Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Coyote]

Maybe you should read some of the vitriol that mare has spewed towards Christians before you make such a statement. Maybe you shoud go visit a place like democrat underground to see exactly how much hate modern liberalism is capable of before you make such a statement.

What hatred towards Christians is expressed in Democratic Underground - specific examples?

Vitriol such as what?

Gems like this?


"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you.I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don'twant equal time. We don't want pluralism. Randall Terry (Founder of Operation Rescue) [TheNews-Sentinel (Fort Wayne, Indiana), August 16, 1993]

BILLY McCORMACK (Director of the Christian Coalition)
"I'd like for you to take - but your paper might not allow you to do it - and that is to take the Jewish element in the ACLU which is trying to drive Christianity out of the public place, and I'd like to see you do the something objective there. Because the ACLU is made up of a tremendous amount of Jewish attorneys." (Taped interview with the Los Angeles Times, November 14, 1990)

ROBERT SIMONDS (Founder and president of Citizens for Excellence in Education)
"America is now groaning! Atheistic secular humanist's should be removed from office and Christians should be elected. We can all then rejoice continually as our children and our nation will be more safe. Government and true Christianity are inseparable." (How to Elect Christians to Public Office, 1985)

Gary Potter, President, Catholics for Christian Political Action
When the Chris-tian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distri-bution of pornography, no more abortion on demand, and no more talk of rights for homo-sexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism (i.e., multicultural-ism) will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil.

Every group has it's extremists. Extremism by definition is intolerant of descent - whether it's a political ideology (conservative or liberal), a religion, or cultural identity.

My favorite quote - from a religious person I admire:

Every fundamentalist movement I've studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion. - Karen Armstrong

 

[vyo476]

Maybe you should read some of the vitriol that mare has spewed towards Christians before you make such a statement. Maybe you shoud go visit a place like democrat underground to see exactly how much hate modern liberalism is capable of before you make such a statement.

Suggesting that a member of the forum would condone and support the systematic annihiliation of a subsection of the populace sounds a little like a personal attack to me, but I've lost count of the number that have passed between you and Mare, so what the hell, right?

I've known plenty of liberals who haven't been fond of Christianity. The only ones who would ever advocate anti-Christian genocide are so far off the deep end that they're not very liberal anymore - after all, an ideology that promotes freedom of religion wouldn't do well to start slaughtering people based on their religion, would it?

All movements have fundamentalists who take things to an extreme. I'm sure you're familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church; obviously, Christianity isn't immune.

Thoreau? He was a classical liberal. Modern conservativisim is one in the same with classical liberalism. The same is true for the underground railroad. All of your examples are of classical liberals.

So? The ideals of modern liberals and classical liberals are much the same; the means may differ, but that's only because there are more of us now. Does modern conservativism promote conscientous objection, like Thoreau did? Does modern conservativism promote racial equality, like the Underground Railroad did? Hmm...wasn't it you that said, "Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator," over and over again?

Define "drastic" public action. Is teaching a thing as one possible action "drastic"?

Making laws based entirely on religious dogma. Of course, my personal support for such things would be subjective; I wouldn't reject such a law directly due to the source, but I would question it and would arrive at my own conclusion.

You're trying to bait me into a conversation on Creationism vs. Darwinisim in schools. Okay, fine: I'd advocate that both sides of things get taught, but not necessarily in the same place. Darwin belongs in science class because he was a scientist; Creationism belongs in theology or philosophy, or perhaps world history if a school does not offer one of the former choices (which they ought to, but nobody is perfect).

Many times, arguments against the teaching of Creationism stem from it being taught in biology classes, where it does not belong. I have no problem with kids learning about Creationism (as a theory, as we learn about evolution), but I do have a problem with it being stuck into a biology class between molecular studies and taxonomy.

Three or four shoud suffice.

In 2003, Lawrence vs. Texas invalidated all laws in America pertaining to private, consensual sexual practices. The decision struck down laws specifically outlawing same-sex acts in the following states: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

Sexual freedom is a very liberal idea, is it not? Yet laws restricting consensual sexual activities between adults were on the books in every state in the Union as late as 1960.

