George Takei is great.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Bookwrack**

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think the message would have nearly so much impact if it were delivered by my brother.

Does he have a voice like George Takei?

**Manchu**

mattyrm wrote:i didnt say that ALL Christians are homophobic

I hate to do this, but what you actually posted was:

mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.

Especially GG.

No no, i wont condemn the man who called for kids to commit suicide and die of aids, i will merely sigh at the gay bloke.

Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.

So, in other words, you made a statement about Christians generally and then qualified this statement with "Especially GG." (but note, not retracting that you are talking about Christians generally). If you were only talking about Christians posting in this thread by that point then to whom were you even referring?

I guess we'll have to be a bit more clear before this becomes another "no, that's not what I said" extravaganza. So, mattyrm, do I understand your post quoted above correctly to mean "Christians purposely overlook the point about gays being bullied"? And, if so, can I ask: why do you think that Christians do this?

**Frazzled**

Bookwrack wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think the message would have nearly so much impact if it were delivered by my brother.

Does he have a voice like George Takei?

More importantly does he know how to fire the phasers and go to warp 8 just in the nick of time?

**Manchu**

Wrexasaur wrote:For the love of Star Trek why is this an argument about religion?

Because no one on Dakka thinks gay people should bullied for being gay? And because a forum is not the right place to post something and then not discuss it? Because posting variations of "right on" is basically just spam and good Dakka users all know this is against the rules?

Because mattyrm decided to make a discriminatory generalization about Christians in a thread generally about why making discriminatory generalizations is wrong?

There are a fair few good reasons, I'd say.

**mattyrm**

Getting down to brass tacks i was merely attempting to say that GG did not react in the manner expected from any fair minded person on this subject, Fitz and KK basically echoed that sentiment, but because i am generally an angry man i come across as far more aggressive than i intend, they put it across far more sensibly.

If you got pissed off by this and saw it as a blanket attack Orlanth then of course I apologise.

My overiding point was simply that I believe that Religious belief can make an otherwise good person do or say something that from a totally unbiased view seems to be out of character. ie. I have argued about this with GG before and he is a decent moral person YET he has a distaste for homosexuals that i feel wouldnt be there if he was not a devout Christian.

Is that better?

But yes, i agree this is hijacking the thread, i was merely taken back by his post, and i liked Wrexes point so i will shut up now.

Edit- Oh and Orlanth DT was a catholic priest who said very bigoted and horrible things about gay people.

**Wrexasaur**

Manchu wrote:Because no one on Dakka thinks gay people should bullied for being gay? And because a forum is not the right place to post something and then not discuss it? Because posting variations of "right on" is basically just spam and good Dakka users all know this is against the rules?

There is plenty to discuss on this subject, and a conversation about religion is a pretty obvious tangent IMO.

Is it okay if we move back into conversation about Takei as a spokesperson, and the factors involved with him expressing his opinion on this subject? That's the interesting part.

Was it necessary for Takei to (even jokingly) accuse Cllint McCance of being gay? At what point did Takei necessarily lessen the strength of his message in this PSA?

How much comedy can Takei use in his opinion, before it becomes no less than ad hominem, and further, was it an effective use of ad hominem? Does the concept that many homophobes are gay themselves need mentioning? Not to say such abstract criticism has substantive merit, but it is possible to use such memes in order to strengthen an argument.

This is a conversation about Takei's message. This topic is about Takei's message. De-railment into a conversation concerning religion can also be said to be against Dakka rules. I like you in general Manchu, and Mattie has clearly backed down, as indicated here.

mattyrm wrote:Getting down to brass tacks i was merely attempting to say that GG did not react in the manner expected from any fair minded person on this subject, Fitz and KK basically echoed that sentiment, but because i am generally an angry man i come across as far more aggressive than i intend, they put it across far more sensibly.

I take mattyrm at his word.

**Manchu**

Neither FITZZ nor KK tied their criticisms to Christianity. And no one assumed they did. Is this what mattyrm was referring to when he said "they put it across far more sensibly"?

Wrex, you've sidestepped the issue that mattyrm seemed to be making a discriminatory generalization in a thread about that very thing being wrong and harmful. You see, no one is talking about religion itself but rather why--contrary to what mattyrm post here and elsewhere--there is no inherent connection between vicious bigotry and the Christian religion. On a really, really obvious level this is hardly derailing the thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And regarding:

Wresaur wrote:Is it okay if we move back into conversation about Takei as a spokesperson, and the factors involved with him expressing his opinion on this subject? That's the interesting part.

