<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hey ACLU!  Is Banning Hate Speech A Slippery Slope Or Not?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/</link>
	<description>Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:01:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The one with a bråin</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50703</link>
		<dc:creator>The one with a bråin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 17:54:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50703</guid>
		<description>Refreshing to hear Jay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Refreshing to hear Jay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50702</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 13:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50702</guid>
		<description>The one without a brain has an opinion...one I think is wrong, however it is his to have.  Christianity is most likely defined differently by many who call themselves Christians.  We have many different denominations, interpretations, etc.  I think that the majority of Christians follow the New Testament&#039;s philosphies.  I don&#039;t think they are hypocrits.  I think most Christians do believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that God hates that sin.  Most Christians adhere to Jesus&#039;s philosphies on forgiveness.  Not to judge others when we are full of our own sins, and that while God hates the sin, he still loves the individual and wants them to confess and be forgiven.

	So, this is why I would not put Phelp&#039;s cult under MY definition of Chrisitanity.  It teaches hate of the individual.  I don&#039;t agree with teaching &quot;tolerance&quot; of homosexuality in the sense of telling others that it is &quot;normal&quot; or &quot;ok&quot;.  I do belive in teaching tolerance in the sense that it is that individual&#039;s choice, and none of our business.  I also don&#039;t believe in judging the gay individual for the lifestyle they choose to live.

	I know that &quot;the one without a brain&quot; will scoff at my beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, but I hope they can appreciate where I am trying to draw the line on what most Christians have in their definition of Christianity.

	It is also irrelevant to me that you believe that religion is a fairy tale.  Even IF that were true, it wouldn&#039;t matter.  Even folklore, and myths have relevant moral messages that are good for society and the individual.

	While we as Christians believe in an afterlife, heaven and hell, and an invisible force behind the universe; while we believe that one must believe that Jesus was the word of God that came down to save man, and that one must believe this to escape eternal damnation;....another does not have to believe in the divinity of Christ to see the common sense, decency, and wisdom within his teachings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The one without a brain has an opinion&#8230;one I think is wrong, however it is his to have.  Christianity is most likely defined differently by many who call themselves Christians.  We have many different denominations, interpretations, etc.  I think that the majority of Christians follow the New Testament&#8217;s philosphies.  I don&#8217;t think they are hypocrits.  I think most Christians do believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that God hates that sin.  Most Christians adhere to Jesus&#8217;s philosphies on forgiveness.  Not to judge others when we are full of our own sins, and that while God hates the sin, he still loves the individual and wants them to confess and be forgiven.</p>
<p>	So, this is why I would not put Phelp&#8217;s cult under MY definition of Chrisitanity.  It teaches hate of the individual.  I don&#8217;t agree with teaching &#8220;tolerance&#8221; of homosexuality in the sense of telling others that it is &#8220;normal&#8221; or &#8220;ok&#8221;.  I do belive in teaching tolerance in the sense that it is that individual&#8217;s choice, and none of our business.  I also don&#8217;t believe in judging the gay individual for the lifestyle they choose to live.</p>
<p>	I know that &#8220;the one without a brain&#8221; will scoff at my beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, but I hope they can appreciate where I am trying to draw the line on what most Christians have in their definition of Christianity.</p>
<p>	It is also irrelevant to me that you believe that religion is a fairy tale.  Even IF that were true, it wouldn&#8217;t matter.  Even folklore, and myths have relevant moral messages that are good for society and the individual.</p>
<p>	While we as Christians believe in an afterlife, heaven and hell, and an invisible force behind the universe; while we believe that one must believe that Jesus was the word of God that came down to save man, and that one must believe this to escape eternal damnation;&#8230;.another does not have to believe in the divinity of Christ to see the common sense, decency, and wisdom within his teachings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The one with a bråin</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50701</link>
		<dc:creator>The one with a bråin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 13:38:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50701</guid>
		<description>&quot;You telling me what a Christian is, is even more asinine than me telling you what an evolutionist is.&quot;

	I suggest you engage your brain before trying to create analogies, because this one is farcical.

	Are you trying to tell me that the Bible is not the ultimate source for determining what the chief tenets of Christianity are?
	I&#039;m sure you&#039;re familiar with Leviticus 20:13, which reads (King James version):

	&quot;If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.&quot;

	Therefore, if Fred Phelps claims that &quot;God hates fags,&quot; he&#039;s exactly right. Other Christians (luckily) claim that he&#039;s nuts and distance themselves from what he does, but they&#039;re hypocrites for doing so. If they weren&#039;t picking and choosing from the Bible as they see fit they&#039;d all be as far gone as Phelps, Pat Robertson and any number of other confirmed lunatics.