So there's fifty for you...need I go on?

So now evidence is strongly suggesting that it is a genetic disorder. Do you believe that special rights should be given and established institutions redefined because of a genetic defect that affects 2 to 3% of the population?

First, your idea of "granting special rights" is a fallacy that, to my knowledge, is only sold by you. Any "classical liberal" would go a little green at the implications such a statement - after all, to say that you are opposed to the government "granting special rights" seems to suggest that the government "grants" all rights, instead of those rights being naturally vested in individuals and recognized by the government.

Shooting past that, I'm assuming that the "established institutions redefined" comment pertains to marriage. I apologize if allowing Steve and Mike to get married redefines your marriage in some way.

And your point is? These are individuals exercising their right to free speech. That is a far cry from imposing the force of government on people to have what they want. People like falwell don't scare me because they have nothing but talk. They will tell people what they should and shouldn't, but they aren't asking for laws (like modern liberals) that demand. There is a clear difference. Can you give an example of someone like falwell demanding law that would literally force people to accept his view of the way things should be?

Hmm...

In 1979, Falwell was a founder of the Moral Majority, a political action umbrella group that fought to enact Bible-based values as American law. The group, like Falwell, was opposed to women's rights, legalized abortion, homosexuals, and pornography (which Falwell defined very broadly), and in favor of thinly-veiled censorship of artwork or organizations that expressed different opinions.

http://www.nndb.com/people/558/000022492/

Perhaps it would be in your best interest to follow the links I post.

Strange. You were perfectly content to compare classical liberals who fought slavery and such with modern liberals.

How is that strange? Many of the "classical liberals" who fought slavery weren't Democrats. In fact, at the time, the Democratic Party represented most of the pro-slavery side of the debate - it was those who newfangled Republicans who opposed it. A new party based on new ideas and a revolutionary outlook on racial relations - not exactly "conservative."

Historically speaking, I'd say the last socially-progressive Republican was Teddy Roosevelt and the first socially-progressive Democrat (of the modern age anyway, discussing the history of the Democratic Party in America is difficult) was FDR, in many ways the first "modern liberal."

 

[vyo476]

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Would you?

Yes, I would be. That wasn't the point of the question, though. The point was: would outlawing the worship of Jesus be just as bad to you as outlawing Christians (in the sense of, creating a law that explicitly prohibits people from "being Christians"). As I've already pointed out in this post, every state in this country, at one time or another, frowned on "deviant" sexuality, and many had laws that explicitly forbade same-sex activities. If you can say there weren't any laws prohibiting people from being homosexuals, in effect saying "You can be gay so long as you don't do anything gay", and be comfortable with how equitable that is, could you be comfortable with people saying "You can be Christians so long as you don't do anything Christian"?

With the exception of the pagans, you are talking about individuals, not the force of government. There is a vast chasm between the actions of individuals and the force of government. Modern liberals are perfectly content to make laws demanding that things be the way they want them and as such, are perfectly willing to punish those who refuse to accept their way. The willingness to make law reflects a willingness to punish those who won't go along.

Here's one small piece of the long, sad puzzle that is early Mormon history:

Copy of a Military Order by the Governor of Missouri. HEAD QUARTERS, MILITIA, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838. Sir:--Since the order of the morning to you, directing you to cause 400 mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Rees, Esq. of Ray and Wiley E. Williams Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operations with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Wallock, of Marion County, to raise 500 men and march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with 500 men to proceed to the same point, for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the North. They have been directed to communicate with you by express. You can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead, therefore, of proceeding, as at first directed, to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond, and there operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks, of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred men of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command. I am very respectfully Your Obedient Servant Lilburn W. BOGGS Command-in-chief. To Gen. John B. Clark., Fayette, Howard County

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order#Text_of_the_Order

That sounds an awful lot like "force of government" to me. The infamous Extermination Order was given in response to a rash of Mormon vigilante attacks. Granted, those attacks were pretty gruesome - but were perpetrated by relatively few of the Mormons.