That discussion is actually going on at the same time. See:

Manchu wrote:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
Too late Monster.
Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.
It's hard to really discuss something that is so obviously true. Cannerus used the phrase "genuine acceptance" in a millennial tone earlier in this thread. I honestly think that genuine acceptance has very much arrived in the post-Baby Boomer generations, at least among white middle-class Americans. Mr Takei's message, in other words, simply isn't controversial in its content, which explains why any unresolved discomfort with it is resolved in criticism about the delivery.

As to your comments directed at me, I think we do indeed see eye-to-eye.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
As I said, I think that's one explanation. But you could also suggest that it's playing into the idea that being gay is bad so that Takei is getting back at the guy by calling him gay/i.e., insulting him. I know this is supposed to be insulting him from his poiunt of view, but the rest of the message is that his point of view is not only socially unacceptable but more deeply, morally wrong. There's a strange multi-faceted irony at work here that one could object to, but one would have to be very articulate t get the point across.

Orlanth wrote:
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

The dangerous step is the extra step George Takei made beyond what he needed to say.

Homophobia is wrong, and McCance is a 'douchebag', fair enough, the video only goes downhill when the alarm clock is brought out. You see George Takei is not just criticising homophobia, he is also putting the boot in himself with an allegation that McCance likes rent boys. This single acusation is a triple attack: This may well might not even be a compliment if he was gay, a prostitute scandal is a prostitute scandal, in common parlance a prostitute scandal is assumed to equal 'perversion' and most people wont think beyond that, even if the activities are standard sexual behaviour. Second the allusion that McCance may well be a homosexual is unfair, and third it would also make him out to be a very bad sort of hypocrite with mentasl health issues due to his denial. Again Goerge Takei might know something we dont, in which case the press is already tipped off and the McCance-with-rent-boy story will be aired soon. But we dont know that, it could just be a case of assuming the meme is followed where the most vehement homophobes are closet gays in denial, this may be the case, but often it is not.

There is plenty of ammo against McCance that it is not necessary to make any up, as he has no profile compared to Takei and is already in the dirt so if Takei winked and claimed he was also say an anti-Semite or an Al Quaeda sympathiser people would likely believe it, and the accusation could stick for life. This is what I consider dangerous. For good reason, everyone above me (except possibly GG, who is unclear as to what he thinks) and most posts following saw how 'awesome' the video was and therefore just drank in Takei's accusations. Not only is McCance a homophobe (which is in the press) is also a permenant douchbag, Fair so far. But nowe we also know he is a closet gay, buys his sex and is a Class 1 hypocrite to boot. 'Awesome'? Only if its true, but we won't need to know if its true because its already 'awesome', so it is true forever in the court of public opinion even if it happens not to be so.

**Wrexasaur**

Manchu wrote:Neither FITZZ nor KK tied their criticisms to Christianity. And no one assumed they did. Is this what mattyrm was referring to when he said "they put it across far more sensibly"?

I didn't suggest that anyone tied FITZZ's or KK's statements to Matt's. At least, no one besides Matt himself, and beyond that, my acknowledgment that he has done so.

Wrex, you've sidestepped the issue that mattyrm seemed to be making a discriminatory generalization in a thread about that very thing being wrong and harmful. You see, no one is talking about religion itself but rather why--contrary to what mattyrm post here and elsewhere--there is no inherent connection between vicious bigotry and the Christian religion. On a really, really obvious level this is hardly derailing the thread.

I didn't say that you were de-railing the thread. I merely stated that it can be considered against the rules, and in doing so I suggest that not avoiding a drawn out conversation about mattyrm's previous statements, is likely a bad idea. This is not because of one person, and hopefully I have made that clear. These conversations can carry on for pages with a MODlock needed to end the conversation. Mattyrm BACKED DOWN. Conversation done.

As mattyrm has effectively admitted his misplaced anger, I see no reason why this thread cannot move past the previous conversation.

**Monster Rain**

mattyrm wrote:Im 1595 posts in, i have been called a "troll" by maybe two people, and that is simply because they are Religious and as usual take massive offense for no apparent reason.

Dude, you aren't offending me. I'm way past getting bent out of shape about clearly ignorant and bigoted statements on message boards.

mattyrm wrote:Answer me then, lets get back to the topic at hand.

Was Billy Graham a Christian?

Was Jerry Falwell a Christian?

If the answer is "yes" (it is)

I win.

