The Effort to Silence Christians

[jdnation]

The Effort To Silence Christians

Kelly Boggs | January 10 2005

“We will shut you up,” she muttered under her breath.

Excuse me,” I replied. “Did you say something to me?”

She glared as she answered. “One day we will absolutely shut you right-wing Christians up.”

The exchange above took place approximately four years ago. It occurred following a debate over the promotion of homosexuality in public education held at a Portland, Or., high school.

I felt I had done well in maintaining the position that homosexual practices are aberrant and unhealthy and should not be promoted at any level of public education. My opponent seemed to agree with my assessment of the debate. However, rather than focus on honing her argument, her solution to victory in future debates would rest in the silencing of her opposition.

As I left the debate that day, I realized that among homosexual activists there existed an element that fervently desired to outlaw any and all opposition to their lifestyle. If they could make it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, they would.

Fast forward four years to October, 2004. According to news reports, 11 Christians associated with Repent America were preaching and singing at Philadelphia’s Outfest, a homosexual street event that had an estimated 30,000 in attendance.

Soon after the Christians began, they were surrounded by a homosexual group known as the Pink Angels. The group held up signs, shouted, blew whistles, and blocked the Christians. Police arrested only the Christians, who spent 21 hours in jail before being released.

Currently, 5 of the 11 Christians are being charged with seven crimes. If convicted, they face up to 47 years in prison. It should also be noted that one of the 5 is a 17 year-old girl.

Let us review the charges pending against the Philadelphia 5.

Possession of instruments of crime. There was no mention in any news reports of the Christians possessing any weapons or signs. So, what were the criminal instruments? Bibles?

Reckless endangerment of another person. From the reports I have read, the Christians were significantly outnumbered. I have trouble believing that any Pink Angles were ever endangered.

Ethnic intimidation. I will not even address the absurdity of considering homosexual behavior on par with ethnicity. However, is it possible for 5 unarmed people to intimidate a crowd of 30,000?

Rioting. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, rioting is defined as: “An unlawful disturbance of the peace by an assembly of usually three or more persons acting with a common purpose in a violent or tumultuous manner that threatens or terrorizes the public.” Well, 5 are more than 3, but violent and/or terrorizing behavior was never indicated in any news report.

Failure to disperse. If officers ordered the 5 to move on and they did not, there might be merit to this charge. However, officers must have a legitimate reason to order people to disperse. They cannot arbitrarily harass citizens who are not breaking the law.

Disorderly conduct. Black’s Law Dictionary defines this charge as, “Behavior that tends to disturb the public peace, offend public morals, or undermine public safety.” I wonder if any gay pride parade participants have ever been cited for disorderly conduct?

Obstructing a highway. This really seems to be a stretch.
According to the Daily Pennsylvanian, the alleged violations of the law took place in 15 minutes. That’s right, 5 Christians preaching and singing threatened to wreak havoc on a gathering of 30,000 in a quarter of an hour. If you believe that, I have some stock in a company that produces 8-track tapes I would like to sell you.

I have been a part of, and observed, Christian gatherings that have been protested by opposition groups. I have seen insulting signs and heard derogatory slurs. Never once have I thought, “These people should be arrested. They should be shut up!”

You may disagree with the tactics of the 11 Christians in Philadelphia, but they have a right to express themselves in public. In America, if you do not threaten violence and you keep your clothes on – San Francisco being the exception to the clothing rule, you can say most anything in public. Once upon a time your expression would also have to be free of vulgarity, but not anymore.

There is an element within the homosexual community that desperately wants to restrict the First Amendment rights of those opposed to their lifestyle. That element is hard at work in Philadelphia seeking to punish Christians for daring to take a public stand against homosexual behavior.

It was four years ago that I was told by a homosexual activist, “We will shut you up.” In Philadelphia, the effort has begun in earnest.

