Double Standard? Feds Seize Muslim Pr...

Double Standard? Feds Seize Muslim Property... But is the Vatican Guilty too?

There are 40 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Nov 14, 2009, titled Double Standard? Feds Seize Muslim Property... But is the Vatican Guilty too? . In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Federal Attorneys in Manhattan filed a civil complaint in the federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets of the Alavi Foundation, which describes itself as a charitable foundation, and a company, Assa.

I am not going to say I have any love for the Theocratic Dictatorship of Iran, because I don’t. I think them dangerous and in opposition to everything I hold dear. But I do feel the takeover of mosques will raise serious constitutional questions around the right of freedom to religion and I do think there is a bit of a discriminatory double standard being put forth here by the US Government…

Because if you are going by the details the Justice Department is putting out in this case… this situation has been going on a long time before Iran even became a problem child, and the last time I checked the Vatican was also officially another country that at times has been hostile to US policy, and has organizations in this country collecting and laundering money that will be later used against US citizens

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#52 Nov 15, 2009
formergaycatholic wrote:
The difference is, the Vatican is Christian, the Iranian situation, of course is Muslim.
I am not trying to trivialize the situation at all. In fact I agree with the article. The Catholic church does in fact funnel huge sums of money from all over the United States directly to Rome. Then the church takes hostile political stances against the United States, which in my interpretation does harm to some of our citizens ( in particular gay citizens).
But as a society we turn a blind eye towards their activities, as we tell ourselves that we were founded on Judeo-Christian values.
As a gay man in the United States, and a former Catholic, I feel the church has directly harmed me,and it is a valid discussion that they should be treated no differently than the Alavi Foundation
I wasn't aware that Rome was building nuclear weapons, wanted to wipe the US off the map, nor was I aware they were publicly executing homosexuals there. The Church will let their opinion be known about certain matters, but does not encourage violence against anyone for any reason; Nor does the Church personally carry out acts of violence against anyone. Agree or disagree with their stance, it doesn't mean you still can't be a good person and love God. Not all Catholics follow every single teaching. We are humans and will sin, that is why the Church offers us the opportunity to repent, but never forces it on anyone. In my opinion, as long as you follow the Ten Commandments and do your very best to avoid committing the Seven Deadly Sins, you're a better person than most.

I haven't heard of Islam feeding the poor, aiding people in third world countries or any other programs that have contributed good to this world. Yet, everyone attacks Christianity the most. I guess it's easier to attack a religion when you won't be beheaded, called Adolf Hitler nor taken to court for hate crime charges.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#53 Nov 15, 2009
Umninimuzi wrote:
Thank you -- that's the most helpful post I've seen here in all this time we've been debating religions' tax-free status. And like you said, it's been written in such a way to cover everyone's asses in the event of failture to take legal action, but still provide the excuse to go after those whom they have the political will to shut down! There are a couple of phrases that one almost wants to apply to the Prop H8 situation, but then other disclaimers pull the rug out from under your feet. No-one is going to investigate the Vatican, obviously, nor even the Mormon Church for that matter, so we're back to the status quo.
You're very welcome. The reality is that both sections of the law are so incredibly subjective that it is virtually impossible to break. The one act that is clearly identified as prohibited, endorsing or opposing specific candidates is so rarely enforced, if ever, that it might as well not even be there. Even IF a clear violation of the law could be argued, churches are such sacred cows in this country, the IRS would be incredibly unlikely to take on an independent congregation, let alone the entire Catholic Church in America...
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#54 Nov 15, 2009
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who is missing the point. The author of the article took great pains to point out that they were NOT in sympathy with Iran and had no issues with the action as such. However, the point is that the Vatican behaves in similar ways in this country, specifically with regard to LGBT folks -- AND THEY DO!
So you've been to four Muslim countries -- big woop -- but have you ever been a gay person in this country and borne the of Catholic opposition supported with tax-free dollars? Has your marriage ever been nullified through the actions of the Catholic organizations with the blessing of the Vatican?!!! Talk to us again when that has happened to you!
Until then, I say no tax-free status for ANY religion -- Islam, Christian or whatever -- which endeavors to terrorize US citizens by involving themselves in political actions.
Still better being a homosexual in the West, more specifically in the US, than it is in any Islamic country. The difference here is that Vatican City has not made it clear on multiple occasions that they want to wipe the US off of the map and are in the process of building nukes to do so, nor do they encourage any sort of violence against anyone. They state their opinion on certain issues and that's it. They don't threaten to invade or nuke anybody who disagrees with them either. You've mainly had religions oppose gay marriage when the homosexuals were demanding to be married in the churches of religions who did not condone gay marriage.