Is the game we're playing "Make a Fool Out of Myself by Saying Crazily Intolerant Things and Then Pretending I Didn't Say Them and Trying to Weasel Out of What Can Easily be Quoted if I Could Be Arsed"?

Then yeah, you win.

I'm not even going to bother pointing out how ludicrous you bringing up Billy Graham and Jerry Fallwell in this context is.

**Ma55ter_fett**

kronk wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?

The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.

When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.

Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there

**Monster Rain**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
kronk wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?

The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.

When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.

Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there

I didn't think he was invited...

Pretty sure that's what he said on Opie and Anthony.

**mattyrm**

Monster Rain wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Im 1595 posts in, i have been called a "troll" by maybe two people, and that is simply because they are Religious and as usual take massive offense for no apparent reason.

Dude, you aren't offending me. I'm way past getting bent out of shape about clearly ignorant and bigoted statements on message boards.

Sigh... i thought we had ended this?

See, i am an aggressive bloke, i fully concede that sometimes i say things that can be offensive, but how is it ignorant?

Ignorance is no crime of course, i am ignorant of many things, but most certainly not this subject. Ive had a bee in my bonnet about it from a young age, and i have read exhaustively about the topic, what about what i said was ignorant?

And you still didnt answer me, was Jerry Falwell a Christian?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is it ludicrous mentioning a devout Christian who was all over the TV in the US and vocally involved in politics?

Im all ears.

**Frazzled**

How about the US Episcopal Church (you know the guys with a gay bishop)? Are they Christian?

How about the Methodist Church?

How about the Lutheran Church?

**Monster Rain**

mattyrm wrote:
Why is it ludicrous mentioning a devout Christian who was all over the TV in the US and vocally involved in politics?

Im all ears.

Because, in the context of this discussion, it has no relevance.

If Jerry Falwell had advocated gay teens to commit suicide you'd have a case. He has opinions that you disagree with. I get it. He has opinions that I disagree with.

The fact that you even think that there's just one catch-all group of "Christians" sort of proves that you haven't got the vaguest idea of what you're talking about. Unless this whole thing is a piss-take. In which case saying inflammatory things to cause strife on the internet seems to have a definition that I may have touched upon earlier.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Monster Rain wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
kronk wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?

The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.

When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.

Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there

I didn't think he was invited...

Pretty sure that's what he said on Opie and Anthony.

He says he invited him, but Shatner didn't even bother responding.

Also I think that things have gotten a little off topic, I mean this is a thread about how great George Takei is... there should be no shortage of material.

I'll start

George Takei is so great that he could beat that homophobe Chuck Norris by giving him a sensuous Asian oil massage.

**Neconilis**

mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.

Especially GG.

No no, i wont condemn the man who called for kids to commit suicide and die of aids, i will merely sigh at the gay bloke.

Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.

Please don't stereotype all Christians as bigots; it's incorrect, and also hypocritical to label any group with such a broad term.

**Monster Rain**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
kronk wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?

The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.

When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.

Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there

I didn't think he was invited...

Pretty sure that's what he said on Opie and Anthony.

He says he invited him, but Shatner didn't even bother responding.

Also I think that things have gotten a little off topic, I mean this is a thread about how great George Takei is... there should be no shortage of material.

I'll start

George Takei is so great that he could beat that homophobe Chuck Norris by giving him a sensuous Asian oil massage.

Actually, Chuck Norris defies our flawed understanding of gender. He is both, and neither. He doesn't actually reproduce, but he rejuvenates himself by setting his beard on fire every 1,000 years and then rising from the ashes like a majestic phoenix.

**FITZZ**

While there are some points I agree with Mattyrm on,I attempt to not make blanket statements,not to imply that Matty does mind you.

Do I believe that they're Christians that are violently/verbally homophobic...of course.
Do I believe that idiots like Falwell encourage that sort of intolerance..yes I do.
But do I feel that those things reflect Christianity as a whole...of course not.

**Wrexasaur**

Manchu wrote:That discussion is actually going on at the same time. See:

Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
As I said, I think that's one explanation. But you could also suggest that it's playing into the idea that being gay is bad so that Takei is getting back at the guy by calling him gay/i.e., insulting him. I know this is supposed to be insulting him from his poiunt of view, but the rest of the message is that his point of view is not only socially unacceptable but more deeply, morally wrong. There's a strange multi-faceted irony at work here that one could object to, but one would have to be very articulate t get the point across.

You would need diagrams of the irony loop.

