MinutemanAD posted an article in a blog with the above title, I thought I’d contradict it. Which to his way of thinking makes me an evil fascist (yay).
Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance
Author: Francis J. Beckwith
[Related Article: How to Talk to a Theological Liberal (If You Must)]
Liberal Tolerance is perhaps the primary challenge to the Christian worldview current in North American popular culture. Proponents of this viewpoint argue that it is intolerant and inconsistent with the principles of a free and open society for Christians (and others) to claim that their moral and religious perspective is correct and ought to be embraced by all citizens.”
In other words one dude wrote a letter asking for evangelicals to be sensitive so all liberals are fascists who want to take away your religion.
“Liberal tolerance is not what it appears to be, however. It is a partisan philosophical perspective with its own set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge.”
Dogmatic relativism. Yeah, nothing about that statement is really, really stupid.
“This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs.”
In other words: “Some people somewhere don’t agree with us all the time?! FUCK YOU! And stop being so intolerant toward my views!“
“But this posture is dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not comply with it, one will face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps legal reprisals. Liberal Tolerance is neither liberal nor tolerant.“
Yes, tolerance of people who are different from you, it’s so… intolerant. A great philosopher once expressed the same view:
“Our assessments of the future are always at the mercy of unexpected contingencies. Perhaps, like the Berlin Wall, current academic and cultural fads that challenge Christian orthodoxy will soon crumble by the sheer force of their internal contradictions, coupled by the ascendancy of both the vibrant movement of Christian thinkers within the discipline of philosophy and the growing criticism of Darwinism and naturalism by Phillip Johnson and others.”
Yes, their views are internally inconsistent. Unlike your views that tolerance is intolerant and moral relativism is not only common (it’s not) but that it’s a dogmatic, absolutist position. No internal consistencies there whatsoever. And the fantasy notion that belief in special creation is on the rise and acceptance of evolution or naturalism are on the decline when the opposite is actually true is also a contradiction.
Yeah, a miracle psshhhh – like that’ll happen. Oh wait…
“This article will suggest some ways that Christian thinkers and cultural critics may defend their faith if present trends continue.”
“First, do you remember the words of John Lennon, put to song in the mid-1970s?
Imagine there’s no heaven; It’s easy if you try
No hell below us; Above us only sky….
Imagine no possessions; It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for; And no religion too
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
Someday you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.”
No, I remember the actual lyrics (parts in bold he left out):
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world
You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one.
Note that he turned “I hope someday you’ll join us” into “someday you’ll join us” and deleted most of the more profound lines, as well as mishmashing others to make them less coherent. But then this whole article is one long strawman so what do you expect?
“Those who came of age under the tutelage of Lennon and his contemporaries are now dominant in our most prestigious institutions of cultural influence: law, education, the media, and the social sciences. Although the optimism of these former flower children may be waning, their totalitarian impulses, implied in Lennon’s call for global unanimity on matters controversial, are in full bloom. We will call their project liberal tolerance.”
HAHAHAHA. Yes, flower child dictators with their message of peace, love and genocide. John Lennon coined the phrase “give peace a chance”, or as I’m sure he heard it, “Give peace a chance or I’ll give you something to peace about!”
“Relativism: The Ground of Liberal Tolerance
Liberal tolerance is grounded in relativism, the view that no one point of view on moral and religious knowledge is objectively correct for every person in every time and place. This notion, as understood and embraced in popular culture, feeds on the fact of pluralism, the reality of a plurality of different and contrary opinions on religious and moral matters. Against this backdrop, many in our culture conclude that one cannot say that one’s view on religious and moral matters is better than anyone else’s view. They assert that it is a mistake to claim that one’s religious beliefs are exclusively correct and that believers in other faiths, no matter how sincere or devoted, hold false beliefs. Thus, religious inclusivism is the correct position to hold.”
The view that morality is complex, dynamic and situational and that not everything in society is as black and white as rape and murder is not the same as the view that all moral views are equally valid. The former is a view held by anyone with a brain and the latter is held by sociopaths and people who are too stupid to think about anything slightly complex for any period of time.
