DI Point/Counterpoint Column Up: “Just Because He’s Different”
You can read both sides here.
Essentially, Christian psychologist is under investigation by the Minneapolis Police to prove that he is “innocent” of bias in his handling of police psych evals. There are claims that he made comments against minorities and single moms, etc, but those were investigated by a court in Illinois and they were found with no merit. You can read on.
You can also read a letter in response to my article on breastfeeding. For the record, I don’t like how titles get elongated (editor has to make it fit and there is more space than just 4 words) and I think it might have led to more confusion than was necessary. But I am not talking about all feminists, I’m talking about a certain cross-section, one which I *have* defined in my column.
Eric Naing does an excellent job of countering your idiocy. He provides specific facts while you just hide behind your religion.
Your whole piece on this issue is devoid of content. What this really comes down to is your belief that an invisible man in the sky does not want gays to marry. This belief has no place in the marriage debate. This debate (like all debates) should be based on objective facts and reality. You have every right to believe that there is an all-knowing and all-powerful invisible man in the sky, but don’t expect anyone to take you too seriously, and especially don’t expect people to change based on what you believe this invisible man in the sky wants us to do.
You also accuse gays of practicing fascism, but you appear to have no idea what this word actually means (hint: fascism is a system of GOVERNMENT marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.) I suggest that you go out and buy yourself a dictionary (or just go to dictionary.com).
In the end, you ask how is the gay and lesbian community different from those who murdered Matthew Shepard? Please tell me that you’re not that big of an idiot.
And finally, you say “At a gay marriage debate last year I challenged the audience to come up with a reason to for me to support gay marriage.” No on has to convince you. It must be obvious to you that you are going to lose this one. One day in the not too distant future people will look at you with the same disgust as people who once opposed interracial marriage (or do you oppose interracial marriage too?).
Please, next time you write something for the DI, try to think of real arguments to make.
Comment by Anonymous Coward | September 14, 2006
His facts were wrong. Go a news.google.com search for “Michael Campion”. I’ve read every article. Not one alleged that he made those comments to the community relations board… they were allegedly made during interviews in Illinois, an accusation that found it’s day in court and was defeated. So much for specific facts, more like specific fiction.
Fascism is a political philosophy, and as far as excluding Christians from society, the LGBT community seems perfectly willing to use government to do it. a.k.a. Censorship.
I’ve made my views on gay marriage clear, and it didn’t rest on some “invisible man in the sky.
“No one has to convince you.” That’s exactly the point, and exactly why your side is nothing but a bunch of autocrats. This is a free society, make a convincing argument.
I am amused that you refuse to disclose your identity… Mr. Anonymous Coward. Or should I say Walter Boot?
Comment by John Bambenek | September 14, 2006
But you’re being a bit disingenous here. It’s not “Christians” that are targetted by the LGBT community. Especially considering that there are huge numbers of LGBT friendly churches and congregations. Believing that homosexuality is a choice isn’t a Christian belief, because not all Christians support that. It’s an ideological position and some use Christianity to support it. Just as you admit that feminism is not a monolithic catagory, neither is “Christian.” You’re attempt to speak for all Christians may allow you to act as if you’re part of a maligned majority, but it is not an accurate representation of the faith as a whole.
So having established that, why isn’t this psychologists ideological position subject to employer scrutiny. Do we not give Walmart impunity to fire workers attempting to organize into a union? Do we not allow people to be fired for speaking out against their corporate interests? Why can’t the police department ensure that their employees don’t use their job to propogate an ideology that they feel is harmful and out dated (which it kind of is).
Comment by K. Holmes | September 14, 2006
Fair enough, I should say certain Christians, ones I would argue that have their faith drive their politics, not their politics drive their faith. But that’s an aside.
First off, Walmart can’t fire people based on religious views, in some states, even for political views. However, we aren’t talking about private employers, we’re talking about a governmental agency that is bound by the Constitution. Governmental agencies shouldn’t be in the business of dictating which side wins in all but the most extreme cases.
Comment by John Bambenek | September 14, 2006