Tag Archives: Intolerance

News

Ryan T. Anderson explains marriage to Piers Morgan and Suze Orman

4 Comments

Here are the two clips.

Part 1 of 2:

Part 2 of 2:

Here’s a description of what happened from the Heritage Foundation.

Excerpt:

Anderson, co-author of the book “What Is Marriage” and Heritage’s William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, opened the show by explaining his view of marriage:

I think marriage exists to bring a man and woman together as husband and wife, to be mother and father to any children their union produces. And the Supreme Court, in the cases they’re hearing today and tomorrow, should really not cut short the democratic debate that we’re having. Citizens all across the country are discussing what marriage is and why it matters. And what we want to see the court do is uphold our constitutional authority to have that debate.

After peppering Anderson with several hostile questions on marriage — all of which he answered with composure — Morgan turned to his guest Orman to deliver an emotionally charged tirade in which she called Anderson “uneducated.”

[…]“What are you really feeling right now?” Morgan asked Orman. “Because this is the debate laid bare. This is a guy sitting a few feet away from you who says, ‘Nope, I don’t want people like you to have the same right to get married as people like him.’”

Orman, a lesbian who lives with her partner Kathy Travis, responded:

I feel compassion for you. And I’ll tell you why. Because I know you believe very strongly what you believe, but I also know that you’re very uneducated in how it really works.

I believe from the bottom of my heart that if you really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level, if you really understood that, there’s no way that you would sit there and say what you are saying right now.

Anderson’s response:

Why do you assume that I’m ignorant? You say I just don’t know. I don’t assume anything badly about you. I just think we disagree. President Obama himself has said there are people of good will and sound mind on both sides of this issue. I agree with the President.

I’m not going to call you names and I’m not going to say you’re ignorant or don’t understand. But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that.

[…]Morgan, a British journalist recently schooled by Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro on gun control, ended the interview by cuting off the discussion and declaring, “The idea that you want to stop people like Elton [John] and David [Furnish] or Suze and K.T. from getting married in America in the modern era, I just find a bit offensive these days. It’s not fair, it’s not tolerant, it’s not American.”

Why is it that people on the left cannot bear to stay calm and listen to anyone who disagrees with them? Is it because they deliberately surround themselves with people who agree with them about everything? Maybe they just need to be more open-minded and tolerant of views they don’t agree with? I think that they should seek out more diversity of thought and critical thinking in their circle of friends. That would make it easier for them to listen to people who disagree, instead of trying to shame them, coerce them and silence them.

News

Gay activist introduces bill to ban speech critical of homosexuality in schools

4 Comments
Central United States
Central United States

Not just public schools, but private schools, including Christian schools.

Take a look at this story from Life Site News.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Homosexual activists in Minnesota are pushing for a broad “Safe and Supportive Schools Act” that would outlaw speech that could interfere with a student’s ability “to participate in a safe and supportive learning environment.”  The bill is being promoted as the strongest “anti-bullying” law in the nation, but critics say it could have a chilling effect on free speech, especially in religious schools that teach Christian beliefs on sexuality.

“We agree … that school bullying is a serious issue that needs to be ameliorated,” said Pete Noll, education director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, testifying before the state legislature.  “All children are entitled to a safe, secure learning environment.”  But he disagreed that the “Safe and Supportive Schools Act” should apply to religious schools.

The bill, as written, would apply not only to public schools, but also to private schools that receive resources of any kind from the state.  As Noll reminded the legislature last Tuesday, although Catholic and other religious schools are forbidden to receive state funding, many of their students receive textbooks, testing and other services from the state.  He said he worried this might be used as justification to freeze speech in private religious schools.

“Combating bullying should never be a pretext to impose an agenda of groups of people, or to undermine the rights of parents to bestow their religious or moral values on their children,” the Catholic conference wrote in a statement.

The bill was introduced by state senator Scott Dibble, an open homosexual who “married” his partner in California before the passage of Proposition 8 (their marriage is not recognized by the state of Minnesota).  He announced the bill’s introduction in a guest post for the homosexual “Human Rights Campaign” website and thanked the group for their support.  He also credited gay activist group Outfront Minnesota for its role in the development of the bill, saying that the group “leads this work” and is “poised to push for a positive vote.”

A similar bill was introduced during the 2009 legislative session and passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins, but it was vetoed by then-Governor Tim Pawlenty.  If it passes this year, Governor Mark Dayton, who helped to write the bill, is expected to sign.

How would legalizing same-sex marriage affect you? Is it just about tolerance, or will you be forced to celebrate and affirm a lifestyle that you disagree with? Think about it now while you still have the freedom to do something about it, and vote accordingly.

Related posts

Polemics

Clay Jones and his truth S.E.R.U.M.M. inoculates you against moral relativism

1 Comment
Map of Canada with cities
Map of Canada with cities

Moral relativism is the idea that when it comes to right and wrong, no point of view is any more correct than any other. Morality is not independent of what humans think, so that it applies to all of us equally. Moral relativism says that every person or society invents their own standard of morality. Each standard is arbitrary and varies by time or place arbitrarily. There is no viewpoint that is better than any other – they are all equal.

How do you get around that? Well Justin Wishart of the Faith Beyond Belief team in Calgary, Alberta has posted a list of helpful points that he got from Dr. Clay Jones of Biola University.

Here’s the introduction from Justin:

I had the pleasure of driving Professor Clay Jones to Airdrie Koinonia Christian School to present a talk to grade 11 and 12 students. Jones is a Professor of Apologetics at one of the top Christian universities, BIOLA. He started with a succinct history lesson, explaining how most students do not accept there are objective moral truths – that morality is relative. This is called moral relativism, which Jones summed up as, “you have your truth, I have my truth, your truth is no better than my truth and my truth is no better than your truth, and there is no moral truth with a capital T”.

Even though this sounds so open-minded and tolerant to our modern ears, Jones insists it isn’t. He presented the students with an acronym that spells “S.E.R.U.M.M.” which shows that moral relativism is absurd and even dangerous.

Here is the acronym in brief:

  • S= Self-Refuting
  • E= Evil-Enabling
  • R= Racist Befriending
  • U= Utterly Hypocritical
  • M= Morally Stagnating
  • M= Mind Closing

Let’s take a look at the first one only:

Moral relativists will often say things like, “you can’t push your morality on others!” But, this is obviously absurd, for, the moral relativist is saying “you shouldn’t” do something which is the definition of pushing your morality on others. He is doing the very thing that he says you cannot do. Even more fundamental, moral relativism is a distinct moral system that the moral relativist obviously thinks is right. But, moral relativism by definition says that there is no correct moral system, which means that moral relativism is wrong. In other words, to say that moral relativism is right is to say that moral relativism is wrong. It refutes itself.

You can click through for the rest of the list. They have other good things to read on their blog, as well.