So the Pope is a marxist.... (wait for it)

[kandrathe]

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press. But, again, you think "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence?

Key phrase here is, 'and their ilk'. So let's not be coy here, you're bright enough to know what shoju is talking about. Even the US 1st amendment doesn't cover the 'right and muh freedums' to yell 'fire' at a crowded theatre situation.

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes. My point is that we don't convict groups of people for the aberrant actions of individuals, unless there is a conspiracy to commit a crime. I might be suspicious of people who attend the mosque led by Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, but I'm not going to assume every participant is in lock step with his words. In the majority of Christian denominations, homosexuality is considered a sin. There is a difference between addressing the "sin", and advocating ill upon the "sinner". That is a line, crossed by those extreme examples, that offends most people including most Christians. My second point is that denominations have variable controls over who becomes a minister, and how their clergy perform. Often, it is the local churches deacons who hire, or fire the minister. Third, people in professional positions "of power" fail, (and worse commit crimes) and often the governing organization struggles in remaining unbiased. Often the they are complicit in concealing wrong doing for fear of bad publicity. This is true for more than church organizations. It is true of hospitals, schools, mental health providers, day care, etc.

And when it comes to other countries, the laws on what constitutes hate speech can be different. Again, let's be absolutely clear here, we are talking about the international stage. Some of the uhm, naive 'missionaries' at best, their evangelizing are producing violent outcomes. At worst, it is absolutely deliberate.

Yes. The results of bad philosophies (or parts of them) are often unjust, or at times horrific. But this is an issue with some ideas in certain world views. The snake oil salesman might be selling financial ponzi schemes, or terrorism, or heavens gate cult. How do you cull the good (parts) philosophies from bad philosophies? There is plenty of debate on the anthropological implications of missionary work. They certainly understand some of the risks, but probably don't comprehend "all of the risks". It's not just Christianity the must deal with this. Should look to how Iran, or Soviet Russia has treated minorities. And... it is not like this topic isn't forward leading throughout the world. It is hotly debated in France, in Russia, in the US, Japan, and many, many other nations.

Freedom of speech, carries with it responsibilities. You say someone has the freedom of expression, no matter how hateful? I say get real.

You want to revisit the Rwandan Genocide? The Khmer Rouge Revues (now with more hidden mass graves!)? The 1960's Indonesian Chinese alleged 'commies' purge coup? Kosovo conflicts of the 90s? Some good ole fashioned Kristahlnacht? How about a Pogrom? That's russian for prom night right? ... Virulent, violent fanaticism can mutate from secular sources as well.

Forcing people to not speak, or express their wrong headed thinking does not allow the wrong ideas to be challenged in the light of day. We've forgotten perhaps what it was like to be jailed, and executed for offending the authority. Freedom of thought and expression resulted from the horrors exhibited by the lack of it. When the government can determine which thoughts are criminal, we are in big big trouble. I would rather that the wrong headed pastor Whorley vent his bigotry for the world to see, and respond to it with the lack of respect it deserves. Judge him for it, question his flock for complicity in allowing it, but don't generalize it to the US population, or even the majority of Baptists. I understand the fear of "hate speech", but I fear more the silencing of dissent.

The bottom line is; There are 7 billion people in the world, and the more homogeneous our world views, the better we will get along with each other.

Looking at past historical trends, my bet is on the opposite. (eg: The Irish 'Troubles' during the 60s-80s.) Look at all the NWO memes, One World Order backlash. More than a few of them are frankly, crackpot tinfoil brigades. Except, I would not rule them all as outright crazy.

If nothing else for the insurance that frankly, someone in the desert has no business telling me that I have too much clothes on, if I'm in the Arctic. And the reverse is also true, I have no business or right or 'freedoms' to tell anyone in the desert\beach to cover up and put on a parka, because -I- feel I would freeze if I only wear my banana hammock in my Ice Castle. Figuratively speaking.

I think you might misunderstand a bit. I was just pointing to where the conflict comes from. Certainly we will never get to one common Worldview®. It's not really the same as "One World Order" -- the concept would be say to imagine if we did have world wide agreement on Islam, or Buddhism, or democracy.

One thing we can do to reduce violence is to recognize how to negotiate between world views, and show tolerance when they do not match our own. Often it is when the discussion stops (or is censored) that the guns come out.