Call for Crackdown on Gays Enclosed in Right to Free Speech?

[Fez]

 

 

 

 

and since you are neither in america, nor in uganda, why does it matter to you WHAT the man thinks? exactly what the heck are you trying to pull here, thomas? i would like to think that you just have totally misunderstood what you read, but i know that since cobalt has already clarified it and yet you still make the accusations, you really did read it correctly. so please answer my questions. 1) what are you trying to pull? and 2) what is your agenda?

 

I would be interested in knowing the answers to those questions myself.  Free speech becomes restricted speech if it is curtailed in ANY way.

 

Umm, not that I support his assertions in the Op, but is not Thomas asserting his right to free speech as well? And he has not curtailed free speech, he may have embellished it in some posters eyes (from what I read in the replies). No one said one has to agree with, or even believe what someone says, but they kind of have the right to say it. Whether one likes it or not.

 

Motives and agenda's are another matter, and are harder to fathom. I prefer to wait and see the fruit produced in a matter when I don't know the person too well.

 

The truth will always out...

[Guest LadyC]

absolutely, he has the right to free speech... even if that free speech is full of misrepresentation and embellishment. you are 100% correct on that one.

 

but since he insists on stirring up a debate over an issue that he has misrepresented, don't i still have the right to ask what the heck his agenda is?

[Fez]

absolutely, he has the right to free speech... even if that free speech is full of misrepresentation and embellishment. you are 100% correct on that one.

 

but since he insists on stirring up a debate over an issue that he has misrepresented, don't i still have the right to ask what the heck his agenda is?

Of course you do! I am interested in the answer to your question as well.

[Guest LadyC]

well since there are at least 3 of us interested in the answers, maybe he'll provide them.

[MorningGlory]

 

 

 

 

 

and since you are neither in america, nor in uganda, why does it matter to you WHAT the man thinks? exactly what the heck are you trying to pull here, thomas? i would like to think that you just have totally misunderstood what you read, but i know that since cobalt has already clarified it and yet you still make the accusations, you really did read it correctly. so please answer my questions. 1) what are you trying to pull? and 2) what is your agenda?

 

I would be interested in knowing the answers to those questions myself.  Free speech becomes restricted speech if it is curtailed in ANY way.

 

Umm, not that I support his assertions in the Op, but is not Thomas asserting his right to free speech as well? And he has not curtailed free speech, he may have embellished it in some posters eyes (from what I read in the replies). No one said one has to agree with, or even believe what someone says, but they kind of have the right to say it. Whether one likes it or not.

 

Motives and agenda's are another matter, and are harder to fathom. I prefer to wait and see the fruit produced in a matter when I don't know the person too well.

 

The truth will always out...

 

 

Of course thomas has the right to free speech....I surely didn't say otherwise.

[thomas t]

Good morning Lady C,

 

 

but since you misrepresented the entire article

I won't say my position again, my attempt was to get off this merry go round.

 

 

 

why is this of any concern to you anyway, since you don't even live in the US?

 

Actually, I was having from the atheist side who accused Christians of having supported genocide in America. I couldn't judge if this was true or not. However, at this moment I remembered Christians advocating life sentences for other people just for their identity, so I thought this thread should be my next one.

 

 

 

is there an agenda here?

yes, it is as stated in the titel of the OP. And then, since Cobalt and others had doubts on what this person has said, I thought by myself it would be nice to have this included in this debate.

 

 

 

because you are sympathetic and supportive of gay rights and unsympathetic to the US and conservative christianity?

 

I love America.

Actually, Christianity is my family and this is not about choosing anybody. I only have one family.

 

 

the man (lively) does not do any of the things you accuse him of. he doesn't call for anything you say he calls for (1). he supports the fact that the death penalty was dropped from the ugandan bill but still believes that it is much too harsh (2). under the circumstances and given the alternative, he supports the bill (3), but he has reservations about it. those reservations are that he believes it is still too strict, and that he believes it should turn a blind eye to gays who exercise discretion. furthermore, he doesn't call for ANYTHING (4), since he didn't write the bill and has no authority or power to change it. that is the exact opposite of what you have stated.

 

[added numbers mine]

first point: that' wrong. As you've correctly said in point (3), he supports that bill. That aswers (4), too, I guess.

second point: this is merely the specific interpretation of this newspaper, to which you seem to be adhering to. CNN, in contrast, argues that concerning the revised bill

"there are conflicting reports on whether the original death penalty provision remain".

