|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
This interview with Vindman sums up my thoughts pretty nicely. The tl;dr is courtesy from the Guardian live, and the source is here :
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/alexander-vindman-trump-putin-useful-idiot/616341/
In his first interview since serving as a star witness in Trump’s impeachment trial, Alexander Vindman said he considered the US president to be a “useful idiot” for Vladimir Putin.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg asked Vindman, a former official on Trump’s National Security Council, if he thought Trump was a Russian intelligence asset.
Vindman replied, “President Trump should be considered to be a useful idiot and a fellow traveler, which makes him an unwitting agent of Putin.” By “fellow traveler,” Vindman said he meant both Trump and Putin oppose many democratic norms.
“They may or may not have dirt on him, but they don’t have to use it,” Vindman said, when asked if he thought Trump was being blackmailed by Putin.
“They have more effective and less risky ways to employ him. He has aspirations to be the kind of leader that Putin is, and so he admires him. He likes authoritarian strongmen who act with impunity, without checks and balances. So he’ll try to please Putin.”
Vindman went on to say, “In the Army we call this ‘free chicken,’ something you don’t have to work for—it just comes to you. This is what the Russians have in Trump: free chicken.”
It's such a gift for Russia/Putin to see a president willing to throw to the gutter most of the existant norms and alliances, it opens up such a boulevard for them to build on their strengths and gain influence across the world, to look like a reliable partner.
I don't think he could have even imagined it in his wildest dreams 10 years ago.
Dirt or no dirt is not that important since Trump is a fan of strongmen. He is willingly enabling them by courting and being deferent to them, be it Putin, Erdogan and others... (Of course, Kim, but he lacks international leverage and will never get it anyway, he just gains more legitimity)
|
Where have you shown compromise? If you can't agree, that Trump has been violating religious freedoms far more then
Biden could ever promise to, why should i take you seriously about being in good faith in the argument. You are doing what you are always doing, you look for the hill you are most comfortably dying on, then you ignore every post send to you, stay on that hill and call the other side out for acting in bad faith.
You can't even find ways of organizing society so the religious can live peaceably with secular people that think they're misogynistic bigots lost in prior-century morals.
No, again, it's the other way around. The militant part of american christians can't tolerate a society where non-religious people can simply live their life without infringement from fanatics. Nobody is forcing christians to take an abortion, while there are more then enough instances where women are being forced to keep the baby, because some states have made it so hard to get an abortion.
|
On September 15 2020 01:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On September 14 2020 23:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 23:33 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 22:02 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 20:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am not describing faith, I am describing religion. I have zero problem with people believing in what ever spirituality. I don't understand it, but if they get something positive out of it, that's cool. But then you go to organized religion, and even the better ones can't simply live and let live. Into almost every organized religion, there is some code imprinted, where they fail to comply with some rule of modern society. Be it missionizing, be it condemning homosexuality or abortion, be it ritually demeaning women.
Sure my language was provoking, but I really can't stand the hipocricy of fundamental Christians, or any other religion, to move the world backwards because a book that was written and rewritten in the last 2000 years tells them so. So here’s the thing, I agree with basically everything you say here, but I think the proper rhetorical approach towards those who do bad shit in the name of God is not one that casts broad aspersions as to how religion itself works as a thing humans do. There are millions of American Christians who know that fundamentalism and sola scriptura/fide are wrong and that they are used to justify all sorts of awful shit, but we’ll never get those people solidly opposed to Trump and his brand of political apologists a la Danglars if something they consider very important, religion, is routinely ridiculed like a Bill Mahar special. It’s folks like Bill Mahar and their one dimensional takes on religion that give conservatives the room to claim that the left wants to outlaw their faith and other silly shit. I grew up with multiple people who became pastors and feel it’s my duty to make sure they remember just how radically left Jesus was, so this is a topic near and dear to me  I don't think there's such a dividing line between fundamentalists and your average everyday Christian, even the ones who agree with much of what i think about politics. The issue of massive grassroots belief that being gay will send a person to hell, for example, is harmful way beyond each individual that believes such things. You cannot take that homophobia out of the religion because its there in the texts. Sure, tone is important when addressing religious people, but the idea that they might change their mind about something like that because we are respectful is something I just can't see any evidence of, and these are important issues that leave alot of people having a shitty life. Totally disagree man, the presence of homophobia in religious texts only poisons the well of a religion if one tries to regard a religion as a strictly textual, hard and fast rule based enterprise. Many mainline prot denominations in the US actively prohibit that kind of biblical exegesis, and it serves as a helpful dividing line between what I think are good and bad approaches to Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions). *looks up exegesis* I mean the whole point of abrahamic religion is to be rule based. That's why it began, that's what it is. Its about law. I get your point with regards to protestants, maybe I'm stereotyping based on what I've seen of the US, but I had the impression the evangelical/catholic Christians over there massively outnumber protestants, and that's where most of the hatred is. The bible isn't why people are anti-abortion or homophobic. The bible says basically nothing about homosexuality (I believe it has two verses that can easily be handwaved away pretty easily with historical context) and actually gives instructions on how to commit abortions, in addition to specifying lower punishments for killing a pregnant woman than woman and child. It says infinitely more about eating shellfish than it does either of those topics. It's like the people saying the bible prohibits masturbation based on the story of Onan back in the early 1900s. Read that story, it's fucking nuts and no one could reasonably infer that as a rule from it. That view had a lot more to do with the specific people promoting it than their religious books. Personally, if you aren't willing to grant the church of satan the same rights then you shouldn't extend them to the others. It's part of why I enjoy it when they do things like sue to get a statue of Baphomet next to the 10 commandments at a court house (may have the wrong satanic organization... one is humanist and a few others are weird cults). edit: Had a wrong word in the onan section Many many verses on homosexuality, spread between both testaments. Googling will avail you much in this regard. The Bible is precisely the reason many Christians are opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, and for proof of this, ask them why they think God is against it and see if they go back to the Bible or not.
