Kill a gay, get $4500

[Mathematician]

How can you expect them not to be upset about it? Their choice was ignored and their relgiious beliefs disregarded.

Would you be so considerate if it was a Black Pride March being conducted in a town known for its tie to racial hate?

I wouldn't say they "ignored" the religious ties with Jerusalem. It was more in spite of it. That's how you get your point across. There shouldn't be "sympathy" when standing up for who you are (well, reasonably).

 

[Smoke]

t

We have respect for each other in this forum. We discuss each others beliefs and ideas in a tactful and reasonable fashion. If someone such as myself chooses not to go to certain areas of the forum to discuss certain subjects, because of my religious feelings conflict with those subjects, then I choose not to go their. The people of Jerusalem are mostly very devout religious people, who have a right to follow their religious beliefs and practices. In this case though, they have no choice but to be confronted with this event, in their city that they hold in high regard. How can you expect them not to be upset about it? Their choice was ignored and their relgiious beliefs disregarded.

Your idea that Jerusalem somehow belongs to the religious people (and indeed, not just the religious people, but the religious bigots) is logically no different from the Crusaders' insistence that it properly belonged to Catholics. I'm sorry, but it's a city, not a cathedral or a masjid, and religious reactionaries have no special claim to it.

 

[BUDDY]

Would you be so considerate if it was a Black Pride March being conducted in a town known for its tie to racial hate?

I wouldn't say they "ignored" the religious ties with Jerusalem. It was more in spite of it. That's how you get your point across. There shouldn't be "sympathy" when standing up for who you are (well, reasonably).

Are you now suggesting that my opinion on World Pride being held in Jerusalem, is the same as racists not wanting a black pride parade in their city? If so, I think that you are reading into it and have probably made some incorrect asumptions about me and what I believe in. Welcome to my ignore list!! Enjoy the stay.

 

[BUDDY]

t
Your idea that Jerusalem somehow belongs to the religious people (and indeed, not just the religious people, but the religious bigots) is logically no different from the Crusaders' insistence that it properly belonged to Catholics. I'm sorry, but it's a city, not a cathedral or a masjid, and religious reactionaries have no special claim to it.

Any city belongs to the people who live their MB. That is just the nature of society. Are you suggesting that anyone who lives in Jerusalem is a bigot? Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you or with the stance on homosexuality that World Pride holds, is a bigot? Religious people DO have special claim to it, because it is predominantly religious people who have chosen to live their. Since when do the political and social wants of one group of people, outweigh the religious and social beliefs of another, so much that group one can come into group two's town, and occupy it. If anyone's beliefs are more closely associated with that of the crusaders, it would be yours and those who have chosen to take over Jerusalem for World Pride day.

 

[Mathematician]

Are you now suggesting that my opinion on World Pride being held in Jerusalem, is the same as racists not wanting a black pride parade in their city? If so, I think that you are reading into it and have probably made some incorrect asumptions about me and what I believe in. Welcome to my ignore list!! Enjoy the stay.

It's the same scenario. A hate towards a certain type of people is never the reason to avoid protest, even when the city is full of it.

We have an ignore list?

 

[Smoke]

Any city belongs to the people who live their MB. That is just the nature of society. Are you suggesting that anyone who lives in Jerusalem is a bigot? Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you or with the stance on homosexuality that World Pride holds, is a bigot? Religious people DO have special claim to it, because it is predominantly religious people who have chosen to live their. Since when do the political and social wants of one group of people, outweigh the religious and social beliefs of another, so much that group one can come into group two's town, and occupy it. If anyone's beliefs are more closely associated with that of the crusaders, it would be yours and those who have chosen to take over Jerusalem for World Pride day.

It's not just religious people who live there, and never has been, even if religious people do tend to flock there. Nor are all religious people opposed to homosexuality. We're talking about public space in a supposedly free and democratic country. To compare a parade to the Crusades is so off the wall I don't even know how to respond to it.

In fact, it was residents of Jerusalem who proposed that World Pride come to Jerusalem. Jerusalem Open House, an LGBT organization in Jerusalem, is the "driving force" behind it. And, it might be noted, one of the few organizations where Jews and Palestinians have gone beyond peaceful coexistence to actually forming a community together. If the members JOH doesn't have the right to free expression in their own city, surely the white, Western, Protestants at the Garden Tomb need to be sent packing, too.

Even if the population of Jerusalem were made up solely of religious extremists, it would still be very diverse. In fact, it's made up of religious extremist and a whole lot of other people, and is even more diverse. This attitude that differing views cannot be tolerated is precisely the problem; until everybody has rights, nobody's rights are safe.

Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you or with the stance on homosexuality that World Pride holds, is a bigot?

Here's what WorldPride says:

This boundary-crossing event will be a massive demonstration of LGBT pride and human rights. In these times of intolerance and conflict, from the home of three of the world’s great religions, we will proclaim that love knows no borders.
​

And this is the program of Jerusalem Open House:

(1) we provide direct services designed to build our community, catalyzing the development of LGBTQ fellowship and culture;

(2) we advocate for social change on issues of concern to our constituents, taking action to promote the values of tolerance and pluralism in Jerusalem.
​

I'm not suggesting, I'm saying very plainly that anybody who opposes those goals is a bigot. That's precisely what bigot means.

 

[BUDDY]

It's not just religious people who live there, and never has been, even if religious people do tend to flock there. Nor are all religious people opposed to homosexuality. We're talking about public space in a supposedly free and democratic country. To compare a parade to the Crusades is so off the wall I don't even know how to respond to it.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. MY statement is no more or less ridiculous than your previous one. Let's just let it go. Bringing up the crusades in the first place was illadvised.

