<p>I do not think that PA Father is asking you to accept his faith; he is explaining his own and asking you to realize that that is his view of the world. Apparenlty, “tolerance” doesn’t extend that far.</p>
<p>It irks me to no end that the “tolerant” people won’t put up with views that they don’t like. It also irks me to no end to see how distorted our culture has become - I don’t think many people realize how sick it is to be among people who think that pre-marital sex with random people is a healthy thing, or that drugs are normal, and that drinking to excess should be praised. If you can understand that the “values” which are expressed on college campuses are light-years away from mainstream America, you can start to realize that dissent is a good thing.</p>
<p>The Christians can speak, but y’all don’t have to listen. You can hold counter-speeches, counter-rallies, and have groups that promote your own values. What you can’t do is silence dissent and pretend that a bunch of people don’t exist.</p>
<p>If someone were doing the same thing with Muslims, minorities, or the poor, y’all would be up in arms. IMO, there is no material difference. I don’t care who wants to speak - go right ahead. It is a sad day for America when we start making value judgments about who has the “worth” to make their views known.</p>
<p>Actually, Christians are not banned from speaking against pre-marital sex. In a sense, you are implying homosexuality is a “behavior”. The University’s stand is that gays/lesbians are like race and religions and therefore Christians are banned from making hateful speech against them, just as they are banned from making hateful speech against Muslims/Hindus and vice versa. It’s a lot about where you stand at the first place.</p>
<p>I don’t find the arguments that homosexuality is an unchangeable trait to be compelling, though some people may have a disposition toward it, as pafather mentioned.</p>
<p>I never said that freedom of expression is unlimited; one needs a compelling gov’t interest to limit such expression. </p>
<p>Different types of expression are treated differently. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the wearing of black armbands in high school is 1) symbolic speech and 2) protected by the First Amendment, despite the potential for disruption.</p>
<p>I think you are (deliberately) minimizing how high a standard “substantial gov’t interest” is in order to further your beliefs.</p>
<p>Yeah, I live in a country that imprisons people without a trial. They are either not US citizens, at which point I want to know why the heck they want to take advantage of our rights and destroy our country, or they are called… people awaiting trial! We don’t want someone accused of mass murder wandering the streets while we wait to bring him to trial. Go figure. </p>
<p>That, of course, is completely irrelevant - you and I both know that you’re full of it. You probably cannot name a single person who, in the last 10 years, was indefinitely imprisoned for speech. If you can, it’s one out of three hundred million. Clear on the difference? </p>
<p>This country allows you to speak against it without fear of imprisonment or sanction. Why do Christians not get your rights? Why the discrimination? Are liberals so special that they are afforded extra rights? Or are conservatives so backwards that they aren’t allowed to share in the same rights - much in the way that, oh, vast numbers of minorities have been mistreated and blocked from full participation in American life?</p>
<p>The First Amendment lacks the asterisk and corresponding footnote qualifier that says it doesn’t apply to people that liberals don’t like. Live with a little dissent. Figure out what the other side is saying - even if you disagree with the conclusions, the underlying thought is meritorious. Learn from others, not just people you like or agree with. If you substituted any other group for “Christians,” y’all would be up in arms about the discrimination.</p>
<p>If someone were doing the same thing with Muslims, minorities, or the poor, y’all would be up in arms. IMO, there is no material difference. I don’t care who wants to speak - go right ahead</p>
<hr>
<p>but thats the point…actions speaking out against homosexuals is the same as speaking out against Muslims, minorities or the poor.</p>
No, and you’re eternal proof that most people can’t read. </p>
<p>First of all, where did PA Father say that the legal system should accomodate his views? I really missed the part where he advocated legal discrimination against gays. Oh, wait… maybe because the only place that happened is in your messed-up head.</p>
<p>I can speak out against a lot of stuff if I want to - I can speak up against getting too drunk, driving SUVs, buying real furs, smoking, having too many kids, eating meat, or any other number of behaviours… BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT I WANT THOSE BEHAVIOURS TO BE ILLEGAL.</p>
<p>Clear? If you truly can’t understand the distinction between socially decrying certain behaviours and advocating for their illegality, I’ll try to explain it in monosyllabic words. Or I can just assume that you don’t care about what PA Father said, but instead are twisting his words to suit your views. </p>
<p>Second, you’re conception of the situation is remarkable in its lack of connection to reality. Let’s get some things straight:
There is a difference between “speech” and “hateful speech.”
