Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post - Should people have a "right" to speak out against gays?

MavKikiNYC · 11-11-2003, 12:47 PM

IMO, the LGCM would've done better to show some patience (dare I say 'tolerance') and simply speak out in opposition to the bishop's views (which are easily refuted and discredited by the majority of mainstream psychiatric views), rather than over-reacting with a request for criminal prosecution. As sad as it is for a person in the bishop's position to hold and espouse this view, it's difficult to reconcile this as a criminal 'offence', which is why hate crime legistlation is such a thorny issue.

And yet....

What is the appropriate civic response to such an event? One would hope that the members of his faith (heterosexual or homosexual) who hold a principled opposing view would speak out in opposition to the bishop, and would raise the question as to whether his voicing his views in this manner affects his suitability to serve in such a position of responsibility; whether the bishops's views are consonant with those of the church, and if so, whether the church's view is consistent with members' beliefs and values.

The current case is rather extreme, with the circumstances here seemingly favoring the bishop's 'right' to speak his opinion.

But there are similar yet distinct cases in the United States, where the "ministers" themselves seemingly overstep the boundary of clearcut free speech, and come perilously close to absuing their positions, and leaving themselves open to civic reprobation, if not civil litigation.

An example of the former would be when 'Ministers' Falwell and Robertson (who, in my opinion, are nothing more than small-time false-prophet wannabes) attributed the 9/11 attacks to God's displeasure with the climate of permissiveness that had permeated American society (in particular the ALCU, pro-choice proponents, and those tolerant of equal rights for gays). Those two charlatans had to backtrack when they saw their donations (i.e. spiritual 'shakedowns') fall off.

Even worse, would be the psychotic hate-filled rantings of a bigoted anti-christ minion such as Fred Phelps (cf the Mepham, NY sexual assault thread Fred Phelps ), whose followers aggressively spew their views and come close to inciting violence. If I were a jury member in a civil trial, I would be inclined to award $$$$ignificant damages to the family of Matthew Sheppard, for intentional infliction of emotional cruelty by the members of Phelps' organization, who go to great lengths to abuse and defame Sheppard and exploit the tragedy of his murder to support their own bigoted impulses.

But that's just me.

11-11-2003, 12:47 PM	#8
MavKikiNYC Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 8,509	RE:Should people have a "right" to speak out against gays? IMO, the LGCM would've done better to show some patience (dare I say 'tolerance') and simply speak out in opposition to the bishop's views (which are easily refuted and discredited by the majority of mainstream psychiatric views), rather than over-reacting with a request for criminal prosecution. As sad as it is for a person in the bishop's position to hold and espouse this view, it's difficult to reconcile this as a criminal 'offence', which is why hate crime legistlation is such a thorny issue. And yet.... What is the appropriate civic response to such an event? One would hope that the members of his faith (heterosexual or homosexual) who hold a principled opposing view would speak out in opposition to the bishop, and would raise the question as to whether his voicing his views in this manner affects his suitability to serve in such a position of responsibility; whether the bishops's views are consonant with those of the church, and if so, whether the church's view is consistent with members' beliefs and values. The current case is rather extreme, with the circumstances here seemingly favoring the bishop's 'right' to speak his opinion. But there are similar yet distinct cases in the United States, where the "ministers" themselves seemingly overstep the boundary of clearcut free speech, and come perilously close to absuing their positions, and leaving themselves open to civic reprobation, if not civil litigation. An example of the former would be when 'Ministers' Falwell and Robertson (who, in my opinion, are nothing more than small-time false-prophet wannabes) attributed the 9/11 attacks to God's displeasure with the climate of permissiveness that had permeated American society (in particular the ALCU, pro-choice proponents, and those tolerant of equal rights for gays). Those two charlatans had to backtrack when they saw their donations (i.e. spiritual 'shakedowns') fall off. Even worse, would be the psychotic hate-filled rantings of a bigoted anti-christ minion such as Fred Phelps (cf the Mepham, NY sexual assault thread Fred Phelps ), whose followers aggressively spew their views and come close to inciting violence. If I were a jury member in a civil trial, I would be inclined to award $$$$ignificant damages to the family of Matthew Sheppard, for intentional infliction of emotional cruelty by the members of Phelps' organization, who go to great lengths to abuse and defame Sheppard and exploit the tragedy of his murder to support their own bigoted impulses. But that's just me.