I would just like to see it being banned from both sides (actually more than two). If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.
And thus leave no official forum to discuss the actual content of the actual game?
Because that's the stucking point here. STO is finally Star Trek - it's done something controversial, and done it openly and shamelessly. That's where Trek is best - stories like this one, like Far Beyond the Stars. Like Kirk and Uhura's kiss, and Measure of a Man. Like casting Nichelle Nichols and George Takei and Walter Koenig at the very start. Trek is meant to make you uncomfortable, to make you argue, to make you question your beliefs and question if you're going to tune in next week for another round between it and your preconceptions.
As awful as this debate has sometimes been, it is also the first time STO has felt like Star Trek to me.
Trek should make people MAD. Not over geeky minutae, but over their very idea of what the world should look like being challenged.
I will say that it is hard, impossible actually, to defend against an attack of ones faith without mentioning religion because its the actual target of the attack. Wheras if the attacks themselves are dealth with, there wouldnt even be a need for someone to defend against it. Doesn't that make sense?
I don't think religion has been attacked here.
Certain beliefs people ascribe to their religions, yes. But... well, I do see it attacked, on comment threads on news articles. I see people blame all the world's evils on religion as an idea, or on a specific religion. That hasn't happened here. No one that I have seen has said that faith is inherently evil or destructive, that belief in God makes someone weak willed or small or stupid.
What has been attacked - and I will use "challenged" instead of "attacked" - is the nature of anti-LGBT belief. What it means for someone's worldview, and what hearing that belief expressed means to the people it's being expressed toward. That isn't anti-religious, since there are both plenty of nonreligious (and non-devout) anti-LGBT folks and plenty of religious, devout LGBT folks and allies, in all the major faiths.
That's where Trek is best - stories like this one, ... Like Kirk and Uhura's kiss, ... Like casting Nichelle Nichols and George Takei and Walter Koenig at the very start. Trek is meant to make you uncomfortable, to make you argue, to make you question your beliefs and question if you're going to tune in next week for another round between it and your preconceptions.
You know, I was alive in the 60s. And those things I quoted from your post above- they didn't make me uncomfortable, or argue, or anything. Such things had been in sci-fi pre-dating star trek by decades. Just to pick Koenig out that list- even with in the lifetime of my parents the Soviets changed from friend to enemy while Germany and Japan went from enemy to friend. There was nothing new in Star Trek.
But TV execs did think they were breaking new ground. What to know a bit of trivia?
Ever see "A Charlie Brown Christmas"? The TV execs thought they had a bomb on their hands because no one would want to see Linus recite from the Gospel of Luke. Guess what, they were wrong.
Too much of Star Trek's history has been written by people like that. They want more credit than they deserve.
TNG and later meanwhile *was* a different kettle of fish. They were strongly PC and that element replaced what was in Star Trek old stories re-skinned with a starship. In their own circles there was nothing worth debating- but they were keen are forcing Star Trek into their vision so as to introduce it to everyone else.
What has been attacked - and I will use "challenged" instead of "attacked" - is the nature of anti-LGBT belief. What it means for someone's worldview, and what hearing that belief expressed means to the people it's being expressed toward. That isn't anti-religious, since there are both plenty of nonreligious (and non-devout) anti-LGBT folks and plenty of religious, devout LGBT folks and allies, in all the major faiths.
I think calling my belief "hateful bigotry" counts as an attack. You were in disbelief that I wasn't angry at you. That I didn't hate you.
I consider that a horrifying misrepresentation of myself and my religion.
I think calling my belief "hateful bigotry" counts as an attack. You were in disbelief that I wasn't angry at you. That I didn't hate you.
I consider that a horrifying misrepresentation of myself and my religion.
I still don't see how one can "oppose" homosexuality but not devalue families built on same-sex relationships. And I don't see how one can see someone else's family as inferior or sinful and not be engaging in bigotry.
I want that explained, because it's a massive disconnexct.
I still don't see how one can "oppose" homosexuality but not devalue families built on same-sex relationships. And I don't see how one can see someone else's family as inferior or sinful and not be engaging in bigotry.