 

[Lisa_N]

This is clearly the agenda of homosexual activists. They don’t want any opposition to expanding their ranks. You know fresh meat for the troops. The whole thing is so disgusting.

I find it hard to believe that for example on our streets “free speech” is protected by those who intimidate passersby with very pushy requests for “spare change.” But you can’t read the Bible in public?

PUH-LEASE.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Lisa N:

This is clearly the agenda of homosexual activists. They don’t want any opposition to expanding their ranks. You know fresh meat for the troops. The whole thing is so disgusting.

I find it hard to believe that for example on our streets “free speech” is protected by those who intimidate passersby with very pushy requests for “spare change.” But you can’t read the Bible in public?

PUH-LEASE.

Lisa N

Father Benedict Groeshel in his spiritual response to 9/11 brought up the insanity in america.He and some of his brothers were arrested a few years ago for praying the Rosary in front of an abortion mill,he was strip searched three times in 24 hours.Let’s contrast that with what happens in the gay pride parades,he said they will sodomise each other on the steps of St.Patricks Cathedral in the presence of the police,yet nothing is done:banghead:

 

[Matt25]

(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) A preliminary hearing will begin Tuesday for 11 evangelists arrested after a confrontation at a gay festival.

Repent America director Michael Marcavage and 10 followers were charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting and ethnic intimidation after they attempted to break up the October 10 Outfest gay pride block party in Center City.

A motion to block the prosecution was rejected by U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker.

Repent America is represented by the Mississippi-based American Family Association which is involved in a number of cases across the country opposing gay rights.

AFA attorney Brian Fahling called the arrests “harassment” of Christians and said that the charges violated the protesters’ freedom of speech.

Judge Tucker in a single sentence ruling rejected the argument.

The confrontation began when the 11 protestors marched to the front of a stage at Outfest and began to yell out Biblical passages to drown out the events on stage.

Police attempted to get the protestors to move to to an area on the edge of the site. Instead they went deeper into the gay crowd. Using a bullhorn they condemned homosexuality. They then got into an argument with a group of Pink Angels, who screamed back.

It was at that point police intervened arresting the 11.

“They were not prohibited from preaching,” said Karen Brancheau, a lawyer for the District Attorney’s Office. "A reasonable request was made to prevent a situation from becoming dangerous to their own safety as well as the safety of the participan

 

[Matt25]

   Or: how a persecution complex leads to distortion of the facts...When I saw the headline, "[ Four Christians Face Possible 47 Years in Prison for Actions at Evangelizing at Gay Event](http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/1273/section/four.christians.face.possible.47.years.in.prison.for.actions.at.evangelizing.at.gay.event/1.htm)" I was concerned because although I generally don't agree with fundamentalists preaching their anti-gay hate at gay events, they do have as much a right to peaceably assemble and speak on public property as anybody else. So I opened the article and read it. A group of 11 Christians is supposedly being prosecuted for nothing other than "singing, praying, and reading passages from the Bible"       

 Now that sounds a bit far-fetched. Google News to the rescue! I looked up the name of U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker to see what other news sources might say about these poor, persecuted Christians who weren't doing anything to hurt anybody.

 From [365gay.com](http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/121304philCourt.htm) we get the opposite side of the story. They tell us:

 The confrontation began when the 11 protestors marched to the front of a stage at Outfest and began to yell out Biblical passages to drown out the events on stage.         Police attempted to get the protestors to move to to an area on the edge of the site. Instead they went deeper into the gay crowd. Using a bullhorn they condemned homosexuality. They then got into an argument with a group of Pink Angels, who screamed back.

   It was at that point police intervened arresting the 11.

      Wow, that's a        **way** different story than the one the poor, persecuted Christian news source gave! 365gay.com would have us believe that these people were disrupting a scheduled event, screaming and using a bullhorn. Now it sounds like they were interfering with the rights of other people to peaceably assemble and speak.

