Christians sue for right to be intolerate

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Whats this 'We" business?
Ive never seen oxygen in a microscope, nor do i have access to a microscope.
Youre want me to believe what other people say about it...just because they claim to have seen it?

I dont believe you about seeing oxygen.
Ive never seen it, therefore people that claim it exists are clearly lunatics..
To Believe in Air would mean i have Faith in what other people say (independant of my direct experience)...and I dont.
ESCPECIALLY the fucking scientists...

Air is a mechanism of control.
and i reject it.

[Fridge!]

Whats this 'We" business?
Ive never seen oxygen in a microscope, nor do i have access to a microscope.
Youre want me to believe what other people say about it...just because they claim to have seen it?

I dont believe you about seeing oxygen.
Ive never seen it, therefore people that claim it exists are clearly lunatics..
To Believe in Air would mean i have Faith in what other people say (independant of my direct experience)...and I dont.
ESCPECIALLY the fucking scientists...

Air is a mechanism of control.
and i reject it.

Okay, first of all dude, everybody here knows full well that you don't believe what you have just written.  It is a hypothetical argument of, but lets say I didn't believe in Nitrogen and Oxygen because I hadn't seen it, what then?

Well then I can go on and point out other much more simplistic ways of proving the existence of air, but then you'll pull you're hypothetical argument maneuver again.

So to cut to the chase, your argument is that you still have to possess faith in science to some degree and that faith in science is the same as faith in religion, and isn't it plain to see why, it's the same word therefore it's the same thing!  Wrong.

An easy way of explaining why is through the law of parsimony/occam's razor, whatever you want to call it.  Simply put, whatever theory relies upon the fewest assumptions is the most probable and therefore the most rational.

Now any belief that can not be 100% proven will always depend upon some measure of faith; however, not all beliefs held upon faith are equally as rational.  It requires faith to believe that whenever I close my closet and can not see inside, a Boggart taking the form of Rosy O'Donnel appears in the closet and holds a tea party with the ghost of abraham lincoln, but they always disappear just as I open the door.  It also requires some measure of faith, however, to believe otherwise.  Yet one belief is more rational than the other, because one is more probable; one depends upon fewer assumptions than the other.  Can you spot which one?

That is how it always is between conflicting Scientific and religious beliefs.  Scientific beliefs are seldom absolutely proven, they are tentative to varying degrees, yet, they are always more rational and more probable than religious ones that claim otherwise.

And to maintain less rational (religious) beliefs in the face of more rational (scientific) beliefs, is irrational behaviour.

[Supernatural Pie]

Fridge, I think Sheix has you beat. If you're going to make some outrageous claim that this "air" exists just because some "scientists" have "seen" it through their "microscopes," then you need to concede the fact that God exists because people have seen the Virgin Mary in their cheese.

 

Three cheers for science.

[c| Lone-Wolf]

I would just like to say:  Sheix, you shall forever be immortalized by my sig. 

Tomorrow I will think about putting up my views on the subject (though I doubt they would differ much from most people's). 

[Fridge!]

Fridge, I think Sheix has you beat. If you're going to make some outrageous claim that this "air" exists just because some "scientists" have "seen" it through their "microscopes," then you need to concede the fact that God exists because people have seen the Virgin Mary in their cheese.

 

Three cheers for science.

I hope you're joking, and it sounds like you are, but I'm not 100% sure.  If not, read my last post, everything comes down to probability and parsimony.  It doesn't matter that two beliefs require some measure of faith, all beliefs do, however, we have measures in place still to differentiate between the probability of one such belief over another.

Every belief requires some varying degree of faith, yet, not all beliefs are not equally rational.  If the fact that a belief requires some amount of faith rendered all beliefs equal, then the whole concept of rational and irrational wouldn't even exist.  It's a little play on the word faith that religious people love to try and exploit to argue that religion as equally rational as science.  It never has worked though, and it never will for a core reason which I stated in my previous post.  It's not a debatable issue, it's a fact.

[BTs_FahQ2]

Fridge, you just don't get it, rationality is based upon having the same view as the majority. Not based on fact. Throughout history people have been burned or drowned for having the correct view of the present which was not the correct view of their time.  You can have facts all day long that comets are actually babies flying through space waiting for hal to scoop them up, but unless the majority of people even begin to consider your facts let alone the theory, you sir are one irrational idiot who needs to be locked up. So the issues are always debateable and facts are only facts if you choose them to be so.

