Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What do you think about this?
Pye
Explorer
I'm not a Christian, but I do understand that they have certain beliefs with which I may or may not agree. It just seems that activism is taking a very ugly form these days and I wonder how far this will go. I know I approach the topic of karma in a very odd way, but I think people's misunderstanding and corruption of the concept may actually lead to this sort of behaviour. A very entitled sort of hubris. You may totally disagree, but this is my take- what's your?
0
Comments
I'm sincerely not sure what your motive is in posting this; the general assumption seems to be that ties were cut due to the brothers' conservative religious views but there is no confirmation of this ; in fact, the bank seems to be distancing itself from that linking.
So....?
Maybe this is a bigger deal in the USA than I can see it, UK side.
~+shrug +~...
I see it as a trend. People wanting to punish those with whom they disagree. This has been around for a long time, I know. If it were reversed and Christian activists were doing this to gays, (and they have and do), it would also be wrong. Maybe it's different in your country. I just see it as a new, preferred group doing exactly what they were subjected to as an entitled practice of revenge. I just don't see how we can grow past it if it's acceptable for any group to do this to others.
This is why I keep to General Banter and avoid the more practice oriented threads- I'm talking about things I observe and look to people here for more insight.
If this subject is unacceptable to you and you feel that I'm acting inappropriately - please feel free to delete it. Happy Friday.
As federica mentioned it's unclear and as such no real conclusion can be drawn.
No, but we practise tolerance and acceptance here insofar as we are able. The fact that others don't or may not, is an "as old as the hills" matter, and has always happened and probably always will.
But there is no way of being sure that such a situation actually exists here....
There is no situation here. I can see that I'm not a good fit for this community and will not tax your patience any further. I have no wish to be a disruptive element. My apologies to all.
There are a lot of conflicting principles going on in this whole wider story.
First, there's a misunderstanding about freedom of speech. People who want to be dismissive of gay rights, as these guys are, base their comments on their freedom of speech. Okay. But they also think that if you exercise your freedom of speech that there is a corresponding freedom from consequences. Say pretty much anything you like, but don't expect that people have to embrace your views, and realize that there may be consequences.
Then there's the whole a corporation is a person philosophy. I don't go to Chick-Fila because of their stated attitude toward gays. Why do corporations feel the need to take a stance in civil rights issues?
I think back to a gas station I pulled into in Winter Park, Florida. There was a big sign that if you could prove you were a Christian (I assume by a church membership card, or something like that), you got a 15% discount on any car repair. Really?????
Goodness me... To make such a decision based on a couple of posts, seems somewhat hasty and arbitrary... One could, on close investigation, conclude that you're of the opinion that, if we're not with you, we're against you...
No need to bail, we just related how we viewed it, that's all.
Your decision though. Whatever you decide, be well....
IF and only IF SunTrust pulled their contract because of these guys' "faith" or religious beliefs, I'd say that was extremely 'wrong'.
@vinlyn pretty much said what I had to say in his post about 'free speech' and all that.
This article was typically biased and slanted to make the brothers seem to be victims BECAUSE of their (particular) Christian beliefs. I seriously doubt this is in truth WHY SunTrust pulled their contracts.
In general, I personally approve of the 'trend' of public disapproval (ie consequences) of damaging and destructive PUBLICLY asserted commentary. If this is why SunTrust pulled their contract I'd give 'em high five and hope to see more of it.
How mealy-mouthed of them, to whine about their 'faith' being the cause of their recent losses. That is, I sincerely believe, bullshit. Apparently having honesty and rationality as part of their public image is not important to them.
I'd say this a lot more diplomatically but I'm writing it in the time I should be taking to get dressed for work :P
@Pye given that this is an international forum, sometimes you need to give some context to a link. I am in Canada, where we do watch American TV, but I've never heard of these guys and the article doesn't fully explain what went on. From what I gather, they are intolerant Christians. To which I say, yea, so they're wrong. Do you think we need to do something about it?
