Thursday, May 30, 2013

The crowd has become the mob

It is amazing how intolerant of other cultures those asking for tolerance have become. The only thing more amazing in this story, is how nobody noticed that the name of the Founder of the Legion of Christ, had the same root word in his name as the spanish word for "sissy". And of course- he was convicted of clergy abuse.

26 comments:

Bill S said...

While this was just a matter of cultural differences, it is encouraging to see how people have decided not to tolerate gay bashing. There are things to tolerate and there are things not to tolerate. I feel sorry for those who can't tell the difference.

Theodore Seeber said...

The lack of tolerance by vigilantes while pleading for acceptance, more than any Church teaching or any other other political process, has turned me against homosexuals entirely.

Bill S said...

I wouldn't call them vigilantes. Activists maybe. They are fighting an uphill battle due to prejudices fostered by Christians.

Theodore Seeber said...

When Activists become a lynch mob, I call them vigilantes. When activists spray paint swastikas on churches, I call them vigilantes. When activists cut the head off of St. Joseph in the Grotto in Portland, I call them vigilantes. When activists smash the stained glass windows in the most gay friendly Catholic Parish in the United States of America, I call them vigilantes.

If you want to fight prejudice- start with your enemies, not your friends.

Bill S said...

You hold all homosexuals responsible for attacks against churches. That's not right.

Theodore Seeber said...

When I get home I am going to post the words of one homosexual that does not: Eve Tushnet.

But yes, if the activists are going to act like a mob, then there is no reason to support them any more than I would support the skinheads for trying to create a white homeland in Cascadia by blowing up banks.

Bill S said...

You can't judge a cause by the actions of its activists. Just because you don't agree with their methods it doesn't mean that their cause is wrong.

Theodore Seeber said...

If their cause was right and just, they would not need to resort to lying, insult, bullying, and vandalism to achieve it. The activists are the cause; and their cause is not worth supporting as stated.

Had they instead gone for pure equality and a separation of Church and State on marriage law, every Athiest, Catholic, and Mormon would be voting for civil unions. Get the government out of our churches, is an argument conservatives can get behind.

But because they do not want equality, but instead want FORCED acceptance, they have opposition.

You can torture us all you want but like Blessed Jose, we will still cry Viva Christo Rey.

Bill S said...

"If their cause was right and just, they would not need to resort to lying, insult, bullying, and vandalism to achieve it."

You're right. They don't need to resort to those things and they shouldn't. Your logic does not make sense if you say that those things make their cause wrong.

Theodore Seeber said...

The fact that they *DO* resort to those methods is enough to reject their cause until and unless somebody can come up with a sane and logical argument for their cause.

So far, nobody has. The best argument they have is to call everybody else a homophobe for not instantly accepting them, and then use these tactics to make sure all homophobes are ejected from society.

Bill S said...

Why don't people accept them? Why must they have to go through these great lengths to be accepted? Why should they stop fighting for that acceptance?

Theodore Seeber said...

People don't accept them automatically because they are instinctively a danger to the tribe. Homosexuals are an evolutionary mistake at best; and a real and present danger of sexual predation at worst.

That first would be MY intellectual reason to accept them- if it wasn't for the second.

Going to great lengths to try to gain acceptance just makes the problem WORSE, not better. It makes them appear to be sexual predators even when they aren't. "Accept our lifestyle of drugs, bars, promiscuity and recruitment of your children, so that we can do even more of it, or else we'll label you all homophobes and destroy your families anyway" is not a reasonable demand.

"Give us privacy, stop discriminating against our households, and get your government out of our church so that we can practice our form of household union in peace" IS a reasonable demand, and if that was truly their cause, I'd be back to supporting it in a second.

"Give us gay marriage in local areas where a large percentage of the population is homosexual, and we won't force your local areas where we don't live in the first place to accept us" is an even more reasonable demand that I would equally accept and vote for.

Do you see the difference?

Bill S said...

"Homosexuals are an evolutionary mistake at best; and a real and present danger of sexual predation at worst."

That's just hate speech and bigotry. You can't be taken seriously.

Theodore Seeber said...

It is an observation based on their actions. If they don't want to be stereotyped that way, then they need to get with the biological program of two gender mammalian species, and stop trying to get people to leave that system.

Has nothing to do with hate or bigotry, has to do with actual unbiased observation.

Also has nothing to do with religion, if you note, and everything to do with *staying unbiased* which is what you are supposed to do if you believe in the scientific method at all.

I suggest your own experience has damaged your bias to the point of not understanding basic evolution or biology.

Bill S said...

"they need to get with the biological program of two gender mammalian species, and stop trying to get people to leave that system."

They don't need to do any such thing. Nature does not dictate to us what we must do to get with the biological program. There is nothing in nature that prevents men from having sex with men or women with women. If that is their inclination, they are free to do it.

Theodore Seeber said...

If Nature doesn't dictate the biological program, why can't you have a child using only sperm in a rectum?

Sex, done successfully, requires the ability to make a child.

Your opinion is contrary to the facts, but what is new? Your entire philosophy is based on ignorance and a superstitious disregard for the supernatural.

Bill S said...

"a superstitious disregard for the supernatural"?

That cannot exist. A superstitious belief in the supernatural makes more sense.

Theodore Seeber said...

Only to those who have a superstitious and irrational fear of the supernatural.

Bill S said...

There is no supernatural to have an irrational fear about. Believing in the supernatural is the ultimate superstition.

Theodore Seeber said...

Once again, for there to be no supernatural, you have to know everything. Do you know everything, Bill? Or are you lying and just so afraid of the unknown supernatural that you deny its existence?

It is either one or the other. It cannot be both.

Bill S said...

If scientists haven't discovered evidence of the supernatural by now, then it doesn't exist.

Theodore Seeber said...

True scientists work in the supernatural, and therefore know it exists.

Fake popularizers of science, who wouldn't know a differential from an integral, are the ones who are afraid of the supernatural so much that they must deny it exists.

Bill S said...

"True scientists work in the supernatural, and therefore know it exists."

There is no supernatural in science. None whatsoever. Scientists check their beliefs in the supernatural at the front door before entering the lab, classroom, field, etc.

Theodore Seeber said...

In REAL science, of course the supernatural exists- it is where all the discoveries are yet to be made.

So I ask again, do you know everything, Bill? Or are there still discoveries yet to be made?

Also, the lab and classroom are NOT where real science can be done. All the lab and classroom are good for is learning old discoveries over and over. The real science- is in the supernatural, out where the unknown still exists.

Bill S said...

"In REAL science, of course the supernatural exists- it is where all the discoveries are yet to be made."

Ok. You're not using the word the same way as I am. You are saying that those questions that scientists have not been able to answer yet involve the supernatural.

The supernatural that doesn't exist are the biblical "God", angels, demons, heaven, purgatory, hell, miracles, etc.

I don't believe when we find out how life began or why the universe appears to be designed, etc. that the answer will provide proof that lunatics who believe in all that will be proved right.

Theodore Seeber said...

Except of course, we already have, and are able to duplicate the effect with the correct drugs.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at http://outsidetheaustisticasylum.blogspot.com.