["Sixhits"]

I think we're getting off track, but let's roll with it.

What is faith?  Faith is when you are not or cannot be sure that something is, but believe it nevertheless.  Faith is not a bad thing.  We have faith that air exists, or we have faith in god's existance, or whatnot.

But, it is a poor premise to draw a favorable comparision between the faith that air "is" and the faith that God "is".  Why?  because you can prove the existance of one and not the other.

This goes back into hundreds of years of science vs religion.  Religion at it's core demands faith in something which can by definition never be proven.  Science demands proof of all things, and nothing is codified until proven.  People like to say that science is rational and religion is not, but I dunno.  The only real difference between the two is the need for proof in science - both can only function as a part of society, or a person, if they are believed. 

Both science and religion can be wrong.  Of course, science rejects that which is wrong when it is proven to be so.  What I despise about religion is that it rarely rejects tenants of faith which are proven to be wrong.  it took the Catholic Church over 300 years to formally appologize to Galelio, thus acknowlegding the world revolves around the Sun.  Clearly, for some things, science is better.

But science will never give you comfort after your father dies.

In this nation and in modern civilization, we have a balance, more or less, where science rules our heads and religion rules our hearts.  This balance is reflected in our institutions, like governement, or school.  Our nation devides secular education (science with proof) from religion (with faith).  It does this to respect people's personal faith.

What upsets me about the current crop of Christian fundamentalists - and really all fundamentalists - is that they are seeking to be the sole authority in our world.  There is no respect for other people's faiths or other people, period.   That's why fundamentalists are an enemy of America.  That's why fundamentalists demanding the right to be opening bigoted is dangerous.  They don't seek religious freedom - they have that.  They seek dominion.  They seek to rule the heart and the head of everyone.  To erode our nation's laws and our own rights from within, to replace them with their own.  For this they must be fought.  My personal weapon is scorn.

[Fridge!]

Fridge, you just don't get it, rationality is based upon having the same view as the majority. Not based on fact. Throughout history people have been burned or drowned for having the correct view of the present which was not the correct view of their time.  You can have facts all day long that comets are actually babies flying through space waiting for hal to scoop them up, but unless the majority of people even begin to consider your facts let alone the theory, you sir are one irrational idiot who needs to be locked up. So the issues are always debateable and facts are only facts if you choose them to be so.

No, rationality is based on logic and reason for which there are measures.  Go look it up.  Science adopts the most rational theories and explanations and holds them tentatively until it can be further proven or a more rational theory appears.  Religious notions never make the cut because they will never be the most rational as they make numerous far-fetched assumptions.

[Croosch]

Wouldn't it just be nice if everybody just believed in whatever they feel like believeing without being pushed one way or another by some nutjobs?  What's the point in trying to convince others that gays are the spawn of satan?  Personal beliefs are exactly that, personal.  Religion is taking too big a role in politics today, we're losing site of real issues.

You're right Sheix, I'm a liberal speaking out against free speech... Two places I feel free speech, especially religious beliefs should not be allowed are in the classroom and the workplace.  In some cases, even the church itself... it was when my catholic church started speaking out against gays that I decided I'm no longer a catholic.  Now I have my own beliefs, I don't need a church to tell me what to believe.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

OK, getting bogged in the details...

I took the long way to make this point.

You cant oppose one kind of free speech while practicing and benefitting from another.

From a functional perspective, her being a bigot, and anyone posting in the "bushisms post' or saying that bush is a Drunken idiot, are all EXACTLY the same thing. So will be future issues (which arent immediately apparent in this ladys case to protect her bigotry) Theyre making you WANT to strike her down on her case BECAUSE shes christian, SO THAT you wont see that having the right to be a religious right wing nutjob is JUST THE SAME as being able to have free political discourse or DISSENT with a presidential administration.

Having the right to pursue bigotry IS functionally the same as Questioning 911, or an issue remotely close to that and the war, etc etc... If there is to be any backlash, let it be from her peers, saying wow, what a freakshow..not the LAW. Becuase you could find yourself on the short end of that inquiry someday. What if Bush made himself emperor, stiffened treasonous speech laws and grandfather claused them? I bet you would ALL be some free speech motherfuckers.... 

