Do you find it ironic that there would be complaints made about freedom of speech in a board which does not promote freedom of speech?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Australia Try to Silence Those Who Want to Oppose the LGBT+ Movement?
Do you find it ironic that there would be complaints made about freedom of speech in a board which does not promote freedom of speech?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
In todays society, no
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That is an excellent point. During my process of leaving Christianity, one of the things that shook my faith was being taught such things, that you can't do this and that (like pray in school), that Christian persecution is everywhere here, and the world is out of to get Christians because it hates Christians like the Bible says. I grew up in a very rural setting, I was home schooled for most of middle school (three of the four years), and then sent back to public school where I learned the world actually doesn't hate Christians and no one was out to get me for it. It was one of the ways I felt I had been lied to, because I basically was (I never knew religious persecution until after I left the church).
It is very deeply ingrained into some churches, that society has a war against them, and it's really doesn't look good at all once you are able to take a step back and look again. I assume that "second look" is probably about the same as the "first look" for most of the world who wasn't brought up into that.
that's more than interestig.
I too was told after my conversion (aged 22) that the world is going to hate me.
When I told everyone that I am a Christian now, I only received neutral or friendly remarks from my atheist surrounding. Some made it a topic for debate, but it was never hateful.
Some friends called my church "temple" to make fun of it. But it was rather to enjoy the laugh than to be scornful, I think. And they were really careful to look at the core of the thing.
All of it respectful. They wanted to know what Pentecost stands for and so on...
No hate that I could perceive.
When the (evangelical) churches of my town have a major event in town performing music open air (really loud, so you could still listen to it at the other end of town), some people react stressed out, but I think that's quite normal.
However, I did receive personal attacks: from people out of the mainline Protestant church. Believers.
Some people from within their ranks, often referred to as traditional Christians as opposed to being born again, did give me a hard time. They sometimes went as far as calling me mentally ill. For reasons of faith.
So in a way, the anouncement that I would be "hated in the world" was both right and wrong at the same time, I'd say.
Yet, I would say 9 in 10 complaints made by Christians about facing upcoming persecution in the West... are fabricated indeed. As you say.
When they start questioning your mental health - btw something all LGBT+ people sadly experienced for long years and still are experiencing in some groups today - this is stepping a bit too far though.
But this particular complaint this thread is about seems to be scare mongering, I think. Unless @Brian2 (thank you for your reply) explains how regulations of counselling actually may constitute an infringement of free speech.
For instance, the market for medication is also highly regulated.
Same thing with counselling, perhaps?
If you have a health problem and resort to Traditional Chinese Medicine, nothing is going to happen, I think.
However, if a child has issues with own gender to the point that it becomes ill... and lets further assume it receives the wrong type of counselling... their health problems might aggravate, I'm afraid.
So I can understand a government's concern about regulating the counselling market for children.
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Don't worry, it won't be Christians who oppose free speech.
Today Unilever is set to ban the word 'normal' on all its products.
Normal !!!!!!???????
And we ban 'mother' and 'father' now too.
Social engineering is preceded by language engineering. Making
the weird, perverted and queer 'normal' and 'normal' people
weird, perverted and queer. You wouldn't want to live in a world
if it gets to that point.
on two major Christian message boards, you cannot "promote homosexuality" (in the one board) or be LGBT+ and post in the threads ( in the other).
This is discrimination.
Free speach only for those who subscribe to certain opinions.
I hold that Christians do have an issue with free speech. Look, there are thousands and thousands of devout Christians who are members of these boards.
None of them seems to have a problem with the boards curtailing free spech.
They think "it's a private board" maybe.
These boards are too big for anyone to say that "hey, Christians don't have an issue concerning free speech".
Unilever can do what they want.
These Christian message boards, in contrast, are making reproaches. As soon as reproaches come into play... the accused side must have a say. You can't just accuse people first and ban them from defending themselves last. This is bullying.
What's so scary to me is the fact that the thousands of Christians in these boards don't speak up. It's a minor issue for them.
When I was to be called "queer" I would reply by saying "no, I'm not". No problem.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Sure, understand fully where you come from. And if I get on a Marxist forum I get kicked off
pretty quick. I am fine with that - I am not a Marxist.
Same if I was on a Muslim site. Been kicked off a few sites.
But if the forum was a GENERAL one I would take offense.
What Unilever is doing isn't really about Unilever, it's about us all and where we are heading.
AND... to be Christian is to 'discriminate' in a Christian way, just as a Marxist would discriminate.