How many times have you played that card ? The "ive done my research, do yours". Textbook Trump.
An easy google search shows that homosexuality is present in 3 verses of the new testament, with a fourth being debatable.
en.wikipedia.org
Where are people getting these ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith? I presume the fault lies in education in this country, and more electives about the bible as a book of literature should be taught in high school. Occam's razor, if it's mentioned multiple times in one holy scripture, and adherents frequently adhere to it, it's because of it's presence in scripture and not some Christians pulling it out of their ass. This isn't quite a politics-and-religion thread, so I won't go out and quote chapter and verse in it. (Neither are Jewish dietary restrictions totally divorced from the Torah, or Muslim thoughts on paradise and prayer made up things apart from the Koran, etc etc)
How high and mighty you are, and yet uncapable of the most basic google search ? Maybe that should be taught in sunday school.
|
On September 15 2020 03:21 Broetchenholer wrote:Where have you shown compromise? If you can't agree, that Trump has been violating religious freedoms far more then Biden could ever promise to, why should i take you seriously about being in good faith in the argument. You are doing what you are always doing, you look for the hill you are most comfortably dying on, then you ignore every post send to you, stay on that hill and call the other side out for acting in bad faith. Show nested quote +
You can't even find ways of organizing society so the religious can live peaceably with secular people that think they're misogynistic bigots lost in prior-century morals.
No, again, it's the other way around. The militant part of american christians can't tolerate a society where non-religious people can simply live their life without infringement from fanatics. Nobody is forcing christians to take an abortion, while there are more then enough instances where women are being forced to keep the baby, because some states have made it so hard to get an abortion.
If you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge Catholic teaching on abortifacient drugs, don’t work for a Catholic order of nuns, or if they’re just spectacular at what they do, avail yourself of government programs. I’m not hearing any wiggle room for you on compromises to work for an explicitly religious organization.
And don’t ask me for Trump pro-con on religious liberties when Biden’s cons get spun like you’re Biden’s spokesperson. We’re too far apart on common-sense religious protections in society to even be speaking the same language on this topic anyway. Flip it around acting like you stand for the aggrieved class all you want; each time reflects no understanding of groups that don’t share your values.
|
On September 15 2020 03:50 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 01:54 Danglars wrote:On September 15 2020 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On September 14 2020 23:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 23:33 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 22:02 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 20:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am not describing faith, I am describing religion. I have zero problem with people believing in what ever spirituality. I don't understand it, but if they get something positive out of it, that's cool. But then you go to organized religion, and even the better ones can't simply live and let live. Into almost every organized religion, there is some code imprinted, where they fail to comply with some rule of modern society. Be it missionizing, be it condemning homosexuality or abortion, be it ritually demeaning women.
Sure my language was provoking, but I really can't stand the hipocricy of fundamental Christians, or any other religion, to move the world backwards because a book that was written and rewritten in the last 2000 years tells them so. So here’s the thing, I agree with basically everything you say here, but I think the proper rhetorical approach towards those who do bad shit in the name of God is not one that casts broad aspersions as to how religion itself works as a thing humans do. There are millions of American Christians who know that fundamentalism and sola scriptura/fide are wrong and that they are used to justify all sorts of awful shit, but we’ll never get those people solidly opposed to Trump and his brand of political apologists a la Danglars if something they consider very important, religion, is routinely ridiculed like a Bill Mahar special. It’s folks like Bill Mahar and their one dimensional takes on religion that give conservatives the room to claim that the left wants to outlaw their faith and other silly shit. I grew up with multiple people who became pastors and feel it’s my duty to make sure they remember just how radically left Jesus was, so this is a topic near and dear to me I don't think there's such a dividing line between fundamentalists and your average everyday Christian, even the ones who agree with much of what i think about politics. The issue of massive grassroots belief that being gay will send a person to hell, for example, is harmful way beyond each individual that believes such things. You cannot take that homophobia out of the religion because its there in the texts. Sure, tone is important when addressing religious people, but the idea that they might change their mind about something like that because we are respectful is something I just can't see any evidence of, and these are important issues that leave alot of people having a shitty life. Totally disagree man, the presence of homophobia in religious texts only poisons the well of a religion if one tries to regard a religion as a strictly textual, hard and fast rule based enterprise. Many mainline prot denominations in the US actively prohibit that kind of biblical exegesis, and it serves as a helpful dividing line between what I think are good and bad approaches to Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions). *looks up exegesis* I mean the whole point of abrahamic religion is to be rule based. That's why it began, that's what it is. Its about law. I get your point with regards to protestants, maybe I'm stereotyping based on what I've seen of the US, but I had the impression the evangelical/catholic Christians over there massively outnumber protestants, and that's where most of the hatred is. The bible isn't why people are anti-abortion or homophobic. The bible says basically nothing about homosexuality (I believe it has two verses that can easily be handwaved away pretty easily with historical context) and actually gives instructions on how to commit abortions, in addition to specifying lower punishments for killing a pregnant woman than woman and child. It says infinitely more about eating shellfish than it does either of those topics. It's like the people saying the bible prohibits masturbation based on the story of Onan back in the early 1900s. Read that story, it's fucking nuts and no one could reasonably infer that as a rule from it. That view had a lot more to do with the specific people promoting it than their religious books. Personally, if you aren't willing to grant the church of satan the same rights then you shouldn't extend them to the others. It's part of why I enjoy it when they do things like sue to get a statue of Baphomet next to the 10 commandments at a court house (may have the wrong satanic organization... one is humanist and a few others are weird cults). edit: Had a wrong word in the onan section Many many verses on homosexuality, spread between both testaments. Googling will avail you much in this regard. The Bible is precisely the reason many Christians are opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, and for proof of this, ask them why they think God is against it and see if they go back to the Bible or not. How many times have you played that card ? The "ive done my research, do yours". Textbook Trump. An easy google search shows that homosexuality is present in 3 verses of the new testament, with a fourth being debatable. en.wikipedia.orgShow nested quote +Where are people getting these ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith? I presume the fault lies in education in this country, and more electives about the bible as a book of literature should be taught in high school. Occam's razor, if it's mentioned multiple times in one holy scripture, and adherents frequently adhere to it, it's because of it's presence in scripture and not some Christians pulling it out of their ass. This isn't quite a politics-and-religion thread, so I won't go out and quote chapter and verse in it. (Neither are Jewish dietary restrictions totally divorced from the Torah, or Muslim thoughts on paradise and prayer made up things apart from the Koran, etc etc) How high and mighty you are, and yet uncapable of the most basic google search ? Maybe that should be taught in sunday school.