I'm in full support of a civil union where the homosexual couple has all the same benefits as a straight couple. But it crosses the line when it's a marriage in a church of a faith that opposes it. That's what a lot of the gay rights activists want and it's not right. It's gone beyond a battle for rights to a battle against religion for many activists. You'd be depriving religious people of rights while you're trying to obtain your own.

I would like to see everyone get past this and let homosexuals have their civil unions, but you know as well as I do, once that's obtained, then homosexuals will unfortunately turn their battle completely against religion. Religions know this because so many prominent LGBT activists are open about their animosity for them and people will be easily rallied to the new battle. People in this country have the mentality that if they cry enough, they'll get what they want. And after they get what they want, they want more, so they cry louder because the recent generations don't know crap about what it's truly like to fight for your rights.

In our diverse society, we give in easier to the demanding, inconsiderate minority, regardless of what's best and tradition is labeled evil. Until I see the Church encouraging violence against homosexuals and public execution of homosexuals taking place on a regular basis here in the US, then I'll condemn the current policy. But until then, I personally would need an unbreakable guarantee that the war would not turn against religion once the goal for civil unions for the LGBT community has been achieved.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#55 Nov 15, 2009
michael wrote:
"A class action lawsuit against the Catholic Pedophiles and the Bishops and Church policy that moves them from one parish to another and shielding them from disclosure, arrest or other punishment for their crimes and sins?
I forgot to further address your point above. I'll agree that the priests who do harm to children should be severely punished. But how many do you actually hear of being convicted of the crimes they were charged with? And if they were, what was the evidence that was used in the case? What are the details of the case?

We always hear a priest here and a priest there was charged with sexual abuse, but you never hear the verdict of the case. Some of those priests may not have done a thing and now their reputation is tarnished because the news posted his face and charges all over the place, but never told you if he was found innocent or guilty (Such is the case ESPECIALLY when they're found innocent). And if are truly guilty of the crime, then they deserve their tarnished reputation.

Many people take advantage of sexual abuse cases as well. When it seemed like pedophile priests became a trend, just as any case involving sexual abuse, people come out of the woodwork to make a quick buck. You have priests that were found innocent after being falsely accused of sexual abuse, it happens, and people seem to conveniently overlook the possibility and even the occurrences when it actually happens as long as it serves their purpose.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#56 Nov 16, 2009
A Southern Gentleman wrote:
<quoted text>
Still better being a homosexual in the West, more specifically in the US, than it is in any Islamic country. The difference here is that Vatican City has not made it clear on multiple occasions that they want to wipe the US off of the map and are in the process of building nukes to do so, nor do they encourage any sort of violence against anyone. They state their opinion on certain issues and that's it. They don't threaten to invade or nuke anybody who disagrees with them either. You've mainly had religions oppose gay marriage when the homosexuals were demanding to be married in the churches of religions who did not condone gay marriage.
I'm in full support of a civil union where the homosexual couple has all the same benefits as a straight couple. But it crosses the line when it's a marriage in a church of a faith that opposes it. That's what a lot of the gay rights activists want and it's not right. It's gone beyond a battle for rights to a battle against religion for many activists. You'd be depriving religious people of rights while you're trying to obtain your own.
I would like to see everyone get past this and let homosexuals have their civil unions, but you know as well as I do, once that's obtained, then homosexuals will unfortunately turn their battle completely against religion. Religions know this because so many prominent LGBT activists are open about their animosity for them and people will be easily rallied to the new battle. People in this country have the mentality that if they cry enough, they'll get what they want. And after they get what they want, they want more, so they cry louder because the recent generations don't know crap about what it's truly like to fight for your rights.
In our diverse society, we give in easier to the demanding, inconsiderate minority, regardless of what's best and tradition is labeled evil. Until I see the Church encouraging violence against homosexuals and public execution of homosexuals taking place on a regular basis here in the US, then I'll condemn the current policy. But until then, I personally would need an unbreakable guarantee that the war would not turn against religion once the goal for civil unions for the LGBT community has been achieved.
It is better to be Islamic in the US then in an Islamic Country....

And I would wager you can not show us one quote from the Government of Iran advocating they be allowed to build nukes so they can wipe US off the face of the earth.

