June 16, 2016

"Have Christians Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?"



A post-Orlando question in The NYT.

Great question?
 
pollcode.com free polls

180 comments:

darrenoia said...

If it weren’t so predictable, it would be unbelievable. A Muslim jihadist who no doubt pays zero attention to Christian culture kills dozens of gay people, and naturally, since leftists simply cannot go there about Muslims, somehow it has to be the Christians’ fault.

This is beyond self-parody. We need a new term. But James Taranto diagnosed this problem years ago. Oikophobia on the left is real, and it’s spectacular.

Henry said...

Has big oil?

eric said...

What a stupid question.

Big Mike said...

I voted "No" despite being an atheist. I think colored people were better off in Jim Crow days than Christians in the "era of Obama."

Nonapod said...

If there's one thing I've learned in this crazy life it's that ultimately everything bad is Christian Conservatives fault, from burning your tongue on hot pizza to a little kid getting death rolled by an alligator.

coupe said...

Answer: Yes, starting in 1533.

The proscription of sodomy in the English tradition began in 1533 when King Henry VIII adopted contemporary church doctrine into a system of laws at the time of the English withdrawal from the Catholic Church. Sodomy became both a sin and a crime, since ecclesiastical law recognizes no distinction between the concepts of "sin" and "crime." Sodomy included any form of non-procreative acts including masturbation, oral and anal sex.

The original thirteen American colonies derived their laws from the English common law and continued the legal tradition in which sodomy carried the penalty of death.

The 1683 Pennsylvania law called sodomy an "unnatural sin" and the East New Jersey law listed it among the "Offenses against God."

Every state adopted some form of a sodomy law as it joined the United States, either in acceptance of an unwritten common law or in formal codification. A slow modernization of laws away from a religious doctrine into a secular system reduced penalties over time in a piece meal fashion. All states had laws against sodomy by 1960.

protestmanager said...

Without full acceptance, child molesters are demeaned and hurt

JPS said...

It's not a bad question in itself. Would have been a good one to ask out of the clear blue, say last week.

Asking it now means we have an axe to grind. It means, I don't want to look closely at the culture and the religion that produced this guy, who as a teen cheered the 9/11 attacks. I don't want to think about what it means that his father, having just lost his son, would think to say, No, no, this isn't Islamic, I think he just murdered forty-nine people because he saw two dudes kissing, a few months back - and expect that this would make sense to us, that we would say, Oh, well, OK then, that's different.

There are some ugly questions lying that way, and the answers might give satisfaction to racists. So let's retreat within our comfort zone, and ask instead, Is this the fault of the people we hate, rather than the fault of the people those bigots over there hate?

protestmanager said...

Without full acceptance, Apple fanbois are demeaned and hurt

tim maguire said...

The Times' purpose is to make sure the alligator eats them last. They don't understand the alligator.

CJinPA said...

"Christians Must Repent" is one of the headlines.

You could replace "Christians" with "Western Culture" and you'd have a simplified, but accurate, description of the driving force behind the Left's politics.

JPS said...

Someone else has surely made this point, but this assiduous misdirection reminds me a bit of the remarkable rebranding of the Kennedy assassination.

His widow commented, "He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights... it had to be some silly little Communist."

That would never do. And so the cause became the climate of hate in Dallas, created, as always and everywhere, by the Right.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

"never let a serious crisis go to waste"

protestmanager said...

Without full acceptance, Trump supporters are demeaned and hurt

Without full acceptance, right wing Republican fundamentalist Christians are demeaned and hurt


I'd like to propose a "sensible, common sense speech regulation": Anyone who posts something as stupid as the "pro" side of that argument needs to be banned from public speech, for 5 years on a first offense.

TCom said...

In related news, Milo Yiannopolous woke up to thousands of Muslim death threats on Twitter, in English and Arabic. No word on Christian death threats. But I think we all know how many of those there were, don't we?

But keep on thinking banning an AR15 is going to solve everything, progressive ninnies. When does raging ignorance become so ridiculous it's inexcusable? I guess we are going to find out.

By the way, some knife wielding lunatics just killed 29 in China.

rhhardin said...

Gay readership.

tim maguire said...

It's acceptable because it produced a good array of answers.

Having just read some of that array of answers, I vote you remove this option from the list.

AprilApple said...

Someone kills 49 people in the name of Allah - and ... blame the Christians right on Q.

TCom said...

Also for those of you still living in la-la land, go check Al Jazeera twitter, etc. Witness the celebrating Muslims.

Or just stick your heads back up your asses. I don't expect you to challenge yourselves.

Henry said...

"Christians" is a big category.

Gahrie said...

Name a non-Christian nation where gays are treated better than in Christian/formerly Christian nations.

n.n said...

No, evolutionary fitness, and consequently determination of dysfunctional behaviors, was first established by Nature. It is only with a moral center that natural imperatives are moderated for the individual good. Both unreformed Islam and the "secular" Pro-choice religions have been spectacular failures to reconcile moral and natural imperatives.

That said, the mass abortion of transgender/homosexuals at the club was more likely to be motivated by personal retribution than a moral imperative.

Jason said...

This is like Nazis blaming Jews for losing WWI and for their problems in the 20s and 30s, except with even less rational basis.

AprilApple said...

Leftists will not face that gays are routinely killed in Islamic nations.


*because some Christians are pro-traditional marriage and A SINGLE crazed Christian killed an abortion doctor once 20 years ago.*

Priorities,. Leftists know who the real killer is. It's those dastardly Christians.. oh and ... crusades.

BDNYC said...

I guess ISIS has figured out another way to divide us. Attack an identifiable group, practically any group, and the Left will take the opportunity to blame Republicans for their "corrosive" politics.

ISIS blows up a quinceanera. The Left will blame Republicans for being anti-immigrant.

ISIS shoots up an abortion center. The Left will blame Republicans for being pro-life. We need to redouble our efforts to protect a woman's right to choose. And we need gun control, dammit.

ISIS sets off a bomb on the subway. The Left will blame Republicans for living in the suburbs and not paying their fair share in taxes for subway security.

Etc.

Fernandinande said...