Two in Leviticus, one romans, one Jude, one corinthians, one first Timothy. Six at least, and this isn’t a religion thread to debate how proscriptions on homosexuality are tied to general proscriptions on sexual immortality, which add to the six.
Do people really think the homosexual stuff is drawn from sources other than the Bible? I’m falling for the troll bait again, aren’t I? You gotta have some hatred for religion in your heart if you gotta accuse Christians of inventing gay hatred extra-Biblically, but I am prepared to accept the growing evidence in favor of that hypothesis, especially considering no secular person has spoken out against the ~two trolls here.
|
On September 15 2020 03:12 Simberto wrote:
Secular religious people are welcome. Religion should be something about the individual and their choices for themselves. Not a club to clobber people they dislike with.
We've gone through this so many times already, and laid this point out for all to see too many times. People like Danglars understand this, and know what they're doing, and they don't care. You're oppressing Christian people everywhere by even subtly suggesting they don't get to tell everyone else how to live out their lives, and which rights they're actually entitled to. Christian people are suffering when they don't get to deprive others of their basic rights. That's the line they've drawn, and they're tragic victims as soon as you try to push back. It's abusive.
|
It was the new testament I was referring to. I believe the count is 7 (well, it goes higher if you count individual verses in the OT, but 4 stories about it) if you include the old testament, and I've read Christians and non-christians all write credibly about how interpreting them to mean homosexual in the modern definition is a mistake. Some of the newer translations don't even translate 2 of the 3 NT mentions as homosexuality. The TL;DR; is that it is far more likely to have been about forms of sexual slavery (especially as practiced by the romans), rapes, and prostitution than any consenting relationships.
I've read the bible 4+ times, and all of the stuff people are citing as mainstream views here seems pretty accurate to me. Then again, as mentioned recently, I went to some crazy extreme churches in my youth. If Danglars was the vision of the average evangelical I had, then I wouldn't be that worried about their political influence. I also have a cousin who went to seminary school - literally the only way to get more exposure to the bible than I did growing up would have been to finish it off with liberty university.
The bible says a lot of things, many clearly contradictory. Say what you will about its issues (and it has a lot) but the hyperfocus on abortion and homosexuality is not present in the bible, is my only real point. Many other rules in it are outright ignored - not just the old testament things, but new testament ones. My opinion is that megachurch pastors point to them so that many of the real focuses that are anti-rich are ignored instead. If you want to read some comedy gold, look up how prosperity gospel people have interpreted the Camel through the eye of a needle line (my absolute favorite : "They didn't have needles in ancient times!". Fun fact, the oldest needles that we are sure of are 50,000 years old).
|
6. From Many many verses to 6. XD
No, people don't hate Christians for this. They don't like them for being against basic human rights, or is it the rise of christian terrorism in the us causing it ? This is not about christianity btw, it's about employers forcing their beliefs on employees. Or it's about not having your healthcare linked to your job. Both works.
Btw since you probably didn't bother to read the first paragraph of my link here it is
The references to homosexuality itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words: arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), and porneia (πορνεία) and its cognates.[1][2] While it is not disputed that the three Greek words apply to sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some liberal contemporary academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while traditional scholars hold the historical position that these passages forbid all same gender sexual acts and relationships.
So even the mentions are up to interpretation
|
On September 15 2020 04:07 Nevuk wrote:
It was the new testament I was referring to. I believe the count is 7 (well, it goes higher if you count individual verses in the OT, but 4 stories about it) if you include the old testament, and I've read Christians and non-christians all write credibly about how interpreting them to mean homosexual in the modern definition is a mistake. Some of the newer translations don't even translate 2 of the 3 NT mentions as homosexuality. The TL;DR; is that it is far more likely to have been about forms of sexual slavery (especially as practiced by the romans), rapes, and prostitution than any consenting relationships.
I've read the bible 4+ times, and all of the stuff people are citing as mainstream views here seems pretty accurate to me. Then again, as mentioned recently, I went to some crazy extreme churches in my youth. If Danglars was the vision of the average evangelical I had, then I wouldn't be that worried about their political influence. I also have a cousin who went to seminary school - literally the only way to get more exposure to the bible than I did growing up would have been to finish it off with liberty university.
The bible says a lot of things, many clearly contradictory. Say what you will about its issues (and it has a lot) but the hyperfocus on abortion and homosexuality is not present in the bible, is my only real point. Many other rules in it are outright ignored - not just the old testament things, but new testament ones. My opinion is that megachurch pastors point to them so that many of the real focuses that are anti-rich are ignored instead. If you want to read some comedy gold, look up how prosperity gospel people have interpreted the Camel through the eye of a needle line (my absolute favorite : "They didn't have needles in ancient times!". Fun fact, the oldest needles that we are sure of are 50,000 years old).
We definitely disagree with the utility of the Old Testament scriptures on the topic, when the New Testament goes on to reaffirm them.
Be worried or less worried about their political influence as a group, I’m just trying to lay the foundations for a Biblically-grounded common religious belief, as opposed to some absurd extraneous thoughts of homophobic origins.