“Its high-minded commitment to “openness” prohibits the possibility that anything is absolutely good, true, and beautiful.”
While it is true that, as someone once said, we must be careful not to be so open minded that our brains fall out, that is not what is actually espoused by most proponents of what you incorrectly label moral relativism.
“This was the central thesis of Alan Bloom’s 1987 best seller, The Closing of the American Mind. Bloom writes:
“The relativity of truth [for college students in American culture] is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it…. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all. The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated.…” According to Bloom, by dogmatically maintaining there is no truth, people who are relativists have become close-minded to the possibility of knowing the truth, if in fact it does exist.”
I’ve never met anyone who dogmatically maintains that there is no truth, let alone all liberals or all college students as the author maintains. Open-mindedness, humility and empathy are virtues because no one is infallible. The author thinks he is. He’s an idiot.
Oops I was intolerant there. I must be a tyrant like he said. Somebody call a war crimes tribunal, quick!
“To understand what Bloom means, consider the following dialogue (based loosely on a real-life exchange) between a high school teacher and her student, Elizabeth:
Teacher: Welcome, students. Since this is the first day of class, I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second….Elizabeth, do you have a question?
Elizabeth: Yes, I do. If nobody has the truth, isn’t that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions. What would be the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don’t you agree?
Teacher: No, I don’t. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn’t that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?
Elizabeth: Not at all. Rather, I think it’s dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that there is not one person on earth who knows the truth. After all, have you met every person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know the truth and would like to share it with you, why won’t you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone’s opinion.
Teacher: This should prove to be an interesting semester.
Another student: (blurts out): Ain’t that the truth. (the students laugh)”
Well, if an unnamed, supposedly real high school teacher said it, it must be the ideological north star by which liberal society finds it’s way through the darkness. And this form of argument is childish. You can keep mindlessly repeating “how do you know that?” to every response and deconstruct anything. I need a screwdriver to open up my computer if I want to modify it. “How do you know that?” I have done it before. “How do you know that?” I remember it. “How do you know that?” The long term memory part of my brain and the cognitive part are communicating with each other allowing me to recover that informaion. “How do you know that? Have you ever opened up your skull and looked inside your brain? Huh? Huh??”
It’s childish. And so is using fictional conversations to strawman your opponents with weak positions to justify broad generalizations. The only difference is a ten year old has an excuse for childish behavior.
“The proponent of liberal tolerance, it turns out, is not the celebrant of diversity he portrays himself to be.”
Yes, and jews all steal. I knew this jew once who stole things, that proves it.
“Perhaps another example, one from popular culture, will be instructive. In 1997, in her acceptance speech for an Emmy for cowriting the “coming out” episode of Ellen, Ellen DeGeneres said, “I accept this on behalf of all people, and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something wrong with them because they are gay. There’s nothing wrong with you. Don’t ever let anybody make you feel ashamed of who you are.”
OMG what a BITCH! Telling kids to feel good about themselves, FUCK HER! I mean her and stalin, you see the resemblance, right?
“There are many who, after hearing or reading Ellen’s speech, applauded her for her liberal sensibilities, concluding that the actress is an open and tolerant person who is merely interested in helping young people better understand their own sexuality. If you think this way, you are mistaken. Ellen’s speech is an example of what I call “passive-aggressive tyranny.”
How the dictionary defines tyranny:
tyranny: Noun –
1. Cruel and oppressive government or rule.
2. A nation under such cruel and oppressive government.
How conservatives define tyranny:
Tyrany: Noun –
1. Anyone disagreeing with us.
2. Any nation that allows anyone to disagree with us.
“The trick is to sound “passive” and accepting of “diversity” while at the same time putting forth an aggressively partisan agenda and implying that those who disagree are not only stupid but also harmful.”
Yeah, those clever liberals, always trying to sound tolerant and inclusive by not actually saying the words you’re putting in their mouths, but merely implying them by... existing.