I want that explained, because it's a massive disconnexct.
I'd like to tell you my answer to that, but the forum rules prevent it.
I'd like to tell you my answer to that, but the forum rules prevent it.
I'd like to understand without scriptural references I've almost certainly heard a million times, researched the context of, meditated on, and come to a different conclusion that you about.
I'd like to know what it means to YOU to be LGBT, to oppose homosexuality, and how that is either not devaluing to families built on same-sex relationships or not bigoted.
And thus leave no official forum to discuss the actual content of the actual game?
Because that's the stucking point here. STO is finally Star Trek - it's done something controversial, and done it openly and shamelessly. That's where Trek is best - stories like this one, like Far Beyond the Stars. Like Kirk and Uhura's kiss, and Measure of a Man. Like casting Nichelle Nichols and George Takei and Walter Koenig at the very start. Trek is meant to make you uncomfortable, to make you argue, to make you question your beliefs and question if you're going to tune in next week for another round between it and your preconceptions.
As awful as this debate has sometimes been, it is also the first time STO has felt like Star Trek to me.
Trek should make people MAD. Not over geeky minutae, but over their very idea of what the world should look like being challenged.
You misunderstood me, I was talking about stopping both sides from talking about religion, not just one.
As far as Trek should make people mad, its never made me mad, never will. (Albeit with enough lensflare, the next movie could).
I think calling my belief "hateful bigotry" counts as an attack. You were in disbelief that I wasn't angry at you. That I didn't hate you.
I consider that a horrifying misrepresentation of myself and my religion.
Along similar lines, maybe someone could explain why a supposed hater and bigot would like to see a major expansion of civil liberties so that all parties may have the same rights as couples under law? People have been getting hung up over a *terminology* disagreement I have with them, and completely missing the substance of what I want to see happen. Why, if I am filled with hate and contempt, should I care?
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
You misunderstood me, I was talking about stopping both sides from talking about religion, not just one.
As far as Trek should make people mad, its never made me mad, never will. (Albeit with enough lensflare, the next movie could).
I did misunderstand. Sorry.
Also, on the hate crimes thing... I do plan to respond to the presented stats. I'm on my phone, at the moment, though, and my ability to do research is far more limited than my ability to type.
Along similar lines, maybe someone could explain why a supposed hater and bigot would like to see a major expansion of civil liberties so that all parties may have the same rights as couples under law? People have been getting hung up over a *terminology* disagreement I have with them, and completely missing the substance of what I want to see happen. Why, if I am filled with hate and contempt, should I care?
I'd like to understand without scriptural references I've almost certainly heard a million times, researched the context of, meditated on, and come to a different conclusion that you about.
I'd like to know what it means to YOU to be LGBT, to oppose homosexuality, and how that is either not devaluing to families built on same-sex relationships or not bigoted.
I'm sorry, but any good-faith (heh, almost a pun) attempt I would make would surely bring the Mods down on me.
I will suggest however that your assertion that I can address anything like this while standing apart from my religious convictions is a significant difference between our worldviews that goes far beyond the narrow subject of LGBT.
I think you missed what I was saying: I wouldn't want to guarantee rights to those I didn't care about or I was filled with hate and contempt for, now, would I? A bigot and hater "should" be trying to keep people who are not like them down. I am advocating building people up, giving them all the same legal tools and protections. Yet some make precisely that type of illogical accusation because of a disagreement on what term may or may not be used for that guarantee of rights.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Along similar lines, maybe someone could explain why a supposed hater and bigot would like to see a major expansion of civil liberties so that all parties may have the same rights as couples under law? People have been getting hung up over a *terminology* disagreement I have with them, and completely missing the substance of what I want to see happen. Why, if I am filled with hate and contempt, should I care?
We're fighting multiple battles, and I at least don't think we can win all of them without moving the needle on both policy and attitude.
My particular dog in the LGBT fight isn't marriage. I want marriage done so the big organizations can move on to things I've always thought were more important. Things like employment and housing discrimination, like health care issues (did you know that some insurance companies won't cover prostate exams for trans women, or breast cancer screenings for trans men? Not to mention rampant discrimination against LGBT folks in health care in general). But my biggest one?
