Can we please call the burning of St. Paul man's personal Jesus a hate crime?

WTF? (2.00 / 2)

The decisions by the zoning board and City Council had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.  The statue was in violation of a city ordinance due to its location, and not because of its religious nature. Are you saying that the decisions were actually based on religious discrimination?  Are you saying that because this was a religious statue that zoning laws should not apply?

As far as the evidence goes, Mr. Pham spent his 15 minutes talking about how he loves America.  If he had evidence to present, maybe he should have used his time to present it.  This isn't a court trial - its a zoning variance hearing.  It really shouldn't take more than 15 minutes.
As far as the neighborhood petition goes, that apparently is not something that goes into consideration.  Again, his time would have been better spent presenting evidence that actually might have made a difference.  Mr. Pham lost his appeal because he did a poor job at his hearing.  To win, he would have had to either shown that the statue was not in violation, or that there was a valid reason a variance should be granted.  He did neither.  I don't know how you get from that to religious discrimination.

As far as the burning of the statue goes, is there any evidence that it was, in fact, a hate crime?  That is, was the statute damaged because of Mr. Pham's religion?  The statute was previously vandalized with paint balls, suggesting the work of kids and not a hate crime.  Do we know that this is different?  Are you suggesting the City Council's actions are somehow related to the burning of the statue?

---

by: Dan @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 20:17:15 PM UTC

Double Standard (4.00 / 1)

Please re-read the story for better comprehension, Dan.

1. I am calling the burning of a statue of a religious icon an hate crime.

2. I am reporting that Pham feels he should have been granted an exception for his statue since other non-religious structures were being granted exception.

3. I am calling exclusion of expressions of Christian faith from public school extra-curricular activities a double-standard since both from experience and new reporting nationwide it is clear that faiths and beliefs other than Christianity are tolerated and even encouraged in public school extra-curricular activities.

i'm not sure where you got that other stuff.  Maybe you are confusing this article with another.

bluecollardaughter

---

by: BlueCollar Daughter @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 21:24:08 PM UTC

ok (2.00 / 2)

1. I am calling the burning of a statue of a religious icon an hate crime.

But you are also complaining that no one else is calling this a hate crime.  Under Minnesota law, though, a hate crime requires that the crime (in this case, criminal damage to property) be motivated by the property owner's race, religion, etc.  See Minn. Stat. section 609.595.  If, for example, this was kids screwing around, as with the paint ball vandalism, then it would not be a hate crime.  You may think its still a hate crime, but the law says otherwise.  

It may be the case that the police and the media and whoever else you think missed the story are also waiting for the facts before calling this a hate crime.  Some people (myself included) like to take the law and the facts into account before drawing conclusions.  Maybe that's not the way you operate.

2. I am reporting that Pham feels he should have been granted an exception for his statue since other non-religious structures were being granted exception.

You also seem to be arguing that he got discriminated against because of his religion.  But as you also note, he didn't present his evidence and just wasted his allotted time.  If his argument was based on other non-religious structures being granted exceptions, he should have made that argument.  

3. I am calling exclusion of expressions of Christian faith from public school extra-curricular activities a double-standard since both from experience and new reporting nationwide it is clear that faiths and beliefs other than Christianity are tolerated and even encouraged in public school extra-curricular activities.

First, really?  Are you really complaining about bias against Christianity in this country?  That is just flat out embarrassing to see on a progressive website.  We have gay kids committing suicide at public schools where non-supportive GLBT policy is shaped by Christian "values," and you are taking the time to write about a teacher that overreached and wouldn't let a 10 year old sing his Jesus song?  

Moving on and accepting your point, why are you talking about this zoning case then?  It has nothing to do with public schools.  The decision had nothing to do with religion.  He built something that violated the ordinance.  He was told to move it to another part of his property.  He appealed, but didn't present any relevant evidence.  His appeal was therefore denied.  Again, I don't understand why this is being discussed if this diary is about anti-Christian discrimination in schools.

i'm not sure where you got that other stuff.  Maybe you are confusing this article with another.  

