Re: Hate Crimes? -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:29:27 11/30/11 Wed
Author: George
Subject: Re: Hate Crimes?
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Hate Crimes?" on 10:33:12 11/30/11 Wed

>>1. Who thinks that demanding Jews eat pork at a Seder
>>is a hate crime?
>>
>>2. Who thinks that demanding Muslims eat pork for
>>Ramadan is a hate crime?
>>
>>3. Who thinks that demanding that Christians allow an
>>unrepentant, practicing homosexual serve them the
>>Lord's Supper or baptize them is a hate crime?
>>
>>4. Who thinks that selling a Christian a turkey for
>>Thanksgiving that has been sacrificed to Allah
>>(without telling the buyer) is a hate crime?
>>
>>5. Who thinks that pretending to believe the
>>scriptures in order to defraud people who actually do
>>believe in them is a hate crime?
>>
>>6. Who thinks that the designation of a fully formed
>>human being as "the other" (because he hasn't taken
>>his very first breath yet,) and cutting off his arms
>>and legs, and smashing his skull is a hate crime?
>>
>>You guessed it. Christians and the unborn babies are
>>the officially designated "other." And virtually every
>>liberal in authority in civil or religious life these
>>days is perfectly comfortable with that designation.
>>The "other" are people who cause problems and/or get
>>in the way, and no one is upset about getting rid of
>>them, right?
>>
>>I finally did figure it out how the unborn got
>>designated "the other," but the folks who would post a
>>"No" answer to 3, 4, 5, and 6 would designate the
>>posting of my conclusion as a "hate crime" if I posted
>>it here.
>>
>>George
>
>George,
>
>I would answer "yes" to all of those except #2. I
>would modify it to this.
>
>4. Who thinks that subjecting workers to hearing
>Islamic rituals all day is a hate crime? Or telling
>them that if they don't like it they can find another
>job would be a hate crime?
>
>Then I would answer "yes, that is a hate crime". If
>all kinds of religious blessings were played inside a
>soundproof room over the turkeys, I don't think they
>would taste any different or be any less nutritious.
>;-)

Lois what is funny is that liberals pretty much claim that homosexuality is acceptable because it's genetically determined. And they also claim that a woman can kill her unborn child as she pleases (with proper medical assistance at the going capitalist rate) because she has the right to control her own body, with or without another person inside it.

Although at this point the proposition of genetic determination of homosexuality is as puerile as global warming, should it be discovered that homosexuality is an inborn trait, I predict that the following paradox will occur:

Women who have amniocentesis and discover that their unborn child is destined to be homosexual may abort it. Why? Because if they can only afford to have one child and be a working mom, they will want a child who will give them grandchild(ren.) But the liberals, who previously championed abortion on demand will declare the aborting of a homosexual fetus to be a hate crime, and genocide, and will prosecute any woman who tries to abort a homsexual fetus -- even though when the fetus is otherwise normal, it is toast when mommy doesn't want her. It's that old paradigma at work 24/7.

You see the demand for ersatz justice has created a very obvious and glaring lack of justice, with preferential treatment for anybody who demonstrates traits that were considered dangerously antisocial for the last 5,000 years, and draconian reprisals against anybody who behaves themselves.

The CofC provides such an example. It mercilessly prosecuted congregations that refused to obey the standing church laws/rules/ordinances on female ordination, but did absolutely nothing about congregations that refused to obey the standing church laws/rules/regulations regarding homosexual ordination.

I know that John and Matt say that the wrongs done to the Restorationists are over and done with, but they aren't -- not so long as the CofC continues to rub the Restorationists' faces in the fact that the church only prosecutes congregations for ordination violations when it is Restorationists that do them. When anybody else does the same thing, they're "in like Flynn" with the CorC leadership.

If you don't believe me, cite one congregation that has been locked out of its buildings and shut down for ordaining homosexual priests and allowing them to serve.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]