First, let me repeat, there was no accusation of any form of discrimination from the company. No one said they lost a job, couldn't get a job, or were mistreated in any way. So apparently, "inclusive" meant "embracing our beliefs on this subject". Second, In what possible sense is "You will not to be included here" being "inclusive"? How is "We will not allow those who hold this view" not "discrimination", the very thing they were all protesting?
And, of course, it does not make sense. And, yet, we hear it over and over.
And here it is again. I'm sure you've heard of the firing of Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran. He did the unforgiveable. Oh, sure, he had years and years of good service, the respect and admiration of his people, and all that, but he did the worst possible thing. He insulted Islam? No, no, that's bad, but this is worse. He wrote a book that said that homosexual behavior was a sin. Gasp! This man has got to go!
The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, said that it wasn't his religious beliefs that caused the problem. It was his discrimination. Wait ... what discrimination? No one had complained about being discriminated against. No, it was his discrimination between sin and not sin, between right and wrong ... like they were discriminating. No, that can't be it. So what is "discrimination"? It's not being "discriminating" as in determining what is good and bad, right and wrong, wise and foolish. They're doing it, so that can't be it. And it can't be treating someone different because of their difference of opinion, because Mr. Cochran did not do that, but the mayor did. So they're using words again that don't make sense.
The mayor contended that the problem was that Mr. Cochran's views undermined "his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse work force." Ah, now, see? "Diversity." That's the aim. Where one person believes that "gay" is good and another believes it isn't and that's okay. No, wait, that's not working, either, is it? So, like those cities that banned Chick-fil-A in the name of "inclusiveness", Atlanta is removing a fire chief in the name of "diversity".
Of course, as before, the LGBTLMNOP[1] folk are praising this the mayor's decision. Do not tolerate opposition. Don't allow people with differing perspectives who don't allow those differing perspectives to affect how they treat people to be in office or employed or in view. Like that isn't contradictory. You can't eliminate opposition and call it "tolerance" or remove offenders on the basis of your own bigotry and call it "unbigoted". You can't, as Delta Airlines contended, fire someone simply for disagreeing based on "core values of mutual respect."
Recently Pima County in Arizona started considering a position of refusing to hire smokers as county employees. For those smokers who were currently employed (an estimated 32% of the workforce), they would see a 30% health insurance surcharge. Now, prospective employers have rules about what they can ask at an interview. They cannot ask your religious practices, your marital status, your medical condition, or even the distance of your commute ... currently. But that new law would allow them to ask your status as a smoker. How long until we hear in job interviews, "Are you now or have you ever been a practicing Christian?"[2] Because being a Christian is apparently the only legal reason for being "inclusive" by being exclusive, being "tolerant" by removing disagreement rather than allowing it, being "non-discriminatory" by firing those who disagree, or being "loving and unbigoted" by being hateful and bigoted toward those who you deem disagreeable. As long as we're able to redefine terms ("discrimination", "inclusive", "diversity", "tolerance", "mutual respect", etc.), this seems like a reasonable expectation.
________
[1] I know it looks like I'm being disrespectful, and perhaps to a small extent I am, but the truth is they keep changing the letters, so I'm trying to be all-inclusive. That's what we're all about, isn't it? "Inclusive"?
[2] You're probably thinking I'm being overly dramatic. New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Frank Bruni says, "I support the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes and hearts." That's right. If he got his way, you'd get your religious freedom ... right up until you walked out the door of your house or church, and no further.
[2] You're probably thinking I'm being overly dramatic. New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Frank Bruni says, "I support the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes and hearts." That's right. If he got his way, you'd get your religious freedom ... right up until you walked out the door of your house or church, and no further.
31 comments:
Great article, Stan. Too bad no one is listening except those who already know.
Yeah, I know ... preaching to the choir. Maybe, just maybe, someone who does not know will drift by, see it, and think, "Hmmm, maybe there is something to it."
Maybe, if you'd be open to reasonable discussion with those who disagree with you, you'd draw others who, you know, disagree with you.
Your arrogant banning and misrepresentation of those who disagree with you is a self-imposed exile from those who disagree with you. So, it's not exactly rational to complain that those who disagree with you don't frequent your pages, when you push them away from your pages.
I know, I know. You welcome the disagree-ers of Stan, as long as they disagree only within some certain strict guidelines.
Irony upon ironies.
DT
Okay, my reading public, I'm tired of endless snide remarks offered with impunity because there is no accountability and, as far as I can tell, he has no conscience. I'm offering up Dan Trabue's comments again for all to manage on their own. I banned him because of his attitude, his arrogance, his two-faced manner, and his personal attacks on me and my family, but perhaps you, dear readers, might find his banter enlightening or worthy of response. If you find him to be too grating, let me know and I'll go back to the sweet silence of the absence of Mr. Trabue. I'll still abide by my "strict guidelines" and ban the unfriendly or crude. No one needs to see that.