Now its all context related, and OF COURSE im not arguing that this womans case is right, BUT its legitimate. ALL BARRING SLANDER AND INCITEMENT! (keep that straight if you try to rebut me)

last time i checked (BARRING SLANDER AND INCITEMENT)
words were unable to cause physical harm.
And someones opinions were just that..just as you stated it.

Therefore, your opinion to say that shes a nutcase, and all religious people were nuts, and that she was standing behind her jesus, and all that...ALL FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME. Personally hearing people mock something so fundamental in a faith in whatever, is TEN times more offensive that hearing someone state their beliefs in a serious even if misgiuided manner.

 It could be said that calling someone who live their life for 'our lord jesus', would be EQUALLY offended at your pronouncemnts against her mental state, and your HATRED of what she holds so dear. See? same Bigotry, just a different target  So unless you dont want to be free to state your opinions against some formal political/religious system in the future, you better understand what im saying here, about this case.

You could find yourself in a concentration camp for even joking like you have, or saying things about the presidents personal life, or saying the word HATE in the context of religion, if you allow speech of any sort (BARRING SLANDER AND INCITEMENT) to become regulated by law.

The liberals opened this fucking can of worms in the first place, they better be ready to reason it through.. DEMANDING that instead of just wishing we all got a long, we could make the language in which our preferences were housed were made ILLEGAL- so we couldnt hurt feelings...BUT too bad they didnt realize that the powers that be LOVe to see em putting their logic to work on this one, what with them Christians and all, instead of having you fight the free speech, free inquiry argument for somehting IMPORTANT, like the war or 9-11. You are being so predictable, that youre the instruments of your own destruction.

If there had been as many individual lawsuits againt the government as ther have been by people exercising their rage against christians and their 'hate speech', and christians and schools, and christians and curriculum, and wearing religious clothing, wearing crosses, etc......9-11 would already be fucking solved.

People see thrugh that shit anyways and still have hardcore personal beliefs..(like oh saying the president is nuts, etc...) even at the same time, thinking its a good thing to sue some personality for using the word 'retard' to protect the invalids, or Tiger Woods being Jumped becuase he used the word SPAZ...i mean he actually issued a statement to crippled kids today..apologizing.

See?
Thats the abyss youre cheering about..
We're not on the edge, we already jumped.

Trying to hide any groups language does nothing to fix ANY issue, ie religion vs the gnostic..or muslim vs christian vs jew, or rep vs dems. Nor does it allow for totally free and open political discussion..even with the contributing idiots.. All it does is mask the hatred each side for the other, instead of just exposing the nuts for who they are, or rebuking publically those who violate it..(ie public rejection of skinhead ideals, or a forum full of people jumping on an idiot to show how wrong he is on any subject) which is why people like Fridge should be allowed to post that indeciferable garbage about logic to the point of nausea..letting him run off, lets the rest of us know what we're dealing with. Let that woman rant..everyone will KNOW shes a loon...make her take those feelings Underground and see what happens to them..I mean its a good thing he came back to these forums..can you imagine him festering in his bedroom?? fuck.

Free Speech is an all or nothing propostion.

["Sixhits"]

1) I think saying the equivilant of "God hates Fags" is incitement.  It is no different from "God hates niggers".  In fact, the premise that your religion demands hatred of a group of humans for being from that group is likely to incite. It's certainly not a form of religious expression.  Thus, it is not protected speech - like the right to cricize your government or reproduce public comments in a newspaper, or even, stand on a street corner flicking off cops.

2) Let's re-examine the case at hand:
"Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy."

Her argument is that her right to free religious expression is being violated.  My question: Is publicly flaunting your gay hatred a commandment? 

3) Let's expose what these fundamentalists are really after:
"By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse.""

These hateful fundamentalists don't want to lose their tax exempt status.  They don't want their hatred to be legally comprable to racism.  And they want their hatred to be mainstream.  All in the name of... what?  That is the clear and absolute goal of these people - money, political cover, and power.  What this reveals is 1) they recognize that their homophobia is not religious, 2) that it is a form of hatred, not speech and 3) they need to trick the system into protecting their hatred.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Saying God hates Fags is distateful, but doenst rise anywhere NEAR the order of incitement.
Saying our president and his administration are drunken idiots, and 'something must be done' smaks of at LEAST as much incitement and hatred..(just a broad example)

By stating that her feeling about Gays are centered on HATE just because you disagree with the Source of that sentiment doesnt constitute incitement. However saying "Kill the Gays"...now THATS incitement.