In fact, it was residents of Jerusalem who proposed that World Pride come to Jerusalem. Jerusalem Open House, an LGBT organization in Jerusalem, is the "driving force" behind it. And, it might be noted, one of the few organizations where Jews and Palestinians have gone beyond peaceful coexistence to actually forming a community together. If the members JOH doesn't have the right to free expression in their own city, surely the white, Western, Protestants at the Garden Tomb need to be sent packing, too.

It was some of the residents, not all. You can not prove to me that the vast majority of the residents of Jerusalem wanted this event.

Even if the population of Jerusalem were made up solely of religious extremists, it would still be very diverse. In fact, it's made up of religious extremist and a whole lot of other people, and is even more diverse. This attitude that differing views cannot be tolerated is precisely the problem; until everybody has rights, nobody's rights are safe.

That's just it though. Anyone who is religious, and who because of their religion thinks that homosexuality is wrong, is a bigot and an extremist in your opinion. What gives you the right to make such a definition and judgement?

Here's what WorldPride says:

This boundary-crossing event will be a massive demonstration of LGBT pride and human rights. In these times of intolerance and conflict, from the home of three of the world’s great religions, we will proclaim that love knows no borders.


​

And this is the program of Jerusalem Open House:

(1) we provide direct services designed to build our community, catalyzing the development of LGBTQ fellowship and culture;

(2) we advocate for social change on issues of concern to our constituents, taking action to promote the values of tolerance and pluralism in Jerusalem.


​

I'm not suggesting, I'm saying very plainly that anybody who opposes those goals is a bigot. That's precisely what bigot means.

Okay, I oppose the development of the LGBTQ culture through marches and massive demonstrations in the home of three of the worlds religions, and I do not believe that holding such massive demonstrations will promote the idea that "love knows no borders". What then would you call me? Are you strongly partial to your own group and intolerant of those who differ with it? If so, by definition that would make you a bigot.

 

[Smoke]

It was some of the residents, not all. You can not prove to me that the vast majority of the residents of Jerusalem wanted this event.

Must every event in Jerusalem be supported by the vast majority of residents? How many events would that allow?

That's just it though. Anyone who is religious, and who because of their religion thinks that homosexuality is wrong, is a bigot and an extremist in your opinion. What gives you the right to make such a definition and judgement?

That's not what I said. Thinking something is wrong is not the same as being intolerant of it. I think it's wrong, both logically and ethically, to be a Christian, but I fully support the right of anyone who wants to be a Christian to do so and to enjoy all the rights and privileges anyone else enjoys. It's when you say, "I think this is wrong, so you can't do it," that you become a bigot and an extremist.

Okay, I oppose the development of the LGBTQ culture through marches and massive demonstrations in the home of three of the worlds religions, and I do not believe that holding such massive demonstrations will promote the idea that "love knows no borders". What then would you call me?

A person who disagrees with the methods of World Pride and JOH. But that's not what you asked me.

Are you strongly partial to your own group and intolerant of those who differ with it? If so, by definition that would make you a bigot.

What "group" would be "my own"? The Quakers? The genealogists? The homosexuals? People who save state quarters? The descendants of Adam and Elisabeth Spach? People who read a lot of books? It doesn't matter, though; I'm tolerant of people who fall outside any or all of "my" groups.

 

[BUDDY]

Must every event in Jerusalem be supported by the vast majority of residents? How many events would that allow?

That's not what I said. Thinking something is wrong is not the same as being intolerant of it. I think it's wrong, both logically and ethically, to be a Christian, but I fully support the right of anyone who wants to be a Christian to do so and to enjoy all the rights and privileges anyone else enjoys. It's when you say, "I think this is wrong, so you can't do it," that you become a bigot and an extremist.

A person who disagrees with the methods of World Pride and JOH. But that's not what you asked me.

What "group" would be "my own"? The Quakers? The genealogists? The homosexuals? People who save state quarters? The descendants of Adam and Elisabeth Spach? People who read a lot of books? It doesn't matter, though; I'm tolerant of people who fall outside any or all of "my" groups.

I am sorry. I am not sayign that I think that it is wrong in the moral or ethical sense of the word, so if that was not clear then I apoligize. I am saying that it is wrong in the sense of tactful politics. I think that it is illadvised. I think that it would be wrong to ignore the sentiments of the residents of Jerusalem and not take into consideration there thoughts and feelings on the subject. If that was done, then that is great.

Oh, and I would not dare try to classify you and put you into a group. I was just trying to make a point about classifying anyone.

 

[kiwimac]

Pardon my french but BUGGER tactful politics. Where would America's coloured citizens be if they had ONLY been tactful about their desire for equal rights. What about women and the vote, as I recall the Suffragets were anything BUT tactful.

Good on Jerusalem Open House, I hope they rub the noses of the bigots in their own bigotry until the bigots too cannot abide its stink.

Kiwimac

 

[Deut 13:1]

This is the same coddled community known to stone cars driven on Shabbat and spit on women dressed in sleeveless blouses.

You forgot the "In their neighborhood". You make it seem like the Jews are waiting to jump out at you. You leave them alone, they leave you alone. This is the same reaction that would be given if you had the KKK march through a negro-populated street. Or a Neo-Nazi parade through down-town brooklyn. You'd see signs kill a nazi get 4500. You leave the people of Mea Shearim alone, they will leave you alone. You should know, you've been there, right? I have.