Half of trans women attempt suicide. They feel alone and helpless, trapped by both their bodies and unaccepting families and culture. Policy changes - insurance coverage of transition care, discrimination protections, better protection of the rights of children against abuse - can help. But the biggest thing that helps, the biggest difference between a dead trans girl and a living one, is a family that accepts her identity wholeheartedly.
As long as people "oppose" LGBT people, that's going to mean dead trans girls, regardless of what policy changes those same people push for. And that breaks my heart.
And that's why your opinion matters to me, regardless of the policies you argue for.
Certain beliefs people ascribe to their religions, yes. But... well, I do see it attacked, on comment threads on news articles. I see people blame all the world's evils on religion as an idea, or on a specific religion. That hasn't happened here. No one that I have seen has said that faith is inherently evil or destructive, that belief in God makes someone weak willed or small or stupid.
What has been attacked - and I will use "challenged" instead of "attacked" - is the nature of anti-LGBT belief. What it means for someone's worldview, and what hearing that belief expressed means to the people it's being expressed toward. That isn't anti-religious, since there are both plenty of nonreligious (and non-devout) anti-LGBT folks and plenty of religious, devout LGBT folks and allies, in all the major faiths.
I urge you reread the threads that have been up (and down) the last few days. You will find that people have called Christianity, Christians (named as a group) , and "religious people"for being bigots, not-individuals , but the groups themselves. There was one notable person that tried to quote Firefly to make their point on how bad religous people are. This is where I take issue. Well, that and people wanting to label each other instead of trying to understand where the other is coming from.
And I disagree with you. A publicly visible forum where anyone can register to post, and where their whole presence is the content of their posts, is in no way comparable to someone's house. In fact, the concept is so new that there's nothing to compare it to. The closest analogy would probably be the Opinion section of a traditional paper magazine, where I've only ever seen letters edited for length.
In addition to the house analogy being bad, this would just create a new privately owned forum, which would again be at the risk of being censored. Until the situation is somehow corrected, or a real public forum equivalent to going to a market/park and talking to people appears, the Internet continues to be broken by design.
Anyone can walk into a McDonald's. If they start expressing their opinion that McDonald's is garbage and Burger King is awesome, not only does the Manager have the right to have them removed from the premises, but the local police will come and do the removing. PWE is a business. They have the right to set their own standards for how they will conduct their business. It is no more an infringement of anyone's right to freedom of expression for PWE to "censor" someone than the Manager of a McDonald's calling the police to remove a disruptive visitor to their establishment. You may not like it. I may not like it. But that's how it is.
Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire. Or try engaging in speech which is intended or likely to result in "imminent lawless action." Freedom of expression has limits; this freedom comes with responsibilities, and irresponsible use of this freedom will have consequences.
I would not care even if you are a rubber duck, did I ask about that? did anyone here asked about that?
You dont even know my gender, hell I doubt you even know what country I am from yet people think its quite alright to go on about their PERSONAL DETAILS yet they never post things that would be useful, like their account numbers and the PIN numbers or their social security numbers ... no, its always stuff like this.
I
DONT
CARE
That's nice. But if it's true, why did you feel the need to reply with all of that? Is it somehow offensive to you that a person is Transgender? Would you prefer not to know that such people exist? Why?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Horrifying. Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? NO!
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
I think you missed what I was saying: I wouldn't want to guarantee rights to those I didn't care about or I was filled with hate and contempt for, now, would I? A bigot and hater "should" be trying to keep people who are not like them down. I am advocating building people up, giving them all the same legal tools and protections. Yet some make precisely that type of illogical accusation because of a disagreement on what term may or may not be used for that guarantee of rights.
No, I did not misunderstand what you were trying to say, but it doesn't matter. You are a voice crying in the wilderness.
I will say that it is hard, impossible actually, to defend against an attack of ones faith without mentioning religion because its the actual target of the attack. Wheras if the attacks themselves are dealth with, there wouldnt even be a need for someone to defend against it. Doesn't that make sense?