How about "Not really, but it's a perfectly valid question." (although the wording and especially the timing and source are obviously suspect).

Gahrie said...
Name a non-Christian nation where gays are treated better than in Christian/formerly Christian nations.


Maybe Japan.

Anglelyne said...

Remember when the NYT used to strive to maintain the pretense that it ran a classier, higher-brow opinion joint than Salon or Slate?

(Hell, remember when Salon and Slate writers weren't just gutter-grade prog-tard clickbait whores?)

traditionalguy said...

And what about the Crusades???

Sexual restraint law violations are usable as weapons when anyone needs a weapon. Just blame it on Christianity. Now, does that feel better.

Adultery Law went out 50 years ago when no fault divorce came. And The Gays won their war 10 years ago. I think they are just missing the glory of fighting now and want their Christian enemies back.

The only remaining challenge is Lesbians stealing men's wives. That is a hybrid of Adultery and Gay law violations. Christians could do some good by pushing a reenactment of that Combo as a crime.

clint said...

At most times, a discussion of how Christians see gay people would be fine.

In the wake of a mass murder, attempting to tar Christians with the same brush is disgusting bigotry.

The editors of the NYT should be ashamed.

Michael K said...

It is interesting to see what the NY Times readership looks like. I'll bet the number of Christians is below 10%.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Yep, Christians' fault. I called it the minute the news said "gay club." How could the Left find otherwise?

A gay Democrat Muslim mass murders gays at a club in Orlando and you know who's to blame? Christians. White male gun-loving Christians, primarily, but also anyone who hasn't supported the gay community (like, you know, all Catholics).

Why oh why can't we get some unity in this country, they whine. Oh, on an unrelated note, people I disagree with are responsible for every terrible, murderous thing that happens and I demand that they repent (!) and repudiate their stated beliefs and disagreements with Leftism before I will deign to forgive them (and stop blaming them for the murderous acts of others).

Thanks, NYTimes. Thanks, Professor!

Earnest Prole said...

For the Times, Christian conservatives serve the same purpose that Jews serve for anti-Semites: an organizing principle explaining all the world’s evil, no matter how preposterous and absurd the explanation. See yesterday's editorial if you think that's an exaggeration.

Yancey Ward said...

The death of parody proceeds apace.

Hagar said...

Does not the Old Testament have some things to say about homosexuality, etc.?
And are not Christianity and Islam both essentially Judaic heresies?

Steve M. Galbraith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Begley said...

Has the NYT created a harmful atmosphere for Christians?

Mary E. Glynn said...

The transgenders tired to warn us about the dangers gays face in bathrooms, but you traditionalists just wouldn't listen...

Anglelyne said...

Earnest Prole: For the Times, Christian conservatives serve the same purpose that Jews serve for anti-Semites: an organizing principle explaining all the world’s evil, no matter how preposterous and absurd the explanation.

Very good analogy, Prole. One of those analogies that are obvious once somebody points it out. (Though, naturally, the people who need to see it will turn their brains off and tell Christians that they're just privileged whiners with a persecution complex.)

mtrobertslaw said...

The Progressive Left:

"Have Christians created a harmful Atmosphere for Gays?" A very, very good question.

"Have Muslims created a harmful Atmosphere for Americans?" A very bad question motivated by hate.

DavidD said...

No, because it's simply meant to redirect attention away from where it belongs.

policraticus said...

Would you rather be gay in Orlando or in Riyadh?

Laura said...

Judeo-Christian legal systems have created places where gays can congregate in large numbers for festival behavior offensive to deranged Muslim shooters, so perhaps yes.

The Cracker Emcee said...

When I saw Althouse's screen-shot I seriously thought it was The Onion for a moment. It's all good, though. One more straw on the camel's back.

David said...

Next poll: Have Muslims Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Christians?

dreams said...

We're doomed.

Tank said...

Let's talk about everything other than Muslims killing Americans.

bagoh20 said...

I'm neither Christian nor gay... yet, but it seems obvious to me that many gays are purposefully creating a hurtful atmosphere for Christians, and many have no qualms about it.

David said...

Next poll: Have Muslims Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Christians?

CWJ said...

Earnest Prole,

Phrased as a question, your observation would be better than the question the NYT actually published.

Mary E. Glynn said...

Let's put blame where blame is due.

It's the American Amish and Mennonites: they don't support the gays enough.

Repent, sinners!

MayBee said...

Once Obama accepted gay marriage, things started happening pretty quickly. What has it been, 4 years? That was like the ground zero year for when you had to accept gay marriage or be a hater forever.

Mary E. Glynn said...

I think Christians need to some out of the closet, and start outing themselves so we can all see them in our midst, and begin the tolerance/acceptance process...

I am.

Bay Area Guy said...

Let's look at this rationally and soberly:

1. The US has 330 million people, about 80% identify as Christians. (Gallup poll, 2015).

2. The CDC has done an extensive survey of gays and Lesbians in America. They found that about 1.6% are gay, 0.7 Bisexual and 1.1% is "other". Let's call it 2.5% as the best number we have of the gay population in the US.

3. So, without passing judgment, we have a large majority of Christians (80%) and a small minority of gays (2.5%).

With those numbers, whose culture do you think will dominate? And should the 80% bend to the will of the 2.5%, or vice-versa?

And, in most countries, where "demographics is destiny" -- declining birth rates are a sign of a declining country.

I'm not opposed to gay men and women, leading their lives, pursuing life, liberty and happiness, as Americans. That's a good thing, and they have a right to do it.

But, as a tiny minority, changing the massively larger majority culture, is an uphill battle, to say the least.

I do think both sides can be much more tolerant of each other, and maybe that's too mushy, but I do hope it happens.

MayBee said...

The future does not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.
Get off your high horses, Christians.

Miriam said...

"I think colored people were better off in Jim Crow days than Christians in the "era of Obama.""

What an incredibly ignorant comment. Unbelievable ignorance.

Clayton Hennesey said...

I can't see how this helps anyone but Trump. This is pure, classic Pauline Kael Syndrome material and is equally circulating in bubble venues like NPR.