Matter of fact, in direct oppostion to the oft repeated naziism comparison, the Christians dont HATE gays, they HATE sin, and want the gays to repent, and become saved. The nazis HAte 'mutt' groups, and want them dead...no salvation whatsoever. Inferior by birth. Not Inferior by choice..as the right wingers assert.

HUGE GINORMOUS fucking distinction.
And unless you ackowledge the difference, you are arguing a false comparative premise.

Wanting someone to be able to partake in heaven doenst remotely prove your assertion that they are in 'HATE SPEECH" or incitement mode..not even close. Exactly the opposite even.

They are demonstrating their love for their fellow human, despite their sinful natures by WANTING them to go to heaven as well..and despite the multitude of threats agains christians that pray publically, assert their beliefs or broach the subject publically.

Should social workers be prevented by law from intervening to save lives from drugs in cases where people are headed down the wrong path(and dont WANT to be saved?) Should a policeman be prevented by law from attempting arrest the husband of a woman who has just been beaten JUST BECAUSE she may feel at the last minute its against her wishes? We dont rally against these applications of service (even though BOTh are NOT wanted)..so whats so hateful about prayer or discussing their interpretation of God?
All concern themselved with perceived future welfare and safety.

Wishing Religious and spiritual welfare is ANYTHING but hatred.
And just becuase the ANTI group wants to phrase it that way for convenience, to drag the HATE tag onto the Christian perspective..dont make it true.

["Sixhits"]

Focus down on the expressed greivance.  Her religious expression is being infringed by a tolerance policy.

Again, at what point did hating gays or, even denouncing homosexuality, become a cornerstone of Christian religious practice?

To quote Ruth, ""If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda."  What an interesting definition of tolerance.  We’ll tolerate you as long as you shut the fuck up.  For Ruth, your rights end where mine begin. 

It's important to note that at no point was this girl denied her right to speek freely.  She is the editor of the a college paper and is chairman of the Georgia Tech College Republicans.  Google her.  See how repressed she is. She is very much NOT being silenced.

But she crossed the line when she wrote a harassing letter to the Pride Alliance calling them a sex club. 

She deems homosexuality a choice, regards any open displays of homosexuality as indicative of an entire “lifestyle” the parts of which are immutably inextricable from being gay, accuses gays of “barraging” others with their choices and beliefs, and associates the merest identification with homosexuality as political propaganda.

But it is Ruth Malhotra who chose.  She chose her religion, which she claims obligates her to “speak out against homosexuality”.  Homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle choice; it is a state of being.

And I think we know which one really has the radical agenda.

[Croosch]

The main difference between this lady's "god hates fags" and sixhits "bush and republicans are drunks" or my bushisms post is, well, she's serious... you can't even compare the two.  I know it's all just fun and games when butchering Bush's speech.  My idiocy is far from equal to this lady's idiocy.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

O wait,

My ONLY reason for the comparison was to show that her right to voice a strong disagreeable opinion, is as sacred as your right to say those things about bush (even in jest) in public. Not the value of each....cuz i agree..shes pushing. And Yes, she has a political agenda. But equal in their importance to our MAINTAINED right to free speech.

Take those two away, and you can Guarantee that no one would have the legal clout or political will to ask REALLy hard questions or assign blame, or be critical of our government when necessary. To express even the suggestion, in may countries, Like china, S Korea, and you are up shit creek. we dont wanna go there.

[jerkasaur]

On a slightly lighter note, and quickly so you can get back to your discusion, Sixhits, I like you dude, but please don't ever use this word again.

islamofacist

It's a fake, a construction, a term to created specificly to mislead people and it has no basis in reality. You wanna call it islamototalitarianism, fine do so please, but comparing the islamic fudementalists to the Nazi party (as the phase is meant to, not Italian Facism) construes their means, modivation, and actions it a way that makes it harder to examine them. Thank you.

["Sixhits"]

Ruth claims her free expression of relgion is being violated - NOT her right to speak freely.  These are two seperate rights protected by the 1st Amendment.

If bashing gays is part of her religious practice - if she can prove that - then she has a leg to stand on.   So... when did denouncing gays become a commandment?  The same day as stoning adulterous women to death?  I'd really like to see her try and maker her case.

Jerk - I used that word with tongue in cheek (and as a way to bridge two extremes).  Noted.



oh and to remind you: they are only into this because the want power, money, and legal protection. 

