Have the liberals gone too far?!? Yes or No?


Try this idea on for size ....

The editorial piece linked to the topic post compares two deaths: One is a rape-murder. The other is tantamount to a lynching.

So there is a media conspiracy because people are shocked at the magnitude of a hate-inspired murder. Whoops. The conspiracy, apparently, doesn't happen until the press regards a homosexual rape-murder with the same unfortunate disregard it gives heterosexual rape-murders. I don't understand. So let me put before you, once again, my nearest interpretation of what would be a proper juxtaposition:

* A proper juxtaposition of equivalent crime to the murder of Matthew Shepard would be the dragging murder of a black man, or the modern crucifixion of a Christian as a statement against said condition (gay, black, Christian, &c). In other words, what killed Matthew Shepard was similar to an old Southern lynch mob.

* A proper juxtaposition of equivalent crime to the rape-murder of a 13 year-old boy would be ... the rape-murder of a 13 year-old. Were we to give rape-murders the regard the editorial asks on behalf of the 13-year old boy, there would be nothing else in our Britannica-sized newspapers.

* "Who here ever condoned any violent act,... much less any racism?" Well, again I restate myself. Why is this article important? It seems to me the author is chasing shadows in order to invent demons. (Do continue ....)

* "BTW. I am a Black man." (12/17 post ISDAMan) See, here was a tough point for me. Technically, it doesn't matter to me what color a person's skin is. I'm unsure why you mentioned it. But it was important enough then to respond then, and it seemed impolite to say, "BTW, I don't care."

But my primary problem here is saying: death. You know, the mainstream American media went anti-Satanist for a few years in the 1980's. Murders, suicides, ad nauseum, all caused by allegedly deviant philosophies and music that hurt the accusers' ears, all lumped together as Satanism. Funny, but I didn't hear the New Age wasting its time asking why it wasn't mentioned that this person or that, who claimed to be Christian, raped his daughter or kicked his son to death. Otherwise I would say that "she didn't scream loudly enough" as a reason for acquittal in a rape case (I was present for this decision) was a conspiracy against women because the defendant, his attorney, and the judge were all men.

But I know better than that.

And so should you. And that silly Boston Globe writer.

I think you'll be much better off with your arguments when you match up like crimes. Gee, I feel like I'm restating myself yet again: to compare these two murders in the way you want is to say that apples and pineapples are the same thing because they're both fruit.

blessed be,

"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 20, 1999).]
ISDAMan ....

"Insulant"? Ummm ....

It seems to me that you, on December 17, wrote: "You don't have to believe in gravity to be effected [sic] by it." Okay. Consider this: There is a mathematical equation that describes gravity. You can, once you have a starting point within the sample, predict many things about it, including exactly how much gravity you exert on a planet you've never seen on the far reaches of the universe, provided you can fill in the variables. So to be more precise ... you can figure exactly how much gravitational force you are exerting against Charon, Pluto's moon. And you can figure out exactly how much its gravity affects you. Can you say the same for God? Furthermore, God's demonstrations in the universe are matters of faith alone. Gravity is a little more apparent. If God "cannot be discerned by man" it is only because of the choice you've made to obey that specific faith.

Now, it seems to me that you wrote the following, on 12/17: "If the area is public, then it is mine. I and my family have rights to it. All American families do. If it is mine, then, I am charged with keeping its purity. I will fight tooth and nail against any sin therein. I do not require perfection but,.... RESPECT. I WILL NOT capitulate and be subjugated to silence where indecency is involved . . . ."

Okay, where should I start? You seem to want to dismiss a couple of important ideas. What is sin--for if it is defined solely by your faith, then, sorry, I live in the United States. If you are defining what is decent solely by your own standards, then you're slaying the very right that protects you from the same persecution. So as far as the painting example goes, you're flat wrong there. Certainly, some artists push the envelope of taste, but that's the point of freedom: for people to figure out how far is too far by themselves. Sure, Mayor Giuliani didn't like the Madonna painting with elephant dung on it. But it pains me that he should go forth with that opinion without considering how important elephant crap is in other countries. Aldous Huxley, in "Jesting Pilate" expressed amazement at the number of people who, when his elephant dropped a load in the middle of nowhere, appeared from under bushes or out of trees to claim the prize. Valuable heating source in the India winter. So, frankly, I think in that specific example the Mayor's so far off base that he should consider whether he's fit to hold the office at all.

In your 12/18 post you kept after this point. Admirably misguided, I think. But, hey ....

When I said that it depends on your interpretation of sin, you said that it has nothing to do with the argument at hand (quote: "That has nothing to do with me or any of this."

Okay ... so you, and people of your faith set the decency standard? That's what you're saying to me, or at least how it reads. I understand the idea of being committed to fighting sin, but this is no longer the Middle Ages when Christianity set draconian standards. In fact, for me, or anyone else to allow the modification of public standard to accommodate the specific needs of any one religion is as gross an offense as you seem to see in art that you don't like.

Now a couple of things I need to address ... NOW. Okay ... I hear what you say about the average Christian White male. But does the fact you're an black man change that? Does it matter that the "liberal" media (and yes, I admit it is liberal, but if the option is the people who want to proscribe your speech) had to be told by the courts to stop a simple practice: that arrest articles would inform the reader if the accused was Black, Hispanic, Asian, or otherwise, unless the accused was white. That's how you knew the arrested was white. That no mention was made of skin color. Now, does the fact that you're a black man change this practice? No. Can you, or Truestory, whom you cite, tell the difference between observations and statements of practice? Obviously not. Consider, before you argue, that someone may not be saying the dimwitted thing you perceive.