Since Trabue never has anything of substance to add to any discussion, and since he is a false teacher of the rankest degree, and since he has always proven himself to be rude, unloving, and downright nasty with those who disagree with him, and since the link on his name takes people to a place where they can get inundated with false teachings of every sort, and since he seems to lie and misrepresent people very often, and for the reasons you banned him, I'd say he should be kept banned so as to not be able to pollute the internet any more a than possible! He is a troll who takes up an inordinate amount of time to respond to his inane, heretical, apostate, and foolish comments and shouldn't be allowed a forum.
But that's just my opinion.
Glenn, that has been my inclination for some time now. I've had some, though, who said they've enjoyed and benefited from his shenanigans (and that word is worth looking up), so I'll see what they say. Maybe I'll just let him put his comments and I'll follow each with a "biohazard"-type warning for readers? Naw. Just a thought.
By the way, to you readers out there, I can't think of anyone I have banned (with the obvious exception of Mr. Trabue), but if you have disagreed with me and think I have treated you unfairly, please let me know because Mr. Trabue here seems to believe it's my normal operating procedure.
Or this could be a lesson in not feeding the trolls. He is duplicitous and arrogant but claims honesty and humbleness. And seeing as he (as far as I know) is your only dissenter that has been banned, his accusations are unfounded, par for the course Dan T. I am still curious, though, as to how cussing is a loving response in any situation.
Perhaps an experiment in Prov 26:4-5?
My point stands, Stan. Here you have a reasonable, generally polite person who has been willing to converse with you and offer, politely, another point of view. Yes, I have had moments of very rare rudeness, but only in the face of rudeness from you. All who have interacted with me will generally agree that I am generally polite and respectful.
In spite of that, you have banned me for whatever reason... for disagreeing too much or for calling you on the carpet from some (in my personal opinion) error on your part or some false claim on your part. The point stands: When you push away people who disagree with you, when you treat them as not-Christians or not-worthy of consideration, then people who disagree with you will stay away. You have to give respect and be open to other opinions in order to receive respect and other opinions.
Can we agree on this much?
I apologize, here and now, for my moments of rudeness, and will promise to avoid outright rudeness. I'd hope, however, that you can agree that mere disagreement is not rudeness.
Respectfully,
Dan T
As to the "he has no conscience," this is demonstrably a mistaken claim and one that I hope you will reconsider. Ask my friends, family, and church members - including friends and family with whom I disagree: I certainly have a conscience - as does all of humanity - and this claim of "no conscience" is a way of literally demonizing the "others" who disagree with you. After all, if someone has no conscience, they must not be human, since that is an innate part of humanity... they must be some sort of monster.
I am no monster, sir. I am a loving son, father, friend and humble follower of the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Imperfect, to be sure, mistaken sometimes, absolutely, but with no conscience? No, of course not. And surely you can agree with this much.
Respectfully,
Dan T.
So, if you are reading and considering my "other" opinion, for whatever it's worth, here's an example of what others might read and think of your words. You said...
I know it looks like I'm being disrespectful, and perhaps to a small extent I am, but the truth is they keep changing the letters, so I'm trying to be all-inclusive. That's what we're all about, isn't it? "Inclusive"?
And yes, it does sound rude, disrespectful, a bit condescending. Consider: Those who are allies of the LGBTQ community did modify the acronym, a couple of times. But why did they do so? To be respectful, to be inclusive, to be considerate. The motivation was kindness. You have looked on that as something to "perhaps" be mocked. Even if you disagree with the "gay community" and their friends, why would you bother mocking the attempt to be inclusive and considerate?
Do you see how that could be taken as making fun of an attempt at basic human decency and morality? And do you see how that could be considered contrary to the teachings of Jesus and just basic human respect?
Something to consider, for someone who would like to be heard by others outside their own "choir..."
Respectfully and gently submitted,
Dan T
It has always been my position that as long as the opponent does not get too outright combative, engaging in only direct personal attacks attached to no argument of any kind (and this is subjective of course---I not beyond copying and pasting such that push the envelope deleting the most egregious language). When someone like Dan comes along, it provides the perfect opportunity to display an example of the most twisted thinking and how such arguments as his are best debunked.
He is, however, more than a little bit ironically hypocritical to whine about "strict standards", given his own.
AS to your post, and your first note at the bottom, I don't stress possible disrespect towards those who have no respect for truth, facts and reality.
As to this...
that new law would allow them to ask your status as a smoker.
Perhaps you can see that for many of us, we think the state can reasonably have rules/regs about that which might reasonably be considered harmful, but not about personal and unprovable opinions about what a god does or does not think.