 But before we accept that explanation, let's see what a local, more objective news source has to say. [ The Philadelphia Inquirer](http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/10378451.htm?1c) tells us:

 City officials said the video [of the confrontation] did not show the start of the confrontation when [anti-gay preacher] Marcavage tried to interrupt a performance with his anti-gay preaching and then disobeyed a police order to move to the proselytizing to the perimeter of the Outfest to avoid the potential for violence.     These were not Christians who were minding their own business, just "singing, praying, and reading passages from the Bible." These were violent anti-gay protesters who tried to disrupt another group's event with bullhorns and who disobeyed a police order. It was only then that they were arrested. They were not arrested for being Christian or for opposing gays; they were arrested for "criminal conspiracy, rioting and ethnic intimidation" (though none of the articles mentioned which ethnic group or groups the hate group targeted).

 Wouldn't it be keen if the type of people who want the Ten Commandments taught in schools and displayed in court houses were also the type of people who obeyed them, especially that bit about bearing false witness?

 ---Nick

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Matt25:

Or: how a persecution complex leads to distortion of the facts…When I saw the headline, " Four Christians Face Possible 47 Years in Prison for Actions at Evangelizing at Gay Event" I was concerned because although I generally don’t agree with fundamentalists preaching their anti-gay hate at gay events, they do have as much a right to peaceably assemble and speak on public property as anybody else. So I opened the article and read it. A group of 11 Christians is supposedly being prosecuted for nothing other than “singing, praying, and reading passages from the Bible”

Now that sounds a bit far-fetched. Google News to the rescue! I looked up the name of U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker to see what other news sources might say about these poor, persecuted Christians who weren’t doing anything to hurt anybody.

From 365gay.com we get the opposite side of the story. They tell us:

The confrontation began when the 11 protestors marched to the front of a stage at Outfest and began to yell out Biblical passages to drown out the events on stage. Police attempted to get the protestors to move to to an area on the edge of the site. Instead they went deeper into the gay crowd. Using a bullhorn they condemned homosexuality. They then got into an argument with a group of Pink Angels, who screamed back.

It was at that point police intervened arresting the 11.

Wow, that’s a way different story than the one the poor, persecuted Christian news source gave! 365gay.com would have us believe that these people were disrupting a scheduled event, screaming and using a bullhorn. Now it sounds like they were interfering with the rights of other people to peaceably assemble and speak.

But before we accept that explanation, let’s see what a local, more objective news source has to say. The Philadelphia Inquirer tells us:

City officials said the video [of the confrontation] did not show the start of the confrontation when [anti-gay preacher] Marcavage tried to interrupt a performance with his anti-gay preaching and then disobeyed a police order to move to the proselytizing to the perimeter of the Outfest to avoid the potential for violence.These were not Christians who were minding their own business, just “singing, praying, and reading passages from the Bible.” These were violent anti-gay protesters who tried to disrupt another group’s event with bullhorns and who disobeyed a police order. It was only then that they were arrested. They were not arrested for being Christian or for opposing gays; they were arrested for “criminal conspiracy, rioting and ethnic intimidation” (though none of the articles mentioned which ethnic group or groups the hate group targeted).

Wouldn’t it be keen if the type of people who want the Ten Commandments taught in schools and displayed in court houses were also the type of people who obeyed them, especially that bit about bearing false witness?

—Nick

I wouldn’t be so qiuick about he secular media being fair and unbiased,I pray at abortion mills every week and the abortionist do their fair share of false witnessing and the media take their word for it everytime.God Bless

 

[swampfox]

Matt25:

   Or: how a persecution complex leads to distortion of the facts...When I saw the headline, "[ Four Christians Face Possible 47 Years in Prison for Actions at Evangelizing at Gay Event](http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/1273/section/four.christians.face.possible.47.years.in.prison.for.actions.at.evangelizing.at.gay.event/1.htm)" I was concerned because although I generally don't agree with fundamentalists preaching their anti-gay hate at gay events, they do have as much a right to peaceably assemble and speak on public property as anybody else. So I opened the article and read it. A group of 11 Christians is supposedly being prosecuted for nothing other than "singing, praying, and reading passages from the Bible"       

 Now that sounds a bit far-fetched. Google News to the rescue! I looked up the name of U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker to see what other news sources might say about these poor, persecuted Christians who weren't doing anything to hurt anybody.