I don't think so, but its possible since I actually read up on this case and the St. Paul zoning appeal process.  That goes back to my first point about taking the facts into account before drawing conclusions.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 06:35:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll condemn damage as an act of hatred (4.00 / 2)

I'll condemn the damage to the statue regardless of the reason, and hate crimes are hate crimes regardless of the target, even when the target is in the majority. However, Dan has a valid point. I basically know what is in the post and the prior comment, and the paintballs do raise reasonable doubt that this was more than just random vandalism. That said, if I had to guess, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

I do have to ask a question that seems obvious to me. Why didn't Mr. Pham just move the statue back further from the bluff to be in compliance with the ordinance? That doesn't excuse whoever tried to set a fire, but that seems like the obvious question regardless of what he has built too close to the bluff.

I did look at the "Atheist teens" and "too much Jesus" links. The 5th grader was allowed to perform his song, as he should have been, since it was extracurricular. That looks like one administrator not understanding how the law works in those matters. For a real double-standard, look at the end of the article about the teens in the atheist club.

There are students who do not want their parents to know they belong to an atheist club. "I tell my mother I'm at Ocean Club," one girl said.

Another member said her father, who is in the Navy, would be angry and disappointed in her. "He keeps a roof over my head," she said. "I wouldn't want to fight with him." She asked that her name not be used for fear it would hurt her father. "I don't want us to grow apart over this," she said.

Sounds like gay kids who have reasonable fears of getting kicked out of their homes if they come out. Ever hear of kids who can't tell anyone they're in a Christian club? It's probably happened, but which would we rather take our chances with?

---

by: ericf @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 21:30:08 PM UTC

Ever hear of... (4.00 / 1)

Have I ever heard of kids who can't tell anyone they're in a Christian club?  Well, as a matter of fact, yes.  I spent most of grad school having to be a "covert Christian" because every time I stated my faith to a professor, my intelligence and ability to be a sincere academic researcher was suddenly in question.

Want more examples?

I went to my child's public school "winter concert" where students sang songs about Hannukah, Kwanzaa and love for the earth.  They were strictly forbidden (as detailed in a note sent home from school) to sing any Christmas caroles of any sort except for "Jingle Bells," which has nothing to do with Christian Christmas.

And how about this. Every time I, a writer and politically progressive individual of Christian faith, blog anything in support of Christian rights (versus blogging about the twisted quasi-Christian foibles of the RWNJ who give Christianity a bad name), I am pounced upon as a zealot.

Let me tell you, it's no easy thing to be a Christian in this world neither.


bluecollardaughter

---

by: BlueCollar Daughter @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 23:32:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What a sticky wicket (4.00 / 1)

You're right. This is such a complex issue. The religious right galls me so much, I have to guard against being as judgmental as them. I guess the fear is that if we let a little bit of a majority religion creep in, it will overtake the school. Maybe. I'm not sure what the answer is. I know I let Muslim kids have a few minutes to pray. Usually the one or two who actually do are dedicated kids in all aspects, so I don't mind. I bet I would look on it kind of weirdly if someone non-Muslim wanted to pray. Then again, it is not really their tradition to pray during the day. I do know that I once put up a fake Christmas tree in the back of my room one year because some other teacher said I couldn't. This was also the first year I didn't dress up as a wizard for halloween. For 8 years I'd dress up and do "magic" with math:-) I know that is considered Pagan in some places. If I know a kid is devout Christian, I always apologize if I slip and say "Good God" or whatever.

Bottom line is I support the kid, whatever they bring to the class.

It's funny, all the wing nuts are afraid of Sharia law taking over, which most progressives think is idiotic. Progressives are afraid of Christianity taking over. I think that fear might have some foundation. We need progressive Christians. You know, Christians who follow the teachings of Christ.

---

by: Alec @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 00:47:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

authentic followers (3.00 / 1)

Alec, that is so much more insightful and well-said than just about any article on the subject I have read in a long time. I wish more thinking people would understand the importance of your last line, "Christians who follow the teachings of Christ." Thanks for that.

bluecollardaughter

---

by: BlueCollar Daughter @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:08:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 1)

Let me tell you, it's no easy thing to be a Christian in this world neither.

