John Fund: The New Pitchfork Prosecutors

John Fund: The New Pitchfork Prosecutors

There are 163 comments on the National Review Online story from Apr 6, 2014, titled John Fund: The New Pitchfork Prosecutors. In it, National Review Online reports that:

But all of us should care about the political orthodoxy that forced out Eich and that is taking hold in our country.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Review Online.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1 Apr 8, 2014
from National Review Online:

"The AP quoted Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, as saying,'It seems to me when a society makes a determination that something is wrong, for example racial hatred, then somehow it’s not intolerant to insist upon that understanding.'"

But what does Robinson mean by "insist" for those who think marriage is only between a man and a woman? How far can his Gay Gestapo go to get this "insistence"?
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Apr 8, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
But what does Robinson mean by "insist" for those who think marriage is only between a man and a woman?
We can't put bigots in jail outright. We have to wait until they actually commit an illegal act of bigotry.

Hope that helps.

BTW, why don't your read up about "marriage" in the O.T., as all closet cases with strivings to be educated should. Man and (one) woman, indeed.
True Christian witness

Bartlesville, OK

#3 Apr 8, 2014
Religions that condone what the Bible teaches is an abomination, and teach that God's word is the authority for their understanding are the same as the false shepherds Jesus warned the Jews about.
Matthew 7:15

Today these false teachers of God's word are the weeds Jesus said would be evident in the final part of the end of this world.
Matthew 13: 25-30

When the harvest starts, it will be done by angelic reapers, and there will be no resurrection from that death.
Revelation 14:15-20

Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Apr 8, 2014
True Christian witness wrote:
Today these false teachers of
You quote from Levitycuss without adhering to Levitycuss.

Buybull babble says to keep your prayers private.

You talibangelicals ring more falsely than any cracked bell.
True Christian witness

Bartlesville, OK

#5 Apr 8, 2014
It would help you, only if you knew what you were talking about.
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Apr 8, 2014
True Christian witness wrote:
It would help you, only if you knew what you were talking about.
One needn't know much about the topic in question to spot a massive hypocrite.

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#7 Apr 9, 2014
Religionists R Us wrote:
<quoted text>
We can't put bigots in jail outright ...
Who is "we"?

And Robinson isn't black, he's gay, but even a gay cleric hasn't the authority to put anyone in jail for anything.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#10 Apr 9, 2014
True Christian witness wrote:
It would help you, only if you knew what you were talking about.
Dear TCW,

What you appear to be actually saying is,

"It would help you [to see things the way that I see them], if you only knew [what I have accepted as the truth and you were also willing to make my acceptance the basis for] what you were talking about."

The question for the person who is being singled out by you is whether or not there are inconsistencies and incompatibilities in what you have accepted as truth.

It has been said that "No man can be convinced who does not want to be convinced, and, no man who wants to be convinced needs convincing." - Ben Franklin (I think I recall)

My Dad used to say, "Once conned, you stay conned." His point was that once a person accepts something as truth, it often becomes a "truth" that they will not likely give up easily, even if it is shown to them to be a blatant falsehood. In fact, they will sincerely defend and promulgate and actively proselytize their conned beliefs to others.
His statement about human behavior and belief was right.

Wouldn't want to upset your apple cart, TCW. But, if one insists and is intent upon indiscriminately driving one's cart too fast down roads filled with potholes and ruts and humps, one is going to end up in a ditch with one's apples strewn all over the place.

"In my Father's house, there are many mansions."

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#11 Apr 9, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
from National Review Online:
"The AP quoted Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, as saying,'It seems to me when a society makes a determination that something is wrong, for example racial hatred, then somehow it’s not intolerant to insist upon that understanding.'"
But what does Robinson mean by "insist" for those who think marriage is only between a man and a woman? How far can his Gay Gestapo go to get this "insistence"?
If I understand correctly, I think yours is a valid question, Joe.

I am not sure that I agree with bp. Robinson's statement. When you "put the shoe on the other foot," you can see that he is referring to attempting to rule by majority. But, that majority view, any majority view, is subject to change. Perhaps such a majority view can be the reason behind a change in the law. But, we know that certain laws are just not right or that the reason for the law is no longer justifiable, no matter what the majority viewpoint may be.