 From [365gay.com](http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/121304philCourt.htm) we get the opposite side of the story. They tell us:

 The confrontation began when the 11 protestors marched to the front of a stage at Outfest and began to yell out Biblical passages to drown out the events on stage.         Police attempted to get the protestors to move to to an area on the edge of the site. Instead they went deeper into the gay crowd. Using a bullhorn they condemned homosexuality. They then got into an argument with a group of Pink Angels, who screamed back.

   It was at that point police intervened arresting the 11.

      Wow, that's a        **way** different story than the one the poor, persecuted Christian news source gave! 365gay.com would have us believe that these people were disrupting a scheduled event, screaming and using a bullhorn. Now it sounds like they were interfering with the rights of other people to peaceably assemble and speak.

 But before we accept that explanation, let's see what a local, more objective news source has to say. [ The Philadelphia Inquirer](http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/10378451.htm?1c) tells us:

 City officials said the video [of the confrontation] did not show the start of the confrontation when [anti-gay preacher] Marcavage tried to interrupt a performance with his anti-gay preaching and then disobeyed a police order to move to the proselytizing to the perimeter of the Outfest to avoid the potential for violence.     These were not Christians who were minding their own business, just "singing, praying, and reading passages from the Bible." These were violent anti-gay protesters who tried to disrupt another group's event with bullhorns and who disobeyed a police order. It was only then that they were arrested. They were not arrested for being Christian or for opposing gays; they were arrested for "criminal conspiracy, rioting and ethnic intimidation" (though none of the articles mentioned which ethnic group or groups the hate group targeted).

 Wouldn't it be keen if the type of people who want the Ten Commandments taught in schools and displayed in court houses were also the type of people who obeyed them, especially that bit about bearing false witness?

 ---Nick

The Philadelphia Inquirer isn’t an objective source.
dailynewsbrief.com/

Philly Inquirer wants subscribers back after strident Kerry-support
The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a pro-Kerry editorial every day from October 10 to Election Day. Their over-the-top electioneering trurned off some subscribers, apparently. From Editor and Publisher:

Last Thursday, top editors and editorial board members at The Philadelphia Inquirer, including Executive Editor Amanda Bennett, began calling a couple of hundred former subscribers in an attempt to woo them back to the paper.

UPDATE: Here’s a link to The New York Times article (The NYT is the source for the E&P article). My favorite part:

“We did our job rather forcefully in supporting Kerry, and that only raised the stakes.”
A pro-Kerry editorial every day for three weeks could certainly be called a “forceful” endorsement.

 

[jdnation]

Well I don’t see what’s wrong with the bullhorn or anything about them being violent. There seems to be the accusation that they could cause a potential riot… yeah right, technically any protest could escalate into a riot with that logic in mind. Would’ve cleared this up if the camera caught everything, but now all we’ve got are these reports to go on… but its nothing new for gays to do obscene things in front of churches or activists to storm a mass and toss condoms at people in the pews and get off with a slap on the wrist. Over here in Canada although they say religious rights are protected, that hasn’t stopped them from charging religious people for declining to offer their services to promote homosexual agendas…

 

[Lisa_N]

Matt25 you’ll find that “peaceable assembly” is interpreted differently depending on the local government. For example several years ago there was some kind of fundraiser for President Bush at a downtown hotel. Protestors lined the streets in the area preventing those who’d bought tickets for the event from being able to get to the building. They were screaming, broke through police barricades and for many, they were unable to get through the protestors and went home.