The problem for the bubble babies, though, is precisely that - they live in that self-affirming echo bubble and have no earthly idea that they're surrounded and outnumbered by millions of intelligent, ordinary people who understand what Muslim terrorism looks like, and, moreover, if it will try to compete with alligators in hunting Americans in the land of the Magic Kingdom, America's heaven on earth for Pete's sake, why would it turn up its nose at doing the same thing at Costco?

Today the gays, tomorrow the folks who buy 144 rolls of toilet paper at a time, they worry, and then start to ask, wait a minute, what, exactly, is so crazy about what Trump is saying compared to this NYT leap across the issues?

Curtiss said...

When Christians and conservatives convert to Islam, the world will be set right for gays and the New York Times.

Todd said...

"Have Christians Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?"

I think a much more instructive question, only as to reviewing the responses of NYT readers would be: "Have Muslims Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?"

To your average person, the answer is self evident but I would be very interested to see what "normal" NYT readers think.

LarsPorsena said...

British MP just gunned down in England. Left praying to ______________ that the murderer is white Christian conservative.

n.n said...

Strange, Christianity promotes tolerance, not normalization, not undiagnosed rejection of dysfunctional behaviors, including expressed orientations of the transgender spectrum disorder, adultery, "friends with benefits", etc. If anything, "radical" Islam is comparable to "secular" liberal philosophy, especially its Pro-choice branch, which preaches [class] diversity, selective exclusion (e.g. "=", Affirmative Action), debasement of human life (e.g. selective-child, clinical cannibalism), etc.

Miriam said...

There are many sects of Christians, not all are to be blamed for the mistreatment of gays. But there are some that absolutely are guilty of it. There are also athiests and secular people that are guilty of hateful behavior toward gays.

Static Ping said...

The New York Times has moved into overt advanced bigotry. This is beyond Archie Bunker bigotry, or Jim Crow racist bigotry, or even Nazi bigotry. When the Reichstag burned down, the Nazis at least placed the blame on a group that could at least be semi-reasonably accused of guilt. For that matter, the Nazis thought it necessary to actually simulate a fake Polish invasion, complete with dead bodies, to manufacture a casus belli. The New York Times dispenses of all of that and blames a group that not only clearly and obviously had nothing to do with the actions here, but was most likely detested as infidels by the actor. This is Protocols of the Elders of Zion territory here. No, it's beyond that. This is Orwellian.

Rick said...

The correct answer is:

Yes, because it shows left wing hysteria that speaking in general terms is racist and sexist is political shaming even they don't believe is true.

Paul said...

Christians? It's MUSLIMS that are burning, beheading, torturing, etc... homosexuals.

Now that's a 'harmful' atmosphere!

Duh... how stupid can liberals be? There is no limit!

dreams said...

"What an incredibly ignorant comment. Unbelievable ignorance."

You are the ignorant one, blacks had made great strides in becoming middle class until LBJ's war on poverty/great society so go on and show your ignorance.

Mark Nielsen said...


"Christians must repent!"

Well, yes. That's a fundamental tenet of the religion.

MayBee said...

If talking about people in negative ways hurts them, what does talking about "white privilege" and "mansplaining" and "rape culture" do to men and boys?

jimbino said...

Of course. The superstitious, anti-scientific posture and preachings of Christians have been a major cause of misery and cultural retardation for centuries that continues to this day.

Christians are believers in talking snakes and donkeys, unicorns, giants, angels and devils, not to mention virgin birth, immaculate conception, bodily ascension, life after death, personhood of blastocysts. There are innocuous Christians, like the Amish, who believe all those things, but who distinguish themselves from the Christianists, who force public prayer and moments of silence, ten commandments monuments, graveyard crosses, god affirmations on our currency, and oaths of office on the rest of us.

It is inappropriate at this time to bemoan the clear persecution of gays promoted by the Muslim terrorists while ignoring completely, in this Althouse blog and elsewhere, the centuries-old persecution of scientists, atheists, humanists and free-thinkers that has been maintained for years. The Roman Catholic persecution of Galileo, Bruno, and Hus and its inquisitions and book-bannings are the very model for the fatwas and terrorism policies that have led to murders of writers, editors and publishers in France, Amerika, Holland, Belgium and even Japan. Check out Joseph Anton by Salman Rushdie.

Just as "peace-loving" Muslims need to be held to account for not denouncing Muslim terrorism the world over, so do Christians need to be held to account for their continuing support of the daily insults to non-believers on our currency and elsewhere.

Matthew Sablan said...

I agree; in general, this would be a useful question that might be interesting.

The intent and timing, though, makes me suspect the author of the question is fishing.

MayBee said...

o do Christians need to be held to account for their continuing support of the daily insults to non-believers on our currency and elsewhere.

Do you say this because you think non-believers can't be held responsible for the terrible actions of other non-believers?

William said...

Nietzsche observed long ago that Christians put more emphasis on Christian values than on Christian dogma. Nietzsche was no great friend of religion, but in this context Nietzsche's peachy. I think both Marxists and Muslims adhere far more strictly to holy script than to the values these scripts are supposed to promulgate..........No Marxist ever looked at the starving and malnourished on a collective farm and said "my, God, what have we done." Likewise, so far as I know, there is no sect in Islam that lobbies for gay marriage or sanctions gay Mullahs.......Most Christians are far more tolerant than the people who criticize them.

Todd said...

jimbino said...

6/16/16, 12:22 PM


Hey jimbion, I think that belief in unicorns is a LOT less dangerous than lefties/progressives continued beliefs in "man made global warming" and in "keynesian economics"...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Is Jimbino doing a parody of a clueless and hysterical atheist? I can't tell.

Anyway, its pretty obvious that some people (I'm looking at you NYT and Anderson Cooper) are pretty desperate to change the subject.

Basically, the demand is to repudiate your beliefs or be social outcasts because you are not only worse than Hitler, but worse than mass murderers. Who mass murder gays. Because you ain't down with the SSM.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Have Christians Created a Harmful Diet for Lions?

-Headline, New Roman Times

Static Ping said...

jimbino, unicorns are awesome. Too bad they are not in the Bible, other than in the King James Version which mistranslated a Hebrew word. No one is quite sure what the word means, other than it is an animal of some sort.