On September 15 2020 04:08 Erasme wrote:6. From Many many verses to 6. XD No, people don't hate Christians for this. They don't like them for being against basic human rights, or is it the rise of christian terrorism in the us causing it ? This is not about christianity btw, it's about employers forcing their beliefs on employees. Or it's about not having your healthcare linked to your job. Both works. Btw since you probably didn't bother to read the first paragraph of my link here it is Show nested quote +The references to homosexuality itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words: arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), and porneia (πορνεία) and its cognates.[1][2] While it is not disputed that the three Greek words apply to sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some liberal contemporary academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while traditional scholars hold the historical position that these passages forbid all same gender sexual acts and relationships. So even the mentions are up to interpretation
I’m not contending that nobody interprets scriptures otherwise; I am familiar with churches that ordain gay ministers. They have a great need for your “some libera contemporary academics interpret.” The clear point should be the Bíblical origin of these views, compared to hatred existing apart from scripture being the true origin. The “traditional scholars” refuting it don’t rely on other sources to demand they interpret the scriptures this way; they study from the scriptures. As should be true from the outset. And yes, you should share society with that mainstream Christian interpretation, without demanding they come along or else. Religious conflict and major civil disobedience can be easily avoided.
|
On September 15 2020 04:03 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 03:12 Simberto wrote:
Secular religious people are welcome. Religion should be something about the individual and their choices for themselves. Not a club to clobber people they dislike with. We've gone through this so many times already, and laid this point out for all to see too many times. People like Danglars understand this, and know what they're doing, and they don't care. You're oppressing Christian people everywhere by even subtly suggesting they don't get to tell everyone else how to live out their lives, and which rights they're actually entitled to. Christian people are suffering when they don't get to deprive others of their basic rights. That's the line they've drawn, and they're tragic victims as soon as you try to push back. It's abusive.
I think this is built in to the religion itself. "All gods but mine are false, but if you don't respect my belief you are intolerant and oppressing me." Then there is the martyrdom of the founder which puts being persecuted as a high virtue. It seems like certain Christians especially are constantly vigilant for opportunities to feel persecuted, and often goad others into attacking them by being purposely offensive and bigoted. It's beyond ridiculous to hear the complaint that Christians are treated as "second class citizens" in America, where they have long enjoyed a position of dominance and special privilege. On another forum I'm on there's guys expressing the fear that soon in America they will start being murdered for being a Christian. These are the same people who have nothing but contempt for the BLM protests.
|
On September 15 2020 04:21 Danglars wrote:
I’m not contending that nobody interprets scriptures otherwise; I am familiar with churches that ordain gay ministers. They have a great need for your “some libera contemporary academics interpret.” The clear point should be the Bíblical origin of these views, compared to hatred existing apart from scripture being the true origin. The “traditional scholars” refuting it don’t rely on other sources to demand they interpret the scriptures this way; they study from the scriptures. As should be true from the outset. And yes, you should share society with that mainstream Christian interpretation, without demanding they come along or else. Religious conflict and major civil disobedience can be easily avoided.
Or, you could demand parts of you society to not be homophobes. And if they say, the bible teaches it, you say, the bible also tells you to murder them.
On September 15 2020 04:23 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 04:03 NewSunshine wrote:On September 15 2020 03:12 Simberto wrote:
Secular religious people are welcome. Religion should be something about the individual and their choices for themselves. Not a club to clobber people they dislike with. We've gone through this so many times already, and laid this point out for all to see too many times. People like Danglars understand this, and know what they're doing, and they don't care. You're oppressing Christian people everywhere by even subtly suggesting they don't get to tell everyone else how to live out their lives, and which rights they're actually entitled to. Christian people are suffering when they don't get to deprive others of their basic rights. That's the line they've drawn, and they're tragic victims as soon as you try to push back. It's abusive. I think this is built in to the religion itself. "All gods but mine are false, but if you don't respect my belief you are intolerant and oppressing me." Then there is the martyrdom of the founder which puts being persecuted as a high virtue. It seems like certain Christians especially are constantly vigilant for opportunities to feel persecuted, and often goad others into attacking them by being purposely offensive and bigoted. It's beyond ridiculous to hear the complaint that Christians are treated as "second class citizens" in America, where they have long enjoyed a position of dominance and special privilege. On another forum I'm on there's guys expressing the fear that soon in America they will start being murdered for being a Christian. These are the same people who have nothing but contempt for the BLM protests.
The religion was created around martyrdom. It was a religion of the poor and the slaves, those people that had nothing and could not expect anything from the roman society. By telling their followers that they would just need to endure this terrible life, and maybe even die for their conviction, and get more followers, even if they would then die as martyrs, they got the bottom of the roman population.
|
It's fascinating how for certain people, "freedom" is systematically about suppressing or simply being a complete asshole to someone else. I'm all for religious freedom up to the point that it means being a twat to groups of people with the blessing of the law.
I guess it's an old tradition from the American south; XIXth century political debates are full of gentlemen farmers defending their freedom to own slaves (looks like they already didn't notice the irony back then). For all the flaws of european politics, when far right folks ask the right to be biggots and suppress other people they at least don't ask it in the name if freedom.
|
I think it's telling that for all the things we have been debating strongly in this thread, the idea of religious freedom as the right to oppress others has never really come into that debate. It's an uncontested point so far.
|
On September 15 2020 01:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On September 14 2020 23:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 23:33 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 22:02 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 20:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am not describing faith, I am describing religion. I have zero problem with people believing in what ever spirituality. I don't understand it, but if they get something positive out of it, that's cool. But then you go to organized religion, and even the better ones can't simply live and let live. Into almost every organized religion, there is some code imprinted, where they fail to comply with some rule of modern society. Be it missionizing, be it condemning homosexuality or abortion, be it ritually demeaning women.