“Hate speech” is not banned by the university in question. They are banning “harassing speech,” which they consider to be anything not in line with their uber-liberal views.
Hate speech is differnet from harassment.<br>
Never said that gays are engaged in a lifestyle choice. I will not correct this; your lack of reading skills are either the product of a horrible education, zealotry, or idiocy. Either way, it’s nothing that I can fix and thus will not waste my time on it. I can only suggest that you re-read my previous posts. </p>
<p>No one here is suggesting for changes to the legal system to accomodate religious views; no one is suggesting that Christians be allowed to harass gay students. The only thing that anyone is suggesting is that Christians be allowed to express their views about homosexuality. Oh no! The horrors! Politically-incorrect speech alert! </p>
<p>In any free society, there will invariably be dissent among the ranks as to how people should live and order their affairs. Now, I know that the liberals - at least those without properly functioning synapses - will stop reading and use this as an excuse to impose their own views on the rest of the country. That society, then, will cease to be free - it may be governed by angels - or men with the intentions of angels - temporarily, but will invariably collapse into a dictatorship and be free no more. A free society, then, unless made up of identically-minded people, will have dissent in its ranks. Invariably, people will condemn the actions of others or want to structure their lives differently. </p>
<p>Not even the most libertarian of thinkers, however, would condone murder or rape in the name of “tolerating” others viewpoints. A free society, therefore, needs some expression of public morality - some grounding to prevent utter anarchy. This is expressed in both our laws and our social norms - the former of which are an expression, in part, of the latter. Free speech is crucial to ensuring that those laws and social norms are reflective of every member of society. </p>
<p>Invariably, some members of society will want to engage in practices that are abhorrent to the rest of society. What about polygamy? Incest? Sex with children under the age of 10? Are you “imposing” yourself on others because you won’t let them engage in those practices? Are you not tolerant of cocaine users or heroin addicts because you tell your children to not use drugs? A bigot because you would discourage your daughter from entering into a polygamous marriage? Some people do believe - quite strongly - that those are victimless behaviours. That doesn’t mean that, as a society, we tolerate them. That’s what legislation is for. Without free speech, there is no public discourse about the value of the legal or social norms, which means that they are being imposed by someone other than by the will of the people. That is a sad day for America.</p>
<p>Dissent is a healthy part of a free society. Live with it, especially if you don’t like it. Just don’t try to tell me that people you don’t agree with should pipe down so you can have the warm fuzzies.</p>
<p>The only thing that anyone is suggesting is that Christians be allowed to express their views about homosexuality.</p>
<hr>
<p>this is not a direct comparion between the organizations but rather the actions: saying that, so should the KKK be allowed to express their views about the black race on a university campus?</p>
<p>whoever mentioned about specific cases referring to limits upon freedom of speech in a school setting, a previous post already provided information about that. so i doubt that would be allowed either.</p>
<p>In my mind, it’s a slippery slope from Bush’s “I can do anything, there’s a war on” to “I can make you shut up, there’s a war on.” Bush already is known to remove dissenters from his speeches; Congress had people removed from the State of the Union address over the t-shirts. Where will it end?</p>
<p>What you seem to miss is that I support free speech, free expression, etc. I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is and support the ACLU, which takes such cases to court regularly. But I also get to exercise my right of free expression and say that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle choice’ is an idiot.</p>
<p>I was just explaining the University’s position. You are entitled not to agree with it. That’s their policy; fly to Atlanta tomorrow and vent your anger there instead of engaging ad hominem argument here and trying to insult me or any other messenger. Civility is much appreciated!</p>
<p>When I said “laws tailoring to Christian view”, I meant not having laws protecting gays/lesbians because homosexuality is considered “sin” by Christianity. So calm down, I didn’t say “he advocated legal discrimination against gays”. You went on and on (almost putting me asleep) about different kinds of immoral BEHAVIOR. Did I not already point out that those that are against homosexuality usually consider it as “immoral ‘behavior’” by choice while those that support gays/lesbians acknowledge their sexual orientation as inborn trait? That’s why the debate often ends nowhere because of this fundamental difference. I am still unsure what all the drama and emotion from you are about.</p>
<p>*Hate speech is differnet from harassment. *
I am not sure I agree- it depends on circumstance and intensity wouldn’t you agree? and that may depend on perception of beholder</p>
<p>what level of harrassment would you agree is permissible on a college campus ( or workplace)?