A Church even to this day is not forced to preform interracial marriages... I can't find a single case where a church was forced to perform an interracial marriage and I would hazard to say you can not either.

The LDS church was free to deny priesthood status to blacks until it decided on its own to end the practice, the Catholic Church was free to refuse to marry a Catholic to a non Catholic,

The government never attempted to force the LDS church to change its policies regarding blacks, even though those policies were racist and discriminatory. The Catholic Church was never threatened with the loss of tax exempt status for any refusal of interfaith marriages.

History shows that churches will be free to practice their religion, even when such practices are discriminatory. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the hysterical arguments now being put forth with respect to gays....in fact Eleven o'clock Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour in America to this day with only about 5 percent of this nation's churches being racially integrated and nearly 100 percent of those churches practicing dogmatic purity.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#57 Nov 16, 2009
A Southern Gentleman wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot to further address your point above. I'll agree that the priests who do harm to children should be severely punished. But how many do you actually hear of being convicted of the crimes they were charged with? And if they were, what was the evidence that was used in the case? What are the details of the case?
We always hear a priest here and a priest there was charged with sexual abuse, but you never hear the verdict of the case. Some of those priests may not have done a thing and now their reputation is tarnished because the news posted his face and charges all over the place, but never told you if he was found innocent or guilty (Such is the case ESPECIALLY when they're found innocent). And if are truly guilty of the crime, then they deserve their tarnished reputation.
Many people take advantage of sexual abuse cases as well. When it seemed like pedophile priests became a trend, just as any case involving sexual abuse, people come out of the woodwork to make a quick buck. You have priests that were found innocent after being falsely accused of sexual abuse, it happens, and people seem to conveniently overlook the possibility and even the occurrences when it actually happens as long as it serves their purpose.
The crimes against children by Catholic priests were horrendous and wide spread.... but what the Church hierarchy and its apologist are trying to do is White Wash is the fact that the church engaged in a conspiracy to cover over these crimes that bordered on violations of the RICO Act.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#58 Nov 16, 2009
Paulathesurfmom wrote:
<quoted text>
It is better to be Islamic in the US then in an Islamic Country....
And I would wager you can not show us one quote from the Government of Iran advocating they be allowed to build nukes so they can wipe US off the face of the earth.
A Church even to this day is not forced to preform interracial marriages... I can't find a single case where a church was forced to perform an interracial marriage and I would hazard to say you can not either.
The LDS church was free to deny priesthood status to blacks until it decided on its own to end the practice, the Catholic Church was free to refuse to marry a Catholic to a non Catholic,
The government never attempted to force the LDS church to change its policies regarding blacks, even though those policies were racist and discriminatory. The Catholic Church was never threatened with the loss of tax exempt status for any refusal of interfaith marriages.
History shows that churches will be free to practice their religion, even when such practices are discriminatory. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the hysterical arguments now being put forth with respect to gays....in fact Eleven o'clock Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour in America to this day with only about 5 percent of this nation's churches being racially integrated and nearly 100 percent of those churches practicing dogmatic purity.
I never said Iran openly stated they wanted to build nukes just to wipe the US off of the map, but I did say they openly stated they wanted to wipe the US off of the map. Either way you would win that bet because I misspoke in regards to Iran openly saying they wanted to wipe the US off of the map, my apologies. But seeing as how they want to do that to Israel and we're Israel's #1 ally, we wouldn't be that far down on their list.

Let's apply a little common sense though: They're an Islamic extremist country that despises us. If that wasn't the case, then our diplomatic relations would have continued to this day. Do you truly believe the only reason they want nuclear power is so that they can power their country? Because if you do, I know of a Nigerian prince who has a very tempting offer for you.

To address your second point: You referred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm referring mostly to the Catholic Church. There is a difference in teachings and beliefs between the two denominations and they cannot be placed in the same category regarding certain issues. I'm sincerely not trying to nitpick your post, just making it clear where I'm mostly coming from.

But you're correct, I cannot say that churches were ever forced to marry interracial couples because interracial marriage isn't condemned in the bible, but homosexuality is. Marrying interracial couples and marrying homosexual couples are two completely different issues. Interracial couples were never married because it was against the law of the state where the church was located; interracial marriage was never an issue for the Church.