Orlanth wrote:
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

The dangerous step is the extra step George Takei made beyond what he needed to say.

Dangerous is a strong term, but I generally get what you're saying.

Homophobia is wrong, and McCance is a 'douchebag', fair enough, the video only goes downhill when the alarm clock is brought out. You see George Takei is not just criticising homophobia, he is also putting the boot in himself with an allegation that McCance likes rent boys. This single acusation is a triple attack: This may well might not even be a compliment if he was gay, a prostitute scandal is a prostitute scandal, in common parlance a prostitute scandal is assumed to equal 'perversion' and most people wont think beyond that, even if the activities are standard sexual behaviour. Second the allusion that McCance may well be a homosexual is unfair, and third it would also make him out to be a very bad sort of hypocrite with mentasl health issues due to his denial. Again Goerge Takei might know something we dont, in which case the press is already tipped off and the McCance-with-rent-boy story will be aired soon. But we dont know that, it could just be a case of assuming the meme is followed where the most vehement homophobes are closet gays in denial, this may be the case, but often it is not.

You are thinking past the point of this PSA in my opinion. Not that some of your argument isn't applicable, but it really comes down to a PSA hitting very hard.

George Takei is probably a smart dude, and the people he worked with are probably no dummies either. They likely recognize the conflict in their statements, and because of that they intentionally pull them into the general message. Controversy sells pretty well.

Again, there are logical contradictions within the Takei PSA.

There is plenty of ammo against McCance that it is not necessary to make any up, as he has no profile compared to Takei and is already in the dirt so if Takei winked and claimed he was also say an anti-Semite or an Al Quaeda sympathiser people would likely believe it, and the accusation could stick for life. This is what I consider dangerous.

Takei basically socked him in the nose. Right in the nose. Dangerous in the sense that Takei could have permanently broken McCance's metaphorical nose. I'm not entirely sure I care all that much what happens to McCance, and that is not to suggest that I want to see him literally harmed. Blocking him from holding any form of public office is kind of expected on Takei's part, as a spokesperson for the LGBT community.

He punched him in the nose, metaphorically.

For good reason, everyone above me (except possibly GG, who is unclear as to what he thinks) and most posts following saw how 'awesome' the video was and therefore just drank in Takei's accusations. Not only is McCance a homophobe (which is in the press) is also a permenant douchbag, Fair so far. But nowe we also know he is a closet gay, buys his sex and is a Class 1 hypocrite to boot. 'Awesome'? Only if its true, but we won't need to know if its true because its already 'awesome', so it is true forever in the court of public opinion even if it happens not to be so.

I won't remember McCance's name two weeks from now. He will disappear from the mainstream public's view very quickly.

IMO, Takei represents positive representation for the LGBT community. McCance attacked many people with his words, but Takei simply attacked McCance specifically through his statements.

**mattyrm**

Monster Rain wrote:

Because, in the context of this discussion, it has no relevance.

If Jerry Falwell had advocated gay teens to commit suicide you'd have a case.

Nice use of the word piss-take, ive not heard that from many Americans..

You agree i have a case then yes?

Jerry Falwell said "homosexuals are brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system that will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven"

and

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

Among many others.

You are simply using the textbook "no true Scotsman" argument, and you are repeating yourself.

As i have said, any fair minded reader is aware that i am not tarring all Religious believers with the same brush, that would be outright lunacy.

I made a fair point. GG did not answer in an expected way for a community that promotes fairness and tolerance.

I have tried to make peace with you several times and conceded i might be a tad strident, but you seem very angry despite you asserting otherwise.

Send me your address mate ill mail you a present.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Seriously, take the bloody religion bashing out of this thread. Discuss elsewhere, this was supposed to be lighthearted.

**mattyrm**

Fitz has the right of it, he is just better at being nice than me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im trying MGS, but.. well.. dont you think the core issue is kinda...

Not really lighthearted at all? :S

**Monster Rain**

So pointing out the obvious fact that some Christians disagree on theological issues is a No True Scotsman fallacy?

You really need to get out more. It's also my opinion that when all you can do is make meta-arguments you really don't have anything else useful to say.

mattyrm wrote:Fitz has the right of it, he is just better at speaking intelligently than me

fix'd

**kirsanth**

MeanGreenStompa, thank you for that, sir.

**Kilkrazy**

Orlanth wrote:
Manchu wrote:So, in essence, you think that McCance used his position to bully people and that Takei is using his position to bully back?

No McCance was just trolling on Facebook, it was stupid but hardly uncommon.