Wow it sure isn't.  Being stuck with only "Jingle Bells"?  Having to call the Christmas concert a "winter concert"?  How do you even get through the day?  Its worse than prison!  Boy, I sure don't know what those suicidal gay kids are complaining about - they have no idea about he suffering you must go through as a Christian.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 06:43:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL at you (0.00 / 0)

You just made Blue Collar Daughter's point.  If you had written the above "boo hoo for you" comment about her being gay or Wiccan or something (rather than Christian), it would have been seen and probably removed as hate language.  

---

by: spad2972 @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 15:21:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (0.00 / 1)

If the perceived discrmination against gays or Wiccans was as trivial and lame as the examples Blue Collar Daughter was complaining about, my reaction would be the same.  Except that we weren't talking about trivial discrimination against gays - we were talking about gay kids being driven to suicide by Christian bigotry.  My "boo hoo" wasn't to mock religious intolerance - it was to criticize the ignorance and selfishness of Blue Collar Daughter.  To compare the discrimination gays face to getting stuck with Jingle Bells at the "winter" concert is downright pathetic.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 16:54:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Afraid not (0.00 / 0)

No.  You are talking about gay discrimination.  She in no way implied that this situation was in any way comparable to the many examples of intolerance found in this country.  

Blue Collar Daughter's initial post was only suggesting that zoning rules should be enforced uniformily.  If you have evidence proving that all the other structures close to the bluff have secured the proper waivers than spit it out man.

She was also questioning why the burning of a Jesus statue in someone's yard is not being called a hate crime.  Something that would most certainly be suggested had the statue been of significance to another religion or minority group.  Once again, if you have information proving this is not a hate crime, spit it out.

I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to suggest that their beliefs should be treated with the same level of courtesy as anyone elses.  Or that rules and laws should be applied uniformily.    

You appear to be using this discussion string as an opportunity to go beyond disagreeing with an aspect of the story.  As I see it, you are using it to criticize a person's beliefs and their writing ability which is just plain wrong.  

---

by: spad2972 @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 20:17:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 1)

No.  You are talking about gay discrimination.  She in no way implied that this situation was in any way comparable to the many examples of intolerance found in this country.  

Her comment complaining about having to sing Jingle Bells was a direct response to a comment about anti-gay discrimination.

Blue Collar Daughter's initial post was only suggesting that zoning rules should be enforced uniformily.  If you have evidence proving that all the other structures close to the bluff have secured the proper waivers than spit it out man.

As Blue Collar Daughter is making the suggestion that the rules were not enforced uniformily, it is incumbent upon her to supply the evidence to support that suggestion.

The statue was put up in violation of the zoning ordiance.  The St. Paul code provides that a property owner can seek a zoning variance based on guidelines set forth in the City Code (I have cited them in another comment).   Although the property owner apparently had some evidence of other non-conforming structures (which doesn't really help looking at the code) he spent his time at the hearing talking about how he loves America and presenting signatures from his neighbors, which wouldn't help his cause.  Based on his failure to meet the variance requirements, his variance request was denied.  

She was also questioning why the burning of a Jesus statue in someone's yard is not being called a hate crime.  Something that would most certainly be suggested had the statue been of significance to another religion or minority group.  Once again, if you have information proving this is not a hate crime, spit it out.

Again, based on the law and the facts, it isn't clear that this is a hate crime.  The only evidence in the case is that the previous vandalism of the statue was not a hate crime.  If Blue Collar Daughter believes this is a hate crime and that people should be reporting that, it is incumbent upon her to provide the evidence to back that up.

I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to suggest that their beliefs should be treated with the same level of courtesy as anyone elses.  Or that rules and laws should be applied uniformily.  

Neither do I.  But that isn't what happened here.  Blue Collar Daughter has made baseless accusations of religious discrimination.  If you are going to make the claims she is making, you need to back them up.  

You appear to be using this discussion string as an opportunity to go beyond disagreeing with an aspect of the story.  As I see it, you are using it to criticize a person's beliefs and their writing ability which is just plain wrong.  

I am not criticizing her beliefs.  I am criticizing her disregard of the law and the facts.  I am critizing her baseless accusations and her ignorance.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 21:27:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just as I thought (0.00 / 0)

You got nothing then.  So you use my comment as an opportunity to further bloviate.  

