Indiana Governor brands opponents of anti-gay religious freedom bill ‘intolerant’
- WT literal F. When did it become a thing for conservatives to accuse progressives of being intolerant, bigots, hypocrites, etc? I thought they insisted that it is a person's right to be intolerant. Does intolerance only become a problem if they are the ones not being tolerated? Someone please explain to them that no one is passing laws against bigotry. We tolerate their views. They are free to tell the whole world that the Bible says black people are cursed and mixed race couples are sinful and deserve destruction, for example. In fact, it is very useful to know who these people are. No one is telling them to be in a mixed race couple if they believe it's sinful. Everyone supports their right to bring suit under the Constitution's Free Exercise of Religion clause if their personal practice has been infringed upon. But, that is *not* what RFRAs are, ergo the substitution.
Do they really expect the rest of us to applaud them for their patriotism and tolerance if they try to compel others to follow their beliefs by laws? Give me a break, and give them a dictionary!
- You are intolerant, Corey Yoquelet. Of anyone who's viewpoint is different than yours. You are right, majority mindset or not.
Thank you, [unnamed businessman and elected official in my hometown] for illustrating my point, but I wasn't seeking further illogical examples. We talked about this.
Indeed, I am intolerant, but trivially only of prevailing one person's interpretation of religion on someone else by legislating criminal and civil law against them or denying them legal privileges. That is my position. I am not trying to hide it; I refuse to tolerate anyone prevailing their interpretation of religion on someone else through legislation. You're failing attempt at an ad hominem does not observe any inconsistency on my part; you are merely restating my position, and pretending it is shameful. This is the logical fallacy of trivial truth.
Logical fallacies are not valid arguments against a position. We talked about this. I already gave you a list of them and encouraged you to ask yourself whether something you wanted to say to me was on that list before bothering to bring it up.
The Constitution's First Amendment makes clear that attempts to prevail religious interpretations on others are not be tolerated in America (the Establishment, Separation AND Free Exercise Clauses). I am a conservative patriot, you see; you are a hater of America and the Constitution.
You cannot suggest that I am intolerant of religion or religious people; that would be a lie. In fact, I became interested in logical fallacies because anti-theists are fond of slinging them at religious people. To defend the religious, I observe my favorite logical fallacy: the logical fallacy fallacy (just because someone's rhetoric involves a logical fallacy, their position is not necessarily untenable; to evaluate the position, one must address the position itself. I have always done you the courtesy of assuming that, despite your untoward efforts, you have a position that deserves logical rebuttal). I believe fundamentally that, for example, Christianity is just as meritorious as atheism, if not more so because it can bring comfort and a sense of value into its followers lives. Ultimately, atheism is founded on the argumentum ex silentio fallacy, and various religions are founded on their own idiosyncratic anecdotal fallacies. While there is subtle difference between the two -- the first is a formal fallacy (excluded immediately from logical discussion) and the second is just informal (excluded after consideration) -- neither position is more any more logical. The very purpose of assuming such ideologies is to presuppose assertions that are not obviously or demonstrably true. Personally, I am no longer religious, due originally to people like you. I am ignostic and believe that anti-theists are more misguided than religious people. When it comes to interpreting the Bible, I will always be a fundamentalist, but I respect your right to follow the doctrines of men instead. Sharing my opinions has nothing to do with whether I am willing to tolerate someone. I will not tolerate the bullying of anyone who is minding their own business, whether they are atheist, religious or LGBTQ; I have always responded to such nonsense.
I am not even intolerant of the people who apply questionable interpretations of the Bible to themselves. For example, I trust that your wife is not black and has a vagina, but I cannot fault you for allowing your religious beliefs to determine your own marriage.
But, I will not tolerate you trying to use your religious beliefs to justify slavery or forcing other people from marriages you think are prohibited by the Bible. I will not tolerate religionists imposing their beliefs on others. You see the difference?
You agree with being intolerant of gay people AND imposing your religious beliefs on them with legislation. I tolerate your belief and defend your right to live your life by it, but I will not tolerate you forcing others to comply with it. If there is a legitimate motivation for secular legislation, it can and must be stated without appealing to someone's interpretation of the Bible, or it violates the Establishment and Separation Clauses, and basic logic. It's that simple.