I find no records of women being locked up. Further, in the times you are talking about, when you speak of liberals, you are talking about classical liberalism as defined by the constitution, not modern liberalism.

If you are curious about the difference, ask yourself a question. Would you like to live in a US where the Constitution, as it was written were strictly adhered to?

Generally, I find political labels ineffective at describing individuals. I, myself, contain many elements of classical liberalism, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they had to say.

And, in answer to your question, I would like to live in a US where the Constitution is strictly adhered to. Strictly interpreted, though? No.

I don't believe that you have ever given any real thought to what you just said. Look at the great leftist hell holes if you want to see where modern liberalism ends up if given its way. Do you think that lenin or stalin, or mao or pol pot set out to kill millions upon millions and drive their people into abject misery? They began with the highest ideals. Ideals that I am sure that you would agree with. The thing is, you can't use the power of government to enforce ideals.

I do not advocate total government control. I don't even advocate as much government control as the present potential Democratic candidates for President (I liked Joe Biden and Mike Gravel - who was once practically a communist himself and who mellowed out with time).

An essential part of liberalism is trying new ideas and learning from the past. We do use the government, but not in the same way that Mao or Pol Pot did. In a lot of cases, I would prefer that we use government less, so perhaps I'm not the kind of liberal you should be having this debate with; I prefer social activism to forced government change in most cases. However, I also recognize that government can be a useful tool, and in some cases the only applicable tool - when it comes to designating hate crimes to decrease prevalence, a law works faster than going in and presenting progressive social programs that require subtlety to be effective.

In any case, none of the people I surround myself with are as rigid as Pol Pot was in his control of the people of Cambodia through the government. I can only comment on liberalism as I have experienced it, so perhaps someone else ought to take over this argument - someone who does advocate such rigid governmental control.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

PaleRider genuinely believes in the humanity and right to life of that "clump of cells" - and I respect that. I'll give on that.

However - this particular argument is very very weak. In fact, pathetic and, without facts to back opinion with I'll agree with you - it smells suspiciously of obuscation.
(someone pass the cheetos please)

I don't know that I'm willing to give on this, Pale's lack of compassion for living people out in the world is so egregious that I think my assessment is probably true. Perhaps he believes it, but it certainly looks like some kind of transference to me. How does one become so involved with pre-born people and so scornful of born people--I remember Ronald Reagan who believed that life began at conception and ended at birth, or course he had dementia so...

Part of what doesn't compute is that Pale is only too happy to tear apart families that are raising children if those families are not up to his religious standards. So much for caring for children. Again, this is a stance I have seen over and over in Catholics.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Maybe you should read some of the vitriol that mare has spewed towards Christians before you make such a statement. Maybe you shoud go visit a place like democrat underground to see exactly how much hate modern liberalism is capable of before you make such a statement.

Put up or shut up, Pale, quote an attack by me on Christians where I advocated ANY kind of violence or the restriction of their rights to make them less than my own. I have not done that, I have campaigned against the violence and bigotry visited upon us by the Christian majority--never once have I called for any kind of retribution such as violence or taking their rights away.

I would not take your marriage away from you, but you would take mine from me. Again, you will take for yourself rights and privileges that you would happily deny to others, I will not.

 

[vyo476]

I don't know that I'm willing to give on this, Pale's lack of compassion for living people out in the world is so egregious that I think my assessment is probably true. Perhaps he believes it, but it certainly looks like some kind of transference to me. How does one become so involved with pre-born people and so scornful of born people--I remember Ronald Reagan who believed that life began at conception and ended at birth, or course he had dementia so...

Compassion is subjective. In your view of it, no, he isn't very compassionate. To be honest, he comes across as a little icy to me on occasion too - but in his own way, Pale is a compassionate person. The concept of innocence and choice is paramount to understanding his morality - fetuses are innocent and undeserving of death because they have made no choices, have done absolutely nothing to deserve death. While you or I might believe that no one deserves death, period, that is simply a part of our own unique views of compassion. I think I understand pale rider's compassion (if I'm way off base feel free to correct me, Pale).