What did our wise city council decide? That the PROTESTORS who refused police orders, who blocked traffic, who intimidated and threatened passersby as well as event goers, that the PROTESTORS were subject to ‘excessive force’ by the police and thus they received a large settlement. Funny how the same activity on the part of an anti homosexual rally will have the opposite result.

And you think a website called gay365 is unbiased? PUH LEASE.
Lisa N

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

jdnation:

Well I don’t see what’s wrong with the bullhorn or anything about them being violent. There seems to be the accusation that they could cause a potential riot… yeah right, technically any protest could escalate into a riot with that logic in mind. Would’ve cleared this up if the camera caught everything, but now all we’ve got are these reports to go on… but its nothing new for gays to do obscene things in front of churches or activists to storm a mass and toss condoms at people in the pews and get off with a slap on the wrist. Over here in Canada although they say religious rights are protected, that hasn’t stopped them from charging religious people for declining to offer their services to promote homosexual agendas…

:clapping: :clapping: :dancing: I totally agree!God Bless

 

[Matt25]

Lisa N:

And you think a website called gay365 is unbiased? PUH LEASE.
Lisa N

I never made the slightest claim that gay365 is unbiased, I don’t suppose that the Christian websites promoting this issue as a free speech one would claim to be either. I was illustrating that when you see a story that appears to be straightforward it aint necessarily so. There is always more than one point of view.

I am reminded of the classic story of “Goodbye Mr Chips”. Mr Chips was a schoolteacher who believed the same things that most of his peers did but also believed that the children should always be allowed to see that life is more complex than your teachers normally tell you that it is. He was forever getting into trouble for encouraging his pupils to think rather than just obey.

This culminates in his decision when acting headmaster during World War I to add the name of a former colleague on the teaching staff to the long list of teachers and former pupils killed in action that was read out at a school service. The colleagues name was Staefel and he had been killed while serving in the German army. Chips saw in him a friend and former schoolteacher at his school. Everyone else saw only an enemy.

Who do you think was most right?

 

[Lisa_N]

Matt25:

I never made the slightest claim that gay365 is unbiased, I don’t suppose that the Christian websites promoting this issue as a free speech one would claim to be either. I was illustrating that when you see a story that appears to be straightforward it aint necessarily so. There is always more than one point of view.?

Of course but why look at sites you KNOW are biased for ‘balance?’ I don’t believe anything some of these propagandists are spouting out on either side.

Matt25:

II am reminded of the classic story of “Goodbye Mr Chips”. Mr Chips was a schoolteacher who believed the same things that most of his peers did but also believed that the children should always be allowed to see that life is more complex than your teachers normally tell you that it is. He was forever getting into trouble for encouraging his pupils to think rather than just obey.

This culminates in his decision when acting headmaster during World War I to add the name of a former colleague on the teaching staff to the long list of teachers and former pupils killed in action that was read out at a school service. The colleagues name was Staefel and he had been killed while serving in the German army. Chips saw in him a friend and former schoolteacher at his school. Everyone else saw only an enemy.

Who do you think was most right?

Sorry but it’s hard to connect the dots between this movie and the thread. Maybe you can help? As I said, I take all reports with a grain of salt but I do know from personal experience in a very liberal anti-Christian town, that the “official” report is often as biased as something you’d see on gay365. I find a lot more “tolerance” for people with radical views than toward Christians as a general rule. For example we have a terrible problem with aggressive panhandlers who’ve about run the populace out of town. Does the city do anything about them? Nope. In fact our new mayer wants to build a multimillion dollar facility to house the chronically homeless. What they do object to are the few street preachers who set up in the public square. Now I don’t much like being prostyltized either, but there shouldn’t be such an obvious double standard.