 

Thomas

[thomas t]

 

 

 

 

 

and since you are neither in america, nor in uganda, why does it matter to you WHAT the man thinks? exactly what the heck are you trying to pull here, thomas? i would like to think that you just have totally misunderstood what you read, but i know that since cobalt has already clarified it and yet you still make the accusations, you really did read it correctly. so please answer my questions. 1) what are you trying to pull? and 2) what is your agenda?

 

I would be interested in knowing the answers to those questions myself.  Free speech becomes restricted speech if it is curtailed in ANY way.

 

Umm, not that I support his assertions in the Op, but is not Thomas asserting his right to free speech as well?

[...]

 

 

The truth will always out...

Thanks,

Thomas

[TsukinoRei]

Here are the official charges, that the defence submitted to the courts;

 

http://ccrjustice.org/files/SMUG_OrderDenyingDefMTD_08_13.pdf

 

Here is the revisionist history in which Scott Lively states that he has evidence that the Nazi Party and the entire holocaust were orchestrated by homosexuals.  This is just one of the lies which the people of Uganda have believed to make them so violently frightened of homosexuals. 

 

http://www.thepinkswastika.com/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika

 

http://www.scottlively.net/2012/07/24/the-pink-swastika-5th-edition/

 

 

 

"Dear President Putin, On behalf of millions of Americans and Canadians who are concerned about the seemingly unstoppable spread of homosexuality in our countries and internationally, I wish to respectfully express my heartfelt gratitude that your nation has take a firm and unequivocal stand against this scourge by banning homosexualist propaganda in Russia. You have set an example of moral leadership that has shamed the governments of Western Europe and North America and inspired the peoples of the world. Already Lithuania, Moldova, Hungary and the Ukraine have begun to follow your principled example, and you have engendered real hope in the international pro-family movement that this destructive and degrading sexual agenda might finally begin to be brought to a halt across the globe." -  Scott Lively, in a letter accompanying a copy of his book, The Pink Swastika, which Lively says is being translated into Russian and will contain a dedication to the Russian government.

  

(He's also told the Ugandans that Homosexuals were responsible for the Rwandan Genocide. btw)

 

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/09/quote-of-day-scott-lively.html

 

Scott Lively has also claimed, on a number of occasions, to have proof that Obama is Gay.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/scott-lively-obama-gay_n_2742242.html

 

The man is a dangerous liar that claims to speak with the authority of God, therefore he is a false prophet.

[kwikphilly]

lol...WRONG!....Lady C,Fez and MorningGlory....there are FOUR of us curious to know the answers.....I know have not participated but it is simply because I feel exactly the way y'all do.........So please,humor us-thomas....we are all waiting

 

                                                                                                               With love,in Christ-Kwik

[TsukinoRei]

lol...WRONG!....Lady C,Fez and MorningGlory....there are FOUR of us curious to know the answers.....I know have not participated but it is simply because I feel exactly the way y'all do.........So please,humor us-thomas....we are all waiting

 

                                                                                                               With love,in Christ-Kwik

 

Four people, at least one of which has admitted to scarcely having heard of Scott Lively before, the others also not demonstrating anything in the way of foreknowledge or experience with his ministry - all accusing one person of deliberate misrepresentation and having a mysterious agenda.  Thomas doesn't appear to be the one with an agenda here.  Is there something that perhaps you're all already convinced of and feel you would be compromising if you allowed yourselves to consider that this one man - Scott Lively - is deserving of prosecution?  If so, that is what an agenda would look like.

 

If a person stands on my street corner with his Bible and tells people that I am evil, that my existence is an offence to God, that they should not act as I do or live as I do - then that is his right.

 

If a person stands on my street corner with his Bible and tells people that I am dangerous to them and their families, that they need to drive me out of their community, that they need to imprison me, that any forceful action taken against me would be a service to God - then I'm calling the police and arming myself in preparation for self-defence!  

 

If a person convinces people that they need to attack, drive out, or imprison someone - and then they go do it - the law in most civilized countries holds the one that instructed the people as even more culpable for the damages than the crowd who committed the crimes.  Leaders are accountable.

 

What about this is confusing?