“In order to understand this point, imagine if a conservative Christian Emmy-award winner had said, “I accept this on behalf of all people, and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something wrong with them because they believe that human beings are made for a purpose and that purpose includes the building of community with its foundation being heterosexual monogamy. There’s nothing wrong with you. Don’t ever let anybody, especially television script writers, make you feel ashamed because of what you believe is true about reality.” Clearly this would imply that those who affirm liberal views on sexuality are wrong. An award winner who made this speech would be denounced as narrow, bigoted, and intolerant. That person could expect never again to work in Hollywood.”
I found nothing in that statement offensive or threatening whatsoever. A call for empathy is far more decent and palatable than a hateful remark. If someone stood up and said “christians are an abomination and a book that says they should be put to death I believe is holy and inerrant”, how would that go over? You’re denouncing tolerance of benign differences while calling for tolerance of intolerance. Whatever dude.
“Ironically, Ellen’s Emmy speech does the same to those with whom she disagrees. By encouraging people to believe there is nothing wrong with their homosexuality, she is saying there is something wrong with those (i.e., Christians and other social conservatives) who don’t agree with this prescription.”
Yes, stating any view implies that those who disagree are wrong. So shut the fuck up. By your own logic espousing your own views makes you an intolerant, tyrannical asshole because it subtly implies that those who don’t agree with you are wrong (when you’re not explicitly demonizing them, that is). Oh but I forgot you’re absolutely right and I’m just an aimless relativist adrift on the winds of social change. So you have the right to be an intolerant, closed-minded bigot and I have the right to keep my opinions to myself please and thank you. Your position boils down to “by merit of our dogma, we are the only ones entitled to an opinion.” Gotta love circular logic.
“This condemnation is evident in the script of the show for which Ellen won an Emmy. In that famous “coming out” episode, the writers presumed that one is either bigoted or ignorant if one thinks Ellen’s homosexuality is deviant and that such a one is incapable of having a thoughtful, carefully wrought case against homosexuality. Such hubris is astounding. It presumes not only that Ellen’s detractors are wrong but also that they are stupid, irrational, and evil and should not even be allowed to make their case. They are, in a word, diseased, suffering from that made-up ailment, “homophobia.” What a strange way to attack one’s opponents! After all, whether one fears homosexuals is irrelevant to the question of whether homosexual practice is natural, healthy, and moral. No one would say that the arguments of an antiwar protestor should not be taken seriously on the grounds that he is “hemophobic,” that is, fearful of bloodshed. Moreover, if one is homophobic (assuming there is such a thing), that is, suffering from a phobia as one would suffer from claustrophobia, then the homophobe cannot help himself and is therefore suffering from a mental disorder, perhaps one that is the result of his genes. Consequently, calling someone homophobic is tantamount to making fun of the handicapped, unless of course the accuser is himself homophobic.”
It’s not the fear that is considered worthy of rebuke, it’s the harm done to gay people because of that fear. If people suffering from agoraphobia (fear of crouds and closed public spaces) were trying to make laws taking away everyone else’s right to have malls or auditoriums, would it be rude to speak out against those laws? If arachnophobes were trying not just to remove spiders from their homes, but irradicate all spiders everywhere (damaging various ecosystems, negatively effecting crop yields by increasing the prevelance of pests spiders feed on etc) don’t you think people would have something to say about it? Fear gays if you like, avoid them if you like. But your neurosis doesn’t give you the right to restrict what other people do, nor does your twisted worldview make them sticking up for themselves equivalent to persecuting you.
“Ms. DeGeneres has every right to think those who don’t agree with her judgments on human sexuality are wrong.”
Just not to open her mouth and say it.
“The problem is that she and her more cerebral and sophisticated colleagues present their judgments as if they were not judgments. They believe their views to be in some sense “neutral.” From their perspective they are merely letting people live any way they choose. But this is not neutral at all.”