We've discussed, during the long and arduous abortion debates, the development of an anti-ovulation drug, which would effectively be a perfect contraceptive. If Pale's motives really were religiously-inspired, why would he have agreed that development of such a drug would be a good idea?

Part of what doesn't compute is that Pale is only too happy to tear apart families that are raising children if those families are not up to his religious standards. So much for caring for children. Again, this is a stance I have seen over and over in Catholics.

I think you're confusing Pale with numinus but I could be wrong. What do you mean?

Anyway, I thought you were leaving this thread? Couldn't resist?

 

[Coyote]

I don't know that I'm willing to give on this, Pale's lack of compassion for living people out in the world is so egregious that I think my assessment is probably true. Perhaps he believes it, but it certainly looks like some kind of transference to me. How does one become so involved with pre-born people and so scornful of born people--I remember Ronald Reagan who believed that life began at conception and ended at birth, or course he had dementia so...

Because they are all people...and as such he grants them all the fundamental right to life and right to defend their own life - unless by a due process of law they are deprived of it (capital punishment). I've never heard him argue that any one should be deprived of the right to life simply for being who they are.

But...I'm on the fence on this....still.

On the other hand, I find the thought of a return to a society with no seperation of state and church to be quite chilling. I suppose I would end up barbecued on a stake somewhere. I just hope it's a bourbon based Texas sauce.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Compassion is subjective. In your view of it, no, he isn't very compassionate. To be honest, he comes across as a little icy to me on occasion too - but in his own way, Pale is a compassionate person. The concept of innocence and choice is paramount to understanding his morality - fetuses are innocent and undeserving of death because they have made no choices, have done absolutely nothing to deserve death. While you or I might believe that no one deserves death, period, that is simply a part of our own unique views of compassion. I think I understand pale rider's compassion (if I'm way off base feel free to correct me, Pale).

We've discussed, during the long and arduous abortion debates, the development of an anti-ovulation drug, which would effectively be a perfect contraceptive. If Pale's motives really were religiously-inspired, why would he have agreed that development of such a drug would be a good idea?



I think you're confusing Pale with numinus but I could be wrong. What do you mean?

Anyway, I thought you were leaving this thread? Couldn't resist?

I can't always put up with his bucolic end-productl, I intend to mostly talk about him rather than to him. He says that any transsexual's marriage--specifically my own marriage of many years--should be taken away from us, he also is dead set against any homosexual couple being able to continue raising their children. He's compassionless in his attempts to destroy families that don't fit his religious pattern.

I've known a lot of Catholics--I used to go to the Catholic church when I was younger and Pale has most of the dogma down pat--he just denies the source. As far as the non-ovulation drug, I don't know how the Pope feels about that either, I know he's dead-set against RU-486. Pale's religious bent is also expressed in his judgment: fetuses are innocent and deserving of our protection, f8cking queers don't even deserve the equal rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

He is also maintaining that homosexual people are damaging his country, but he has refused to prove this wild-ass claim. He's just another hater who has judged himself worthy of rights and privileges that others don't deserve. Talk about the lowest common denominator! Compassionless greed and self-aggrandizement.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because they are all people...and as such he grants them all the fundamental right to life and right to defend their own life - unless by a due process of law they are deprived of it (capital punishment). I've never heard him argue that any one should be deprived of the right to life simply for being who they are.
But...I'm on the fence on this....still.

On the other hand, I find the thought of a return to a society with no seperation of state and church to be quite chilling. I suppose I would end up barbecued on a stake somewhere. I just hope it's a bourbon based Texas sauce.

He has never called for our deaths, but what is life without our families? Without protection under the law? He would go back to it being fair game to attack us, deny us jobs, homes, relationships. The fact that he drivels on about the poor Christians getting picked on shows the depth of his denial or hypocrisy when no State restricts Christian freedom and all States had laws denying homosexual people equal rights and even today 2/3 of the States have enshrined religious dogma into their Constitutions to outlaw gay marriages. Some States have gone so far as to word their ban in such a way that even civil unions are denied. According to the FBI statistics, gay and trans-people are being assaulted and killed at higher rates since George the Religious Monkey got into office and started pushing for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Is there anything in any of Pale's writing to suggest that he would object to the Iranian technique for dealing with gay and trans-people? You know he can't openly call for our deaths on the site, but do you really think he wouldn't if he COULD?

