Sunday, May 02, 2010

Now All Devout Christians Are "Hooligans"? WTF?

Whoa... the "progressive" movement again demonstrates why we call 'em the "Loony Left"...

Great... now the Loony Left says that anyone with inconvenient religious beliefs is a "hooligan".

I guess that the Muslims ought to be smeared and persecuted as "hooligans", too, because they essentially share the same specific belief.  Why exempt them from the smear and the persecution being meted out to a Christian who merely, as he's, according to human rights, guaranteed to do so, states what his religion says about something?

The defamed Christian ought to file a human rights complaint against the cops for persecuting him for his beliefs...

Why not pick up all those Muslims who, in practicing and openly affirming their religious beliefs, also say that they don't believe homosexuality is a good thing to practice?

Not going to happen.

Nor will it happen to gay activists who go around saying that Christianity is horrible and stuff.

Sheesh!  Eh!


Balbulican said...

You're asking if "all devout Christians are hooligans"?

Why, no. Just the ones who harangue other people in public places about their sexual orientation.

I am close friends with a number of devout Christians who don't do that.

Happy to help you out with that. Any other questions?

Canadian Sentinel said...

So it's "haranguing others" to openly affirm one's religious beliefs?

Then it'd be "haranguing others" to openly affirm one's sexual orientation, I suppose.

Perhaps it's all in the tone? If so, then I'd recommend charging homosexuals who use an inappropriate, haranguing tone to publicly assert their sexual orientation. Don't just charge religious peoples with "hooliganism"; charge homosexuals with it, too, when the shoe's equally on the other foot. Never feckin' happen, though. That's what I've got a problem with: Laws designed to protect peoples' feelings, but which, in practice, are only used to persecute Christians.

Surely you agree that it's wrong to only persecute Christians for being rude to gays, but not gays for being rude to Christians. Right? I'm sure you're a fair person and not a Christianophobe who has devout Christian friends to mention to shield himself from charges of bigotry and Christianophobia. Anyone can have gay friends to stave off charges of homophobia, and so can anyone have devout Christian friends to insulate against charges of Christianophobia.

You don't believe the state apparatus should discourage public expressions of the Christian faith any more than you'd believe it should discourage, say, the Folsom Street Fair, which included Christinophobic hatred? Need a link if you haven't seen that?

Also, if Britain is going to persecute Christians for "haranguing gays", then they better feckin' well persecute Muslims for doing the same... but you know and I know that they don't, and won't. And that's scary, and I'm sure you agree, at least privately.

Surely you're wise enough to know when there's discrimination, by observing the patterns of differential happenstance over time, and under parallel circumstances, vis-a-vis different identifiable groups.

You don't believe in "righting past wrongs", do you? It's foolish to believe in that, and dangerous.

Balbulican said...

"So it's "haranguing others" to openly affirm one's religious beliefs?"

To stand in a public place, with a stepladder and a bullhorn, and tell people that they're sinners?" Yes, it IS haranguing. And it would be haranguing if a Muslim, a Jew or a Muslim did it.

As I pointed out, the jerk screaming in public about gays isn't being persecuted because he's Christian: he's being charged because he's abusing people publicly. It's wrong whoever does it.

"Surely you agree that it's wrong to only persecute Christians for being rude to gays, but not gays for being rude to Christians. Right?"

Absolutely. If a gay man with a bullhorn and a stepladder stood in a public place telling Christians that God hates them, he should be subject to exactly the same sanctions.

Clear enough?

Canuckguy said...

So 'haranguing' is against the law now? Dadgumit!!

Canadian Sentinel said...

Yes, Balbulican, that's clear enough.

I see you also are a convert to believing in censorship from believing in absolute, unfettered freedom of speech. Hmm. Been having beers with Warren Kinsella?

Yep, CG, apparently haranguing equals "hooliganism", a silly label if ever there was one. If anyone's hooligany, it's Leftist protestors, Islamic Supremacists and anti-Prop-8 protestors, not just soapbox Christian preachers.

Apparently, there's "limits" to freedom of expression... as we're told by some...