Now, ya Pig (12/18) ... There is no place where Jesus wants a 50-share or above. But, in case you missed the actual question, I will repeat it for you: "Then again, I might ask who is the "we" in "we never get to set the record straight ...?" Okay ... try this on, Marketshare ... Who is the we? And what record don't you get to set straight? If you feel there's not enough outlets for you and your ilk to voice your frustrations, take part in the Capitalism you're proud to follow and buy more airtime. If you don't get to set the record straight it isn't because of lack of opportunity. It might possibly have something to do with inept presentation. Watch the pop-culture ... Christianity's representatives are jokes. It's not like there aren't Christians out spreading the Word in the mainstream media. It's just that a greater proportion of them happen to be inept. Now let me take a dangerous stab and offer two counterpoints to a possible problem we might encounter here. The ineptitude of the "Christian media"--if you can possibly forgive such a term for, well, not so much the sake of argument, as getting through the argument ... but I digress. The ineptitude of the so-called "Christian media" speaks nothing of the Christian world in general. We know that these are just the spongiest brains drifting to the top with the pond scum. Or else it means that Christians in America--all the good Christians, that is--don't care how badly their image is being abused within their own camp. Either way, it really doesn't take much of a conspiracy to trip up the Christian body politic. Oink-oink.

"Children being expelled for the use of God's name and for prayer ..."? Now that would be a little goofy. Have you a media source? (Believe me, some of mine would take forever to dig up now; but what I'm looking for are the conditions that get a little more specific than what I've quoted. I will offer up the one case I heard of on "Rush Limbaugh". A child is assigned a history report. She chooses the "History of Jesus". Her report cites only one source, the Bible, and makes conclusions requiring a faith leap; hardly the objective of the teacher. The child did not like her grade, and was reprimanded by suspension for cussing at the teacher in true Christian fashion (sarcasm ... sarcasm!) Apparently, Rush Limbaugh thinks an idea like "Jesus is God and King of All People" is quite factual. It is important to note that the grade the child did not like was not an "F", but an incomplete.

"People being fired ...." Okay, now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say you would fire any homosexuals who "didn't keep it to themselves", though you still refuse to describe "keep it to themselves." You reiterated, nicely, your inability to be around someone you know to be gay, but that goes nowhere as far as resolution is concerned. Ummm, it was on 12/17 that you said that, and 12/18 that you failed to answer the question: "What does this mean?"

As to your military, would you like to define "adultery"? We all know that thousands of married soldiers, some of them presumably good Christians, went unpunished for various engagements with prostitutes. Or have you never seen a military ... "hygiene" film? Now, if you apply that same standard of "adultery" to homosexuals, then fine. But there's a huge discrepancy that has to do with whether or not the other party is in the military, and what their rank is.

I would like to see what list you would draw up to cover what words or issues would warrant your Godly rage against a homosexual, and then apply it to all of the heterosexual employees in your office. I guarantee you, it will gain you a civil rights lawsuit. Not over gay rights but the First Amendment. Your only hope is at-will employees.

BTW ... if, in the middle of a drought, a man is maintaining a lawn and wading pool, he's more of a capitalist than a Christian. But it works either way, I suppose, since you're both. But the concerns in such a consideration are different. Kind of like your assessment of the crimes.

Which leads me to ... Yes, this is a tragedy. As I believe in society, I do believe that more than simply his family and friends should grieve him. But you are still missing a critical difference which distracts you with your emotion: Can you prove that this boy was murdered specifically because he was heterosexual? The comparison of the original article, where we started, is inappropriate at best. It's mean-spirited, bigoted, exploitative, and downright whiny, at worst. Tell me ... did that stalker kill that girl because she was heterosexual? To imply, as the article did, that justice is threatened because apples equal pineapples just doesn't fly. Period. Sure, it's murder. Yes, those two crimes are the same. And there I can let it rest. For someone to think that the fact that this crime was homosexual in its nature means ANYTHING beyond the word murder implies a good deal. There is A RAPE A MINUTE in this country, a 1986--get that? thirteen years old--FBI statistic. And it's getting worse. Why isn't any Boston Globe columnist asking any questions about this? Because 525,600 rapes are hard to fit into the newspapers in relative detail. And this is yet another one, and a murder as well.

To cite Oxygen's comments on the subject, which it seems would find at least partial sympathy in your expressed philosophy, "because it might damage the image of the gay community and give a bunch of drunken rednecks just the excuse they're looking for."

Now I'll meet you partway on this and say that yes, I understand that people might fear a media whitewash. To the whitewash, I think there is none for the reasons I've expressed. But if I were to give you that latitude in light of Oxygen's observation, I would also point to the end of his phrase. After all, the drunken rednecks needed one excuse in Oregon in 1992 ... the gays mounted a countercampaign to the Oregon Citizens' Alliance's proposal that the state could not refer to homosexuality in a positive light at all. Once they had that excuse, they killed two people. But it's drunken rednecks, right? So we shouldn't hold that against the campaign. Whatever.

Now ... in the following I think you're jumping to conclusions. I know I've covered the race issue but I need to reiterate. Your 12/20 post read: "Again you jump to defensive conclusions. Who here ever condoned any violent act,... much less any racism?" Well, a string of assumptions led Truestory to her questions. My 12/20 post beginning "Once upon a time," are her answers. Now, what conclusions have you reached to think I'm jumping to conclusions? To ask who has condoned violence or racism is a political out. It's a way of breaching an issue, much like you said, and planting the seed. But you cannot foster growth with venom. So take care of your own conclusions before you sound desperate.

The only thing I could ask of you is to view this tragedy as it is, not as a political issue to serve your own interests. Or the Boston Globe's. Or anybody else's.


"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 20, 1999).]

Peace be with you.

The truth will set you free.

May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you always.

That's a perfect response. I agree with your conclusion.

Peace be with you Sister,

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited December 22, 1999).]