You know I just took a look at your past comments and found one 2 and a whole lot of 1 ratings in the most recent three pages.

1 = troll

Those are the facts.

---

by: spad2972 @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 22:47:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 1)

Wow, you signed up yesterday to respond to my comments and are calling me a troll?  Awesome.

Its not me who's got nothing - its Blue Collar Daughter.  She is the one making accusations that she can't back up.  Seriously, she is ignoring the facts and the law and smearing the City Council, and I've got nothing because I don't have any evidence to refute her baseless claims?

Hey, when did you stop beating your wife?

---

by: Dan @ Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 00:44:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (0.00 / 0)

I've been visiting this website since it was called MNBlue.  I was so disturbed that someone could write such disparaging trash against a person who wrote her personal opinon to a diary that I felt obligated to respond.  

I have seen you comment on a number of posts in the past and I think you need some clarification.  I will try to use simple words.

This site is for people who feel they are politically progressive and would like a place to express their OPINIONS.  Noone gets paid for doing it.  It is not a court of law nor a Newspaper.  People are free to post their opinion while others are free to respectfully disagree with that opinion.

I think many of your comments are disrespectful, degradiing, and not condusive to people having an exchange of ideas.

Comments like  

Hey, when did you stop beating your wife?

certainly do nothing but reinforce that opinion.

Yes, I did imply you were a troll.  here's the definition I am refering to in my implication (from Urban dictionary)

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

---

by: spad2972 @ Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 01:14:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

In saying "when did you stop beating your wife" the point that I am making is that the questions that you are asking me are unfair.  I can't believe you didn't know that, but since you apparently did not and probably won't listen to me, I will direct you to these links:

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/lo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

To be clear, I am not suggesting you beat your wife.  I am saying that your argument - that I need to disprove BCD's baseless and libelous claims - is akin to asking the loaded question "when did you stop beating your wife."

This is a progressive website, and the reason I objected to BCD's diary is becasue it wasn't progressive at all.  She made unsupported and baseless allegations of religious discrimination by elected DFL officials.  I see truth and accuracy as progressive values.  Libelous allegations, like those made by BCD, are not. Her decision to ignore the facts and the law made her piece more appropriate for Fox News than a progressive web site.  And her complaints about having to sing Jingle Bells at the "winter" concert seems like something right out of Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck's shows.  

I've been visiting this website since it was called MNBlue.

Of course you have.  

---

by: Dan @ Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 02:42:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Common Sense (0.00 / 0)

When speaking to someone who I do not know, I tend to avoid using phrases that are blatently offensive (even if they have some obscure non-offensive meaning).  If I do inadvertantly offend someone, I find it most helpful to apologize rather than imply that they are somehow stupid for not understanding me.

I had hoped to help you understand that it is possible to respectfully disagree with someone.  That titling comments with WTF or LOL is hurtful and demeaning.  Clearly I have failed.

I'm sure you have some snarky reply but I am done.  I am going to bed and tomorrow I will wake up and apologize to my wife and children for spending so much time that I should have spent with them on this Sisyphean task.

---

by: spad2972 @ Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 05:56:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Compare (0.00 / 1)

Downside to joining gay club:  physical violence, getting kicked out of home.

Downside to joining Christian club: intelligence and ability to be a sincere academic researcher was suddenly in question.

I also have to say that it seems kind of wierd that you are discussing your Christian faith with your professors.  The only reason I could think to do that is if your faith actually affects your work.  

Every time I, a writer and politically progressive individual of Christian faith, blog anything in support of Christian rights . . I am pounced upon as a zealot

I'm not calling you a zealot.  I pointing out that your implication that the zoning decision was religiously motivated was false.  Maybe zealotry is what caused you to get the facts (and the law) wrong and make false accusations.  I don't know, so that isn't what I'm saying.

