Christian advocate might be there? Isn't that considered fair representation?

Sorry. I still don't understand how it is okay to bash Christians when all other forms of bigotry are clearly denounced.

Why does Christianity need an advocate? Truly, I'm wondering. Other groups who need advocates are those who are systematically discriminated against or who have their civil rights violated. They are people who fall into classes (such as migrant workers or uninsured children) who are not receiving their full due as citizens of this country, or who are being wronged in some other way. Then there are corporate lobbyists who are there to try to influence government to the benefit of their industries. Whatever we think about them, their motives are clear.

What is the agenda for an "advocate for Christianity"? As far as Dobson goes it sure doesn't seem that it's to protect rights or alleviate harm. It's to try to influence legislation to curb the rights of other American citizens.

How is that a good thing?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

It is not bigotry against Christians for Liberal not to get involved in Christian infighting (the Romney book) and it is not bigotry against Christians for people to object to a man wearing a uniform representing a government organization to say things that many (or most) people will accept as official government policy.

Mr. Pace has a right to condemn Gays.

General Pace has a no right to condemn Gays.

When I was an aircraft mechanic, I was on board fixing last minute items many times while passengers were also on board. I could not tell them that being Gay was immoral. I could not tell them that being Gay was not immoral.

Why, because I was representing my company when on board fixing the company's plane. If I met a passenger while off the airport, I could say anything I wanted to that person because then I was representing myself, not my company at that point.

And one more thing. Jesus said "Blessed are the Peace-Makers". I hardly think that a general who controls and directs killing is a proper spokesman for Jesus.

Jesus did not say, "Blessed are the Peace-keepers". Those who kill often think of themselves as peace-keepers. When Ronald Reagan could not get the MX missile through congress, he renamed in the "Peace-Keeper" and Jerry Falwell told his followers to write their congressmen to get the "Peace-Keeper" program funded.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

MMMMMM I'm not so sure about speaking what Jesus would do (never did like that Bracelet, it assumes too much) Anyway, Jesus drove the money changers from the temple and he didn't exactly do it by pointing to the exits and saying "Single file folks, this way"

Jesus said "Blessed are the Peace-Makers" and invading a country as a pre-emptive strike on false intelligence is not the act of a "Peace-Maker".

[Alexandra 55]

Are you saying there are no Liberal activists/advocates as well?

Sure there are. But they're advocating for the rights of ALL of us, to be more free and self-determining, and to ensure that we all get the full benefit of our Bill of Rights. They're not advocating for the "liberal" or "atheist" agenda, except insofar as it agrees with the U.S. Constitution.

[Lap_dancer 8]

It is not bigotry against Christians for Liberal not to get involved in Christian infighting (the Romney book) and it is not bigotry against Christians for people to object to a man wearing a uniform representing a government organization to say things that many (or most) people will accept as official government policy.

Mr. Pace has a right to condemn Gays.

General Pace has a no right to condemn Gays.

>>> Excellent points<<<

When I was an aircraft mechanic, I was on board fixing last minute items many times while passengers were also on board. I could not tell them that being Gay was immoral. I could not tell them that being Gay was not immoral.

Did they ask you?

Why, because I was representing my company when on board fixing the company's plane. If I met a passenger while off the airport, I could say anything I wanted to that person because then I was representing myself, not my company at that point.

On the other hand, why should this man sshhh his answer? He was asked a direct question, he gave a direct answer.

....................................................

You know this was one thing I did ask my beloved soldier about when he was home on leave. Hey, I was curious about the "don't ask don't tell". Well it really is don't ask don't tell. I would even go so far as to say some of these guys are downright homophobes.

So in my mind, Pace gave the rest of the world a very small peek into the military.

[anonemouse 1]

On the other hand, why should this man sshhh his answer? He was asked a direct question, he gave a direct answer.

Because at the time he was asked, he was a representative of the United States Government. When he is wearing his uniform, he isn't Mr. Pace anymore, he's GENERAL Pace.

[Victoriana 10]

Lapdancer, I agree that speaking as if one knows what Jesus would condone or not is saying a mouthful. The idea that Jesus is capable of only love and acceptance is not embracing the fact that He is jealous, and is angry when the Fathers will is attributed to someone else, or when someones will is proported to be the Fathers as he said to one of His best friends, get thee behind me Satan!!... wow, I would never want to hear that. Another thing that makes me squirm is when Jesus said, " Away from me, I never knew you "....gulp. He truly wants our hearts, not our works.

[Sunta 4]

This article is rediculous.

Acceptable bigotry? Please, cut me a break!!!

Oh yes, the poor little shrinking violet Christian right, SO downtrodden and abused! BOO HOO!

Gays should NOT defend themselves against people who say being Gay is immoral, because it's BIGOTRY if they do defend themselves!

Gays should remain silent and NOT defend themselves and NOT speak out against an elected official who DENIGRATES them and speaks out against them and DEFAMES them! Because it's bigotry! OH how I wring my hands and weep for the poor, persecuted Christians!

Please can we cut through this NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT?!?!?!?!?

Of course Gays are going to speak out and defend themselves! Of course they're not going to put up with being DEFAMED by a public official! Of course they're not going to vote for that person! Obviously that person has an AGENDA that is going to be reflected in their policy-making, or otherwise they wouldn't bother to DENIGRATE gay people!!!

Honestly, sometimes I wonder about the sanity of the Christian right, I really do.