Sure my language was provoking, but I really can't stand the hipocricy of fundamental Christians, or any other religion, to move the world backwards because a book that was written and rewritten in the last 2000 years tells them so. So here’s the thing, I agree with basically everything you say here, but I think the proper rhetorical approach towards those who do bad shit in the name of God is not one that casts broad aspersions as to how religion itself works as a thing humans do. There are millions of American Christians who know that fundamentalism and sola scriptura/fide are wrong and that they are used to justify all sorts of awful shit, but we’ll never get those people solidly opposed to Trump and his brand of political apologists a la Danglars if something they consider very important, religion, is routinely ridiculed like a Bill Mahar special. It’s folks like Bill Mahar and their one dimensional takes on religion that give conservatives the room to claim that the left wants to outlaw their faith and other silly shit. I grew up with multiple people who became pastors and feel it’s my duty to make sure they remember just how radically left Jesus was, so this is a topic near and dear to me I don't think there's such a dividing line between fundamentalists and your average everyday Christian, even the ones who agree with much of what i think about politics. The issue of massive grassroots belief that being gay will send a person to hell, for example, is harmful way beyond each individual that believes such things. You cannot take that homophobia out of the religion because its there in the texts. Sure, tone is important when addressing religious people, but the idea that they might change their mind about something like that because we are respectful is something I just can't see any evidence of, and these are important issues that leave alot of people having a shitty life. Totally disagree man, the presence of homophobia in religious texts only poisons the well of a religion if one tries to regard a religion as a strictly textual, hard and fast rule based enterprise. Many mainline prot denominations in the US actively prohibit that kind of biblical exegesis, and it serves as a helpful dividing line between what I think are good and bad approaches to Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions). *looks up exegesis* I mean the whole point of abrahamic religion is to be rule based. That's why it began, that's what it is. Its about law. I get your point with regards to protestants, maybe I'm stereotyping based on what I've seen of the US, but I had the impression the evangelical/catholic Christians over there massively outnumber protestants, and that's where most of the hatred is. The bible isn't why people are anti-abortion or homophobic. The bible says basically nothing about homosexuality (I believe it has two verses that can easily be handwaved away pretty easily with historical context) and actually gives instructions on how to commit abortions, in addition to specifying lower punishments for killing a pregnant woman than woman and child. It says infinitely more about eating shellfish than it does either of those topics. It's like the people saying the bible prohibits masturbation based on the story of Onan back in the early 1900s. Read that story, it's fucking nuts and no one could reasonably infer that as a rule from it. That view had a lot more to do with the specific people promoting it than their religious books. Personally, if you aren't willing to grant the church of satan the same rights then you shouldn't extend them to the others. It's part of why I enjoy it when they do things like sue to get a statue of Baphomet next to the 10 commandments at a court house (may have the wrong satanic organization... one is humanist and a few others are weird cults). edit: Had a wrong word in the onan section Many many verses on homosexuality, spread between both testaments. Googling will avail you much in this regard. The Bible is precisely the reason many Christians are opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, and for proof of this, ask them why they think God is against it and see if they go back to the Bible or not. Where are people getting these ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith? I presume the fault lies in education in this country, and more electives about the bible as a book of literature should be taught in high school. Occam's razor, if it's mentioned multiple times in one holy scripture, and adherents frequently adhere to it, it's because of it's presence in scripture and not some Christians pulling it out of their ass. This isn't quite a politics-and-religion thread, so I won't go out and quote chapter and verse in it. (Neither are Jewish dietary restrictions totally divorced from the Torah, or Muslim thoughts on paradise and prayer made up things apart from the Koran, etc etc)
Just to touch upon ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith - Christianity is so divided on many issues because the source texts have been translated so many times that you could find something to confirm your belief if you looked hard enough. Take marriage, for example - from conversations with my (earthly) father, (who art a reverend) the biblical concept of marriage is not what we understand it to be today, yet the church has created it to be what it is now regardless.
Exegesis is important, and like laypeople reading medical texts, they'll often read seeking confirmation rather than truth.
So 'mainstream ideas of christianity' are all over the fucking map, and understandably so. Compare the King James translation to something more 'modern'. Just people with different slants on the same source texts based on their personal bias.
|
On September 15 2020 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 04:21 Danglars wrote:
I’m not contending that nobody interprets scriptures otherwise; I am familiar with churches that ordain gay ministers. They have a great need for your “some libera contemporary academics interpret.” The clear point should be the Bíblical origin of these views, compared to hatred existing apart from scripture being the true origin. The “traditional scholars” refuting it don’t rely on other sources to demand they interpret the scriptures this way; they study from the scriptures. As should be true from the outset. And yes, you should share society with that mainstream Christian interpretation, without demanding they come along or else. Religious conflict and major civil disobedience can be easily avoided. Or, you could demand parts of you society to not be homophobes. And if they say, the bible teaches it, you say, the bible also tells you to murder them.
Yeah that makes zero sense. Take that passage from the Holy Scripture:
Deuteronomy 22: 23-29:
If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
If I follow Danglar reasoning, it's depriving people of their religious freedom to not let them stone folks to death if they have committed adultery. I mean the Bible is much more clear about that than it is about homosexuality.
|
The Bible also says to love everyone. Something a lot of Christians these days blatantly ignore.
|
Northern Ireland26790 Posts
On September 14 2020 11:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2020 10:26 WombaT wrote:On September 14 2020 08:46 Danglars wrote:
I mean it shouldn't be so confusing. Biden and Democrat's message has been to fuck over people of religious faith. Nuns have to provide abortifacient drugs, even though they can't prove it's an accessibility problem and have many ways of providing these drugs apart from forcing religious organizations to be the means. The government had to confess at the Supreme Court that it could find no woman with a health access problem to demonstrate there was great need to overide First Amendment religious protections.
Say the same thing for Colorado and the Civil Rights Commission. And adoption agencies.