And Galileo was primarily persecuted by other scientists. This, sadly, is not an unusual event. Bruno was executed as a heretic, but he was not a scientist. If he was a free-thinker then, my goodness, you free-thinkers are incredibly superstitious.

CL said...

If white christians were to repent (of what it is not clear), the Left would not forgive them because they need an "other" to hate and to give excuses for the existence of evil in the world.

jacksonjay said...

I remember with great clarity that very successful Broadway musical that was created in order to create a "Harmful Atmosphere for Gays." Written by rich and famous satirist, I think it was entitled "The Book of Gay." Record ticket sales, Tony Awards, Grammys and touring company performances made these rich satirists even richer.

Culture war indeed!

Did this musical also enjoy an opportunity to perform at the Macy's Day Thankgiving Day parade? My memory is a little fuzzy about that.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm disappointed that there are presently so many as five votes for "It's acceptable because it produced a good array of answers."

Maybe it's sort of like someone making a mistake and punching out the wrong chad on a butterfly ballot.

Original Mike said...

Is Miriam writing for the NYT? A Muslim fanatic shoots up a gay club and the NYT blames it on hate-filled Christians. Un-fucking-believable.

exhelodrvr1 said...

For the past 10-20 years, conservative Christians in the United States, and to a lesser degree conservatives in general, are playing the same role as Israel in the Middle East. They get blamed for almost everything that goes wrong, or that someone things is "wrong." That allows the blamers (or the rest of the Middle East, in Israel's case) to pretend that they are faultless, and don't have to look at themselves as being contributors to the problem. Which is why it is so difficult to actually address the issues. And Obama is leading the blame charge.

Bill Peschel said...

"I think colored people were better off in Jim Crow days than Christians in the "era of Obama.""

What an incredibly ignorant comment. Unbelievable ignorance.

Miriam, read "Wheelin' on Beale: How Wdia-Memphis Became the Nation's First All-Black Radio Station and Created the Sound That Changed America" by Louis Cantor. It describes a parallel society in which blacks businesses and professionals thrived because segregation allowed them to.

Once the wall came down and blacks could visit white-owned businesses, they could. Black professionals moved out of the cities, hollowing them out and leaving them to the poor black (and white) underclass.

Because black artists could be played on white radios, black-owned radio stations lost their captive audience, and WDIA went downhill.

I'm not saying that we should not have gotten rid of the Jim Crow laws, but there's no doubt that desegregation damaged the black community at the same time.

Miriam said...

"If white christians were to repent (of what it is not clear)....."

Does this make it any clearer?

Todd said...

OK, Miriam, I admit that fellow is a "wackadue". I repute him!

We good?

Now, can we get started on the thousands and thousands of Muslims that actually kill gays?

Larry J said...

A possibly gay and definitely Muslim Democrat murders 49 people and wounds over 50 others, and somehow it's the fault of the NRA, Republicans, and Christians. Go figure.

Miriam said...

Yes Todd, we're good. And I do hold Muslims who kill Christians or call for the death of Christians responsible for their crimes and sins. Luckily not all Muslims as not all Christians think that way. Thank you God.

mockturtle said...

By far the most asinine poll question ever. Everything is the fault of Christians. Or Trump. These lefties know better but this is their narrative and they're sticking to it and cranking it for all it's worth.

hombre said...

Mary wrote: "The Sermon on the Mount can be very practical political advice:...."

One problem with cafeteria Christians is their overweening reliance on the Sermon on the Mount and the Second Great Commandment outside the context of the First Century and the rest of the NT.

Terry said...

One option should be "have gays created a harmful attitude for Christians?"

MayBee said...

It's also very amusing to me that the people who are very afraid the wrong word will lump all Muslims together, or Muslims will turn to terrorism if they are criticized, are more than happy to smear all Christians with this kind of headline.

mockturtle said...

If the country were split in half with the Progressives and Muslims in one half and the Conservatives and Christians on the other, guess which half I'd rather live in???!!!

Miriam said...

If the country were split in half with the Progressives and Muslims in one half and the Conservatives and Christians on the other, guess which half I'd rather live in???!!!"

Maybe you could move to Texas after it seceeds?

jimbino said...

Miriam,

In a country of libertarian atheists, like Estonia, which apparently has rejected socialists, Muslims, Conservatives and, especially, Christians and Russians.

Quaestor said...

It's also very amusing to me that the people who are very afraid the wrong word will lump all Muslims together, or Muslims will turn to terrorism if they are criticized, are more than happy to smear all Christians with this kind of headline.

Nailed it.

Progressives are cowards. They won't criticize Islam because Muslims will kill them. They'll say Mateen represents a tiny minority of 1.6 billion Muslims, but they'll turn round and tar all Christians with "homophobia" because Christians will turn the other cheek.

This link is for Miriam the tu quoque fabulist and Cookie who can't use a search engine to educate himself: Norwegian Islamic Leader Fahad Qureshi: All Muslims Believe in Death Penalty for Homosexuals

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

You know, honestly the NYT gets old. Not that they totally gave up this time -- heck, they got Rod Dreher, which is saying something -- but that here as in many, many previous cases, the immediate pivot is to "but what about Christians? Haven't they done damage too?"

The answer is that of course they have; hasn't everyone? But this isn't the question Americans ought to be asking at this particular moment. Please, people, give it up.

William Chadwick said...

I don't general use the term "libtard" (although at this point in history, drinking the noxious bouillabaisse of snake-oil economics, Marxist class-warfare, envy-stoking, and old-fashioned State-cultism that calls itself "liberalism" must be a sign of some kind of mental retardation); but I don't know a better term to describe the people who would like to pin the handiwork of a murderous Muslim on Christians. (And no, I'm not a Christian.)

Miriam said...

Quackster,
I hold criminals from every/any faith responsible for their actions. Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish etc etc etc. I couldn't possibly make myself clearer. But proceed with your very neurotic ideations regarding ALL Muslims. I can find some more clips of Christian nut cases saying gays should be put to death, just like you can dig up the links to sites that bolster your hatred toward all Muslims..

Quaestor said...

Lets see them, Miriam.

Quaestor said...