None of this is about religion. If you believe that your religion teaches you not to do something, then don't do it. But your religion does not give you the right to prevent other people from doing it. This is not about religion, but it is about individual freedom. When your exercise of your rights (religious or otherwise) begins to infringe upon the exercise of anyone else's rights, then you're no longer exercising your rights; you're imposing your views on someone else who may not share your views and is in no way bound by them.
And for what it's worth, the "Community Rules and Policies" do not forbid mere discussion of such things as religion. Here are the actual words:
Hate Speech
You may not create posts and/or private messages that allude to, contain language, comments, references, links, symbols, terms and/or imagery about and/or promote and/or otherwise support, in any manner whether directly or indirectly, hatred, discrimination and/or denigrations based on or related to race, ethnicity, religion, sect, color, national origin, age, gender, familial status, sexual orientation, disability status, veteran status, genetic information, etc.
It would be somewhat out of character for something connected with Star Trek to silence intellectual discussion. Silencing hate speech, discrimination, and/or denigrations, on the other hand, is entirely consistent with the IP.
With that in mind: This I believe. (and there's nothing religious about it.)
None of this is about religion. If you believe that your religion teaches you not to do something, then don't do it. But your religion does not give you the right to prevent other people from doing it. This is not about religion, but it is about individual freedom. When your exercise of your rights (religious or otherwise) begins to infringe upon the exercise of anyone else's rights, then you're no longer exercising your rights; you're imposing your views on someone else who may not share your views and is in no way bound by them.
But what about compelling other people to participate? Say a baker or a photographer who doesn't want to participate in what they feel is a religious ceremony? Or a rancher who doesn't want to rent out their ranch for something they disagree with? Or a jeweler where the customers demand a refund after the rings have been made when the customers find out the jeweler morally disagrees but did business anyways? Or a church saying they won't allow it in their walls? All of whom then being prosecuted under intentionally nebulous 'hate crime' laws.
There are lots of people who simply say "I don't agree. Its your life, do as you want, I don't care, but I want no part of it." However there are too many instances where 'I don't care' isn't good enough for the most vocal part of the TRIBBLE rights movement and as a culture we move towards star chambers and thoughtcrime. There's a reason the slogan "You Will Be Made To Care" is slowly growing more prevalent, and its not because people are in fact willing to simply leave each other alone.
Equallity means treating everyone the same, actually the same. No special protections, no special rights, no special enforcements. If we agree, cool. If we don't agree and in fact despise one another's positions and don't want to be within a hundred feet of each other, that also needs to be cool. Like you said, its not about religion, its people leaving each other alone.
But what about compelling other people to participate? Say a baker or a photographer who doesn't want to participate in what they feel is a religious ceremony? Or a rancher who doesn't want to rent out their ranch for something they disagree with? Or a jeweler where the customers demand a refund after the rings have been made when the customers find out the jeweler morally disagrees but did business anyways? Or a church saying they won't allow it in their walls? All of whom then being prosecuted under intentionally nebulous 'hate crime' laws.
I would not be surprised if any who expressed disapproval of the content of this last mission were banned from forums and STO in general.
I don't *expect* it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Give it a few more years, and people would have been banned, fired from their jobs, investigated by the Police for hate crimes, and possibility jailed.
None of this is about religion. If you believe that your religion teaches you not to do something, then don't do it. But your religion does not give you the right to prevent other people from doing it. This is not about religion, but it is about individual freedom. When your exercise of your rights (religious or otherwise) begins to infringe upon the exercise of anyone else's rights, then you're no longer exercising your rights; you're imposing your views on someone else who may not share your views and is in no way bound by them.
I would like to agree with you, but there is a pattern in these forums where there is an immediate effort place to draw lines between people of faith and bigotry, even when no one has even mentioned religion. I would love for this to not be about religion, but there almost always seems to be that guy, who is so much more enlightened that has to carry his/her own crusade. That person is just as infringing as anyone.
It would be somewhat out of character for something connected with Star Trek to silence intellectual discussion.
They seems quite clear to me that speaking of my religious convictions in any detail was off limits. I'm rather certain the warning in the thread earlier was directed at me giving the timing and all.