Thus, while the state might reasonably ask you not to smoke in certain places (due to the potential for harm) or drink and drive (due to the potential for harm), the state ought not ask you to go along with what the Southern Baptists think God thinks about sex and marriage, or what Muslims think that Allah thinks about gay folk, or what Fundamentalist Mormons think about what God thinks about polygamy.
For that reason, the state will not say, "you can or can't believe in God X..." nor will the state allow discrimination because a person believes in God X... BUT, the state can reasonably ask about specific behaviors and outlaw or regulate harmful behaviors.
Do you think this is unreasonable?
Respectfully,
Dan T
Two things.
1) Keep Trabue banned. Fact is that we as Christians are called upon to silence heresy and blasphemers within the church and to pay no heed to those outside of it. There is nothing that says that we should give blasphemers and heretics a stage to make their stands.
2) I think there is a fatal flaw in your article: it assumes that those pushing such things are innocent of the repercussions. Reality is that those who support these measures do not see banning Christian principles as something that wouldn't happen, or even as an unfortunate consequence; they see it as a feature, not a bug.
So far it looks like only one supporter of letting Dan back into the pool.
Richard, thanks for the input. I'm not sure I saw the "fatal flaw" of which you speak, though. I'm pretty sure those who are being so foolish as to discriminate against discrimination, be inclusive by being exclusive, and being judgmental of those who are judgmental would be happy to eliminate our freedoms. They won't tolerate our view (while touting their tolerance).
By the easy, did he ever apologize to you for the personal attacks or does he feel justified?
Richard, a complete stranger, says of me...
Fact is that we as Christians are called upon to silence heresy and blasphemers within the church and to pay no heed to those outside of it. There is nothing that says that we should give blasphemers and heretics a stage to make their stands.
1. I am not a heretic. I disagree with you all on some points, and you disagree with me. Disagreement with mere human opinion does not equal heresy.
2. "false prophets" talked of in the Bible are, biblically, those who deliberately lie and make false claims, usually for power or money motives. At worst, I am sincerely mistaken. That is not, biblically speaking, heresy (which is, biblically speaking, just about entirely absent from the Bible).
3. Again, being sincerely mistaken and/or simply disagreeing with Stan (or Richard) is not a heresy. Do you conflate your opinions with God's Word? Because that is the only way one might make the case, but let's be respectful and honest, none of us here speak for God. Agreed?
4. Stan and Glenn were lamenting that those who disagree with their personal opinions are not here to read those personal opinions. If you chase away and demonize those who disagree with your/their personal opinions, you won't have them here. What is not rational or factual about that?
Respectfully submitted,
Dan
No apology nor any indication as to feeling justified. "By the easy"?
You're kidding me. I've commented on the topics here, admittedly pointing out what I consider to be the arrogance on your collective parts, but with reasoned support. You all, on the other hand, are calling me a heretic, a non-believer and all manners of demonizations.
What specifically do you all think I've done by way of "personal attack," and do you NOT understand the hypocrisy of accusing me - unfounded, unsupported - of personal attacks all the while engaging in unfounded and unsupported personal attacks of the worst sort? Do you not see the vulgarity in that behavior?
Come, now, brothers, let us reason like adults.
Respectfully,
Dan T.
Stupid auto fill on the phone
So, I see. I come here and talk about the topics you raise, and I am being disrespectful. I raise reasonable points and ask polite questions, nothing in response to my actual points.
On the other hand, what you all DO respond with are actual attacks on my Christianity and my integrity - wholly unsupported, wholly off topic, wholly false claims - and you all don't see the irony or the hypocrisy or the arrogance in this.
Come now, brothers, let us reason together like well-behaved adults.
Respectfully and in Christ,
Dan T
Richard said...
Fact is that we as Christians are called upon to silence heresy and blasphemers within the church and to pay no heed to those outside of it. There is nothing that says that we should give blasphemers and heretics a stage to make their stands.
Fact? According to whom? Has God told you it is your personal responsibility to "silence" "heresy..." and "blasphemers..."? And has God told you that "heretics" and "blasphemers" are those who are simply disagreeing with your personal opinions? Or, at worst, actually mistaken, but sincerely so?
The Facts are these:
1. God has not told you any of this. It simply, factually has not happened.
2. The Bible does not tell you any of this. At best, you can find one verse that deals with "heresies" in ALL the Bible, and it's not what you are making of it.
the ONE verse that touches on heresies is this, from 2 Peter (one of my personal favorite biblical authors)...
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."