As far as the Catholic Church's right to refuse marriage to a Catholic and a non-Catholic: Most couples make compromises in those situations. One spouse either converts to Catholicism or they settle for a civil union. But difference in religious beliefs as far as marriage goes has never been a hot, touchy issue like gay marriage is. Most people accept either adhering to the rules of their spouse's religion or both decide to avoid it altogether.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#59 Nov 16, 2009
But you have homosexuals who want to be married to their partner in the church of their faith, even though their religion is against homosexuality. So they're making efforts to force their religion to change their rules to accommodate them on the basis that it would be a hate crime to refuse marriage to them. For the Church to marry a homosexual couple would be to legitimize their lifestyle in the eyes of the Church and that would go against their beliefs.

Our current hate crime laws enable someone to sue a priest for hate speech if their sermon contains anti-homosexual messages; even if the sermon does not encourage persecution of homosexuals. A priest can also be charged if someone hears their sermon, commits a hate crime against a homosexual and the prosecutor can prove that the person's actions were influenced by the priest's sermon. Isn't that along the ridiculous lines of people holding bands responsible for a person's actions, even if the band's song didn't encourage the actions the individual carried out?

Not all are on board with this, mind you. But just because there is no probability of something happening at the moment, doesn't mean there is no possibility. Take the Civil Rights Movement for example. Initially, the blacks just wanted the same materials as white students to learn with. Then they requested the same teachers and environment at the white kids and they were given that as well. They wanted the same rights as the white people. Sounds fair enough to me...

Now about 50 years later, the blacks own a word that no one else can use, especially if the person is white. And if the person does, and someone really wants to press the issue, they can be severely punished (which people do most of the time because it's an easy victory). Now a person can be laid-off, regardless of their productivity, because the company they work for has too many people with their skin color (i.e. white) and not enough of another skin color.

For a more tolerant and color-blind society we were supposed to become, it seems race plays the same, if not more of a role in our daily lives than it used to. Something that was started with good intentions snowballed into an opportunist's dream. What's to stop gay marriage, an equally touchy issue like race, from going down the same road? Especially with political correctness currently running strong in our society?
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#60 Nov 16, 2009
Paulathesurfmom wrote:
<quoted text>
The crimes against children by Catholic priests were horrendous and wide spread.... but what the Church hierarchy and its apologist are trying to do is White Wash is the fact that the church engaged in a conspiracy to cover over these crimes that bordered on violations of the RICO Act.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the truly guilty priest's actions are disgusting and I share equal feelings on the Church's efforts to cover it up. But when all of this came out, you heard of priests being accused left and right of sexual abuse. I'm not saying the guilty priests' actions are justified in any way nor am I excusing them, but people and media outlets started running with many stories of priests charged with sexual abuse. People mostly focused on priests being charged and especially on the ones found guilty. But people never addressed the ones found innocent, you hardly heard about them. What's the true ratio of priests found guilty of sexual abuse, to priests found innocent?

This of course is on par with the media's usual policy of sensationalizing stories. Innocent verdicts in high profile cases do not sell as many papers as guilty verdicts; especially if public opinion of the person on trial is negative. We also never know the full details of the case nor if public opinion had an influence on the trial. On top of all of this, sex crimes in this country have become a witch hunt. When you're the accused, you're guilty until proven innocent. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of sex crimes, but society does tend to automatically assume someone is truly guilty scum when they're charged with a sex crime, regardless of the circumstances of the incident or the legitimacy of the claim.

My point is that people use the sexual abuse cases to justify their hatred for religion, more specifically Catholicism. Some will even go as far as to distort history to support their claim, such as claiming the Church punished people for owning bibles; but they fail to elaborate on the subject. I'll agree that the Church's hands are not clean and that such incidents rightfully attract a suspicious eye on them. But as I said, to use this scandal as justification to destroy the Church, despite the vast humanitarian aid they've provided to the world as well the other good deeds attributed to them; is to justify destroying every country, religion and organization in existence today because they've all been guilty of abusing their power.

Religious leaders can pervert religions, government officials can pervert the founding beliefs of their country and organization leaders can pervert the purpose of their organizations. It doesn't mean the country/religion/organization/ etc. is evil, just the people who are in control of it; Unless the country's/religion's/organizat ion's intent from the beginning are truly negative. But in the end, it's quality is truly determined by those in control.

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”- Mark Twain

I couldn't agree more..