“It presupposes a particular and controversial view of human nature, human community, and human happiness. It assumes that only three elements, if present, make a sexual practice morally permissible: adult consent, one’s desire, and the lack of intrusion into another person’s lifestyle orientation (i.e., “it doesn’t hurt anybody”).
So does the law.
“This, of course, is not obvious. For example, an adult male who receives gratification as a result of pedophile fantasies while secretly viewing his neighbor’s young children, though he never acts on his fantasies and nobody ever finds out, is acting consistently with these three elements.”
I fail to see how being a peeping tom meets the “lack of intrusion” element. However jerking off while thinking of children, while gross and a symptom of a condition that does harm (pedophilia), is not intrinsically harmful or illegal, and someone who is attracted to children and keeps it to themselves should no more be vilified or harassed than someone who wants to kill people and successfully controls the urge should be put in prison. Buying pictures of nude children on the other hand is illegal because it does actual harm by creating and maintaining a financial demand for those materials, incentivising the exploitation of children.
“Nevertheless, it seems counterintuitive to say what he is doing is on par with heterosexual monogamy and ought to be treated as such.”
Yes, and christmas is a war on hanukkah.
If everyone thought themselves persecuted the way american christians and conservatives so often do by the mere existence of people who are in any way different, everyone would be trying to exterminate everyone else. Oh wait, they are. Damn you people striving for tolerance and understanding!
“By what principle can the Ellenites exclude this gentleman from the “tolerance” they accord more chic sexual orientations?”
Wanting to rape children and wanting to make love with adults – by what possible standard could we distinguish the two morally? Other than the one you listed above which ellen and the rest of the brained world agree with.
“At the end of the day, Ellen’s viewpoint is one that affirms what its proponents believe is good, true, and beautiful, while implying that those who dispute this viewpoint are incorrect. Ellen is as intolerant and narrow as her detractors.”
Yes, by “gay kids, don’t let people bully you into suicidal thoughts” what she really meant is “christians are evil and pedophilia is good”. Why didn‘t I see it before? Do you also have a friend named harvy who’s six feet tall, and who nobody but you can see?
“In the words of Lieutenant Columbo, the proponent of liberal tolerance is pulling a fast one. She eschews reason, objective morality, and exclusivity, while at the same time proposing that liberal tolerance is the most high-minded, righteous, and philosophically correct perspective that any reflective person with a university education can possibly embrace. Even the most sophisticated defenders of this viewpoint, whether intentionally or not, cannot seem to avoid this philosophical faux pas.”
Having an opinion while tolerating the rights of others to express their opinions? HOW DARE SHE! True tolerance means laying down and letting everyone else walk all over you!*
*Unless you’re a republican.
“A More Sophisticated Defense
Consider the work of social scientists Jung Min Choi and John W. Murphy. They argue that although there are no objective universal norms of knowledge and morality, there are interpretive communities (i.e., cultures, civilizations, nations, ethnic heritages, etc.) within which objective norms are valid. Choi and Murphy explain:
“Each community, accordingly, values certain norms. Therefore, some norms may be irrelevant in a specific community, because behavior is not random but is guided by expectations that are known by every competent member of a region. Exhibiting just any behavior would certainly result in a negative sanction. Within an interpretive community the idea that anything goes [i.e., relativism] is simply ridiculous, for all norms do not have equal validity.”  Supporters of this view deny it is relativistic because, they argue, it affirms that each community has its own “absolute” norms of knowledge and morality, though these norms do not apply to other communities.”
Putting something in “quotes” doesn’t magically make it the opinion of the person you’re quoting. He didn’t say there are multiple sets of absolute morals, that is incoherent and stupid. He said that different cultures have differences in ethics mostly due to differences in their cultures which actually impact moral situations. For instance in biblical times it was considered very immoral not to give hospitality to a traveler – the reason for this was that the hospitality of strangers was the only thing that made travel possible. Obviously in the age of public transportation, automobiles, airplanes and motels someone would be far less likely to be admonished for not putting someone up for the night. Similarly it is illegal for any place that serves food to refuse someone a glass of water (free of charge). To someone in the city (where there are public restrooms and water fountains everywhere and access to water is nearly universal) refusing someone a drink seems trivial, but in rural areas where you might have to walk ten miles through the desert to get to the nearest source of water, refusing someone a drink amounts to a death sentence. The morality of a small town is not going to be identical to the morality of a city, nor the morality of an agrarian society to an industrial one. The morality of stealing a car is not the same as the morality of “stealing” a digital copy of something for very real, practical reasons. This is what he was talking about, not that all morals are absolute, even those that contradict other morals (which is stupid).