There are a few "Christian nut cases", the members of the Westboro Baptist Church (membership: 45, nearly all related by blood or marriage to founder Fred Phelps) Rather small compared to that crowd in Oslo.

TCom said...

It doesn't have to be all Muslims, Miriam.

Here are 100 M&Ms. Don't worry, only 5 are poisoned and will kill you.

How many do you eat?

Quaestor said...

I notice you try to refute me by resorting to jejune insults, Miriam. Please continue, it only strengthens my position and weakens yours.

Original Mike said...

Miriam will never let go of her "all Muslims" straw man, no matter how many people call her on it.

Quaestor said...

I doubt you even bothered to watch that video, Miriam. Shuttering is the first response of a bigot to opposition.

Qwinn said...

Quaestor:

And it needs to be noted (because the media never does) that Phelps and his clan are all Democrats.

I Callahan said...

Of course. The superstitious, anti-scientific posture and preachings of Christians have been a major cause of misery and cultural retardation for centuries that continues to this day.

I am not a practicing Christian. That aside - this is one of the dumbest, most bigoted statements I have ever read. It is a perfect example of 20 pounds of weapons-grade stupid in a 10 pound bag. If there could be a word that is defined as "more wrong than wrong", this would be it.

AJ Lynch said...

This is probably the dumbest story Althouse has ever blogged about.

Miriam said...

Quackster, upthread at 12:59PM.

Here is another:

Here starting at the 1:10 mark

Here's another:

Here starting at the 2:23 mark

Enough? There are more.


buwaya said...

Only in a decadent society in an unrecoverable death spiral can such questions be asked.
This is a symptom of a terminal disease.

Miriam said...

So all Muslims are nut cases? Or are there also Muslim nut cases , same as there are Christian nut cases. You have a very closed, small mind Quackster.

Miriam said...

And Quackster, as far as insults go, you are a pussy, you hand them out but you obviously can't take them.

Quaestor said...

TCom wrote: ...some knife-wielding lunatics just killed 29 in China.

CNN calls them Xinjiang separatists. What they are is something much more sinister than that. The "knife-wielding lunatics" are Muslims, followers of the so-called East Turkestan Independence Movement, which has pledged to create an outpost of the ISIS caliphate in northwest China.

Why does CNN hide the complete story? Because truth benefits Trump.

amielalune said...


No, but (activist) gays have created a harmful atmosphere for Christians. Bless their hearts.

Beaumont said...

As Althouse has so aptly highlighed with her blog post White Christian Heterosexual Conservatives have become the most frequently and severely abused group in our country.

Sebastian said...

Christian GOP-ers have created a harmful atmosphere for gays, therefore a Muslim Democrat kills them.

I Callahan said...

Miriam,

You say not all Muslims are nutbags and that there are Christian nut cases. Others say that Islam is more prone to terrorism and violence than Christianity (especially based on the numbers).

Can't two different facts be right in your mind?

Rusty said...

I Callahan said...
Miriam,

You say not all Muslims are nutbags and that there are Christian nut cases. Others say that Islam is more prone to terrorism and violence than Christianity (especially based on the numbers).

Can't two different facts be right in your mind?


Of course not. She's a parrot.
She's pinen' for the fjiords.

mockturtle said...

She's pinen' for the fjiords.

Ah, I do miss Monty Python!

Birches said...

Context matters. The NYT has completely surrendered their authority to present the discussion, however, since they don't even know that Christians believe Jesus was resurrected.

Quaestor said...

And shagged out after a prolonged squawk.

Miriam said...

Callahan,
I never once said that there isn't a higher chance of being harmed by a extremist Muslim than there was of being harmed by an extremist Christian. I think the chance is higher in Islam presently because the Fundamentalist scourge in Islam has become larger in recent years. The Fundamentalist scourge of Christianity might actually be waning. I have pretty simply and strightforwardly said that ALL Muslims are not guilty of the deeds of their extremists, as not all Christians are not guilty of the deeds and words of our own extremists.

mockturtle said...

therefore a Muslim Democrat kills them

But that's only because he was 'conflicted about his sexuality'. :-\ And we all know his inner conflict was caused by Christian repression and not by his Islamic faith, which has always been gay-friendly.

Sammy Finkelman said...

You would think the New York Times would know that secularism is dominant in the west. Moslems are surely not getting any ideas from modern day Christians.

Why don't they just blame the Bible and leave it at that?

Sammy Finkelman said...

Muhammed did derive some of his ideas from what is in the Bible.

n.n said...

Not even Islam can claim the inglorious achievements of "secular" regimes. And only the communist regime in China can claim collateral damage in excess of one million human lives annually, and they have since abandoned their selective-child policy. Unfortunately, the pro-choice doctrine carries over from faith in spontaneous conception to justify establishment of other selective policies that denigrate individual dignity, debase human life, and sponsor progressive corruption. The editors at the New York Times could be believed to ask the question in good faith, except that they are notoriously and presently oblivious to the failing of their religious/moral philosophy to reconcile moral and natural imperatives.

Rick said...

Miriam said...
I hold criminals from every/any faith responsible for their actions.


But to Miriam only Christianity spreads guilt from the actors to others. This article is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate her even handedness: if only she could bring herself to rebuke the NYT for presuming group guilt. Yet not only does she skip that opportunity (which she literally never skips unless the target is Christian) she actually reinforces it.

If the country were split in half with the Progressives and Muslims in one half and the Conservatives and Christians on the other, guess which half I'd rather live in???!!!"

The better question is where will our descendants prefer to live 100 years from now. There's a lot of ruin in a country, but that doesn't give us the right to spend it for our own benefit beggaring future generations. Our ancestors sacrificed for our benefit. The progressive response is not only to spend every bit of their sacrifice on themselves but also to reorganize society so to maximize their own comfort even though it will make future Americans noncompetitive. According to progressives the past sacrificed for their benefit so fairness demands the future do so also.

n.n said...

Sammy Finkelman:

And the unspoken ideas were derived from "secular" sources, including dreams of wealth, pleasure, and narcissistic fulfillment, that underlie the success of pornographic corporations, reproductive prostitution, clinical cannibalism, selective policies, etc.