Honestly, even for the most hardcore lefty in this forum, it should be the easiest thing to imagine why evangelicals feel they have no choice in this election. They simply don't feel First Amendment protections have any business being surrendered, and the "women's health" argument is a stupid one made by people that ought to know better. There is only one candidate in the presidential field with any claim of letting business owners with sincere religious beliefs and religious organizations operate free of Government telling them they have no First Amendment protections for their operations. The Democrats always have the choice to not tweet out that they're gonna drag nuns back to court if elected. Well they can feel that way, I don’t overly care. Do whatever. If one wants tax exempt status on religions grounds, but wants to exert political influence, but wants to be guaranteed the right to be able to whatever, like have at it man. If one is willing to give a pass to Donald Trump, close to the least Christian man in human history as long as he’s ‘your guy’ then go for it. Really Danglars you want to have your cake and eat it, claim for have some high ground on issues and just ignore the negatives. And then claim the problem is people being intolerant for not accepting your choices I hold my government to higher standards than you. Period. Religious rights in this country should be respected. I think you're really digging yourself into a hole by claiming this is "the right to be able to whatever." I think you have to try much harder to find an argument here. I can accept some negatives (Some states have to find ways of subsidies that don't interfere with religious freedoms, oh boo hoo), because well ... religious liberty rights are foundational. Good luck with your discrimination, because honestly, you know why people vote this way and don't care. Secondly, if the government was harassing you for something, and one guy fought to get them off your back, and the other guy promised more lawsuits, I think even you would find reason to ignore personal shortcomings. You're honestly better than this, in my view. Religious institutions already have restrictions on their political influence if they seek to maintain tax exemption, by the way. Drag you back to court, or leave you alone? Oh man, Wombat, I really gotta think about his moral fiber on this one. I really love spending years in court at the hands of my own government if it means I avoid voting for personally immoral candidates. Do you really think attacking Trump on his moral character is making a point, or do you just feel you need to bring it up every time? Show nested quote +On September 14 2020 11:06 WarSame wrote:
And also he seems to be interested primarily in business owners exercising their First Amendment rights to harass those of a vulnerable group under their employ, rather than for the purpose of peaceful protest.
Danglars, please just come out and say openly that you don't give a shit about liberal democratic values, that you would sacrifice them in order for the previous existing social order to flourish, and that you don't value the health or safety of those of different groups than yourself. Some people have blinders on in this discussion. When religious freedoms come up, they are incapable of seeing it as anything other than international harassment or lack of care about health and safety. Maybe in the future, you can come around to seeing these are poor excuses for state actions that can be done while actually valuing the religious freedom rights in the First Amendment. It would be a pretty stupid amendment if the first yahoo just whines about how inconvenient it is to respect religious individuals, and imagined harm and harassment was their aim. So how about valuing the religious conscience rights of groups that aren't like you, and have convictions you don't share. Go be honest in politics, and have your state agency work around sincerely held beliefs to dole out subsidies if you actually value them and don't really want to ... ... ... make this about putting the religious faithful as second class citizens within their own country, okay?
You hold your government to higher standards than I, but are consistently defensive on Donald Trump? Seems a tad incongruous really.
I’m pretty down with religious freedoms really, I’m more of an arch secularist than actually anti-religious in my own personal worldview. As I’ve explicitly stated in this thread, as per things like the baking of a cake for a same sex marriage, I don’t personally think people should be forced to do so. Just mentioning because cakes seem a pretty common area of complaint. It’s a small but I think meaningful difference between denying general service to people and providing a custom product to people.
Some other areas of religious freedom are not that at all, the desire seems to be to impose a certain set of values and impose that on others who don’t share those values, and in the US context are invariably Christian impositions.
|
On September 15 2020 05:06 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 01:54 Danglars wrote:On September 15 2020 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On September 14 2020 23:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 23:33 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 22:02 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 20:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am not describing faith, I am describing religion. I have zero problem with people believing in what ever spirituality. I don't understand it, but if they get something positive out of it, that's cool. But then you go to organized religion, and even the better ones can't simply live and let live. Into almost every organized religion, there is some code imprinted, where they fail to comply with some rule of modern society. Be it missionizing, be it condemning homosexuality or abortion, be it ritually demeaning women.
Sure my language was provoking, but I really can't stand the hipocricy of fundamental Christians, or any other religion, to move the world backwards because a book that was written and rewritten in the last 2000 years tells them so. So here’s the thing, I agree with basically everything you say here, but I think the proper rhetorical approach towards those who do bad shit in the name of God is not one that casts broad aspersions as to how religion itself works as a thing humans do. There are millions of American Christians who know that fundamentalism and sola scriptura/fide are wrong and that they are used to justify all sorts of awful shit, but we’ll never get those people solidly opposed to Trump and his brand of political apologists a la Danglars if something they consider very important, religion, is routinely ridiculed like a Bill Mahar special. It’s folks like Bill Mahar and their one dimensional takes on religion that give conservatives the room to claim that the left wants to outlaw their faith and other silly shit. I grew up with multiple people who became pastors and feel it’s my duty to make sure they remember just how radically left Jesus was, so this is a topic near and dear to me I don't think there's such a dividing line between fundamentalists and your average everyday Christian, even the ones who agree with much of what i think about politics. The issue of massive grassroots belief that being gay will send a person to hell, for example, is harmful way beyond each individual that believes such things. You cannot take that homophobia out of the religion because its there in the texts. Sure, tone is important when addressing religious people, but the idea that they might change their mind about something like that because we are respectful is something I just can't see any evidence of, and these are important issues that leave alot of people having a shitty life. Totally disagree man, the presence of homophobia in religious