A Christian must discriminate between what the bible holds to be true and how a Christian
behaves. If any person fails to discriminate when how do know right from wrong? So I would
'discriminate' between a person who steals and one who doesn't.
There are many things done today as 'normal' (note we won't be able to use that word much
longer) that are plain, flat, dead wrong with the God of the bible.
Last edited:
Some Christians view the Constitution of the United States as Satan's bible. After all, the First Amendment assures freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedoms mean that they can't rule thoughts, with an iron fist, as dictators do in Communist nations. Freedoms mean that citizens (and the clergy) can disagree, and disagreement isn't tolerated by many Christians, who insist that dictatorial rule is necessary.
Ah....heaven on earth....it is the ability to burn books. For centuries, Christians have been trying to burn books for such things as spreading joy (joy, they thought, must come from the devil). Puritans (Christians) believed that one must not dance or sing because only evil witches sing (like incantations). Dancing is a frivolous waste of time, they thought. Dancing and singing was a punishable offense, perhaps being locked in stocks (head and arms clamped) for public ridicule (in a very kind and Christian way, of course).
"Bonfire of the Vanities" by Father Savonarolla (Catholic, Christian), was the burning of books that were about something other than religion.
In the 20th century, Christian organizations wanted to burn Catcher in the Rye by Salinger, and a host of others. Christians in the 20th century wanted to burn Harry Potter books because they portrayed witchcraft to children (against God), and portrayed some witches as good.
Last week, many Doctor Seuss books were banned from print due to political correctness (ahh, yes, the evil children's book writer, who entertained kids around the world with whimsy).
A couple of months ago, Hillary Clinton (who was First Lady and almost became president) tweeted that conspiracy theorists spread false information which convinced many not to take COVID vaccines. But those COVID vaccines are made with brand new technology (lipid nanoparticles triggered to release their mRNA payload when triggered by near-infrared light (microwave)). Never before as memory RNA been deployed, and many worry that their claims that it will not affect RNA or DNA in the body might be mistaken. Many wonder if the proteins are as safe as they claim, since many have been injured by vaccines. But the real threat is to the Constitutional freedom of the United States. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and a host of others, have banned some from free press (writing on their website), claiming that they are conspiracy nuts who post unconfirmed information, that sway people from doing the right and sensible actions. Hillary Clinton suggested that anyone who disagrees with experts should be banned from forums and blogs.
The correct way to rule a free nation is to post the truth, and advertise that truth. Also, the government is free to truthfully discredit those who spread false information (not libel or slander them). A true leader would have qualities to reach the masses and convince them of the truth. In other words, banning free press and free speech is not necessary, nor should it be permitted.
President Donald Trump, leader of a free nation with the First Amendment right of free press, was banned from Twitter, Facebook, and a host of other websites.
It could be argued that the internet is not free (someone pays for it). Yet, if open to the public, the entire public should be free to express. It is like Jim Crow laws after the Civil War banned slavery, which made Blacks pay more for store goods and restricted their hours of shopping (some banned entirely from certain stores). A special Federal law, that only applies to Blacks and only applies in the deep south (aka Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.) prevents stores from treating Blacks differently if the stores are open to the public.
Yet, if only experts are allowed to write about COVID on the internet, we would not wear masks (after all, the experts ordered us not to wear masks because the viruses are so small that they could travel through the mask). Yet, coronavirus hitchhikes on droplets of sputum, and the contagious sneeze it out into the room (perhaps 15 feet away--not 6 feet). Rayleigh distribution (statistical distribution of particles of the size of sputum drops) are visible in a specific spectrum of light, confirming droplet size of sneezes.
Experts (like Surgeon General C. Everett Coop) have told us that AIDS is not spread by anyone but Gays (we now know that is a farce).
If only experts could have Constitutionally guaranteed free speech, only they could spread their false information, and no well meaning citizen would not be allowed to speak or write.
You may not fit in with others, but you fit in with me. You are a welcome and valued member of this forum, as far as I am concerned. Seek out those who don't hate you, and ignore the rest.
I never went to a Marxist forum, however if they indulge in activities such as mocking others while banning them from defending themselves.... this must not serve as a model for Christianity.
In the past Marxists just shot bullets into people's heads.
We had that in Eastern Germany.
Also, my grandmother suffered from a hunger crisis during the spartacist uprisings in the city of Bremen - Marxism is as horrible as that I think.
Look at North Corea.
