You Sir Are A Bigot

Reba said:
So you support Packer's right to free speech?

Do they do any good? What are the results?

Personally, I think email linked petitions are just "feel good" attempts that don't really change anything.


It doesn't really matter what I think about his sermon. Unless his sermons endorse violence against others, he has the right to preach them.
Click to expand...

btw - why have a stance like that and yet... your stance is opposite on Ground Zero mosque? They endorsed no such violence. They preached no such violence. wassup?
 
Jiro said:
btw - why have a stance like that and yet... your stance is opposite on Ground Zero mosque? They endorsed no such violence. They preached no such violence. wassup?
Click to expand...

Where does packer endorse violence? I missed it.

Sharia law certainly does preach violence .... just letting you know.
 
Jiro said:
I can't speak out against someone's view? I see. Where does Packer endorse violence? I missed it?


was that Ground Zero mosque going to practice Sharia law? They are certainly going to teach Islam ... no?
Click to expand...


Are these deliberate attempts to distort what Packer has said? just curious ...
 
Steinhauer said:
Are these deliberate attempts to distort what Packer has said? just curious ...
Click to expand...
have I done so? please point it out.

Steinhauer said:
They are certainly going to teach Islam ... no?
Click to expand...
you do know there are several kinds, right? so is this your deliberate attempt to distort the Islam as a bunch of violent suicide bombers who cannot be reasoned with?
 
Jiro said:
have I done so? please point it out.

btw - why have a stance like that and yet... your stance is opposite on Ground Zero mosque? They endorsed no such violence. They preached no such violence. wassup?


Post #161

you do know there are several kinds, right? so is this your deliberate attempt to distort the Islam as a bunch of violent suicide bombers?
Click to expand...

Treatment of homosexuals within Islam:

According to a pamphlet produced by Al-Fatiha, there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. 5 Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ in terms of penalty:

The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted.

The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted.

The Sha'fi school of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act. Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.
Click to expand...


Islam and Homosexuality


Where does Packer endorse harsh treatment of homosexuals?
 
why not send out a chain letter/email petition to get the Islamic Society of North America to stop practicing their rights to the free exercise of their religion?

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA said: "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.""
Click to expand...

Islam and Homosexuality

after all, he spoke publicly on the matter and represented Islam to North Americans ....
 
Steinhauer said:
why not send out a chain letter/email petition to get the Islamic Society of North America to stop practicing their rights to the free exercise of their religion?



Islam and Homosexuality

after all, he spoke publicly on the matter and represented Islam to North Americans ....
Click to expand...

feel free to send me a petition. meanwhile - you can go ahead and make a new thread about it.
 
Jiro said:
free speech. the same rights that Mr. Packer has. this is not the first time there is "open letter" toward anything. so what do you think of his sermon?
Click to expand...

If you disagree with LDS doctrines, then don't JOIN the church. It is simple.
 
As a church leader immersed in these issues, Packer should know better. The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have both concluded that same-sex attraction is normal and that “reparative” therapy – like the kind being advocated by the Mormon Church — is unhealthy and harmful. This is not the first instance in which the church has spewed lies related to same-sex orientation. Last summer, another senior member of the church’s hierarchy, promised that same-sex attraction could be cured. “If you are faithful, on resurrection morning – and maybe even before then – you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex,” Mormon Church leader Bruce Haffen told a conference.
Click to expand...

Who is this senior member of the church?

As for Prop. 8, Not all LDS members are in favor for it.
 
Reba said:
If your workplace is truly diverse, then the email that your boss distributed could be intimidating to some of the workers. That's an important point.

If your workplace follows EEO guidelines, then your boss wouldn't even know the religions, sexual preferences, and political beliefs of his employees because he's not allowed to ask them.
Click to expand...

I would like to add comments to that. When people find out that they are LDS, people start to tease them, and make fun of them for just being Mormons. I know a few LDS members who were bullied constantly for being Mormon at schools. Today, they are still bullied at schools, and works everywhere. LDS members are always asked "Are you married at 16?", Are you gonna sleep with several wives?" or,"Hey, Moron?" when they already know that LDS church banned polygamy long time ago.
 
Well it's his right. It's not like he's telling people to go out and kill them.
*shrugs*

Barbaro said:
I would like to add comments to that. When people find out that they are LDS, people start to tease them, and make fun of them for just being Mormons. I know a few LDS members who were bullied constantly for being Mormon at schools. Today, they are still bullied at schools, and works everywhere. LDS members are always asked "Are you married at 16?", Are you gonna sleep with several wives?" or,"Hey, Moron?" when they already know that LDS church banned polygamy long time ago.
Click to expand...

Oh god mormon's get it kind of bad from a lot of directions.
Reminds me of a news story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/
 
I think that based on the excerpt at the beginning of the thread, that those words by this individual are very hurtful and sad for many people. Reverse it - what would be the result if someone gave a far-reaching or well-publicized presentation advocating that straight people were impure, wrong etc.
I do agree that what Packer is alleged to have said was a very ignorant, hateful thing.

the idea of - if you don't like it, don't join it - from my perspective that could be easy to say if one has no personal connection to what is being spewed. But let's just pretend that someone saw/heard this presentation and returned from it and physically attacked someone else who they perceived to be, or who was, GLBTQ. Say that person who committed this claims to have done so because of the presentation. Regardless of whether or not the individual woulda done it anyway - who would be wondering about that distinction if the person attacked was your child, your friend - your lover?
 