texts only poisons the well of a religion if one tries to regard a religion as a strictly textual, hard and fast rule based enterprise. Many mainline prot denominations in the US actively prohibit that kind of biblical exegesis, and it serves as a helpful dividing line between what I think are good and bad approaches to Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions). *looks up exegesis* I mean the whole point of abrahamic religion is to be rule based. That's why it began, that's what it is. Its about law. I get your point with regards to protestants, maybe I'm stereotyping based on what I've seen of the US, but I had the impression the evangelical/catholic Christians over there massively outnumber protestants, and that's where most of the hatred is. The bible isn't why people are anti-abortion or homophobic. The bible says basically nothing about homosexuality (I believe it has two verses that can easily be handwaved away pretty easily with historical context) and actually gives instructions on how to commit abortions, in addition to specifying lower punishments for killing a pregnant woman than woman and child. It says infinitely more about eating shellfish than it does either of those topics. It's like the people saying the bible prohibits masturbation based on the story of Onan back in the early 1900s. Read that story, it's fucking nuts and no one could reasonably infer that as a rule from it. That view had a lot more to do with the specific people promoting it than their religious books. Personally, if you aren't willing to grant the church of satan the same rights then you shouldn't extend them to the others. It's part of why I enjoy it when they do things like sue to get a statue of Baphomet next to the 10 commandments at a court house (may have the wrong satanic organization... one is humanist and a few others are weird cults). edit: Had a wrong word in the onan section Many many verses on homosexuality, spread between both testaments. Googling will avail you much in this regard. The Bible is precisely the reason many Christians are opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, and for proof of this, ask them why they think God is against it and see if they go back to the Bible or not. Where are people getting these ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith? I presume the fault lies in education in this country, and more electives about the bible as a book of literature should be taught in high school. Occam's razor, if it's mentioned multiple times in one holy scripture, and adherents frequently adhere to it, it's because of it's presence in scripture and not some Christians pulling it out of their ass. This isn't quite a politics-and-religion thread, so I won't go out and quote chapter and verse in it. (Neither are Jewish dietary restrictions totally divorced from the Torah, or Muslim thoughts on paradise and prayer made up things apart from the Koran, etc etc) Just to touch upon ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith - Christianity is so divided on many issues because the source texts have been translated so many times that you could find something to confirm your belief if you looked hard enough. Take marriage, for example - from conversations with my (earthly) father, (who art a reverend) the biblical concept of marriage is not what we understand it to be today, yet the church has created it to be what it is now regardless. Exegesis is important, and like laypeople reading medical texts, they'll often read seeking confirmation rather than truth. So 'mainstream ideas of christianity' are all over the fucking map, and understandably so. Compare the King James translation to something more 'modern'. Just people with different slants on the same source texts based on their personal bias.
I too understand some of the differences in theology stemming from different ways of translating the various Hebrew and Greek words. Abortifacient drugs themselves are interpreted pretty often in the other way as far as Biblical proscription. I’m interested in whether there’s broad agreement on common-sense workarounds to win on religious freedoms protected by the first amendment, and certain secular ideologies for what merits a compelling state interest. I’ve sadly run across too many people that are incapable of thinking of religious rights as anything more than excuses for discrimination, and who’s apprehension of nuance extends to comparisons with Aztec child sacrifice and stoning of gays. Maybe an election loss is sufficient to draw compromise on this issue, or maybe it will take several and these won’t happen for a few years down the line.
Not every interpretation of mainstream religious texts will result in clear examples of warranting exemptions (demanding them in a free, liberal society) or have actually good workarounds that preserve secular ideologies (honestly, in these parts, sometimes held as sacred as religious convictions. Tantamount to “It doesn’t matter about access to health care, it matters if my religion says it was metaphorically denied in this case”). I happen to think pastors refusing to marry gays, and churches refusing to hire gay pastors (if their religious sect calls it an abomination) are common sense exemptions. The abortifacient issue when you force nuns to be the middlemen(middlewomen?) is another common-sense exemption. Find another road if you’re actually serious about sharing society with the religious, and don’t treat them as barely worthy of consideration. I agree with recent Supreme Court rulings regarding overtly religious institutions, some closely-held businesses, and religious places of instruction. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists go run your nonprofit aid organization without violating your religious conscience. Governments, concern yourselves with real examples of discrimination in public schools and private businesses, and respect the civil rights of others.
I’ve seen a lot of poorly concealed attempts (from others in this thread) to say religious citizens are second class citizens and need to be told by their societal betters which civil rights they will allow them to hold, and which parts of their religion they must discard in order to be allowed to live free of arrest and fines. This probably needs an electoral, legislative, or cultural rebuke of a size greater than Biden embracing it, and losing the election based on that view. Some people only see the world in terms of power dynamics, and sanction the application of force towards the undesirables in society. It’s really too bad for unity and the future, but don’t expect people of my political persuasion to just accept terms of surrender.
|
Your side of the aisle is restricting movement into the US by muslims. You completely gloss over this because nuns have to provide healthcare. And then you call out the other side of discriminating religious people
|
On September 15 2020 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2020 05:06 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 15 2020 01:54 Danglars wrote:On September 15 2020 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On September 14 2020 23:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 23:33 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 14 2020 22:02 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2020 20:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am not describing faith, I am describing religion. I have zero problem with people believing in what ever spirituality. I don't understand it, but if they get something positive out of it, that's cool. But then you go to organized religion, and even the better ones can't simply live and let live. Into almost every organized religion, there is some code imprinted, where they fail to comply with some rule of modern society. Be it missionizing, be it condemning homosexuality or abortion, be it ritually demeaning women.