If you doubt it, perhaps you should PM the MOD who issued it.
But what about compelling other people to participate? Say a baker or a photographer who doesn't want to participate in what they feel is a religious ceremony? Or a rancher who doesn't want to rent out their ranch for something they disagree with? Or a jeweler where the customers demand a refund after the rings have been made when the customers find out the jeweler morally disagrees but did business anyways? Or a church saying they won't allow it in their walls? All of whom then being prosecuted under intentionally nebulous 'hate crime' laws.
There are lots of people who simply say "I don't agree. Its your life, do as you want, I don't care, but I want no part of it." However there are too many instances where 'I don't care' isn't good enough for the most vocal part of the TRIBBLE rights movement and as a culture we move towards star chambers and thoughtcrime. There's a reason the slogan "You Will Be Made To Care" is slowly growing more prevalent, and its not because people are in fact willing to simply leave each other alone.
Equallity means treating everyone the same, actually the same. No special protections, no special rights, no special enforcements. If we agree, cool. If we don't agree and in fact despise one another's positions and don't want to be within a hundred feet of each other, that also needs to be cool. Like you said, its not about religion, its people leaving each other alone.
The church, at least in America, is protected under the First Amendment. For thr rest?
We decided during the Civil Rights movement that those who operate public accomodations - businesses open to the public, rather than private clubs or religious organizations - could be compelled to serve the entire public, even if they have moral opposition to doing so. We did this to end discrimination in provision of services against people of color.
To ask the LGBT population to accept that form of discrimation is to ask them to accept a lesser place in society. Every other group - by race, by religion, by sex, by disability - has protections against discrimination in public accomodations. Only LGBT folks lack those protections.
We're not looking for special rights. I personally wouldn't want someone morally opposed to my wedding involved in it - but I haven't been dreaming of a particular baker's or florist's or jeweler's work, ot a particular location. And I will not give ground that is essential to true equality under the law
If people need religion, ignore them and maybe they will ignore you, and you can go on with your life. It wasn't until I was beginning to do Star Trek that the subject of religion arose. What brought it up was that people were saying that I would have a chaplain on board the Enterprise. I replied, "No, we don't.
― Gene Roddenberry
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Comments
And thus leave no official forum to discuss the actual content of the actual game?
Because that's the stucking point here. STO is finally Star Trek - it's done something controversial, and done it openly and shamelessly. That's where Trek is best - stories like this one, like Far Beyond the Stars. Like Kirk and Uhura's kiss, and Measure of a Man. Like casting Nichelle Nichols and George Takei and Walter Koenig at the very start. Trek is meant to make you uncomfortable, to make you argue, to make you question your beliefs and question if you're going to tune in next week for another round between it and your preconceptions.
As awful as this debate has sometimes been, it is also the first time STO has felt like Star Trek to me.
Trek should make people MAD. Not over geeky minutae, but over their very idea of what the world should look like being challenged.
I don't think religion has been attacked here.
Certain beliefs people ascribe to their religions, yes. But... well, I do see it attacked, on comment threads on news articles. I see people blame all the world's evils on religion as an idea, or on a specific religion. That hasn't happened here. No one that I have seen has said that faith is inherently evil or destructive, that belief in God makes someone weak willed or small or stupid.
What has been attacked - and I will use "challenged" instead of "attacked" - is the nature of anti-LGBT belief. What it means for someone's worldview, and what hearing that belief expressed means to the people it's being expressed toward. That isn't anti-religious, since there are both plenty of nonreligious (and non-devout) anti-LGBT folks and plenty of religious, devout LGBT folks and allies, in all the major faiths.
Good luck getting that to happen with Cryptic lol.
You know, I was alive in the 60s. And those things I quoted from your post above- they didn't make me uncomfortable, or argue, or anything. Such things had been in sci-fi pre-dating star trek by decades. Just to pick Koenig out that list- even with in the lifetime of my parents the Soviets changed from friend to enemy while Germany and Japan went from enemy to friend. There was nothing new in Star Trek.
But TV execs did think they were breaking new ground. What to know a bit of trivia?