Apparently, however, Balbulican doesn't think there's anything wrong with posing as another character in his comments section for the purpose of uttering a Sinophobic slur... Right, Balbaloo? ;)

Balbulican said...

"I see you also are a convert to believing in censorship from believing in absolute, unfettered freedom of speech. Hmm. Been having beers with Warren Kinsella?"

Oh, come off it and don't be stupid. Are you going to discuss this for real or are you going to play games?

I don't believe I have to right to walk up to you in a public place and scream in your face "RAPIST!! EVERYBODY! GET THE RAPIST!!!!"

That's not "freedom of speech", Scenty.

"Apparently, however, Balbulican doesn't think there's anything wrong with posing as another character in his comments section for the purpose of uttering a Sinophobic slur... Right, Balbaloo? ;)"

I'm sorry, Scenty: are you talking about the time YOU pretended to be Chinese in our comments section? Or the time you published a libellous attack on me, specifically accusing me of criminal activity punishable by the death penalty in some countries? Refresh my memory.

Balbulican said...

I am relieve to note, however, that you are no longer defending your remarkably bigoted suggestion that all Christians are as homophobic and full of hate as the idiot arrested in England. Most of the Christians I know don't share that rabid hatred of gays.

Say, remind me: exactly WHERE did Christ condemn gays?

Canadian Sentinel said...

You misunderstood my headline. It was a rhetorical question, not a "suggestion" to the effect of your weird misinterpretation.

Christ, as far as I can recall, didn't condemn gays. It's in the Bible that homosexual physical activity is proscribed. Just like in the Koran and in most other religious "bibles".

Of course, Christians also realize that judgement of the people themselves isn't up to them, but up to the Lord. However, Christians are expected to conduct themselves according to Biblical guidance, which includes not engaging in homosexual physical activity. Christians aren't supposed to believe that it's ok to do that, but are supposed, at the same time, to "love the sinner". Those who would forget about this directive, well, they've got a problem.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Still, you know those Islamo-Supremacist protestors who hold signs that incite death against those who "insult Islam" and who declare that the "mushroom cloud is on the way" for the Free World, and who declare that "Islam will dominate the world", they never, as far as I know, have been charged with "hooliganism" or anything like that, even though their "speech" is extremely dangerous and inciteful.

It's just my observation that certain groups are far more persecuted than are others, in accordance with an apparent double standard, and that Christians are persecuted more than, say, Islamic Supremacists, pro-abortion extremists, gay militants, etc... given parallel circumstances and behavior. This is why I draw attention to whenever I see apparent unfair persecution against Christians which I don't see much of happening to other groups who behave even worse.

I call it as I observe it, and as I see the patterns and differentials. Been closely watching things like this since, oh, about 1990. Always wanted to know what's going on in the world, and tried to get the info via the Big Media, but over time, became suspicious when I saw them contradicting themselves and treating different groups differently, over time. The pattern of their dishonesty and discrimination was unmistakable.

So is it any wonder that, when the opportunity arose, I went online, and, here I am, using all kinds of tactics to combat the Big Media's dishonesty?

Yes, ONE of my tactics is blatant "propaganda", but only because the Big Media does it, and I'm mocking them by doing it too, sometimes. I employ many tactics, yes, but, hey, it's like a war, so I prefer not to pull punches, because doing so only guarantees that the nasty party opposite will win. We saw that with McCain's pisspoor, wimpy campaign in which he refused to even tell the inconvenient truth about Obama.

In war, it's not the nicest, most high-road-taking, who win. It's the side who fights best.

Balbulican said...

"You misunderstood my headline. It was a rhetorical question, not a "suggestion" to the effect of your weird misinterpretation."

Please. Your "rhetorical question" is a question that no-one has asked or suggested.

"Christ, as far as I can recall, didn't condemn gays. It's in the Bible that homosexual physical activity is proscribed."

The Bible also proscribes the consumption of shellfish and encourages the children of Israel to enslave their enemies. Many Christians pick and choose the prohibitions they choose to make the basis of their hate.