Sure my language was provoking, but I really can't stand the hipocricy of fundamental Christians, or any other religion, to move the world backwards because a book that was written and rewritten in the last 2000 years tells them so. So here’s the thing, I agree with basically everything you say here, but I think the proper rhetorical approach towards those who do bad shit in the name of God is not one that casts broad aspersions as to how religion itself works as a thing humans do. There are millions of American Christians who know that fundamentalism and sola scriptura/fide are wrong and that they are used to justify all sorts of awful shit, but we’ll never get those people solidly opposed to Trump and his brand of political apologists a la Danglars if something they consider very important, religion, is routinely ridiculed like a Bill Mahar special. It’s folks like Bill Mahar and their one dimensional takes on religion that give conservatives the room to claim that the left wants to outlaw their faith and other silly shit. I grew up with multiple people who became pastors and feel it’s my duty to make sure they remember just how radically left Jesus was, so this is a topic near and dear to me I don't think there's such a dividing line between fundamentalists and your average everyday Christian, even the ones who agree with much of what i think about politics. The issue of massive grassroots belief that being gay will send a person to hell, for example, is harmful way beyond each individual that believes such things. You cannot take that homophobia out of the religion because its there in the texts. Sure, tone is important when addressing religious people, but the idea that they might change their mind about something like that because we are respectful is something I just can't see any evidence of, and these are important issues that leave alot of people having a shitty life. Totally disagree man, the presence of homophobia in religious texts only poisons the well of a religion if one tries to regard a religion as a strictly textual, hard and fast rule based enterprise. Many mainline prot denominations in the US actively prohibit that kind of biblical exegesis, and it serves as a helpful dividing line between what I think are good and bad approaches to Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions). *looks up exegesis* I mean the whole point of abrahamic religion is to be rule based. That's why it began, that's what it is. Its about law. I get your point with regards to protestants, maybe I'm stereotyping based on what I've seen of the US, but I had the impression the evangelical/catholic Christians over there massively outnumber protestants, and that's where most of the hatred is. The bible isn't why people are anti-abortion or homophobic. The bible says basically nothing about homosexuality (I believe it has two verses that can easily be handwaved away pretty easily with historical context) and actually gives instructions on how to commit abortions, in addition to specifying lower punishments for killing a pregnant woman than woman and child. It says infinitely more about eating shellfish than it does either of those topics. It's like the people saying the bible prohibits masturbation based on the story of Onan back in the early 1900s. Read that story, it's fucking nuts and no one could reasonably infer that as a rule from it. That view had a lot more to do with the specific people promoting it than their religious books. Personally, if you aren't willing to grant the church of satan the same rights then you shouldn't extend them to the others. It's part of why I enjoy it when they do things like sue to get a statue of Baphomet next to the 10 commandments at a court house (may have the wrong satanic organization... one is humanist and a few others are weird cults). edit: Had a wrong word in the onan section Many many verses on homosexuality, spread between both testaments. Googling will avail you much in this regard. The Bible is precisely the reason many Christians are opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, and for proof of this, ask them why they think God is against it and see if they go back to the Bible or not. Where are people getting these ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith? I presume the fault lies in education in this country, and more electives about the bible as a book of literature should be taught in high school. Occam's razor, if it's mentioned multiple times in one holy scripture, and adherents frequently adhere to it, it's because of it's presence in scripture and not some Christians pulling it out of their ass. This isn't quite a politics-and-religion thread, so I won't go out and quote chapter and verse in it. (Neither are Jewish dietary restrictions totally divorced from the Torah, or Muslim thoughts on paradise and prayer made up things apart from the Koran, etc etc) Just to touch upon ludicrous ideas about mainstream topics of a faith - Christianity is so divided on many issues because the source texts have been translated so many times that you could find something to confirm your belief if you looked hard enough. Take marriage, for example - from conversations with my (earthly) father, (who art a reverend) the biblical concept of marriage is not what we understand it to be today, yet the church has created it to be what it is now regardless. Exegesis is important, and like laypeople reading medical texts, they'll often read seeking confirmation rather than truth. So 'mainstream ideas of christianity' are all over the fucking map, and understandably so. Compare the King James translation to something more 'modern'. Just people with different slants on the same source texts based on their personal bias. I too understand some of the differences in theology stemming from different ways of translating the various Hebrew and Greek words. Abortifacient drugs themselves are interpreted pretty often in the other way as far as Biblical proscription. I’m interested in whether there’s broad agreement on common-sense workarounds to win on religious freedoms protected by the first amendment, and certain secular ideologies for what merits a compelling state interest. I’ve sadly run across too many people that are incapable of thinking of religious rights as anything more than excuses for discrimination, and who’s apprehension of nuance extends to comparisons with Aztec child sacrifice and stoning of gays. Maybe an election loss is sufficient to draw compromise on this issue, or maybe it will take several and these won’t happen for a few years down the line. Not every interpretation of mainstream religious texts will result in clear examples of warranting exemptions (demanding them in a free, liberal society) or have actually good workarounds that preserve secular ideologies (honestly, in these parts, sometimes held as sacred as religious convictions. Tantamount to “It doesn’t matter about access to health care, it matters if my religion says it was metaphorically denied in this case”). I happen to think pastors refusing to marry gays, and churches refusing to hire gay pastors (if their religious sect calls it an abomination) are common sense exemptions. The abortifacient issue when you force nuns to be the middlemen(middlewomen?) is another common-sense exemption. Find another road if you’re actually serious about sharing society with the religious, and don’t treat them as barely worthy of consideration. I agree with recent Supreme Court rulings regarding overtly religious institutions, some closely-held businesses, and religious places of instruction. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists go run your nonprofit aid organization without violating your religious conscience. Governments, concern yourselves with real examples of discrimination in public schools and private businesses, and respect the civil rights of others. I’ve seen a lot of poorly concealed attempts (from others in this thread) to say religious citizens are second class citizens and need to be told by their societal betters which civil rights they will allow them to hold, and which parts of their religion they must discard in order to be allowed to live free of arrest and fines. This probably needs an electoral, legislative, or cultural rebuke of a size greater than Biden embracing it, and losing the election based on that view. Some people only see the world in terms of power dynamics, and sanction the application of force towards the undesirables in society. It’s really too bad for unity and the future, but don’t expect people of my political persuasion to just accept terms of surrender.
I thought that the law currently took care of this, though? Religious freedom up until you infringe on the rights of others, right? Someone has the freedom to believe in X, but if they take illegal action Y, then that's where the problem lies (regardless of whether the motivation was religious faith or something else). Someone could use a Bible verse to justify their homophobia, and very few people would argue that it's illegal to hate on the LGBT community (just immoral), unless we're delving into a scenario where it's illegal to commit a specific action of discrimination. But are there really people promoting the idea that we should fine or arrest someone who's privately homophobic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