The Benham brothers were supposed to have their own reality show on tv, it was cancelled last week after it was found that they talked to talkshow hosts and various others making comments saying homosexuals are demonic and destructive in nature and "Michael Sam (first openly gay drafted NFL player) is living an unhealthy lifestyle and will pay for it" and other such comments.
It is not because of their beliefs. It is because of their choice of words. It is increasingly not ok (FINALLY) to bad talk gay people in the US. I approve of this. If people don't think homosexuality is right and they believe they had a choice in the matter, then fine, then can choose not to be gay. That is where it should end. Their beliefs don't make it ok for them to be spewing their nasty words all over the place and then say "but it's my belief and you have to accept it!"
For what it's worth, when more of their conservative members/shareholders complained, Suntrust reinstated their business with them anyhow.
@Pye I think you should stay. I'm not really understanding why you would post asking what people thought, and then once they say what they think you decide you don't belong here? Federica is a moderator on the forum (just in case you didn't know that) and was asking why you posted it, I'm sure, to avoid conflict in the forum where it might not be necessary. Sometimes people post things just to rile others up.
Social media and the internet seem to be providing a forum for people on all sides of the political spectrum to speak up and socially ostracize others who take a position against theirs.
In some cases this public shaming can get out of hand. In this case I do agree with @vinlyn that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and everyone just has to accept it. Reading some of the comments on the article (and the article itself) one gets the picture that the brothers are being discriminated against because they are Christians and not so much because of their particular views on gays, which aren't universally held by Christians.
I don't know, I guess I like that people can speak out and say NO to intolerant views and have a tangible effect on the intolerant. I have noticed and do worry that this kind of shaming can get out of hand and be too punishing and/or punish too slight of an offense.
The huge problem that almost always happens is that those who protest against the brothers' become as intolerant and verbally aggressive (hurtful) as those who they protest against.
This is an example of what I mean. I was a member of a domestic violence forum set up by a psychologist over a decade ago, the psych's specialty was and is abusive relationships.
One infamous (to us lol) day in October 2008, the psychologist posted about the US presidential election, an encouragement of one candidate and discouragement of the other. Political posts were major no no's, as were gender issues and other unrelated 'hot topics' that derailed the focus of the forum.
The psychologist (owner of the forum) was openly confronted by the members. She apologized without much emphasis and mentioned it WAS after all, HER forum.
Shit hit the fan. Remember this forum's membership was victims of domestic abuse, primarily verbal and emotional abuse. A large contingent of the more vocal members began to verbally abuse and even THREATEN the owner of the forum. All these 'victims' became abusers in the blink of an eye. I spoke up about this in an extraordinary display of wrong speech (baaaaaaad timing
). The verbal abuse was then aimed at me, by so many who I'd come to trust and admire, even establish online friendships with.
The people protesting against intolerance almost always become abusive and intolerant themselves, and they are 100% ASSURED, in their own minds, that whatever they do or say, however abusive, is deserved and justified.
Absolutely NO difference from the self-justified anti-gay blah blah blah agendas justified by God's Word (somewhere in Leviticus along with not wearing clothing of different substances together).
Perpetrator and victim are really two ends of the same dilemma.
I made the mistake of publicly telling them that, too.
However intimate and trusting our relationships with each other (often meeting regularly in person) meant nothing when the beast of conviction rears it's ugly head. I lost a lot of friends, it was devastating at the time but one of those life lessons worth whatever you lose to have it.
Fortunately, even if the protesting against outspoken hate mongering does become as intolerant and abusive as the former, it does cause changes that need to be made.
This is what I mean when I talk about mandalas. There are values at the center and sometimes they are taken over. There are messengers and guardians of the values at the center. One of the values was not talking about politics. Then the whole mandala shifted and expelled that which was not in agreement with the center of the group.
Mr Kushion is on an interfaith/inter political exchange visit. Don't hate him.
and now back to the liberality . . .