	Furthermore, the word &quot;evolutionist&quot; is meaningless. Evolution is the name for a process that occurs regardless of people&#039;s feelings about it. Similarlym, it doesn&#039;t take a self-described &quot;mathist&quot; to ensure that adding two and two will produce a sum of four, nor does it require a &quot;datist&quot; for radioisotopes to properly reveal the age of the earth as five bilion years or so. Facts are independent of people&#039;s awareness of them.

	This is untrue of Christianity (and in fact of all religions), because without humans having invented it, it wouldn&#039;t exist. Based as it is on an assortment of trumped-up myths concocted by men who lived two millinnia ago, it no more a natural phenomenon than a Stephen King novel or a gangsta-rap CD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You telling me what a Christian is, is even more asinine than me telling you what an evolutionist is.&#8221;</p>
<p>	I suggest you engage your brain before trying to create analogies, because this one is farcical.</p>
<p>	Are you trying to tell me that the Bible is not the ultimate source for determining what the chief tenets of Christianity are?<br />
	I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;re familiar with Leviticus 20:13, which reads (King James version):</p>
<p>	&#8220;If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.&#8221;</p>
<p>	Therefore, if Fred Phelps claims that &#8220;God hates fags,&#8221; he&#8217;s exactly right. Other Christians (luckily) claim that he&#8217;s nuts and distance themselves from what he does, but they&#8217;re hypocrites for doing so. If they weren&#8217;t picking and choosing from the Bible as they see fit they&#8217;d all be as far gone as Phelps, Pat Robertson and any number of other confirmed lunatics.</p>
<p>	Furthermore, the word &#8220;evolutionist&#8221; is meaningless. Evolution is the name for a process that occurs regardless of people&#8217;s feelings about it. Similarlym, it doesn&#8217;t take a self-described &#8220;mathist&#8221; to ensure that adding two and two will produce a sum of four, nor does it require a &#8220;datist&#8221; for radioisotopes to properly reveal the age of the earth as five bilion years or so. Facts are independent of people&#8217;s awareness of them.</p>
<p>	This is untrue of Christianity (and in fact of all religions), because without humans having invented it, it wouldn&#8217;t exist. Based as it is on an assortment of trumped-up myths concocted by men who lived two millinnia ago, it no more a natural phenomenon than a Stephen King novel or a gangsta-rap CD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50700</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 04:40:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50700</guid>
		<description>Here is a little bit of reading for you...

	http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is a little bit of reading for you&#8230;</p>
<p>	<a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm" rel="nofollow">http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50699</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 04:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50699</guid>
		<description>&#039;please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by claiming that Fred Phelps and his band of losers are not Christians.&quot;

	Don&#039;t worry about everyone else. Most people on this forum know exactly who and what Phelps is. You obviously, don&#039;t have a clue.

	You telling me what a Christian is, is even more asinine than me telling you what an evolutionist is.

	&quot;So where is he in error?&quot;

	He, like you, leaves Christ out.


	&quot;Seems like he’s a better Christian than these wishy-washy dingbats...&quot;

	Yes, I imagine that in your estimation, he would &lt;strong&gt;seem&lt;/strong&gt; better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by claiming that Fred Phelps and his band of losers are not Christians.&#8221;</p>
<p>	Don&#8217;t worry about everyone else. Most people on this forum know exactly who and what Phelps is. You obviously, don&#8217;t have a clue.</p>
<p>	You telling me what a Christian is, is even more asinine than me telling you what an evolutionist is.</p>
<p>	&#8220;So where is he in error?&#8221;</p>
<p>	He, like you, leaves Christ out.</p>
<p>	&#8220;Seems like he’s a better Christian than these wishy-washy dingbats&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>	Yes, I imagine that in your estimation, he would <strong>seem</strong> better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The one with a bråin</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50698</link>
		<dc:creator>The one with a bråin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 02:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50698</guid>
		<description>Good deal, kender. I pointed out that your previous post merely confirmed that the ACLU was defending free speech in this case, and rather than &#039;fess up to yet another boo-boo, you bring up a different issue -- in a way that again demonstrates you cannot integrate the information presented in an everyday newspaper story.

	The issue for the ACLU is not the necessity of secrecy or the lack thereof. The issue is whether people &lt;i&gt;know&lt;/i&gt; if their reports to the hotline are being made in confidence or not. Maybe you can understand the distinction, but I doubt it.