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#61 Nov 16, 2009
A Southern Gentleman wrote:
But you have homosexuals who want to be married to their partner in the church of their faith, even though their religion is against homosexuality. So they're making efforts to force their religion to change their rules to accommodate them on the basis that it would be a hate crime to refuse marriage to them. For the Church to marry a homosexual couple would be to legitimize their lifestyle in the eyes of the Church and that would go against their beliefs.
Our current hate crime laws enable someone to sue a priest for hate speech if their sermon contains anti-homosexual messages; even if the sermon does not encourage persecution of homosexuals. A priest can also be charged if someone hears their sermon, commits a hate crime against a homosexual and the prosecutor can prove that the person's actions were influenced by the priest's sermon. Isn't that along the ridiculous lines of people holding bands responsible for a person's actions, even if the band's song didn't encourage the actions the individual carried out?
Not all are on board with this, mind you. But just because there is no probability of something happening at the moment, doesn't mean there is no possibility. Take the Civil Rights Movement for example. Initially, the blacks just wanted the same materials as white students to learn with. Then they requested the same teachers and environment at the white kids and they were given that as well. They wanted the same rights as the white people. Sounds fair enough to me...
Now about 50 years later, the blacks own a word that no one else can use, especially if the person is white. And if the person does, and someone really wants to press the issue, they can be severely punished (which people do most of the time because it's an easy victory). Now a person can be laid-off, regardless of their productivity, because the company they work for has too many people with their skin color (i.e. white) and not enough of another skin color.
For a more tolerant and color-blind society we were supposed to become, it seems race plays the same, if not more of a role in our daily lives than it used to. Something that was started with good intentions snowballed into an opportunist's dream. What's to stop gay marriage, an equally touchy issue like race, from going down the same road? Especially with political correctness currently running strong in our society?
You generalize too much here... I am not looking to be married in any church... and if you notice you do not buy your marriage licenses at any church... so no church should have any say in my decisions on MY marriage.

Now I need to ask... honestly when was the last time you meet someone who lost their job because of EEO laws?... The figures show just the opposite... Minorities of all stripe have in fact been impacted harder in this economic downturn then white males.

One thing is changing for straight white Christians and that is the playing field is being evened out... and it really sounds to me you don't like that very much

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#62 Nov 16, 2009
A Southern Gentleman wrote:
<quoted text>
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the truly guilty priest's actions are disgusting and I share equal feelings on the Church's efforts to cover it up. But when all of this came out, you heard of priests being accused left and right of sexual abuse. I'm not saying the guilty priests' actions are justified in any way nor am I excusing them, but people and media outlets started running with many stories of priests charged with sexual abuse. People mostly focused on priests being charged and especially on the ones found guilty. But people never addressed the ones found innocent, you hardly heard about them. What's the true ratio of priests found guilty of sexual abuse, to priests found innocent?
This of course is on par with the media's usual policy of sensationalizing stories. Innocent verdicts in high profile cases do not sell as many papers as guilty verdicts; especially if public opinion of the person on trial is negative. We also never know the full details of the case nor if public opinion had an influence on the trial. On top of all of this, sex crimes in this country have become a witch hunt. When you're the accused, you're guilty until proven innocent. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of sex crimes, but society does tend to automatically assume someone is truly guilty scum when they're charged with a sex crime, regardless of the circumstances of the incident or the legitimacy of the claim.
My point is that people use the sexual abuse cases to justify their hatred for religion, more specifically Catholicism. Some will even go as far as to distort history to support their claim, such as claiming the Church punished people for owning bibles; but they fail to elaborate on the subject. I'll agree that the Church's hands are not clean and that such incidents rightfully attract a suspicious eye on them. But as I said, to use this scandal as justification to destroy the Church, despite the vast humanitarian aid they've provided to the world as well the other good deeds attributed to them; is to justify destroying every country, religion and organization in existence today because they've all been guilty of abusing their power.
Religious leaders can pervert religions, government officials can pervert the founding beliefs of their country and organization leaders can pervert the purpose of their organizations. It doesn't mean the country/religion/organization/ etc. is evil, just the people who are in control of it; Unless the country's/religion's/organizat ion's intent from the beginning are truly negative. But in the end, it's quality is truly determined by those in control.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”- Mark Twain
I couldn't agree more..
I am not sure what it is but my observation has been that Christian have this persecution complex... that really has no basis in reality... just because Christians lose the upper hand and position of the privileged they have long enjoyed in this country, does not mean they are being persecuted... it means they should have never had that upper hand and privileged position in the first place.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#63 Nov 16, 2009
Paulathesurfmom wrote:
<quoted text>
You generalize too much here... I am not looking to be married in any church... and if you notice you do not buy your marriage licenses at any church... so no church should have any say in my decisions on MY marriage.
Now I need to ask... honestly when was the last time you meet someone who lost their job because of EEO laws?... The figures show just the opposite... Minorities of all stripe have in fact been impacted harder in this economic downturn then white males.
One thing is changing for straight white Christians and that is the playing field is being evened out... and it really sounds to me you don't like that very much
1. How exactly have I generalized too much?