Ever see "A Charlie Brown Christmas"? The TV execs thought they had a bomb on their hands because no one would want to see Linus recite from the Gospel of Luke. Guess what, they were wrong.
Too much of Star Trek's history has been written by people like that. They want more credit than they deserve.
TNG and later meanwhile *was* a different kettle of fish. They were strongly PC and that element replaced what was in Star Trek old stories re-skinned with a starship. In their own circles there was nothing worth debating- but they were keen are forcing Star Trek into their vision so as to introduce it to everyone else.
I think calling my belief "hateful bigotry" counts as an attack. You were in disbelief that I wasn't angry at you. That I didn't hate you.
I consider that a horrifying misrepresentation of myself and my religion.
I still don't see how one can "oppose" homosexuality but not devalue families built on same-sex relationships. And I don't see how one can see someone else's family as inferior or sinful and not be engaging in bigotry.
I want that explained, because it's a massive disconnexct.
I'd like to tell you my answer to that, but the forum rules prevent it.
I'd like to understand without scriptural references I've almost certainly heard a million times, researched the context of, meditated on, and come to a different conclusion that you about.
I'd like to know what it means to YOU to be LGBT, to oppose homosexuality, and how that is either not devaluing to families built on same-sex relationships or not bigoted.
You misunderstood me, I was talking about stopping both sides from talking about religion, not just one.
As far as Trek should make people mad, its never made me mad, never will. (Albeit with enough lensflare, the next movie could).
Along similar lines, maybe someone could explain why a supposed hater and bigot would like to see a major expansion of civil liberties so that all parties may have the same rights as couples under law? People have been getting hung up over a *terminology* disagreement I have with them, and completely missing the substance of what I want to see happen. Why, if I am filled with hate and contempt, should I care?
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I did misunderstand. Sorry.
Also, on the hate crimes thing... I do plan to respond to the presented stats. I'm on my phone, at the moment, though, and my ability to do research is far more limited than my ability to type.
Because you will be made to care?
I'm sorry, but any good-faith (heh, almost a pun) attempt I would make would surely bring the Mods down on me.
I will suggest however that your assertion that I can address anything like this while standing apart from my religious convictions is a significant difference between our worldviews that goes far beyond the narrow subject of LGBT.
I think you missed what I was saying: I wouldn't want to guarantee rights to those I didn't care about or I was filled with hate and contempt for, now, would I? A bigot and hater "should" be trying to keep people who are not like them down. I am advocating building people up, giving them all the same legal tools and protections. Yet some make precisely that type of illogical accusation because of a disagreement on what term may or may not be used for that guarantee of rights.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
We're fighting multiple battles, and I at least don't think we can win all of them without moving the needle on both policy and attitude.
My particular dog in the LGBT fight isn't marriage. I want marriage done so the big organizations can move on to things I've always thought were more important. Things like employment and housing discrimination, like health care issues (did you know that some insurance companies won't cover prostate exams for trans women, or breast cancer screenings for trans men? Not to mention rampant discrimination against LGBT folks in health care in general). But my biggest one?
Half of trans women attempt suicide. They feel alone and helpless, trapped by both their bodies and unaccepting families and culture. Policy changes - insurance coverage of transition care, discrimination protections, better protection of the rights of children against abuse - can help. But the biggest thing that helps, the biggest difference between a dead trans girl and a living one, is a family that accepts her identity wholeheartedly.
As long as people "oppose" LGBT people, that's going to mean dead trans girls, regardless of what policy changes those same people push for. And that breaks my heart.
And that's why your opinion matters to me, regardless of the policies you argue for.
Heh can tell what site you've been reading.
I urge you reread the threads that have been up (and down) the last few days. You will find that people have called Christianity, Christians (named as a group) , and "religious people"for being bigots, not-individuals , but the groups themselves. There was one notable person that tried to quote Firefly to make their point on how bad religous people are. This is where I take issue. Well, that and people wanting to label each other instead of trying to understand where the other is coming from.