As I have said several times, there are many Christians who don't feel gays should be condemned, any more than they feel women taken in adultery should be stoned to death. To repeat once more: the man charged in your story was not charged because he was Christian. He was charged because he abusive to a group whose sexual preferences are none of his business.

If you feel that Muslims and Christians have the right to publicly attack and humiliate gays, that is your privilege. I disagree.

"It's the side who fights best."

Shrug. So you lie, and distort, and omit?

And that's what you call "Christian"?

All I can say it that I'm proud to be a non-believer if that is your ethical position.

Canadian Sentinel said...

It's time to pick your panties out of your buttcrack, Balaboolickin. They're driving you up the wall again. Might I suggest great-big granny panties? They're far less likely to get all wedgied upinside yer crack, I'm told...

Balbulican said...

More childishness, Scenty? What next? You start the "poopy" references?

This all reminds me of the anti-gay activist who was asked by police not to disrupt a picnic for gay families. He refused and led his four followers into the picnic, up the front of a bandstand, laid face down on the ground, refused to move, and had to be taken away by police.

When Scenty told the story, he reported indignantly that the homophobes had been arrested "Just Because They Were Praying Silently!"

Be honest: do you do that because you actually can't tell what's going on, or because you think you have a license to lie?

And do you actually think you're exhibiting Christian behavior in doing so?

Canadian Sentinel said...

I think that in youl blain, Barburican, the rines are clossed.

Donna Chang

Balbulican said...

What was a bit depressing about that story, Scenty, was that I pointed the lie out to you, and provided you with links to the court coverage. Remember that?

And then just last week, you repeated the same lie.

You haven't been able to show me the spot in the Bible where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Can you show me that post where he instructs his followers to lie?

Canadian Sentinel said...

I don't know what you're talking about. What you're saying doesn't ring a bell.

Balbulican said...

Allow me to refresh your memory.

Your original was posted in March, 2008.

Your most recent attempt to revive this bogus story:

Here is my comment:

Canadian Sentinel said...

Hoo-boy, Balboo... your reading comprehension is really whacked-out. You read stuff into what I write that just isn't there.

Balbulican said...

Nice try.

Canadian Sentinel said...


Balbulican said...

Okay, tell me, Scenty: are you honestly claiming you don't remembers claiming this dude was arrested "just for praying"

is that what you're saying??

Canadian Sentinel said...

I wrote what I wrote. I'll let the post speak for itself.

Canadian Sentinel said...

The guy didn't do anything illegal.

He exercised his rights.

For that he was treated like a criminal.

By a cop who obviously has a strong conflict of interest.

As far as I'm concerned, it's Christianophobic persecution using a law that doesn't apply to the circumstances at all (simply expressing one's own point of view in public, albeit a politically-incorrect p.o.v. which the gay atheist cop didn't like and decided to do something about because, perhaps, he's a fascist).

That's my point of view and I stand by it.

Deal with it.

Balbulican said...

I AM dealing with it, Scenty. I deal with it by pointing out your past posts which excuse disruptive homophobes on the ground that they're "just praying".

I deal with it by pointing out that Christ never condemned homosexuality - unlike several of the people who presume to speak in his name.

I deal with it by pointing out that the world is full of vicious, narrow minded bigots, Christian and Muslim, who use their personal interpretation of "religion" to attack others.

You're entirely welcome to your own prejudices, Scenty, but don't claim to speak for Jesus.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Oh? So now you're suggesting that all Christians are "homophobes" just because they don't believe in the performance of homosexual physical activities?

Hmm. What about Christianophobes like Rosie O'Donnel and Elton John? They're disruptive Christianophobes, they say nasty, offensive things about Christians on the air, and get away with it, not being treated like violent criminals.

And I take no lessons from atheists, sorry. Especially those who self-abrogate on principles such as freedom of expression.

And who are you to speak for the gay community? Do you really believe that all gay folks believe that Christians should be treated as if violent criminals just for publicly indicating their beliefs?

If we're going to treat Christians like violent criminals for exhibiting in public what they're about, then we'll, just to be fair and equitable, have to treat all participants in the gay parades the same way.