You call me "intolerant", but all you mean is that I disagree with you and think your favored legislation should be repealed and/or submitted to the Court for voiding. Indeed! But, the only reason you know about my opinion to begin with is that I disagree with *your* majority mindset and am trying to have the laws you lot have passed and the discrimination you lot generate undone. You have voted against my marriage, will vote against it again in 2016, and have tried to encourage others to not tolerate people like me too because you are an unAmerican, unChristian, bigoted hypocrite. You are demonstrating the tu quoque fallacy you attempted to accuse me of.
Do you really expect me to be moved by your insincere and false suggestion that my position hurts your feels, when you are actively trying to punish people for doing something you dislike? Give me a break. We talked about this.
I have never voted on anything or encouraged others to not tolerate you or the lot of people like you for exercising your beliefs in how you live your own life. No one has ever tried to force you into a mixed marriage despite your religious abhorrence of Black people.
Bigotry is of course a sin, the one Jesus said will not be forgiven. But, it's not a crime, and no one has tried to make it one. Your RFRA would, however, allow me to do all sorts of things to you though because I have a religious justification for chasing you out of town among other things; that is actually justified in the Bible, unlike your so-called religious beliefs. But, liberals have never sought legal legitimacy to persecute or prosecute people like you. You do realize that it is still legal for people who think that Black people have the Biblical Curse of Ham to refuse service in their private businesses; legislation did not stop that from happening, rather fear of boycotting by consumers made it less common. Legislation did not cause religionist bigots to marry black people; it merely prevents religionist from interfering with other people's lives.
"Bigotry" involves a sense of superiority, moral or otherwise, over a group of people on the sole basis of their membership in that group, such as your sense of moral (and, you would like, legal) superiority over me as a fag. My *response* to your *unsolicited* opinion that I am not as worthy of dignity as you is not that *I* superior to you; just that you are superior to no one on the basis of the Bible, [unnamed businessman], and I will not accept your legislating an inferior status to me. That's not bigotry. It's demanding that WE BOTH be treated equally. It's WWJD; it's what he did.
- You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
- Who say, “Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for you.” These are a smoke in my nostrils, a fire that burns all the day.
- If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
- Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.
- For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.
But, I don't hate you, and I wouldn't turn you away, or support turning you away from anything in the here and now for fear of ending up with you for eternity.
Sling your sticks and stones, but do not misrepresent me.
I actively support your right to be a Christian, but you are no Christian. You are an unChristian Christianitist. But, that is not my problem with you. I oppose your religionists efforts.
I believe in Free Exercise of Religion, encourage you to practice your religion (please!) and only ask that you not interfere with my Free Exercise of Religion or other rights. Should the Government ever interfere with your practice of religion, I support your right to pursue justice by bringing suit under the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause, but let's not pretend that RFRAs that substitutes it has anything to do with that because they would not be substituted if they did.
I am opposed to RFRAs because they, as I have publicly stated, bypass the Constitution. I believe that discriminating *against* people is not the purpose of RFRA, only a bonus; and that that should not enter in discussion of its merits (or rather lack there of).
I am not opposed to Indiana or its people. The flag in my profile does not suggest that Hoosiers are hateful fascists (I am one; remember, we in school together from K-12), but rather that Ⅎ(reedom of) R(eligion) under RFRA is a foreign, religionist replacement of liberties of Anti-Establishment, Separation and true Religious Freedom, not unlike the establishment Christianity in Nazi Germany and not unlike the establishment of The Church of England in the Religionist England (and other religionist countries) allowing persecution of the religious minorities who colonized America.
I am opposed to the backlash against Indiana because I think it distracts from the real issue that LGBTQ people do *not* have rights *to begin with* in the majority of states or at the Federal Level. I am not for the boycott of Indiana as I have stated publicly, though I believe your religion not only justifies it, but demands it:
- If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them
- But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you...I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city
May G-d show you more mercy than you are willing to show others; may G-d have mercy on your soul. See, I pray for you, not try to create laws that criminalize you, discriminate against you or punish you. I do not unfriend or avoid you because you're hell-bound according to the Bible. That is Biblical "love"; I hope you are able to find it within yourself one day. I'm only telling you any of this because you persist throwing ad hominem stones at me and demeaning my position and my status. My response is the same as it was before: not today, Satan, not today!
Language, logic, laws and the Law are not yours, Satan, to pervert into weapons of abuse.
[This diatribe was brought to you by the letters S, M and H.]