3. I am not "secretly" introducing anything, as a point of fact. I have quite publicly stated my personal opinions on some topics where it disagrees with your personal opinions. Nothing secret about it. Nothing false about it. At worst, I am sincerely mistaken (or, at worst, you are sincerely mistaken). That is not "false," that is a mistake. Thank God for Grace.
4. The fact is, I have not denied the sovereign Lord. I love God. I love Jesus. I fully support the notion of walking in the steps of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
5. The fact is, then, that this suggestion (if Richard is making it) is a blunt, demonstrable falsehood. I'm willing to grant Richard the benefit of the doubt and assume he is doing this from a point of pure ignorance of me or my positions and that it is not a deliberate lie, but as a point of fact, it is a falsehood to make this suggestion, if Richard is making it.
The facts are that you have put my comment up, only to allow people to demonize and gossip and make false claims, unsupported and unconfronted. Shame on you, Stan. You are better than this.
Do the right thing and either remove these false claims and correct the mistake or at the least, allow me to defend my name against these spurious and false charges.
Respectfully,
Dan T
Richard Ferguson's item 1 is the best argument I've heard for keeping him banned. I sort of have that as a reason I've banned others, because they just want to use the comment string to promote heresy or other aberrant teachings.
Well, Dan, I hope you enjoyed your visit, because I've been convinced that this is the end of it.
1. Popular opinion says you're more of a problem than a help.
2. Your "banned me for ... for disagreeing too much" tells me you haven't a clue. You made personal attacks against me and my family and I banned you for that. Not disagreement. Never disagreement. Not even rudeness, for which you are known despite your certainty that you're not. With such a short memory and with such clear disregard for courtesy (like the repeated warning that my mother reads my blog and yet you come in with language to offend her) or rules of conversation and it makes no sense to let you stay.
3. Your standard approach to argumentation is not "Here are the reasons and evidence for my view or why yours is wrong." It is essentially "I disagree and you're wrong." Further, you repeatedly assure us we're wrong for believing we're right and trying to correct others while you go about believing you're right and correct us. We are offering "mere human opinion" and apparently yours is the only right one. You accuse of "conflating opinions with the Word of God" while disparaging Scripture and conflating your own opinions. These are not helpful argumentation methods and serve no purpose, either to you or to others.
4. You think that "Can we agree on this?" and "Respectfully" in the end suggest suitable dialog. When you use them as tools to hide your disrespect and pretend to converse while you're actually trying to manipulate, they don't.
Nothing has changed, Dan. You've refused to recall the single point at which I banned you and deny it entirely. Your arguments are the same--misleading, opinion, "righteous indignation" without basis, and simple denial of what everyone else can see. It serves no purpose to let you back in. So these will serve as your last comments on my blog. Bluster all you want about "disagreement" and "human opinion". Without repentance there can be no restoration and without any reason to believe anything will change there is no reason to restore your status here.
I cannot dispute the "mother" argument against allowing Dan to post comments. I often forget who might come upon my remarks posted publicly. A sad fact I must work harder to correct. One cannot know with certainty who views one's comments, but it is for certain whoever does is likely someone's mother, daughter, wife, son, husband, father, friend. While I don't believe it good practice to walk on eggshells, constantly stifling one's ability to accurately express one's true opinion, some tact and thought to the sensitivities of others is reasonable, if not downright honorable.
So Dan loses again, simply for failing to conform to the standards of his hosts in the same way he demand conformity to the standards he sets for his own blog. It's the kind of irony that should appeal to him.
One point, if he's still peeking in: a heresy is a heresy even if one sincerely believes otherwise. Spreading that heresy, regardless of one's sincere belief it it, still makes one a heretic.
I've always thought that the inability to accurately express one's true opinion without the use of expletives is a lack of vocabulary skills. I've always thought it best to use words that don't offend, as offending isn't likely my intent when I express myself. Some don't have the same intent.
Dan, my concerns about your "dirty words" are not necessarily biblical; they're ... courtesy. I know, I know, you don't care if you offend my mother or my sister. That's what would be classified as "unwholesome words" that don't edify. That would be classified as a failure to love your neighbor. Okay, so it is biblical. But it starts with simple courtesy, something you apparently lack, and just another reason you can stop trying to comment.
Do you suppose Mr. Trabue has a reading comprehension problem? Could that be the issue? I've told him on multiple occasions his comments won't be allowed and he continues to try to comment. I'm trying to figure out what the disconnect is here. Oh, well, I know where the delete button is.
He doesn't care if you don't post them - he just wants YOU to see them, so he can get in your brain and capitulate to him. HAH!
He's still free to darken my virtual doors. My mother passed last year. :(
At my blog, if it isn't Dan, it's one or two other guys that also spew twisted logic and distorted "facts". In the meantime, he's left comments of mine unaddressed at his own blog. THAT I don't understand.
Post a Comment