It sounds nonsensical that a handful of Christians would be “terrorizing” many times that number of gay activists. Do the math.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Matt25:

I never made the slightest claim that gay365 is unbiased, I don’t suppose that the Christian websites promoting this issue as a free speech one would claim to be either. I was illustrating that when you see a story that appears to be straightforward it aint necessarily so. There is always more than one point of view.?

Of course but why look at sites you KNOW are biased for ‘balance?’ I don’t believe anything some of these propagandists are spouting out on either side.

Matt25:

II am reminded of the classic story of “Goodbye Mr Chips”. Mr Chips was a schoolteacher who believed the same things that most of his peers did but also believed that the children should always be allowed to see that life is more complex than your teachers normally tell you that it is. He was forever getting into trouble for encouraging his pupils to think rather than just obey.

This culminates in his decision when acting headmaster during World War I to add the name of a former colleague on the teaching staff to the long list of teachers and former pupils killed in action that was read out at a school service. The colleagues name was Staefel and he had been killed while serving in the German army. Chips saw in him a friend and former schoolteacher at his school. Everyone else saw only an enemy.

Who do you think was most right?

Sorry but it’s hard to connect the dots between this movie and the thread. Maybe you can help? As I said, I take all reports with a grain of salt but I do know from personal experience in a very liberal anti-Christian town, that the “official” report is often as biased as something you’d see on gay365. I find a lot more “tolerance” for people with radical views than toward Christians as a general rule. For example we have a terrible problem with aggressive panhandlers who’ve about run the populace out of town. Does the city do anything about them? Nope. In fact our new mayor wants to build a multimillion dollar facility to house the chronically homeless. What they do object to are the few street preachers who set up in the public square. Now I don’t much like being prostyltized either, but there shouldn’t be such an obvious double standard.

It sounds nonsensical that a handful of Christians would be “terrorizing” many times that number of gay activists. Do the math.

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

What bunk!!!

Decide what principle you are putting forward.

The Hibernians, sponsor of the NYC St.Patrick’s day parade says their street permit gives them the right to control who marches in the parade and they choose to exclude gay groups from 5th Avenue.

Nellie Gray, organizer of the March for Life, also has sent the DC police to arrest of a group of “prolife gays”. As the police carted them away, they told them that as the permit holder, Gray has the right to decide if they can be in the march or not and if she says no, the police have no choice.

Philadelphia Outfest gets a street permit just like New York and DC. They invoke the same right the permit holders in NYC and DC invoke.

You can’t have it both ways (unless you are a gross hypocrite)

 

[Matt25]

Lisa N

My first line of thought was that its worth trying to understand that people believe the very opposite of what you do with the same degree of certainty that you do.

Secondly that if you move in a particular milieu you find yourself making assumptions not because you have examined them at the roots but just because everybody else that you know makes the same assumptions. For example everybody in my immediate family, including relatives by marriage, would rather be hauled over burning coals than vote for the British Conservative Party. Indeed if they did so the rest of us probably would haul them over burning coals. I like to think that we all feel that way out of deep philosophical conviction. In part however I fear that it may be some residual tribalism (at one time the Tory Party was fiercely anti-Irish and anti-Catholic). I posted the articles from non-christian sources in order to make people examine their assumptions not necessarily change them.

I’m sorry you didn’t get the Mr Chips thing, too allusive I guess. Let me quote Barack Obama instead “We coach Little League in blue states and we have gay friends in red states. We pray to an awesome God in blue states and we don’t like federal agents sniffing around our libraries in red states.”

 

[aimee]

Matt25:

Lisa N

My first line of thought was that its worth trying to understand that people believe the very opposite of what you do with the same degree of certainty that you do.

Secondly that if you move in a particular milieu you find yourself making assumptions not because you have examined them at the roots but just because everybody else that you know makes the same assumptions. For example everybody in my immediate family, including relatives by marriage, would rather be hauled over burning coals than vote for the British Conservative Party. Indeed if they did so the rest of us probably would haul them over burning coals. I like to think that we all feel that way out of deep philosophical conviction. In part however I fear that it may be some residual tribalism (at one time the Tory Party was fiercely anti-Irish and anti-Catholic). I posted the articles from non-christian sources in order to make people examine their assumptions not necessarily change them.