 

[palerider]

What the Pales of the world don't realize is that you can't piss on other people and tell them it's raining and get away with it forever. Peace requires equality, and there will never be peace as long as the Pales of the world take rights and privileges for themselves that they happily deny to others. Pale cannot even countenance the US Constitution--how sad is that?

Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator and any attempt to keep those who are willing to work at the level of the lowest common denominator will never realize peace.

Mare, you have the same right to marry as me. No one has denied you the right to marry because of your sexual preference. What you want is a special right that no one presently has. You want what you want and you, and people like you are willing to bring the force of government to bear on everyone to have it and to punish those who aren't willing to capitulate. That, my dear, is tyrany. The thesis of this thread is the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism and you have demonstrated it perfectly.

I keep reading Pale's drivel, arguing about whether it was actually the US when the slaughter of the indigenous peoples began--verbal spam, nothing more. Power is what matters to Pale because it counters his fear, even though he won't admit it, he's driven by fear, that's why he has no compassion for people and covers it up by pretending hyper-compassion for clumps of cells. The clumps of cells are no threat to him, it's once those cells become real people that they become a danger that he needs to contol with his rules and laws and religion.

Naming events that happened before the constitution was written and suggesting that they happened in the United States is verbal spam. And calling me a fundi, or a bible thumper or a catholic or suggesting that I am afraid doesn't help your case either. You haven't been able to provide a rational reason to redefine marriage so you are simply lashing out. That is also the nature of modern liberalism.

What a sad way to live one's life, in fear, compassionless, willing to tear other's lives apart in a futile attempt to assuage a sempiternal fear. As sad and sick as that is, I still would not take for myself any right or privilege that I would deny to him. That's the salient difference between us and all the blather about Liberals and Conservatives is just obfuscation.

I am not asking for special rights. It is you who has had no rights taken and is asking for special rights on top of the rights that everyone here enjoys. It is you who is willing to use the force of government to redefine an institution into something that it has never been. It is you who is willing to push your world view upon everyone and punish anyone who disagrees with the law. It is you who is essentially authoritarian, and it is you, above all, who has proven my original point.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator and any attempt to keep those who are willing to work at the level of the lowest common denominator will never realize peace.Mare, you have the same right to marry as me. No one has denied you the right to marry because of your sexual preference. What you want is a special right that no one presently has. You want what you want and you, and people like you are willing to bring the force of government to bear on everyone to have it and to punish those who aren't willing to capitulate. That, my dear, is tyrany. The thesis of this thread is the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism and you have demonstrated it perfectly.Naming events that happened before the constitution was written and suggesting that they happened in the United States is verbal spam. And calling me a fundi, or a bible thumper or a catholic or suggesting that I am afraid doesn't help your case either. You haven't been able to provide a rational reason to redefine marriage so you are simply lashing out. That is also the nature of modern liberalism.I am not asking for special rights. It is you who has had no rights taken and is asking for special rights on top of the rights that everyone here enjoys. It is you who is willing to use the force of government to redefine an institution into something that it has never been. It is you who is willing to push your world view upon everyone and punish anyone who disagrees with the law. It is you who is essentially authoritarian, and it is you, above all, who has proven my original point.

Love is hate, war is peace, equality is inequality, yep, you've got doublespeak down to a science. And tyranny is spelled with two "nn".

 

[palerider]

Love is hate, war is peace, equality is inequality, yep, you've got doublespeak down to a science. And tyranny is spelled with two "nn".

What, no punctuation errors? That is the best point you have made since this began. The rest was founded on illusion with little, if any, basis in reality.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What, no punctuation errors? That is the best point you have made since this began. The rest was founded on illusion with little, if any, basis in reality.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Pale. When your compassionless, hateful attitude--religious or not--sights in on the legal marriages of others and demands their destruction, then you put yourself beyond the pale.