Actually, the Torah, Bible, and Koran do a good job of recording the consequences of untempered liberalism, especially its generational or progressive variants, in "secular" societies, as well as the dangers inherent to establishment of a minority authority.

That said, there is always overlap and convergence, and we must be wary of dual-use policies. Anything and everything is subject to corruption and exploitation, which is why we err on the side of tolerance, not normalization or rejection.

JaimeRoberto said...

Yes, because every time a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake, it's like shooting a gay right between the eyes. Death by a thousand cupcakes.

William Chadwick said...

James Lileks, in today's "Bleat" (as he calls it) on the Orlando murders:

"Every day there's a new variant on the blame-anything-but-the-shooter idea, with one central idea: this is just the worst country ever. There's the United States, and then there's the rest of the world, where human nature and history is an unbroken string of nobility, compassion, and tolerance. Whatever was bad, we did it worse; whatever was good, we sought to kill. Whatever we accomplished was stolen or overshadowed by our sins.

"The darker your view, the more you're enlightened."

Peter said...

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/toxic-masculinity-and-mass-murder/486983/

Christianity? Why, no. According to Atlantic Magazine's James Hamblin the problem is ... men. And their toxic masculinity. That's why Omar Mateen did it!

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/toxic-masculinity-and-mass-murder/486983/

So, when will it become more profitable (or at least more amusing, in a macabre way) to speculate on the motivations of those who seem so very desparately determined to find some poltically acceptable scapegoats, something other than the obvious, upon which responsibility for this murder may be pinned?

rcocean said...

Do Christians run the media, judiciary, the government, colleges, or the entertainment industry?

I'm puzzled as to what power these "Christians" have to make a "harmful atmosphere".

rcocean said...

NYT' Headline:

Moslem kills 50 gays in Orlando shootout.

Christians to Blame.

mockturtle said...

A verse from Isaiah [5:20] comes to mind:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.."

Terry said...

What will happen when the elite media discover that Christianity believes that Muhammad was a false prophet. Christ is the living word, the first and last, no more prophets after the crucifixion. Sorry Muslims!

Harold said...

"If the country were split in half with the Progressives and Muslims in one half and the Conservatives and Christians on the other, guess which half I'd rather live in???!!!""

Think of the last time the Democrats tried to split the nation in half. If they had been successful, would you rather live in the Democrat run south or the Republican run north?

tim in vermont said...

Old joke : Muslims fear backlash from tomorrow's bombing.

New joke: Christians fear backlash from next Islamic terror attack.

Big Mike said...

As of 4:05 PM CDT, 65 of you are certifiably insane. Twenty-one of you dangerously so. This from an atheist.

Fernandinande said...

A homosexual mulsim Democrat walks into a bar and starts shooting white people.

The bartender says "Gosh darn those Christians."

(A few days ago it was Republicans.)

Terry said...

Blogger coupe said...
Answer: Yes, starting in 1533.

It's not just a Christian thing. In every culture that I can think of, other than ours (and ours changed within my lifetime), homosexuality was defined by actions, not the mystical mental thing we call 'orientation'. Oscar Wilde was not imprisoned for being a homosexual, but for acts of "gross indecency."

Roman Law and the Banning of ‘Passive’ Homosexuality
In ancient Rome, there was no vocabulary to distinguish between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Sexuality instead was defined by behavioural mannerisms, whether active or passive, in both gay and straight relationships. Roman society had a patriarchal system in which the gender role of the male was the primary authority, emphasized by the “active” masculinity as a symbol of power and status.
Men were free to have intercourse with men, but it was considered acceptable only in accordance with the law of Lex Scantinia, a Roman law that was created to penalise any male citizen of high status for taking a willing role in passive sexual behaviour. It was essentially a rule to police the masculine nature of an individual by enforcing that a freeborn Roman citizen takes the “top” or “active” role in sex. Failure to do so would bring his name and family reputation into disrepute or infamia (a loss of legal or social standing).
From a societal perspective, to be “passive” or “submissive”, threatened the very fabric of masculinity, with feminine traits, submission and passive mannerisms being an act of the lower class and slaves.
Same sex intercourse with prostitutes, slaves or war captives was considered totally acceptable as it did not threaten a freeborn’s masculinity as long as the Roman citizen took the active role in penetration. Same sex activity amongst soldiers of equal status was punishable by death.
Although the Lex Scantinia and the enforcement of the law is mentioned in several ancient sources, such as 227 BC where Gaius Scantinius Capitolinus was put on a Lex trial for sexually molesting the son of Marcus Claudius Marcellus; the full legality and provisions of the law are still unclear.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/roman-law-and-banning-passive-homosexuality-00832?nopaging=1

Meeeea said...

Gays can finally come out in the military now.

So why is the USAF spending advertising money to recruit from a faith that seems to be hostile to gays?

The ad I'm referring to is on page in this: https://issuu.com/isnacreative/docs/ih_mar-apr_16

Do they spend money on all faiths and sexual orientations to advertise for chaplains? Maybe they do, just asking, as this is the first one I've seen. And maybe it's not even paid by the govt, maybe each faith does their own recruiting, IDK. Or maybe Christians need not apply since they are perceived to be the new anti-gay.

AprilApple said...

Miriam found proof that radical Islam is just a figment of our imaginations! looksee! - an Unknown wahckadoodle Christian (who isn'treally a Christian, btw) - who has zero influence and zero name recognition - but it's the proof we've all been waiting for!



Is it any wonder Miriam supports a corrupt power obsessed sociopath?

Terry said...

Blogger Meeeea said...
Gays can finally come out in the military now.

So why is the USAF spending advertising money to recruit from a faith that seems to be hostile to gays?

The ad I'm referring to is on page in this: https://issuu.com/isnacreative/docs/ih_mar-apr_16

If it is the ad on pg. 35, it says it was paid for by USAF.

SGT Ted said...

The leftwings denial, transference and projection in this matter has reached mental illness levels.

mockturtle said...

@Harold Think of the last time the Democrats tried to split the nation in half. If they had been successful, would you rather live in the Democrat run south or the Republican run north?