“For example, if I live in community X and my community believes it is morally permissible to torture babies for fun and you live in community Y, which maintains that it is morally wrong to torture babies for fun, according to Choi and Murphy, there are no moral norms that transcend communities X and Y by which we can say that Y’s opposition to torturing babies is better than X’s acceptance of torturing babies.”
Yeah, that’s a realistic example. It‘s not ridiculous at all.
“Perhaps another example will help clarify this view. Suppose that the people in community X believe that the best method of making major medical decisions in life is consulting the zodiac and/or a Ouija Board. So, for example, if Dr. Jones recommends an appendectomy for Mr. Smith but the Ouija Board says no, then it would be best for Mr. Smith not to undergo the appendectomy. Now, the people in community Y used to believe the same thing as the people in X, but they have discovered through numerous double-blind experiments that consulting the zodiac and/or Ouija Board was no better than guessing, flipping a coin, or just plain luck. The people in Y rely on the science behind their medicine as a major part of their decision-making and for that reason have far fewer number of dead patients than community X.”
This would be relevant to what the above-quoted author said if ouija boards actually worked, but only in some places. But I agree, we should base our views on objective evidence wherever it is available. [Note that nowhere in this screed does the author even try to justify HIS moral worldview.]
“If Choi and Murphy are correct that norms of knowledge are community-relative, then there is no basis for asserting that community Y’s view of medical knowledge and decision-making is better than the view held by community X. Yet, it is clear that Y’s perspective is more true, and for that reason results in a larger body of life-saving knowledge than X’s perspective.”
No, you just don’t understand his position. Or you’re willfully misrepresenting it.
“Even though they may deny it, the position defended by Choi and Murphy, and those who agree with their perspective, is relativism. It denies that there are universal norms of knowledge and morality that transcend diverse cultures and communities.”
You mean a cop shooting someone to stop them from killing a hostage is morally different than the same cop shooting randomly into a crowd? OMG there is no morality!
Oh wait, that is morality. It just happens to be complicated. And you happen to not be complicated.
“When Choi and Murphy attempt to marshal a philosophical defense of their viewpoint, their position unravels, for they are unable to defend their position without relying on the very notions they deny. For example, Choi and Murphy, after arguing for the concept of interpretive communities, go on to defend the work of literary scholar Stanley Fish, by arguing that:
“…sociologists of various hues have verified a long time ago what Fish is saying. Symbolic interactionists, for example, have illustrated that persons evaluate their actions with regard to their respective “reference groups.” Therefore, in terms of a single city, very different pockets of norms may be operative. To understand what deviance means in each circumstance, a priori definitions of normativeness must be set aside. For norms are embedded in symbols, signs, and gestures that may be very unique and restricted to a specific locale. Upon crossing one of these relatively invisible boundaries, an individual quickly learns which behaviors are acceptable. This diversity, moreover, has not resulted in the disaster that conservatives predict. Yet navigating through this montage of norms requires interpretive skill, tolerance, and an appreciation for pluralism.” (94, emphases added) We learn from this quote that such sociologists verify the perspective that knowledge and morality are bound by interpretative communities.”
This is like saying that a different set of facts negates all facts. There are universal truths, like gravity. However that doesn’t mean every fall is equally dangerous. Conceptualizing reality is tricky and deals with layers of information. Switching off your brain and going with your existing prejudices and preconceptions is easy. Easy is not always better.