 

[palerider]

Now, can you bring up any genuine cases of liberal persecution of Christians on par with what occurred to the Jews in Europe (as you were suggesting earlier)? And - particularly in Europe since you brought that up?

Full blown persecution doesn't usually happen over night coyote. It didn't even happen over night in the soviet union or china. Persecution happens in stages. It begins with disinformation. It is usually subtle and seemingly reasonable to non thinking people, and usually impossible to answer. It is easy to fall into it once a pattern is established. Even you do it. As a matter of fact, you have done it in this very discussion.

For example, your suggestion that a rational parallell can be drawn between Christians in the US today and the isolated incident of the salem witch trials, or those that carried out the inquistion even further back in history. What sort of answer do you expect when you attempt to draw such parallels? Do you really believe such comparisons are valid?

Once sufficient disinformation is spread around, it becomes possible to openly express a distaste for a group and once it becomes socially acceptable to hate out in the open, it becomes easier to move on to phase two. Actual discrimination (as opposed to the illusory discrimination described by mare. There is example after example of government entities disregarding actual legal rights and relegating Christians to second class status.

For example, Samuel B. Kent, a US district judge in the southern district of Texas made a decree that any student uttering the word Jesus would be arrested and incarcerated for six months. In his ruling he stated"

"And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendence at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this order better think again...Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."

This from a judge. You don't think that sounds like persecution?

Consider the case of Roberts vs Madigan. A teacher in a Denver elementary school was singled out when a bible that was duely carded into the library was removed by the principal and the teacher was forced to remove his personal bible from his desk. School officials didn't want that book "in the student's sight".

Then there was Raymond Raines, a fourth grader at Waring Elementary school in St. Louis, MO. A teacher noticed him one day bowing his head over his lunch in the cafeteria saying a silent prayer. The teacher ordered him to leave his lunch and sent him to the principal's office. He was singled out in full view of all the students in the cafeteria.

The principal told him that it was against the rules for him to bless his food before he ate it and ordered him not to do it again. Two more times he was caught blessing his food and both times he was singled out in front of all of the students in the cafeteria and taken to the principal's office and was disiplined.

The administration eventually segregated him from the rest of his classmates, singled him out for ridicule for his religious beliefs, and eventually suspended him for a week from school.

You don't think that is persecution?

A Christian club in a high school in Hampton, Va that called themselves Warriors for Christ organized a canned food drive to help a local YMCA women's shelter were told by the school administration that they couldn't call the drive the Easter Can Drive because such language couldn't be tolerated at the Kecoughton High School. They were told that it had to be called the spring can drive. Can you imagine a group of muslim students being told that they couldn't give an activity a name associated with ramadan?

A teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School in Houston, Tx shouted "this is garbabe" as she threw the Bibles of two students in the trash. Two sisters were carrying bibles when they walked into their classrom, the teacher noticed them and threw her fit. She hauled the sisters out of the class, took them to the principal and called the girl's mother and threatened to turn her into child protective services because Bibles were not allowed onto school property. Does that sound like persecution to you?

In another incident at the same school, officials confronted three students who had 10 Commandment book covers on their books. The covers were taken off the books and the students were informed that the 10 Commandments were hate speech that might offend other students. This doesn't sound like persecution to you?

How many more examples would you like? Interesting that you want examples "on par" with hitler's persecution of the jews. Look back into his very early days in power. It took a long time to go from subtle disinformation, to open public scorn to the ovens. It doesn't happen over night.

 

[palerider]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Pale. When your compassionless, hateful attitude--religious or not--sights in on the legal marriages of others and demands their destruction, then you put yourself beyond the pale.

Sorry mare, you anulled your marriage yourself, not me. Marriage is what it is. If you show up at the football field, with your helmet and pads and a football, you aren't going to play tennis. You can call it tennis till your heart's content, but it is still football.

You seem to think that this is something that I am personally responsible for. Why don't you tell the IRS about your situation and see if they are any more "compassionate" than me.