The way they discriminate must not be a model for Christianity.
Concerning discrimination, Bible is clear: Ephesians 6:9b. God is no respecter of persons.
If you let anyone reply if getting accused unless they are LGBT+... this is singling out one group and bullying them to the core.
Furthermore, Christians are to invite not, insult. Acts 5:42.
Furthermore the comparison to thieves is evoking a group of persons that endanger other people's property.
I don't see how LGBT+ people endanger others. Rather, it is a Christian talking point that they purportedly do. "Peril of the youth" and so on. I have yet to see the supporting evidence for these sorts of claims.
I would draw a comparison to the comment section of ordinary online newspapers. Anyone can reply of course. In my opinion, The Guardian, for example, never singles out one group saying the must not reply.
Hey, if regular and private worldly newspapers can handle free speech, why can't the Christians?
Christians should not shovel down their message into anyone's throat shutting other people up, I think.
----
I think, the fact that you came up with the comparison to a Marxist group is telling.
If Christians have gone down the road of partisanship to the point that they are no different to Marxist groups when it comes to fairness... it's gone too far.
EDITED to add last paragraph.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's legally regulated by the state. And, though without legal ability to enforce much, it is monitored from within like when the APA released a statement telling clinicians to quit armchair diagnosing Trump because of the host of ethical issues of such a thing.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Oddly enough, I agree with most of what you said, if not all of it.
Christians are not to mock or judge people, but they MUST make moral judgments.
I think it's in Revelation where it says to not stand in the way of people who want to
offend God. If someone sins, let him sin.
I use the Marxist point as cultural Marxism is now fashionable, and not only will you
be prevented from speaking your mind to them, you could have your reputation and
career destroyed too.
So if someone wants to engage in homosexuality, polygamy, pornography, gambling
etc that's their business. But I won't have common ground with them, even if I like
them as people. And they aren't going to tell me such activities are find with God
because they are not.
Which suggests that to avoid "sin," a person who is born gay must either commit to living an entire lifetime of unfulfilled loneliness, or hook up with someone (of the opposite sex, of course) who they can neither love nor find sexually interesting.
It's a strange god who thinks that's a good idea.
Which is why I don't think it's any god's idea at all -- just the ideas of ignorant humans.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Have I tried to balk or hinder you in anyway? Have any of the Marxist here done such a thing? You seemed to have done so in quite the fashion to overtly express needless divisiveness and conflict.
Gee, thanks. So much for not judging people. I guess I better find something about you to make the situation mutual. Gonna be hard because I don't have an invisible man out there telling me what to do. Guess I'm gonna have to settle with "I won't have common ground with them." You probably do, but instead your showing a side that reveals why so many people are leaving that religion.
Thank you for your service (we have common ground in that we both get people to leave the Church) and good riddance to religions that have instructions to kill people over things that create no victims.
What they forget is it basically is a sin to be gay, because according to Christ thoughts are sin. A gay man wouldn't look upon a woman with lust in his heart, but the natural inclinations and attractions towards men--without even actually engaging in sexual intercourse--does make you guilty according to Christ.
"Hate the sin, not the sinner" really is a dehumanizing pile of manure that tries to separate people from who they are as a person.
Thank you!
This cop out of oh well they can be born gay but not act on it is really just saying a gay person should be miserable to avoid the sin of gayness.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
This goes to the heart of many issues - culture, religion and politics.
You have options:
1 - hate the sin but not the sinner. So you can hate child porn but you don't hate someone because they consumed it.
2 - hate the sinner and the sin. So you hate infidelity in marriage, and the guy doing it.
3 - love the sin, hate the sinner. You love gambling but hate gamblers for gambling.
4 - love the sin, love the sinner. You love cocaine and meth and love the people who consume it.
WHICH IS IT?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Except that's not the way it's used. It is used, very typically, to disparage homosexuals, by Christians saying they don't hate homosexuals personally, it's just the Christian hates the homosexual's acts of love and who that person is as an individual.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I understand your thought about this topic.
If i have understood the teaching correct, sex is not for pleasure, but only for getting children. So even hetrosexual people are asked to have as little attachments to sex as possible. And to have children the original way, s man and a woman is needed.
But i can not speak for God, nor can i speak for how homosexual people should do it. I can only do my best to follow the teaching i practice
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The original means of reproduction is asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction came after that.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
You mean since the two first people was created by God? In that case yes, but i was thinking more about how humans was intended to have childrens
I can not say how how others should do it, that is not up to me