He says, "It seems to me when a society makes a determination ..."

Then, he makes an example using racial hatred, knowing that the listener is supposed to follow his logic and should be able to identify and determine that racial hatred has become socially unacceptable.

But, that is ruling by the effect - that efffect being the social acceptance of a moral view. The Letter of the Law versus the Spirit. That is essentially the same justification for prosecution as was the social acceptance of the Law of Moses by the ancient Jewish society. The majority is, in fact, "mob rule." Mob rule can lead to the crucifixion of an innocent man.

Robinson then suggests that "it's not intolerant to insist upon that understanding."

Because of a whimsical majority view, one must accept the insistence?

Good point, Joe!
Talibangelical Fatwa

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Apr 9, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
hasn't the authority to put anyone in jail for anything.
That has no relationship to what I posted. You have borne false witness again. Repent of your lying fer jaysus.

I said we - meaning educated society -_cannot_ simply put sexually sick homophobes into prison. We must wait until they actually commit an illegal act of discrimination. Or physical violence...then put them in prison.

You can go re read what I posted now.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#13 Apr 10, 2014
Talibangelical Fatwa wrote:
<quoted text>
That has no relationship to what I posted ...
So who are you trolling as now?

You couldn't answer "who is we" and now you're posing as Religionists R Us?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14 Apr 10, 2014
Eichs and Mozilla parted ways, not because of his unfortunate choice of beliefs, nor because of the reaction of some in the gay community, but because of the free market at work. The reality is that his promotion did not sit well with many people in the company and on the foundation that owns it and more importantly, with some of their business partners. Mozilla had the right to stick with their choice, but the reality that those who keep them in business weren't going to if the promotion had gone through was more than enough reason to find a quick out of the mess.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#15 Apr 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Eichs and Mozilla parted ways, not because of his unfortunate choice of beliefs, nor because of the reaction of some in the gay community, but because of the free market at work. The reality is that his promotion did not sit well with many people in the company and on the foundation that owns it and more importantly, with some of their business partners. Mozilla had the right to stick with their choice, but the reality that those who keep them in business weren't going to if the promotion had gone through was more than enough reason to find a quick out of the mess.
The "marketing" of morality.

It is, after all, a free country.

It will be interesting to read how the SCOTUS decides to handle the question of Hobby Lobby.

The answer MUST also have ramifications that will affect the acceptance of religious views that endorse Islam, a theocratic entity claiming its own justification for "shari'a."

"Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest and most historically coherent definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).[5] However, historically, much of Sharia has been implemented in its strictest understanding." - Wiki

Those who live by shari'a demand the right to conduct themselves, for religious purposes, by its tenets, even when those tenets are in opposition or at cross-purposes to [American] Civil Law.

This is essentially the same argument being drawn out by Hobby Lobby, except that Hobby Lobby claims exemption from certain tenets of the part of civil law known as Obamacare.

A conflict is being shown to exist between Original Rights versus the Rule of Law under the Constitution. That is, between "Religious Freedom" and our secular system of Civil Law.

Very interesting, indeed!

Rev. Ken
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#16 Apr 10, 2014
Pitchfork prosecution is nothing new
.
Anyone who was associated with the KKK during the Civil Rights brouhaha of the 1960s is still subjected to pitchfork prosecution today as we speak
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o6/04/318004/1/73285000...
.
Apparently nothing has changed
Ex Senator Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Apr 10, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
So who are you trolling as now?
You couldn't answer "who is we" and now you're posing as Religionists R Us?
The "we" who will put lawbreaking bigots into prison when they discriminate is "educated society."

I have explained that twice.

When I change my moniker daily or whatever there is no confusion on anyone's part who is posting...except when the r1, feces obsessed poster uses my moniker of the day. Even then, everyone can tell the difference.