Agani, this quote:
"By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse.""

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

oh and to remind you: they are only into this because the want power, money, and legal protection. 

Yes, I agree that the largely democratic, liberal Trial Lawyers Associations have money and power as their prime motivation when they encourage or coach these cases.

Without them, we would NEVER have had evil, and unconstitutional Tolerance Laws.
As well as the (now legally validated concepts) of "pain and suffereing" clauses being inflicted upon one another by virtue of the verbal opinion (harmless), and Religious expression (functionally harmless) which is currently limited according to the article. AGAIN I AM NOT DEFENDING SLANDER OR INCITEMENT.

One thing the left has consistently done, with no scrutiny on the fallacy of the argument..and that is the SUBTLE but noticeable inference that Christian beliefs are somehow HATE related.. I made an un-noted reference to the fact that all over America, and Canada, Christians are being prosecuted for HATE speech. And evidently, and incorrectly, Religious intent is being equated legaly with Hatred, which is clearly and definitively NOT the case, although spoken opinions may be strong.

So in this, youre missing the danger, that at some point, dissenting opinions of ANY sort, and critical political opinions will begin to fall under HATE clauses. And be prosecuted accordingly. Think its easy for powers that be to concoct un-assailable conspiracies NOW?

For now, its fashionable to make the christian the target of HATE smear, simply because of unorthadox or fervent execution. What about when that definition is expanded to criticizing government officials as 'Incitement".

Even you sixhits, made the leap they want you to make. Dissenting viewpoints are Rife with HATRED. No longer is it an extreme, and perhaps well intentioned fanatic. You have turned her into something evil..something to rally against..something to put down.

Calling a gay Alliance a 'Gay Club' HARDLY rises to the definition of harassment..and judging from what the Gay Alliance at Texas Tech was like, she was probably Correct. And if she was wrong? So fucking what? release a statement then...say...
"OK she said we're a sex club, we're not. Thanks , the Gay Alliance"..(meeting 6pm thurs nite at the Jade Pelican bath House)....simple.

People need to grow up, and not let every word find its way into their heart to hurt them .....its a MEAN MEAN fucking world. Get over it. (BARRING INCITEMENT AND SLANDER-OPINION IS NOT SLANDER)
Legislating everythng into oblivion to protect everyone is One fucking stupid proposition..and its changed us into a world of whiny victims of everything imaginable. Pick your battles better, this one aint it. let her have her fucking law..its only fair. And yeah, the Gay groups ARE political, and they ARE pushing an agenda, and NO, its not all about tolerance, its sometimes about revenge, and an attack on traditional (i didnt say correct) values.

Take a controversial test case, slap a religious figure in there (one that people won't likely tolerate) characterize their cause as HATEFULL, and from that point on, the Dissentors can easily be painted with the emotionally charged tag of "HATEmonger".

Youre still arguing the wrong core issue..that upon giving her back her religious expression, the poor protected groups will suffer and die..becuase thats what hate groups do, they kill. But this issue is about someone being allowed to express her religious beliefs..Your beliefs are allegedly 'tolerant" (except for christians), but hers are not...Nothing to regulate here..move along.

But guess what, she can keep that freedom, and be prosecuted if she breaks a law.
Judging by the number of cases that were ALL settled in favor of complaintants in similar lawsuits, the official legal opinion mirrors mine. (see last line of article)

["Sixhits"]

Personally, I'm intoleratant.  I would not allow a person like Ruth into my life, much as she herself wouldn't allow a gay person in hers.

That's my private, personal choice.  I don't begrudge her the same choice - the exclusion of certain people from her private life. 

But this is all about the public expression of a personal choice.  Her choice is to be a bigot who uses her religion as cover.  Is it neccesary for a Christian to publicaly denounce homosexuals in order to practice their religion?  That's the only question that matters here because that's what she's based her argument on.  If it is, then she has the right to denounce gays on school campus and the tolerance laws must be changed. 

What this case is NOT about, is free speech.  It is not a slippery slope situation, where barring her from denouncing gays will lead us to banning public citicism of our elected officials.  For one, public criticism of elected officials is already clearly protected, and, more importantly, is protected explicitely. The question is solely about whether or not her religion requires her to publically denounce homosexuals.