I never said you were wanting to be married in a church nor did I say the Church should have any influence over civil marriages.... I thought that was made quite clear.... I also thought it was made clear that I acknowledged the fact that not all of the LGBT community was interested in being married in a church nor forcing religions to change their rules to accommodate them.

2. I was actually referring more to Affirmative Action, which encourages employment based on race, ethnicity and gender; rather than the EEOC, who's supposed to investigate and punish employment based on race, ethnicity, and gender (of course, their judgement as to what's discrimination and what's not is up to them to decide). Does family count? My father was denied employment a few years back for a job he was the most qualified for because the EEOC was threatening legal action against the company if they didn't hire more "minorities" by the end of the month in place of the employees who were laid off. Keep in mind, employees who were laid off mainly to make room for the new minority employees.

Applicants for a job of course, cannot be informed they were not chosen for the position because of EEOC regulations. My father only found out the reason because the boss happened to be one of my dad's old friends he used to work with a few years prior. He instead hired a black guy and mexican woman who were less qualified than my father. And yes, this was before our economy started going down. Hell, read up on the case of the New Haven Fire Department as another example of the double standards that exist. It's not as infrequent as you'd like to believe.

3. No, what I don't like is our government and society granting people preferential treatment based on ridiculous reasons and distorted facts and labeling it "evening out the playing field". Want a truly evened out playing field? Abolish Affirmative Action, civil rights groups that cater to a specific ethnicity or gender, college funds that are meant for a specific race or gender and make all the words of the English language available for everybody to use without fear of punishment! Then, employ people based solely on their true intellect and skills without their age, gender or ethnicity having any bearing on the boss's decision.

Society feels that by tipping the scale in favor on one group over the other, that it makes up for a lot of the past "injustices".... when in reality, it just perpetuates the cycle of preferential treatment with the groups involved trading places time and time again. I'm all up for a level playing field... but let's be realistic. Call a spade a spade and don't try to disguise it with another name.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#64 Nov 16, 2009
Paulathesurfmom wrote:
<quoted text>I am not sure what it is but my observation has been that Christian have this persecution complex... that really has no basis in reality... just because Christians lose the upper hand and position of the privileged they have long enjoyed in this country, does not mean they are being persecuted... it means they should have never had that upper hand and privileged position in the first place.
I observe something similar in the LGBT community, as well other "minority" groups.

Study your history, The Vatican may have some influence in this country, but not nearly as much as it does in countries that are traditionally Catholic. The US is, for the most part, a Protestant and Baptist country and has been for quite a while. I can only count one Catholic president in this country's history and his election caused controversy based on the fact that he was Catholic. I acknowledged that Christianity is not perfect.... it seems you cannot acknowledge the flaws in the organization you believe in...
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#65 Nov 16, 2009
"I observe something similar in the LGBT community,***as well other "minority" groups."***