I'd like to talk about 2 things:

Freedom of Speech: Obviously everyone can say anything, we've established that. Reba mentioned that by starting a petition, the originator is somehow trying to "censor" Packer. This is ridiculous. Yes, it's meant to TRY to get Packer (and others) to "see a different view" and show how many people share this view. It has NOTHING to do with suppressing freedom of speech. It's kind of like saying to an individual "Look, I don't like it when you say those things, neither does my husband because it makes us very uncomfortable due to *Blah blah*" Are you trying to control that individual? Are you "suppressing" his freedom of speech? No, we share our feelings and views instead of keeping silent. The offending person can absorb the information and do whatever he wants with this information, including not caring. It's about sharing information in case the other person MAY take that information to change his ideas/ways. Most of the time it doesn't happen, but if you don't share that information, it will NEVER happen.

Diversity: Again, sharing information somehow implies a non diversity? When I started working here, my boss left me a brochure for his church "just in case". At first, I was offended, but realized that he was just offering me information in case I am looking for a church to join (I was new to the area). It's true that there is a FINE line between sharing information and "endorsing" a group/type of people. For example, if my boss kept asking me "So when are you gonna join my church?" Then he has definitely crossed the line.

Some people can be SO touchy sometimes! Whatever happened to common sense?
 
:gpost:


Daredevel7 said:
I'd like to talk about 2 things:

Freedom of Speech: Obviously everyone can say anything, we've established that. Reba mentioned that by starting a petition, the originator is somehow trying to "censor" Packer. This is ridiculous. Yes, it's meant to TRY to get Packer (and others) to "see a different view" and show how many people share this view. It has NOTHING to do with suppressing freedom of speech. It's kind of like saying to an individual "Look, I don't like it when you say those things, neither does my husband because it makes us very uncomfortable due to *Blah blah*" Are you trying to control that individual? Are you "suppressing" his freedom of speech? No, we share our feelings and views instead of keeping silent. The offending person can absorb the information and do whatever he wants with this information, including not caring. It's about sharing information in case the other person MAY take that information to change his ideas/ways. Most of the time it doesn't happen, but if you don't share that information, it will NEVER happen.

Diversity: Again, sharing information somehow implies a non diversity? When I started working here, my boss left me a brochure for his church "just in case". At first, I was offended, but realized that he was just offering me information in case I am looking for a church to join (I was new to the area). It's true that there is a FINE line between sharing information and "endorsing" a group/type of people. For example, if my boss kept asking me "So when are you gonna join my church?" Then he has definitely crossed the line.

Some people can be SO touchy sometimes! Whatever happened to common sense?
Click to expand...
 
faire_jour said:
Not true. If one of the 12 apostles says it from the pulpit at General Conference (which President Packer is and did) that makes it offical LDS doctrine. All members of the church sustain him as a prophet, seer and revelator and raise our hands affirming that we will follow his council. If he said it, it is as scripture.
Click to expand...

I find this post terribly disturbing.
 
Reba said:
When a superior uses his position in that way it can be intimidating to those under his authority.

Suppose some of your coworkers who got the same email believe the way the Mormons do about homosexuality. You don't think that attack on their beliefs by the boss would make them feel uncomfortable in the workplace?
Click to expand...

Suppose one of the workers is homosexual. Okay to make him uncomfortable, but unacceptable to make the homo haters uncomfortable?
 
Jiro said:
and I'm merely stating my view. I view his religious view as bigotry. wassup?
Click to expand...

Bingo. His religious view is decidedly bigoted. Just because a statement is made in the name of "religion" doesn't mean that it is not bigoted.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I'd like to talk about 2 things:

Freedom of Speech: Obviously everyone can say anything, we've established that. Reba mentioned that by starting a petition, the originator is somehow trying to "censor" Packer. This is ridiculous. Yes, it's meant to TRY to get Packer (and others) to "see a different view" and show how many people share this view. It has NOTHING to do with suppressing freedom of speech. It's kind of like saying to an individual "Look, I don't like it when you say those things, neither does my husband because it makes us very uncomfortable due to *Blah blah*" Are you trying to control that individual? Are you "suppressing" his freedom of speech? No, we share our feelings and views instead of keeping silent. The offending person can absorb the information and do whatever he wants with this information, including not caring. It's about sharing information in case the other person MAY take that information to change his ideas/ways. Most of the time it doesn't happen, but if you don't share that information, it will NEVER happen.

Diversity: Again, sharing information somehow implies a non diversity? When I started working here, my boss left me a brochure for his church "just in case". At first, I was offended, but realized that he was just offering me information in case I am looking for a church to join (I was new to the area). It's true that there is a FINE line between sharing information and "endorsing" a group/type of people. For example, if my boss kept asking me "So when are you gonna join my church?" Then he has definitely crossed the line.

Some people can be SO touchy sometimes! Whatever happened to common sense?
Click to expand...

Very well said. It would seem that many here support freedom of speech only when it happens to conform to their particular views. Yes, Packer is protected under the constitution to spew forth any hateful, damamging crap he chooses. And everyone is protected under the constitution when they point out that he is spewing hateful, damaging crap.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top