Anyone can walk into a McDonald's. If they start expressing their opinion that McDonald's is garbage and Burger King is awesome, not only does the Manager have the right to have them removed from the premises, but the local police will come and do the removing. PWE is a business. They have the right to set their own standards for how they will conduct their business. It is no more an infringement of anyone's right to freedom of expression for PWE to "censor" someone than the Manager of a McDonald's calling the police to remove a disruptive visitor to their establishment. You may not like it. I may not like it. But that's how it is.
Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire. Or try engaging in speech which is intended or likely to result in "imminent lawless action." Freedom of expression has limits; this freedom comes with responsibilities, and irresponsible use of this freedom will have consequences.
That's nice. But if it's true, why did you feel the need to reply with all of that? Is it somehow offensive to you that a person is Transgender? Would you prefer not to know that such people exist? Why?
Amazing. Someone actually gets the idea that not all marriage is religious.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
No, I did not misunderstand what you were trying to say, but it doesn't matter. You are a voice crying in the wilderness.
None of this is about religion. If you believe that your religion teaches you not to do something, then don't do it. But your religion does not give you the right to prevent other people from doing it. This is not about religion, but it is about individual freedom. When your exercise of your rights (religious or otherwise) begins to infringe upon the exercise of anyone else's rights, then you're no longer exercising your rights; you're imposing your views on someone else who may not share your views and is in no way bound by them.
(Redness added for emphasis)
-- Source
It would be somewhat out of character for something connected with Star Trek to silence intellectual discussion. Silencing hate speech, discrimination, and/or denigrations, on the other hand, is entirely consistent with the IP.
With that in mind:
This I believe. (and there's nothing religious about it.)
But what about compelling other people to participate? Say a baker or a photographer who doesn't want to participate in what they feel is a religious ceremony? Or a rancher who doesn't want to rent out their ranch for something they disagree with? Or a jeweler where the customers demand a refund after the rings have been made when the customers find out the jeweler morally disagrees but did business anyways? Or a church saying they won't allow it in their walls? All of whom then being prosecuted under intentionally nebulous 'hate crime' laws.
There are lots of people who simply say "I don't agree. Its your life, do as you want, I don't care, but I want no part of it." However there are too many instances where 'I don't care' isn't good enough for the most vocal part of the TRIBBLE rights movement and as a culture we move towards star chambers and thoughtcrime. There's a reason the slogan "You Will Be Made To Care" is slowly growing more prevalent, and its not because people are in fact willing to simply leave each other alone.
Equallity means treating everyone the same, actually the same. No special protections, no special rights, no special enforcements. If we agree, cool. If we don't agree and in fact despise one another's positions and don't want to be within a hundred feet of each other, that also needs to be cool. Like you said, its not about religion, its people leaving each other alone.
I would not be surprised if any who expressed disapproval of the content of this last mission were banned from forums and STO in general.
I don't *expect* it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Give it a few more years, and people would have been banned, fired from their jobs, investigated by the Police for hate crimes, and possibility jailed.
I would like to agree with you, but there is a pattern in these forums where there is an immediate effort place to draw lines between people of faith and bigotry, even when no one has even mentioned religion. I would love for this to not be about religion, but there almost always seems to be that guy, who is so much more enlightened that has to carry his/her own crusade. That person is just as infringing as anyone.
They seems quite clear to me that speaking of my religious convictions in any detail was off limits. I'm rather certain the warning in the thread earlier was directed at me giving the timing and all.
If you doubt it, perhaps you should PM the MOD who issued it.
The church, at least in America, is protected under the First Amendment. For thr rest?
We decided during the Civil Rights movement that those who operate public accomodations - businesses open to the public, rather than private clubs or religious organizations - could be compelled to serve the entire public, even if they have moral opposition to doing so. We did this to end discrimination in provision of services against people of color.
To ask the LGBT population to accept that form of discrimation is to ask them to accept a lesser place in society. Every other group - by race, by religion, by sex, by disability - has protections against discrimination in public accomodations. Only LGBT folks lack those protections.
We're not looking for special rights. I personally wouldn't want someone morally opposed to my wedding involved in it - but I haven't been dreaming of a particular baker's or florist's or jeweler's work, ot a particular location. And I will not give ground that is essential to true equality under the law
― Gene Roddenberry
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."