Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

So every time you respond to a post it is because you think someone is asking you to agree?

I don't think American politicians are any tougher or more coddled than French one, or German one, or even Candaian ones.

It is reasonable to conclude that he came to the rally to speak and be heard, but it's not reasonable to conclude, based on this video, that his intention was to disrupt, threaten or spread hatred. You have made an assumption that this was his intent and one upon which you have based most of your comments concerning this video. Admittedly, I have only watched the video once and I know nothing about the rally or this incident except what I can learn from the video, but I didn't see or hear anything that could lead to the conclusion that his intentions were vile. In fact, he seems a pretty civil sort despite the reaction of the crowd.




"Preaching," is not "talking with people," and there are many many people who will tell you that they believe their soul was saved thanks to the "preaching" of someone they felt spoke the truth. Dialogue is not the only mode of meaningful communication.

He did answer at least two questions from the crowd and he did respond to certain comments that were voiced, so in fact there was something of a dialogue. It does appear, however, that his primary reason for being there was to preach but that doesn't imply malignant intent.



I'm sorry if you feel you have wasted your time responding in such detail to what I have posted, but that was your choice.

As for my not believing his intentions were entirely benign, I acknowledged that this is was due to my cynicism, not any evidence provided by the video. My bet is that he wasn't there to save or damn souls, but to feed his own ego, but that's just my hunch.



Exhibiting brass is not the same as acting heroically, but there is nothing absurd at all in asserting that to do what this fellow did took chutzpah, stones, moxy, brass or whatever other term you would like to use. Most people will not come face to face with those they wish to condemn.

In any case my point is that we all find certain conduct or expressions of opinion that we feel warrants our condemnation. This is not a tu quoque argument. I am not trying to deny the truth of your argument by pointing out your hypocrisy. You argue that the street preacher is inherently offensive because he is disrupting, threatening and spreading hatred. My counter is not that your own ability to disrupt, threaten and hate invalidates your conclusion.

I'm challenging your conclusion because it is highly biased, not because it hypocritical.

Your bias assumes that your level of tolerance is the appropriate base line for all. Your bias assumes that anyone who believes homosexuality is "wrong" is homophobic and anyone who voices this belief is spewing hatred.



I'm sure you know very well what the Ku Klux Klan is and what its members (Klansmen) profess to believe.

Legally, condemning the KKK in public is no different than condemning Gays in public.

I've seen public condemnation of the KKK and it can very easily be described as hateful. I saw the street preacher's condemnation of gays on the video and did not see the same signs of raw emotion.

Because you share in the condemnation of the KKK, you fail to see the hatred and refuse to call it "Hate Speech."

Because you not only do not share in the condemnation of gays but feel very strongly supportive of them, you draw unfounded conclusions about hatred and label the street preacher's "sermon" as Hate Speech.

Again, this not saying that you are unqualified to identify something as hate because you yourself have hated, so put away your shiny new toy "tu quoque."

Assuming the street preacher is expressing hatred, I wonder if you believe his thinking and motivation is drastically different from those who protest a KKK gathering?
[/quote]



So hatred is acceptable when the targets deserve it, and you and I get to determine who deserves it and who does not?

Let's make the targets a little more ambiguous for you. Let's say the street preacher was present at a NAMBLA convention. Pedophiles, at least ostensibly, are not (like the KKK) all about hatred themselves. Is vocal condemnation of NAMBLA "Hate Speech?"

How about a street preacher standing before a lab where he believes animals are used in testing. If he warns them that their actions will land them in hell, is he threatening them and spewing hatred?

You're right that I don't believe a Gay Pride Rally to be the equivalent of a KKK Rally, but so what?

I also don't believe that because someone objects to homosexuality for religious reasons that they are automatically a hateful nut.

If all the KKK ever did was to express hatred for blacks and Jews, why would anyone care? Sure, it would be offensive, but stay away from their rallies and don't read their literature and you could pretty easily live a life without ever being bothered by them. For the most part this is what the Klan is today, a toothless old dragon. Unfortunately, we all know about the Klan because they once had quite a few teeth and used them on the objects of their hatred. It was their deeds, not their words that made them so loathsome and terrifying.

People hate, and sometimes we will find their hatred legitimate, sometimes we will find it contemptible and sometimes we will find it simply silly. Obviously, we will not all experience the same reactions to their hatred.

For an absolutist this isn't much of a quandary...they are wrong and he/she is right, but what about the relativist?

You don't respect other religions. What you meant to say is you respect other religions except Christianity.

Read the words of your Catechism, Walter.

Pitiful and lame, FA. Mockery shows all of us you have no idea what Jesus said or did. Like I said, you're ignorant of Christianity and Islam. Keep talking.

What did you say about mockery?





I don't think you know what mockery is Renaldo.

Poor thing. Do you need some attention?

No bubby, as usual you don't have it quite right. I don't respect you.

That has nothing to do with Xtianity, because from what I have observed I certainly don't hope that you claim to represent Xtianity.

Rap

YOU are the one who stated the street preacher was a bigot and a hater. YOU are the one who cannot tell us what the street preacher said that makes him a bigot and a hater. It's pretty simple and everyone can see it.

YOU are the bigot and YOU are the hater.

No, the bigotry and hate started ->here<-, bubby bin bubby.

Rap

Indeed, the lex credendi is published there.

As said various times before, you really should improve your reading capabilities ... or choose a coy in a language which you know.

"The mutual bonds which eternally constitute the three Persons who are each one and the same Divine Being, are the blessed inmost life of God thrice holy, infinitely beyond all that we can conceive in human measure"

Or look at the Catechism itself:

150-152
176-178
"What does it mean in practice for a person to believe in God?
It means to adhere to God himself, entrusting oneself to him and giving assent to all the truths which God has revealed because God is Truth. It means to believe in one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Not accusing exactly, just saying most of the conservative Christians that I have encountered on these threads seem to think they are the only ones who are Christians when for the most part, they really don't display a lot of Christ like spirit, at least not the one that is in the Bible with the words in red.

I think William Burroughs put it best.

'If you're dealing with a religious son of a bitch, put it in writing, because his word doesn't mean ****, not with the good lord telling him how to **** you on the deal.'

Yet, when asked if you believe Jesus is God in the flesh, you could not answer it. Your church says Jesus is God in the flesh.

Jesus told the woman at the well...."Go and sin no more". Was Jesus being "Christlike"? When Jesus called people "white washed tombstones who were dead inside", was he being "Christlike".

Usually it's the people who are not Christians who accuse others of not being "Christlike".

I don't think it's a good idea to take religious advice from drunks.

Ironically the people Jesus called "white washed tombstones" where the religious people who instead of caring for the people around them, they spent their time being judgmental.

They weren't being Christlike. The "Pharisees" of the Bible were Renaldolike.

I agree with most of that. However, you ignored my point. I'll try again. Was Jesus being "Christlike" when he told the woman at the well...."Go and sin no more"?

William Burroughs wasn't a drunk he was a heroin addict. It's not religious advice it's business advice, and I think it's good advice.

I believe he was also a drunk besides being a heroin addict. An addict is an addict. To be more precise, I don't take advice of any kind from drunks and addicts. Here ya go. This link says he was addicted to heroin AND alcohol.
http://drunkliterature.com/2010/01/13/portrait-of-a-beat-generation-william-burroughss-stuff/