[coramdeo]

The truth is, in this writer's misuse of the word, inherantly exclusivist. Evangelical Christianity (of which I am an adherant) and Roman Catholic Christianity (for which I have great respect but with which I disagree on some fundamental theological issues) are both exclusivist in this writer's understanding of the word, because both make truth claims and reject the relativistic (and nonsensical) view that if we are talking about religion two non-reconcilable views can both be true. I have a lot more respect for my Roman Catholic friends who say "I love you, but you should come back to the one true church" than ones who say "Whatever you believe is right for you."

[Polycarp]

The truth is, you missed the writer's entire point. It is much more important than the first three paragraphs lead you to conclude.

Read the rest of the article, and examine the real issues he is addressing.

It will be worth your time if you do.

pinging

[lavaroise]

Indeed, the author tries to point blame at the left yet fails to understand that what he promotes, the mere tolerance of intollerable behavior, is what puts us in this situation in the first place.

Not tolerating gayness does not mean hating and does not mean wanting to kill these people. Not tolerating gays means having faith that these people have to change, they have to stop fighting for their privileges and lifestyles, and give recognition to those who have families and fight for their right to preserve them, to give them a chance to privilege the world in their own ways.

Hate crime law is all about legalising hate and destroying the sort of faith that enables one to fight back in self defense. Had this 51 year old lady gunned down this goon in self defense in his home, she would have been a hate criminal. Let us face it, the victim here is not a mere Christian or mere speech, but self defense.

[BlackElk]

And we RCs of that sort for you.