Takei is using his position to bully back. Criticising homophobia is Takei's just cause, additional accusations against McCance are not just, especially because McCance has no opportunity to refute them. This is due to the timing of the accusations; nothing McCance can say at this time will save himself from having pretty much any accusation stick from a high profile critic, true or not.

So?

McCance was a public official in a position of trust and moral responsibility. He is not a private citizen like the people he gloated over dying of AIDS.

Why on earth do you think him worth defending?

**Viktor von Domm**

@Ma55ter_fett

George Takei is so great that he could beat that homophobe Chuck Norris by giving him a sensuous Asian oil massage.

i think bears are not takeis type, as stated in the second video he´s more into bald afroamerican basketballplayers...
because of their calves?

and one thing further George Takei has a voice that sends shiver down my spine... thats why sometimes for me viewing films not dubed is like drinking a really good wine...
i could as well mention here Ian McKellen for obvios reasons...

vik

**MeanGreenStompa**

mattyrm wrote:Fitz has the right of it, he is just better at being nice than me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im trying MGS, but.. well.. dont you think the core issue is kinda...

Not really lighthearted at all? :S

Core issue is a repellent individual who said repellent things got called on it by a celeb who used light hearted humour to show said repellent and bigoted individual what a git he was, whilst further to my mind, making that celebrity more worthy of my admiration and a nod of 'well played sir!'

And that was pretty much that.

This light hearted and news-lite thread has been dragged kicking and screaming into an alleyway and transformed into yet another 'lock down in 5' religion bash/sweeping generalisation chunderfest. So this thread will go the way all threads that get tainted with the 'R' word do, locked down and it didn't deserve that, it was supposed to be fun.

/dejected and fairly pissed off orkmoticon face goes here.

**Manchu**

mattyrm wrote:Im trying MGS, but.. well.. dont you think the core issue is kinda...

Not really lighthearted at all? :S

I agree wholeheartedly. Homophobic attitudes don't come out of nowhere. They aren't just jokes. That's quite a bit of Takei's point, or at the very least why he was being so harsh. Yeah, I know it's funny but calling someone a douchebag in a melodious voice is still calling someone a douchebag. And for good reason.

MGS wrote:Core issue is a repellent individual who said repellent things got called on it by a celeb who used light hearted humour to show said repellent and bigoted individual what a git he was, whilst further to my mind, making that celebrity more worthy of my admiration and a nod of 'well played sir!'

And that was pretty much that.

So post it on your light-hearted blog, MGS. Dakka is a forum and a forum means there will be dialog. I don't think OPs get to post rules for the threads they start (at least not mandatory ones) and there are no Dakka rules violations so far. (This probably goes back to our diagreement that discussion of religion and politics inevitably leads to thread locks.)

**mattyrm**

Well, im meeting a bloke in the pub at 2100hrs so im ducking out.. enjoy yourselves!

**Fifty**

I work in a Catholic school that has a gay Deputy Head Teacher, a gay Business Manager and a lesbian head of ICT & Business. They are not the only gays now, and there have been others in the past.

mattyrm, although you have since qualified it to say that you did not mean all Christians, you still make dangerously sweeping statements, now and in previous threads.

I am about as committed an Atheist as you'll find. I disagree with religion/doctrine almost entirely as an organised entity. I regard religion/faith (particularly of the monotheistic supreme deity and/or surrender your own personal responsibility variety) as generally unnecessary and probably, on balance a negative thing.

I'll happily criticise the Pope (and, for that matter, Mother Teresa) on any number of issues, and I'm on record as being unhappy with how people get away with disgusting opinions, attitudes and actions by calling them "religious beliefs", and saying I am the intolerant, because I object to their intolerance.

But you can't just go making blanket statements about "them".

Yes, Jerry Falwell is a Christian, no matter how much some try to disown him. The "No True Scotsman" argument doesn't hold water. But just because Jerry Falwell says it, it doesn't mean all Christians believe it. Jerry Falwell is Christian = true, but Christians are Jerry Falwell = False. Just as Christians can't disregard Jerry Falwell just because he is an embarassment, you can't disregard moderate Christians just because they don't match your opinion of Christianity.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrt Takei -

McCance doesn't get to be a bigot. He is an elected public official, and his opinions are therefore relevant and open to response.

George Takei hit him back where it hurt. The rest of what Takei said won't have bothered him at all. That bit migh.

Good on Takei. Why should we accept intolerance by playing fair? Why not get back at someone?