Umm..my answer to my own question would be the Conservative/Christian half. And, likewise, the Republican north.

Saint Croix said...

"Have Christians Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?"

It's a great question because you would only ask that question if you are certain that Christians would not blow up your building for asking such a question.

Attack Christians! They're peaceful and won't kill us!

See also Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.

WVFarmLife said...

The gay community, in general, is intolerant. They are striving to create a world in the West where opposition to the gay community and any of its demands is considered unacceptable behavior and a cause for putting people out of business or getting them fired or excluding them from being educated.

If there isn't room for people to verbally express their opposition to the gay community and its ideas then we are not in a democracy. To the degree to which this is true we live a totalitarian state.

And I say this without being myself opposed to the gay community. I don't have a history of being anti-gay. Or at least what was meant by 'anti-gay' in the United States that I grew up in. And yet I'm certain that what I've just said is more than enough to make me the hated enemy and unemployable in many contexts.

If you look at the Christian community in the United States, well first of all it's not one thing but a multiplicity of different beliefs. Some Christian sects are very tolerant of the gay community and even approve of them. Others ignore the issue. And many are opposed to the gay community, but their opposition is almost entirely verbal.

If you look at the Muslim community in the United States, well first of all it seems to be uniform. Virtually all Muslims are verbally opposed to the gay community. Most of them don't believe that gays should have the right to express their viewpoint. Many believe that gays should be discriminated against by the government. And many are in favor of violence against gays, although I suspect that only a small percentage of Muslims within the United States would admit to that, although in the world outside the United States it's possibly even a majority of Muslims that would admit to approving of violence against gays.

Taking this in to account and what just happened, then this article in the New York Times demonstrates that the gay community is a very ugly thing. It says that the unifying spirit of the gay community is hate. And they would rather make this about hating the Christians in the United States than actually addressing what just happened and why.

Beach Brutus said...

What is a Harmful Atmosphere? ... is it as harmful as anal intercourse that is the primary cause of propagating HIV and AIDS that has killed 40 million to date and has 40 million more infected?

Jim at said...

A gay, Democrat Muslim shoots up a nightclub and it's somehow the fault of right-wing Christians.

It's only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan. And the left will have no one to blame but themselves.

Night Owl said...

Asking this question at this time comes off as the NYT exploiting a crisis in order to engage in one of the left's favorite past times: attacking the Christian right. It is also clearly an attempt to shift the focus away from the real and present danger of increasing Muslim terrorism, and avoid having to discuss the failures of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's role as Sec. of State.

It's the blatant partisanship of the NYT that makes the question so offensive.

ndspinelli said...

The only way Dems will blame ISIS is if they attack their convention and kill Dems.

Sebastian said...

@Lileks: "this is just the worst country ever. There's the United States, and then there's the rest of the world" Except that the worst country ever must be better than all others, since even Mateen Sr. preferred to be here rather than in some Muzzie country, and it is of course unfathomable for illegal aliens to be forced to leave this hellhole.

Terry said...

Blogger ndspinelli said...
The only way Dems will blame ISIS is if they attack their convention and kill Dems.

No, they will blame (in order) the NRA, Republicans, and a vague, but powerful and uniquely American, climate of hate and exclusion.

mockturtle said...

Terry, they would first blame Trump and his 'harsh, racist' rhetoric. :-(

Big Mike said...

It's only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan. And the left will have no one to blame but themselves.

@Jim, and they'll blame Christian Republicans even then.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Here's an idea.

Why don't you ask them and leave your own fucking prejudices out of it.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm neither Christian nor gay... yet, but it seems obvious to me that many gays are purposefully creating a hurtful atmosphere for Christians, and many have no qualms about it.

I think this qualifies as the dumbest comment of all time.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It is interesting to see what the NY Times readership looks like. I'll bet the number of Christians is below 10%.

Although that number would go up on the days that you read it (as I suspect you do), if you were actually a Christian.

Terry said...

Communist American Lee Harvey Oswald kills Kennedy because Kennedy is mean to Castro. Who is responsible? A climate of hate + vast, right wing conspiracy.

Terry said...

Non-Christians love to tell people that they aren't Christian enough. Bigoted and hateful.
"if you were actually a Christian."

wildswan said...

The NYT (which is sinking toward oblivion after 150 years) is using its last precious days on earth to insult the Christian church and try to drive it from the public square after 2000 years. Its brilliant strategy is to say that Muslims (one billion) and Christians (one billion) are common joint enemies of American gays (2% of 300 million) and the NYT. Luckily Christians will not believe that. The NYT does not define us or understand us. And the NYT won't be around long enough to get our rights away - a task Hitler and Stalin also undertook. Though more competent totalitarians they also failed at it.







n.n said...

Trump ... 'harsh, racist' rhetoric

The alleged rhetoric is not limited to racism. The [class] diversity advocates project their support for [class] diversity policies to Trump, including their militant defense of racist, sexist, etc. policies.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Non-Christians love to tell people that they aren't Christian enough. Bigoted and hateful.
"if you were actually a Christian."


Well, if he's doing such a bad job of it, maybe he should stop trying so hard.

Terry said...

"Well, if he's doing such a bad job of it, maybe he should stop trying so hard."
Is this more of your authentic frontier gibberish, R&B?

Moneyrunner said...

The real news from yesterday is that the Generalissimo of Liberalism – the NY Times – thinks that Christians are responsible for the massacre in Orlando.

Make no mistake, this is the way that the rest of the MSM thinks. This is what the people who bring you their funhouse-mirrors version of reality at ABCNBCCBSNPR and its local affiliates in cities and towns across the nation believe. This is what the editors of the local paper who want to be the JV NY Times believe. Keep in mind the Prime Directive: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM AND IT'S THE FAULT OF ANYONE ON THE RIGHT!

If anyone wonders how a nutbag like Hitler can take over a country and convince enough people that Jews should be wiped out, this is how it's done. The big lie will always find adherents because it gives them a good excuse for eradicating the class of people they hate viscerally.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm not going to get into it with you, Terry. Your conversational equivalent of quicksand is really not my cup of tea.

Moneyrunner said...