BTW, you didn't address your bearing of false witness. Probably because you're just so used to doing it.
Ex Senator Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Apr 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Eichs and Mozilla parted ways, not because of his unfortunate choice of beliefs, nor because of the reaction of some in the gay community, but because of the free market at work. The reality is that his promotion did not sit well with many people in the company and on the foundation that owns it and more importantly, with some of their business partners. Mozilla had the right to stick with their choice, but the reality that those who keep them in business weren't going to if the promotion had gone through was more than enough reason to find a quick out of the mess.
The revulsion _obviously_ had to do with the repugnance of his disgusting, bigoted donation to take equal rights away from lgbt people. His actions were simply beyond odious to Mozilla's stakeholders...as surely as a donation to the kkk would be.

There is nothing wrong with simply acknowledging this welcome fact.

You're confused.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#19 Apr 10, 2014
Ex Senator Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
The revulsion _obviously_ had to do with the repugnance of his disgusting, bigoted donation to take equal rights away from lgbt people. His actions were simply beyond odious to Mozilla's stakeholders...as surely as a donation to the kkk would be.
There is nothing wrong with simply acknowledging this welcome fact.
You're confused.
You misunderstood his point, EX.

The shareholders and the advertising sponsors, etc., are the ones who vote with their pocketbooks. It IS a marketplace of morality and they do have that right. We don't have to like it. But, perceived moral and ethical correctness is like "beauty."

It only exists in the eye of the beholder.
Ex Senator Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Apr 10, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstood his point, EX.
The shareholders and the advertising sponsors, etc., are the ones who vote with their pocketbooks. It IS a marketplace of morality and they do have that right. We don't have to like it. But, perceived moral and ethical correctness is like "beauty."
It only exists in the eye of the beholder.
As I _just said_ the outcome had to do with stakeholders in educated society and in high tech finding his view beyond odious.

That means it is a kind of marketplace of what is within acceptable bounds. That's what I was saying to contradict the earlier post.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#21 Apr 10, 2014
It may have taken them five tears to finally being pushed into doing it, but Mozilla's parting of the ways with Eichs was their acting on the company's and the foundation's beliefs They may not be 'religious' in nature, but they would legally qualify as "deeply held religious beliefs". So essentially, the right is arguing against a company that was just upholding their beliefs. Imagine that.

The Hobby Lobby case is another one of those, be careful what you pray for, you might just get it type moments. If Hobby Lobby gets a free exercise right over their employees, so to does every other employer, whether you like their beliefs or not.
RevKen wrote:
The "marketing" of morality.
It is, after all, a free country.
It will be interesting to read how the SCOTUS decides to handle the question of Hobby Lobby.
The answer MUST also have ramifications that will affect the acceptance of religious views that endorse Islam, a theocratic entity claiming its own justification for "shari'a."
"Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest and most historically coherent definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).[5] However, historically, much of Sharia has been implemented in its strictest understanding." - Wiki
Those who live by shari'a demand the right to conduct themselves, for religious purposes, by its tenets, even when those tenets are in opposition or at cross-purposes to [American] Civil Law.
This is essentially the same argument being drawn out by Hobby Lobby, except that Hobby Lobby claims exemption from certain tenets of the part of civil law known as Obamacare.
A conflict is being shown to exist between Original Rights versus the Rule of Law under the Constitution. That is, between "Religious Freedom" and our secular system of Civil Law.
Very interesting, indeed!
Rev. Ken

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#22 Apr 11, 2014
Ex Senator Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
The "we" who will put lawbreaking bigots into prison when they discriminate is "educated society" ...
Obama held the same views as Eich, so why did so-called educated society "discriminate" against Mozilla's CEO?

And Gene Robinson's "gay gestapo" still have no authority to do anything to anyone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gallaudet University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
hello (Mar '14) Mar '14 tesfaye 1
News Falling On Deaf Ears: School Inclusion Programs... (Feb '14) Feb '14 Sally Timothy 1
News Deaf Admin Sues DC University for Violating Her... (Oct '13) Oct '13 RalphB 6
News Signs are clear at FHS: We understand (May '13) May '13 Rennes 1
News Students adopt sign language for fun, future (Jan '13) Jan '13 democratic goon 3
News Yes, gay is a choice, get over it. (Dec '12) Dec '12 Uve 99
News 2 Groups Now Planning Protest At Gallaudet (Oct '12) Oct '12 snyper 2
More from around the web