*** as well as in other "minority" groups ***

Felt I needed to correct the grammatical error in my previous post.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#66 Nov 16, 2009
A Southern Gentleman wrote:
<quoted text>
1. How exactly have I generalized too much?
I never said you were wanting to be married in a church nor did I say the Church should have any influence over civil marriages.... I thought that was made quite clear.... I also thought it was made clear that I acknowledged the fact that not all of the LGBT community was interested in being married in a church nor forcing religions to change their rules to accommodate them.
2. I was actually referring more to Affirmative Action, which encourages employment based on race, ethnicity and gender; rather than the EEOC, who's supposed to investigate and punish employment based on race, ethnicity, and gender (of course, their judgement as to what's discrimination and what's not is up to them to decide). Does family count? My father was denied employment a few years back for a job he was the most qualified for because the EEOC was threatening legal action against the company if they didn't hire more "minorities" by the end of the month in place of the employees who were laid off. Keep in mind, employees who were laid off mainly to make room for the new minority employees.
Applicants for a job of course, cannot be informed they were not chosen for the position because of EEOC regulations. My father only found out the reason because the boss happened to be one of my dad's old friends he used to work with a few years prior. He instead hired a black guy and mexican woman who were less qualified than my father. And yes, this was before our economy started going down. Hell, read up on the case of the New Haven Fire Department as another example of the double standards that exist. It's not as infrequent as you'd like to believe.
3. No, what I don't like is our government and society granting people preferential treatment based on ridiculous reasons and distorted facts and labeling it "evening out the playing field". Want a truly evened out playing field? Abolish Affirmative Action, civil rights groups that cater to a specific ethnicity or gender, college funds that are meant for a specific race or gender and make all the words of the English language available for everybody to use without fear of punishment! Then, employ people based solely on their true intellect and skills without their age, gender or ethnicity having any bearing on the boss's decision.
Society feels that by tipping the scale in favor on one group over the other, that it makes up for a lot of the past "injustices".... when in reality, it just perpetuates the cycle of preferential treatment with the groups involved trading places time and time again. I'm all up for a level playing field... but let's be realistic. Call a spade a spade and don't try to disguise it with another name.
I guess my position would come from the fact I have benefited of having the playing field leveled..

You see I am profoundly deaf... and can't hear a thing... I have directly benefited from the ADA... and I don't see it gave me a thing...

I hold a Phd in History from a hearing school... the Univ of North Carolina... if the ADA had not made for provisions to accommodate my deafness I can tell you I would not have been able to get it...

and I would not have gotten my Phd because because I lacked the ability or intelligence to receive my degree or the willingness to work in obtaining it... but because others would have said that because I am deaf... I did not belong in a school for hearing students.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#67 Nov 17, 2009
Paulathesurfmom wrote:
<quoted text>I guess my position would come from the fact I have benefited of having the playing field leveled..
You see I am profoundly deaf... and can't hear a thing... I have directly benefited from the ADA... and I don't see it gave me a thing...
I hold a Phd in History from a hearing school... the Univ of North Carolina... if the ADA had not made for provisions to accommodate my deafness I can tell you I would not have been able to get it...
and I would not have gotten my Phd because because I lacked the ability or intelligence to receive my degree or the willingness to work in obtaining it... but because others would have said that because I am deaf... I did not belong in a school for hearing students.
Deafness is an actual disability; but not ethnicity, gender, legal status, etc. I don't mind people with ACTUAL disabilities receiving a helping hand. But besides setting classes up to accommodate you because of your deafness; were you given extra points right off the bat on your test because you're deaf? Did people kiss up to you and not treat you like everyone else because you're deaf? As long as you worked just like everyone else, then no one really handed you anything.

People who are specific ethnicities receive money for college and a head start of extra points on exams for nothing more than their last name and/or skin color! How is that justified?! People argue that tests are geared more towards whites and are racist... Yet, Asians score better than everyone else on average, including whites. But people continue spouting off this senseless garbage that somehow tests are racist. Last I checked, we learn in the same class rooms now, do we not?

It seems everyone in this country gets some sort of preferential treatment except "white" straight Christian males who are legal citizens. People will say what I'm saying is hateful, racist, sexist, blah blah blah. We've been indoctrinated that this unfair and unjust policy is the exact opposite. Creating special laws, programs and organizations to further one group and not the entire country is only creating more and bigger rifts and is one reason why we're going down the crapper.

There were many people who faced harsher treatment and more hardships in this country before we became a "tolerant" society, but they were eventually accepted. Not because of any laws or special programs, but because they proved they were worthy. Our society tells people now that they can be a whiney, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible, demanding, uncouth, cowardly leech and that they're just as special and worthy as everyone else. That attitude discourages ambition and true greatness. We're only equal when it's convenient...