	By the way, &quot;breath&quot; is a noun. &quot;Breathe&quot; is a verb. People like you really do need to refrain from questioning others&#039; intelligence until you find a way to bolster your own reading and writing skills to a middle-school level or higher, because I&#039;m sick of brand-new irony meters shattering every time you start yammering away again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good deal, kender. I pointed out that your previous post merely confirmed that the ACLU was defending free speech in this case, and rather than &#8216;fess up to yet another boo-boo, you bring up a different issue &#8212; in a way that again demonstrates you cannot integrate the information presented in an everyday newspaper story.</p>
<p>	The issue for the ACLU is not the necessity of secrecy or the lack thereof. The issue is whether people <i>know</i> if their reports to the hotline are being made in confidence or not. Maybe you can understand the distinction, but I doubt it.</p>
<p>	By the way, &#8220;breath&#8221; is a noun. &#8220;Breathe&#8221; is a verb. People like you really do need to refrain from questioning others&#8217; intelligence until you find a way to bolster your own reading and writing skills to a middle-school level or higher, because I&#8217;m sick of brand-new irony meters shattering every time you start yammering away again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kender</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50697</link>
		<dc:creator>kender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 21:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50697</guid>
		<description>and the ACLU seems to be saying, brainles one, that hate speech is Boulder is OK, unless someone can find a way to make reporting it secret (like the soviet union)....in that case it is ok to report &quot;hate speech&quot;.....how do you not comprehend something so simple (the ACLU being hypocrites by not backing anti hate speech stuff) and continue to breath without mechanical assistance?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and the ACLU seems to be saying, brainles one, that hate speech is Boulder is OK, unless someone can find a way to make reporting it secret (like the soviet union)&#8230;.in that case it is ok to report &#8220;hate speech&#8221;&#8230;..how do you not comprehend something so simple (the ACLU being hypocrites by not backing anti hate speech stuff) and continue to breath without mechanical assistance?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The one with a bråin</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50696</link>
		<dc:creator>The one with a bråin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 21:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50696</guid>
		<description>Said kender:

	&quot;I seem to recall that the ACLU was indeed embroiled in trying to stop legislation that would have stopped that hate group from protesting at funerals…..and I am not even paying attention…so how did you miss that?&quot;

	Let&#039;s see. If the ACLU was trying to block anti-hateful-protester legislation, doesn&#039;t that mean it was helping out the protesters?

	You&#039;re right about one thing though -- you&#039;re obviously not paying attention.

	Loboinok, please don&#039;t insult everyone&#039;s intelligence by claiming that Fred Phelps and his band of losers are not Christians. Although most Christians quickly distance themselves from the man, he&#039;s only doing what the Bible commands. It says in plain words that men who lie dowen with other men should die. So where is he in error? Seems like he&#039;s a better Christian than these wishy-washy dingbats who don&#039;t want to actually *kill* gays, but merely keep them from enjoying the same civil liberties as straights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Said kender:</p>
<p>	&#8220;I seem to recall that the ACLU was indeed embroiled in trying to stop legislation that would have stopped that hate group from protesting at funerals…..and I am not even paying attention…so how did you miss that?&#8221;</p>
<p>	Let&#8217;s see. If the ACLU was trying to block anti-hateful-protester legislation, doesn&#8217;t that mean it was helping out the protesters?</p>
<p>	You&#8217;re right about one thing though &#8212; you&#8217;re obviously not paying attention.</p>
<p>	Loboinok, please don&#8217;t insult everyone&#8217;s intelligence by claiming that Fred Phelps and his band of losers are not Christians. Although most Christians quickly distance themselves from the man, he&#8217;s only doing what the Bible commands. It says in plain words that men who lie dowen with other men should die. So where is he in error? Seems like he&#8217;s a better Christian than these wishy-washy dingbats who don&#8217;t want to actually *kill* gays, but merely keep them from enjoying the same civil liberties as straights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Swap Blog &#38;#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#38;#187; Limits on speech is a slippery slope</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50695</link>
		<dc:creator>Swap Blog &#38;#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#38;#187; Limits on speech is a slippery slope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 12:34:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50695</guid>
		<description>[...] That is what John from Stop the ACLU contends, and what the ACLU itself has contended in the past based on my memory. It seems that now though the ACLU is for limiting some speech. Not sure where the line should be drawn, well it seems that you are not alone in that problem. Give John&#38;#8217;s post a read over at Stop The ACLU here [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] That is what John from Stop the ACLU contends, and what the ACLU itself has contended in the past based on my memory. It seems that now though the ACLU is for limiting some speech. Not sure where the line should be drawn, well it seems that you are not alone in that problem. Give John&#38;#38;#8217;s post a read over at Stop The ACLU here [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-50694</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 12:17:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/17/hey-aclu-is-banning-hate-speech-a-slippery-slope-or-not/#comment-50694</guid>
		<description>&quot;how does it strike you that the ACLU has defended the right of a bunch of rabid Christians to mouth off in a most unruly and stomach-churning way? I thought the ACLU hated Christians.&quot;

	Rabid they are... Christian they are not.
	As anyone here knows, if they were Christians, &#039;The one with a brain&#039; and the ACLU both, would have been  voraciously attacking them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;how does it strike you that the ACLU has defended the right of a bunch of rabid Christians to mouth off in a most unruly and stomach-churning way? I thought the ACLU hated Christians.&#8221;</p>
<p>	Rabid they are&#8230; Christian they are not.<br />
	As anyone here knows, if they were Christians, &#8216;The one with a brain&#8217; and the ACLU both, would have been  voraciously attacking them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