I do believe she is someone to rally against.  As are all fundamentalists.  But that's me and I would never want the rules changed to make, say, crosses be banned from churchs - which is pretty much how I read her attempt to destroy tolerance on school campuses.  She is trying to remove a cornerstone of what makes higher education possible - decency.   That's what motivates me to be so vigilant against her and her kind. 

As for the "subtle but noticeable inference that Christian beliefs are somehow hate related" I have a hard time disagreeing.  But I wouldn't blame liberals.  I'd blame fundamentalist Christians who murder abortion doctors, form cult-like militias and who link homosexuality with pedophilia -- among MANY other curses. Here's a website that lists all the curses fundamentalist Christians have visited on gays in the name of their God.  http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Saying something or doing something in the name of your God does not make it protected. That's the core of this issue. Maybe the so-called Christians who are being persecuted for hate speech really deserve to be.  Persecuted, but not stopped from speaking.  I think Ruth deserves to be repremanded.

Fun quote:
""Too often, when someone is rightly intolerant of a particular belief or behavior or action, that's labeled as hate or bigotry, and that doesn't have to be labeled that way." Buehrer contends. "When someone is intolerant of something," he insists, "what's most important is the character they exhibit in their intolerance." http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/afa/132006a.asp

Read that article.  It's revealing.  Fundamentalist Christians feel like their views are being marginalized because, "when tolerance is improperly understood, it can actually lead to disarming students of their proper convictions." 

Shorter: "we don't want out children to be un-brain washed"

Maybe that's just me being intolerant.

Let me see if I can finally wrap this up.

We all have our agendas.  Hers is one I'm against.  The rules are also against her, as is the law.  If she wanted to co-opt the rules which protect the people she hates in order to protect herself, there'd be nothing wrong with that - people should be protected from religious persecution.   Except that she wants to do away with the rules that protect the people she hates.  This is an agressive, cruel hearted act.   She is evil.  Evil with a capital E.  I find her actions so morally revulsive I just wanna puke.  Luckily, she's battling up hill and exposing herself for the villian she is.  I don't want her silenced and don't think she has been.  In fact, I want her to keep stomping her feet loudly like the fanatic she is.   Because people like her need to be seen to be feared.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Great Debate. Thank you.

Heres my final piece:

I was raised by church of christ fundamentalists. Brought to a church run by zealots so morally and mentally flawed that it would be easier to watch a marathon of Threes Company episodes than to watch these guys operate. AND i went to a school dominated by an unholy trinity of Church of Christ Fundamentalist Coach/Preachers. So when i say, i understsand the bias toward these types, I mean that in an intimate way. I cannot dispute MUCH of what you attribute them.

I think many of them are crazy..and THAT type of religion is a net. Now, those theologies (as are most religious ones) are written so tightly, that mostly..when these groups are acting out, its becuase of the fear theyve instilled in themselves, and their own moral weight, when it comes to judegement day. So, many  are acting in the interpretation of what it means to be a stronger christian soldier. they just may not exactly understand the paraments, and get caught up their OWN fear of the Hell-Fire, that they forget all about those red words in the bible. the ones Jesus says. And nowhere in that red type, do you find the hatred, intolerance, cruelty or self-destructive (global) tendencies..Therefore I have come ot the conclusion that many are misguided, and I can actually feel sorry for them on that basis.
I guess my defence of the spiritual ideal comes from the ones you never hear about, so i cant blame people for assuming that these types are representative to whats really happening on the american spiritual landscape...its just these are the ones gettting the press..and well, leading us straight into armageddon..

That said...

Ruth should lose her case. Although becuase of points brought up in my argument (along with precedence of cases like hers, winning) Ill say that im betting she gets a ruling in her favor. Theyre going to have a hard time untyping her religious freedom with her freedom of speech, to say she can have one but not the other. But, She's out of bounds, likely overzealous (dont know much of her actions) and probably motivated by fear. And fundamentally scared people can act crazy.

In the end analysis, shes wrong, if not by her belief that she needs to be aggressive, but in her assertion, that treatment like that would lead ANYONE to want to be more interested in Christianity/spirituality More realistically, shes driving people away from the real benefits of faith, understanding, and unconditional love.

Dont confuse my debate style (in every case) with my beliefs. Ill state em, when they apply..or if my beliefs are particularly important to an argument. (that way youll know when im VERY tied to an idea, or just floating it for comparison or contrast...)
Devils advocacy all the way from me on this one, and aside from the harsh attributes youve shackled to most religious and conservative christian motivations..i have to say im with you on this one.