vision2020
Re: your mail
> Scott Dredge asks (in effect) if I would want to allow someone to be able
> to discriminate against Christians with his rental properties. The answer
> is, of course. If you give people liberty, some people will sin with that
> liberty. That is one of the costs of liberty. However, I do not believe a
> landlord should have the right to terminate a lease on the basis of
> someone's faith if the renters had completely kept the terms of the
> lease. But if I applied for rental, and the fellow told me he didn't rent
> to Jesus freaks, I would move on down the street, and that right gladly.
> No lawsuits from me, nothing. I would think to myself as I walked away,
> isn't it great to live in a free country?
So what if no one would rent to you. No one would give you a job. And
everyone was hunting you down. That is what lots of truly persecuted
peoples have had to deal with. Not just attacked by one person, but a
whole society.
> Modern fans of civic intrusiveness are simply addicted to coercion, and
> take this kind of thing for granted to such an extent that it is hard to
> get them even to see that they are doing it. This is why we now have the
> ludicrous category "hate crime." Is this to distinguish it from all the
> ordinary, run of the mill love crimes? Crimes should simply be crimes. No
> one should have the right to beat up, rape, steal from, etc. other
> citizens for any reason--whether it be ethnicity, color of skin,sexual
> dyslexia, or poor table manners. If someone assaulted a homosexual for
> being a homosexual, the assailant should be punished for the assault--and
> not for the thoughts he was entertaining while doing it.
Hate crimes are crimes where the assailant removed the personal aspect of
the crime and attacked someone for who and what they are, not for anything
the person did individually. Perpetrators of hate crimes don't target
victims as individuals but target ideas and concepts and groups.
> Boil it down. The fundamental issue in our debate thus far (and we have
> offered different examples) is that we do not want to force you to do
> things nearly as much as you want to force us to do things. If you just
> admit that your system of education rests upon coercion, and you say that
> you like it that way, our subsequent debate will be much more honest.
I guess. If you defind coercion as expose people to ideas you don't
necessarily agree with, or showing people that all ideas and cultures
contribute to humanity and warrant validation. No one is saying you must
believe anything in particular, but we are saying you don't get to
dominate what people believe. They get to choose what to believe. How
about you just admit that you want your ideas to be the only ideas? Just
because we expose people to certain idea or allow them to exist, how does
that translate to approving of them morally?
Back to TOC