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#68 Nov 17, 2009
A Southern Gentleman wrote:
<quoted text>
Deafness is an actual disability; but not ethnicity, gender, legal status, etc. I don't mind people with ACTUAL disabilities receiving a helping hand. But besides setting classes up to accommodate you because of your deafness; were you given extra points right off the bat on your test because you're deaf? Did people kiss up to you and not treat you like everyone else because you're deaf? As long as you worked just like everyone else, then no one really handed you anything.
People who are specific ethnicities receive money for college and a head start of extra points on exams for nothing more than their last name and/or skin color! How is that justified?! People argue that tests are geared more towards whites and are racist... Yet, Asians score better than everyone else on average, including whites. But people continue spouting off this senseless garbage that somehow tests are racist. Last I checked, we learn in the same class rooms now, do we not?
It seems everyone in this country gets some sort of preferential treatment except "white" straight Christian males who are legal citizens. People will say what I'm saying is hateful, racist, sexist, blah blah blah. We've been indoctrinated that this unfair and unjust policy is the exact opposite. Creating special laws, programs and organizations to further one group and not the entire country is only creating more and bigger rifts and is one reason why we're going down the crapper.
There were many people who faced harsher treatment and more hardships in this country before we became a "tolerant" society, but they were eventually accepted. Not because of any laws or special programs, but because they proved they were worthy. Our society tells people now that they can be a whiney, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible, demanding, uncouth, cowardly leech and that they're just as special and worthy as everyone else. That attitude discourages ambition and true greatness. We're only equal when it's convenient...
Oh I completely agree that using a handicap... any handicap should never be used as an excuse for laziness or to game the system.

But unfortunately in our country last name and/or skin color has been a handicap to some... just as much as my deafness was to me... the programs you are complaining about were instituted not because the participants were whiney, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible, demanding, uncouth, cowardly leeches but because of the way straight white Christians had the system stacked. Their last name and/or skin color was a disadvantage... not of their making but that of the straight white male Christians making...

I would suggest this... remember what your good book says... whatever shall you sow... that shall you also reap.

If straight white male Christians did not want to do the time... Then they should not have done the crime.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#69 Nov 17, 2009
Paulathesurfmom wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I completely agree that using a handicap... any handicap should never be used as an excuse for laziness or to game the system.
But unfortunately in our country last name and/or skin color has been a handicap to some... just as much as my deafness was to me... the programs you are complaining about were instituted not because the participants were whiney, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible, demanding, uncouth, cowardly leeches but because of the way straight white Christians had the system stacked. Their last name and/or skin color was a disadvantage... not of their making but that of the straight white male Christians making...
I would suggest this... remember what your good book says... whatever shall you sow... that shall you also reap.
If straight white male Christians did not want to do the time... Then they should not have done the crime.
Don't forget as well that straight, white, Christian males also discriminated against other straight, white, Christian males. Pretty much if you weren't a British or German Protestant or Baptist, you were screwed. A lot of white people were discriminated against just as much as anybody then because of their ethnicity and religion; As they are now because of their skin color, since they're grouped in with the rest of the white people as being the evil of the world. Seems like they have one of the rawest deals out of everybody.

These programs are part of the example of things that started out with good intentions, but then snowballed into an opportunist's dream. Since they have no purpose to serve anymore, they make one by creating more of the problems they claim to be trying to end. If they can't create one, they claim to find ones in almost anything.

What people did in the past before any of us were a twinkle in our daddy's pants doesn't justify continuing to do it today with the roles reversed. We're no worse than a lot of other people in this world. If anything, white christians sowed the seeds for a strong, free country and reaped the wealth that we made off of the land.... the same wealth we've given to the less fortunate. The same wealth we used to give people a better life today just so they can have the freedom to take a dump on it all and rewrite history to serve their purpose. Hardly a crime in my book. The true crime is the joke people have turned this country into and the lies they've accepted as history.

We're blamed for screwing up the most, but hardly praised for the accomplishments that everybody has benefitted from. The Western world is the most tolerant today, but people seem to beat up on it the most. When it comes to the positive in the past, we're only allowed to claim a minute amount, much less than what they are truly responsible for... but as far as the negative goes according to people today... We're responsible for more evil in this world than anyone and even responsible for the evils of others because we somehow had something to do with it (Even when we really didn't). Look at any society in this world, consider their history and tell me how we're worse.
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#70 Nov 17, 2009
"When it comes to the positive in the past, we're only allowed to claim a minute amount, much less than what ***they*** are truly responsible for..."

***we***
A Southern Gentleman

League City, TX

#71 Nov 29, 2009
No answer?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 7 min Belle Sexton 60,802
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 11 min Wondering 84
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 15 min Wondering 727
News Huge Media Cover-Up of Criminal Charges Against... 19 min Belle Sexton 66
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 23 min LATER than WOODEN... 6,520
News Lawyer: School that blocked gay speech didn't d... 23 min Wondering 21
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 24,013
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 2 hr elh 8,053
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 7 hr elh 1,637
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 11 hr NorCal Native 1,153
More from around the web