Could you please find the place where you answered this? Thanks</p>
<pre><code>* Can you please find the point where I said that hate speech is acceptable in a college campus or workplace? Thanks. *
</code></pre>
<p>also see above- what differentiates hate speech from harrassment? And what level would be acceptable?
I feel I am being harrassed when I get religious or other solicitations at my home, or elsewhere.
I don’t like it when they follow me to my car, when they argue with me, and if I was a college student and had to live and work with people who were in my face about their idea about how I was living my life- I would view that as an unreasonable level of harrasment.
HOwabout you? as I asked above- what tips harrasment into “hate speech” and how do you tell the difference?</p>
<p>In my world- if I was targeted as a “homosexual” by those who felt that it was their “duty” to reform me- or at least to make sure I knew I was going to hell ( along with Jews- moneylenders- those in an interracial marriage etc- what else does the Bible prohibit?), it very well may cause emotional damage- and those who were doing the targeting would have had to know that they were intentionally inflicting emotional distress- but in their view perhaps they thought it was “necessary”
Does that make it any less damaging?
Sounds like hate speech to me.</p>
<p>I never said that hate speech is okay or harassment is okay. I’m sorry that you don’t understand that. I asked you a simple, straightforward question - to point to where I said that - and you talked about your feelings. The question wasn’t about your feelings; it was about you completely, deliberately misintepreting what I said.</p>
<p>From now on, please don’t put words into my mouth and don’t pretend that I said things which I haven’t said.</p>
Uh huh. Merely “explaining the university’s position.” Call I call you on your b.s. now? </p>
<p>I don’t engage in ad hominon attacks; as for civility - I do not treat fools lightly. Don’t want to be called a fool? Don’t act like one. Don’t put words in other’s mouths; don’t twist others words; live by the validity of your own arguments, not the misreading of others. Clear? </p>
<p>No fair reading of anything said in defense of the Christian students has advanced a legal consequence - i.e. laws against gays. It is merely about the right of Christians to protest.</p>
<p>As for behaviours… dahlin, you’re behind the times. Polygamy is a religious requirement for some people; paedophilia is an inborn trait, not a lifestyle choice - that is, the attraction to younger children is an attraction and not a choice; murderers have elevated levels of hormones and, often, decreased mental abilities. Many drug users do so because of underlying pscyhological issues. Alcoholism is a perfect example - is that a lifestyle choice or, given how frequently it runs in families, is there a biological basis for it? Neuroscience tells us that there’s a biological basis for nearly everything.</p>
<p>Then make your own thread about it. This is a free-speech thread about college campuses, not a “liberals bash Bush” thread. </p>
<p>I’ll be more than happy to discuss the Padilla situation (and the, ahem, one in three hundred million) there. Not here, not now, not the time and place.</p>
<p>Ariesathena and PAfather - thoughtful posts from both of you. But I think one fact you are both overlooking is that gays are subject to constant attacks in America today - verbal attacks, physical attacks, even fatal attacks. The Christian right is fond of claiming to be “under attack” - but who beats people up for being Christians? Who has people come up to them in public places and snarl “Christ-lover!” at them? Every day in America, gay people are beaten, abused, and reviled. Every day. The depth of anti-gay prejudice is hard to overstate. The line between anti-gay speech and incitement to violence is one that needs to be carefully monitored.
It’s legal to yell “Mosquito!” in a crowded theater. (Annoying, but legal.) It is not legal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There’s a reason for the difference.</p>
<p>Was I not explaining the university’s position? The quote you took was from ANOTHER POST. You need to keep things straight. </p>
<p>You said you don’t engage in ad hominon attacks? The following says otherwise:
</p>
<p>Where exactly did I say someone here has tried to suggest laws against gays? The quote you put down? Well, perhaps you need to reread the context. I was referring to abandoning codes that protect gays/lesbians simply because homosexuality is considered a sin (not inborn trait and thus receiving similar protection like race) by Christianity. You may want to check if you are the one that put words in other’s mouths?</p>
<p>As for those “inborn” behaviors you mentioned, those acts are criminalized because one party of the act is harmed or forced to perform the act without consent. Drug addiction isn’t inborn. Polygamy, like you said, is a religious requirement and what is it got to do with homosexuality? </p>
<p>You appear to be the one that misread/misunderstood others’ messages and positions and then attacked the messengers instead of the arguements. Even if I did misread, since when misreading others’ posts warrant ad hominem attack? Never did PAfather said I was twisting his words; nor did he engage in the kind of attack you did.</p>