I’m sorry you didn’t get the Mr Chips thing, too allusive I guess. Let me quote Barack Obama instead “We coach Little League in blue states and we have gay friends in red states. We pray to an awesome God in blue states and we don’t like federal agents sniffing around our libraries in red states.”

Barack Obama ,why ever would you quote him?
You quote your self so well…
Its the French you should listen to! I mean how stupid can Americans be…

 

[jeffreedy789]

i don’t suppose there’s any way to get an objective view of what really happened, is there?

i got an email today from a friend who ‘found the article interesting.’ i did a google search, and found alot of fundy sites that talked about how horrible the debacle was, and alot of secular media press that sounded like the spin they put on everything - and, in the past, have obscured facts when i really DO know what went on.

did the christians jump up on stage and drown out the group with a bullhorn, then refuse to move aside when the police tried to quiet them? if so, they deserve to be arrested. did they stay to the side and use a bullhorn (the bullhorn has been mentioned by both sides, i think we can rest assured there was one) to quote scriptures to the group, while being drowned out by the pink angels? then they don’t deserve arrest.

how can we know? part of me wants to say ‘is it my business? just nose out.’ but this type of thing is a bit alarming, as it can and will be replayed across the nation, and fundies meet gay militants, and orthodox catholics get caught in the crossfire.

 

[katherine2]

I’ll stand by my post. If Outfest does not have the civil right to control their space when they are given a street permit, then neither do the Hibernians or the March for Life. You can’t have it both ways (well, hypocrites will try).

 

[Lisa_N]

Matt25:

Lisa N

My first line of thought was that its worth trying to understand that people believe the very opposite of what you do with the same degree of certainty that you do. ."

You can’t possibly know what I believe. However I do believe in general that a website that is obviously pro-gay will tend to provide a biased view and thus I wouldn’t bother to read it. Nor would I read the opposite view on their equally biased sites. I see you are from Scotland. I don’t know if you have the same problems with obvious media bias as we do. But instead of having respect for the MSM, I consider them slightly above cockroaches in both their appeal and their trustworthiness.

Matt25:

Secondly that if you move in a particular milieu you find yourself making assumptions not because you have examined them at the roots but just because everybody else that you know makes the same assumptions. For example everybody in my immediate family, including relatives by marriage, would rather be hauled over burning coals than vote for the British Conservative Party. Indeed if they did so the rest of us probably would haul them over burning coals. I like to think that we all feel that way out of deep philosophical conviction. In part however I fear that it may be some residual tribalism (at one time the Tory Party was fiercely anti-Irish and anti-Catholic). I posted the articles from non-christian sources in order to make people examine their assumptions not necessarily change them…"

I guess we don’t have the same kind of tribalism here. Too much of a melting pot. IOW even though my ancestors are mostly Britsh I have no specific affinity for the BBC.

Matt25:

I’m sorry you didn’t get the Mr Chips thing, too allusive I guess. Let me quote Barack Obama instead “We coach Little League in blue states and we have gay friends in red states. We pray to an awesome God in blue states and we don’t like federal agents sniffing around our libraries in red states.”

Now who died and appointed Barack Obama Master of the Universe? He’s accomplished little or nothing other than a stemwinder of a speech at the Dem convention. The irony is that everyone is so incredulous about it as if a young black man couldn’t possibly have so much perception.

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

Lisa, you can dismiss whoever you want as biased, but you have not been even able to come up with a lame excuse as to why the Philadelphia police should not be allowed to give a street permit to a group under the same rules as the DC and NYC police give out permits.

It is their party, they can invite who they want. And if an uninvited gate crasher won’t leave, the police can be called to remove them.