“Apparently sociologists, at least the sociologists who verify this perspective, are not restricted by their interpretive communities. To claim that sociologists verify this perspective as true is to say that they have knowledge about reality. According to Choi and Murphy, however, this is impossible, for we are all (including sociologists) restricted by our interpretive communities. In other words, if these sociologists are restricted by their interpretive communities, and thus can give us no objective knowledge of reality, how can Choi and Murphy claim that their viewpoint has been “verified”? It seems, therefore, that Choi and Murphy must ironically presuppose that one can have knowledge of the real world in order to verify the perspective that one cannot have knowledge of the real world. But if their perspective is the correct one, the norms and observations put forth by these sociologists as well as Choi and Murphy cannot be true claims about the world. Thus, the appeal to sociologists who “verify” this view presupposes that the view itself is false!”
This is only a problem if you buy into the strawman he’s putting in their mouth, that they are moral relativists, when they explicitly said that not only they aren’t moral relativists, but that moral relativism doesn’t even exist as a norm in any of the communities on earth.
“In addition, Choi and Murphy presuppose certain objective moral norms when they maintain that interpretive skill, tolerance, and appreciation for pluralism are virtues by which one navigates “through this montage of norms,” for this view is offering objective moral guidelines that apparently transcend any particular interpretive community. Put differently, Choi and Murphy are requiring that all people, regardless of what interpretive community in which they may reside, abide by certain universal objective moral norms.”
It’s called empathy. The ability to see things from another person’s perspective. Which you apparently lack.
“Yet, if this is not what they mean, then these virtues do not have to be followed by the members of some interpretive communities that don’t accept these norms (e.g., Nazi Germany, a skin-head commune, or a group of sociopaths). Of course, it is absurd for any moral theory not to account for the objective wrong of Nazism, neo-Nazism, or the callous disregard for others.”
YOU ARE CALLING FOR TOLERANCE OF INTOLERANCE YOU DOUCHEBAG. You argued that it’s rude to merely disagree with an intolerant position. In nazi germany I’m sure your philosophy would be on a poster somewhere.
“Liberal Tolerance and the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention
In addition to what we have covered thus far, there are other ways by which we may defend the Christian worldview in a culture that celebrates liberal tolerance. Consider the recent controversy over the plans of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) to evangelize Jews, Muslims, and Hindus in the summer of 2000 in conjunction with its meeting in Chicago. SBC plans to bring 100,000 missionaries for the task. But this does not sit well with religious leaders who embrace liberal tolerance. According to a 28 November 1999 story in the Chicago Tribune, “The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago, representing the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago and 39 other major Christian and Jewish institutions, sent a letter Saturday [27 Nov. 1999] warning that the high-profile evangelical blitz proposed by the Southern Baptists in June would poison interfaith relations and indirectly contribute to violence.”  The letter states that “while we are confident that your volunteers would come with entirely peaceful intentions, a campaign of the nature and scope you envision could contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes.”  Although the letter acknowledges the Baptists’ constitutional right to religious expression, “it cites last July’s  shooting of six Jews in West Rogers Park and vandalism of a mosque in Villa Park in May as evidence of the vulnerability of people targeted because of their faith.”  It is interesting to note that the Council did not tease out its own logic and conclude that perhaps its call for Southern Baptist self-censorship while connecting a time-honored Christian practice (i.e., evangelism) to vandalism and battery could itself “[I]contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes” and result in the Baptists themselves being victims.”
Setting aside that I don’t see how a private letter to the head of an organization could make them the victims of violence, once again it comes down to empathy. Minorities in chicago were the recent victims of violent acts and when christians wanted to swarm them with evangelists somebody wrote them a letter saying that maybe it was insensitive and they should be aware of the social implications and rammifications. To which the christian response was “fuck you, how DARE you ask us to consider other people? Who do you think we are? We‘re CHRISTIANS, we have the right to treat you the way we would never want to be treated!“
I’m going to skip over the rest of this as it gets repetitive (and no less full of shit). Hope this made somebody out there think.