Note that the leading lights of the established churches are rushing to the nearest reporter to tell them how responsible for the murders their parishioners are. This is virtue signaling on an industrial scale.

Moneyrunner said...

The Liberal culture has decreed that sex is a social construct and you can't tell someone with balls that it's a male if it feels female. that's bigoted. But you can deny someone's religion even when he tells you that he's a Muslim and is busy killing his quota of infidels before going to heaven and deflowering his 72 virgins.

Liberalism gives people special powers.

n.n said...

Moneyrunner:

To be fair, the atheist Jewish communists were a threat to the German socialists and native German people. Hitler lost the high ground when he engaged in [class] diversity advocacy to establish superior (i.e. affirmative) rights for a class of people and implicated all Jews, both atheist and religious, in a conspiracy, and then he went off the deep end when he carried out mass abortion (i.e. "final solution") and clinical cannibalism of enemies and innocents alike.

Moneyrunner said...

Now that the “Al-Qaeda core” are decimated (Obama told us so) we have to be ready to attack the Presbyterians who are not on-board with sodomy as a sacrament. Keep in mind that some of them are, so we have to be careful to kill just the ones who are not. I think we have one or two on this comment section who have the insight to tell the difference.

Terry said...

"Blogger Moneyrunner said...
The Liberal culture has decreed that sex is a social construct and you can't tell someone with balls that it's a male if it feels female. that's bigoted."
Actually, Moneyrunner, I think that what they are trying to do is break the link between sex, which is biological, and gender, which has both a biological and a social component. They want to remove the biological component from gender, which is farcical. You will have men who menstruate and bear children, and women who get testicular cancer.

This isn't an argument they are making, they want to do this by force of law. Law created by political appointees in the Justice Department, in the final year of a failed administration that views the American People as its enemy.

Moneyrunner said...

Supporting the idea sex-specific bathrooms is only a small step from massacring gay Americans. And if someone does massacre gay American it's the fault of the bathroom bigots. Makes sense to me. You?

Moneyrunner said...

"I think this qualifies as the dumbest comment of all time." Oscar Wilde could not have improved on this. Truly timeless. Where do you come up with these bon mots?

narciso said...

the story gets more interesting,

http://www.wsj.com/articles/orlando-shooter-traveled-to-saudi-arabia-on-trip-organized-by-nyu-center-1466122172

Laslo Spatula said...

"Dad, now that you're Gay will you still come to Church with Mom and me?"

"Lance... I have started going to another church that is more... 'friendly' to Gays."

"But Mom says the Bible says Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner. Why can't you go to OUR Church like you used to?"

"That's a good question, son. I'm just more comfortable at the new church I am attending."

"But what does the Pastor say?"

"Well, at my new church the Pastor is Gay, We have pasta and talk on Wednesdays."

"So do you and Mom now believe in different Gods?"

"No, Lance. We believe in the same God, I just believe in that God when he isn't so judgmental."

"So which version of God should I follow?"

"Son, that is for you to decide. Just keep in mind that your Mom's God can get angry about things, that's all."

"I don't want a God that is mad at me: I masturbate to Porn."

"God forgives you, my son."

"Which God, Dad? Yours or Mom's?"

"Your Mom's God doesn't like Porn, I think. I think he thinks it's demeaning."

"Demeaning? Didn't the girls get paid for it?"

"I believe they did, son."

"I don't get it, Dad. Didn't they get paid to get filmed having a cock shoved in their ass?"

"I think they did, son."

"So: gay men and porn stars: is God upset about the Ass?"

""Lance..."

"Because then can't we just say God doesn't want any cock in an ass, no matter what sex everyone is?"

"I don't think that is God's main Message..."

"It just seems like everything comes down to Ass, Dad."

"Maybe it does, Lance: maybe it does..."


I am Laslo.

tim in vermont said...

Covet not thy neighbor's wife, nor his ass.

Laslo Spatula said...

If my 9:04 Comment was a comment in the NY Times Althouse would front-page it.

I'm not a NYT guy.

I am Laslo.

Terry said...

"I think this qualifies as the dumbest comment of all time."
R&B is not very articulate. He falls back on canned phrases when he cannot think of how to say what he wants to say.

cyrus83 said...

The poll doesn't have any option to say no on the merits. There are two reasons that the NYT's question is idiotic:

- Christians are not a monolith. Odds are if one Christian denomination takes a particular stand on something, there's probably another denomination somewhere that takes the opposite side. On this issue, the NYT seems to be ignoring the considerable number of Christians and denominations that are quite welcoming of gays. The idea is as vacuous as saying Europeans create a harmful atmosphere for refugees, it's way too general.

- Had Christian attitudes in general toward sexual mores not changed substantially in the last several decades, odds are unlikely we'd have an atmosphere where most major cities put on a pride parade this month and where gay culture is somewhat out in the open (though the darkest parts are still kept in the closet with the skeletons). If anything, those with the name of Christian are responsible for creating the current tolerant atmosphere, whether actively by campaigning for it or passively by accepting it.

Terry said...

"Have Christians created a harmful environment for gays?"
Let's not get too comfortable, now.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household."
Matt. 10:34-36

Rusty said...

"Have Christians created a harmful environment for gays?"

From what I've been able to observe Muslim men create a harmful environment for gays.
And anybody else who isn't a Muslim man.

Terry said...

I was looking at nominally right wing terrorism. The murder of Tiller, the abortion doctor, the killer Eric Rudolph, And of course the McVeigh-Nichols death crew, and I realized that they were all from blue collar, hardscrabble backgrounds. I can't think of a single right wing terrorist who came from a wealthy background or even finished college. The left usually says that these right wing terrorists were religiously motivated, but their religion wasn't really a big part of their lives. They weren't like regular church goers, not even Roeder (Tiller's killer) or Robert Dear (another anti-abortion shooter).
The Muslim terrorists seem to come from a greater variety of economic classes, yet all claimed religious justification as a first cause for their murders. So what I'm seeing is a consistency between Islamic terrorists claiming a religious motivation for their murders, regardless of social class, while right wing terrorists tend to be uniformly working class and if they claim one consistent motivation, it is hatred of the government, especially of the federal government.

EMD said...

I think all Miriams are nut cases.