[Sunta 4]

Oh and I forgot to say that the logic in this article is equivalent to this:

A Christian person is a member of the KKK and thinks Black people should still be slaves. After he gets into office he makes his opinion known. He cites the bible as the source that tells him slavery is acceptable (it does say that in the bible, does it not?) An outcry rises against him, and those who cry out against him are BIGOTS and are practicing acceptable bigotry!

RIGHT???

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

When I was an aircraft mechanic, I was on board fixing last minute items many times while passengers were also on board. I could not tell them that being Gay was immoral. I could not tell them that being Gay was not immoral.

Why, because I was representing my company when on board fixing the company's plane. If I met a passenger while off the airport, I could say anything I wanted to that person because then I was representing myself, not my company at that point.

Did they ask you?

I have been asked political questions while on a plane by passengers and I always play dumb and politely refuse to answer.

You see, some people have enough discipline and enough brains to know who they are and what they are at a given time. My company did not own me, but I owed them an obligation not to cause them any ill will from the public.

This may be hard for many to understand, but General Pace is a public servant, paid for with the money of the US tax-payers. He has no right to insult any tax payers and/or citizens and should keep his mouth shut except when the president gives him permission to discuss a topic.

And the president is also a public servant. King George was the ruler of the 13 colonies and when those colonies overthrew his rule, it was decided that the new nation would be run by men who worked for the people. Worship Jesus all you want. But do not worship the president. He owes you and me, and all the other citizens of the USA, respect for the rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution.

BuSh keeps saying that he swore to protect the USA when he became president. He (as usual) is wrong. The oath he took says.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He has not done that. He has tried to destroy the Constitution.

[green 6]

It is ironic that Leatha is crying foul by claiming that bigotry against Christians is acceptable when the forces of political correctness protect everyone else these days. It is ironic because the United States is a country where the population is overwhelmingly Christian. Yup, Christians are the majority in America! If a member of one Christian sect finds that his religious afiliation is impeding his chances of being elected to public office this may mean that other Christian Americans are prejudiced against his sect or that they simply don't like his politics.

In the case of liberal Americans, many if not most of whom are also likely to be Christians, their hesitancy to vote for certain individuals may well be based on the belief that this particular adherent will be unable to leave his God at home and not to engage Him in affairs of state; many folks are justifiably wary of one's religion becoming one's personal agenda. I believe that a liberal Mormon politician would be just as attractive as Obama, Ms. Clinton, or any other politician sporting an acceptable political platform to a liberal voter.

Now, should an atheist run for the presidency, that individual would not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The average American is deeply mistrustful of atheism and would prefer Muslims over atheists. (I will try to find and supply you all with this link to the survey which describes all of the above.) It seems, I would assume, that many folks cannot imagine how a human being can manage to live a moral and ethical life in the absence of the Greater Hall Monitor.

As for Leatha's initial post, well, it seems to me that it has sparked some interesting discussion and that is always a good thing.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

It is ironic that Leatha is crying foul by claiming that bigotry against Christians is acceptable when the forces of political correctness protect everyone else these days. It is ironic because the United States is a country where the population is overwhelmingly Christian. Yup, Christians are the majority in America! If a member of one Christian sect finds that his religious afiliation is impeding his chances of being elected to public office this may mean that other Christian Americans are prejudiced against his sect or that they simply don't like his politics.

In the case of liberal Americans, many if not most of whom are also likely to be Christians, their hesitancy to vote for certain individuals may well be based on the belief that this particular adherent will be unable to leave his God at home and not to engage Him in affairs of state; many folks are justifiably wary of one's religion becoming one's personal agenda. I believe that a liberal Mormon politician would be just as attractive as Obama, Ms. Clinton, or any other politician sporting an acceptable political platform to a liberal voter.

Now, should an atheist run for the presidency, that individual would not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The average American is deeply mistrustful of atheism and would prefer Muslims over atheists. (I will try to find and supply you all with this link to the survey which describes all of the above.) It seems, I would assume, that many folks cannot imagine how a human being can manage to live a moral and ethical life in the absence of the Greater Hall Monitor.

As for Leatha's initial post, well, it seems to me that it has sparked some interesting discussion and that is always a good thing.

I have in varying times in my life been an agnostic, an atheist and a Christian (both Roman Catholic and Protestant), and my morals never changed. I didn't steal, lie or kill no matter what my religious affiliation was, and I didn't change my voting pattern nor my ethics. Plus, I believe in the "Golden Rule; not because Christ proposed it, but because it is “Fair and Balanced”.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

By the way, Green, I would love to see that Link to a site that says US voters would rather have a Muslim than an atheist as President.

[green 6]

By the way, Green, I would love to see that Link to a site that says US voters would rather have a Muslim than an atheist as President.

I will try to find it. It was posted on an atheist site which I frequent and was a poll carried out by one of the major US newspapers, maybe the Chicago Times???? What it said was that more Americans trust Muslims than atheists. Atheists are viewed as the least trustworthy folks by Americans, it seems.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I will try to find it. It was posted on an atheist site which I frequent and was a poll carried out by one of the major US newspapers, maybe the Chicago Times???? What it said was that more Americans trust Muslims than atheists. Atheists are viewed as the least trustworthy folks by Americans, it seems.

I can believe it. They usually get everything backwards (not that I am saying that Muslim are any less, nor any more trustworthy that atheists or anyone else, for the matter).