My other point is that your perceived anti-Christian bias pales in comparison to the bias faced by non-Christians and groups such as gays who face Christian-based discrimination.  To claim that you are being persecuted as a Christian in light of everything else that goes on is extremely ignorant.  Drop the persecution complex and go educate yourself.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 17:12:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Variance (0.00 / 0)

I'd like to inquire about bluecollardaughter's point about the variance; what are the criteria to secure a variance from the City of St Paul?  If there are objective criteria, well then the City Council was just following the law in it's denial of the variance.  If there is no objective criteria to determine if a variance should be granted, then the Council is subject to scrutiny and question about why they denied this particular variance but not others.  Beyond an application for a variance, what sort of evidence should one have to produce to secure a criteria-free variance?

 

---

by: BeckyWeinhandl @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 00:13:59 AM UTC

St. Paul Code section 61.601 (4.00 / 1)

The board of zoning appeals and the planning commission shall have the power to grant variances from the strict enforcement of the provisions of this code upon a finding that:

(a) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code;

(b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner;

(c) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city;

(d) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area;

(e) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property; and

(f) The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.

In granting a variance, the board shall make written findings stating the grounds upon which the variance is justified. Hardship as described in the finding set out in subsection (a) above shall include the need for access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:10:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stay Classy (0.00 / 0)

Spad, I can't say that I am surprised by your downrating all of my other comments, but I don't understand the "2" for this one.  I respond to another comment requesting information about the standards used to permit variances with a verbatim quotation of the relevant city code, and you downrate me?  I realize from our discussion that  the actual facts and the applicable law aren't things that really interest you.  But wouldn't you at least concede that the correct legal standard for permitting variance would be relevant in a discussion about the denial of a variance?    

---

by: Dan @ Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 03:16:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

First they came for the Christians? (4.00 / 1)

A hate crime is a hate crime, and if the act is shown to be based on a protected status, then its a hate crime.

The problem I have is that when someone feels that something should be a hate crime but can't be proven in court (and the laws have pretty strict standards about that), they feel that their group is being oppressed. I see this all the time in the Pagan community. "The state won't recognize my complex 7-person polyamorous relationship as having legal rights. This is an attack against Pagans everywhere! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

But do I have a special place in my gall bladder about Christians doing this? You bet I do. Sorry to tell you, but I don't buy the lie about the oppressed Christian majority. John Whiteside puts it better than I ever could

Consider the plight of the modern American Christian.

Here in the US, Christians make up 77% of the population. Their numbers include the president (who often talks about the importance of his Christian beliefs in his life and in his role as the head of government), most of our elected legislative representatives, and most of our state governors. The country shuts down to observe almost all of the major Christian holidays. The right to practice Christianity (or any other religion) is part of our Constitution, and every Sunday, millions of Christians all over the country worship freely and without harassment. Nearly every city in the county that has any kind of church has a Christian church (with special tax treatment!). Legislative sessions are opened with Christian prayers. Christian political groups raise lots of money to elect still more Christians to office, Christian youth organizations exist in schools all over the country, some Christians go door to door to recruit more Christians.

How, I ask you, can any group of people be expected to exist in such an oppressed, marginalized state?

You say you're progressive and tolerant and based on your well-written and thoughtful diaries, I have no reason to doubt that. And if you're put in the position of being the sane Christian while being lumped in with the crazies, then I feel for you. Because it sucks to when people who identify as a member of your group go out and do unconscionable things in the name of your group.

But I figure you'd be used to that. You're a Democrat. :)

---

by: jnleareth @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 14:16:06 PM UTC

Short-time reader, first-time commenter (0.00 / 0)

I just couldn't keep this thought to myself.  And since the purpose of blogs is to provide a forum where people are not only NOT discouraged from airing thoughts, but are actively encouraged, I am going to give it a whirl.

To my detriment, probably, I believe in the freedom of religion.  I believe in tolerance.  What you pray to in the privacy of your own home or in a peaceful gathering of like-minded individuals is your own damn business.  If it does not infringe on my personal freedoms, go for it, I say.  

But expecting (nay, demanding) tolerance does not give you or anyone the right to get angry when others express an opinion about the religion they tolerate that YOU practice.

One of Blue Collar Daughter's comments to her own post hit me like nails on a chalk-board:

"Have I ever heard of kids who can't tell anyone they're in a Christian club?  Well, as a matter of fact, yes.  I spent most of grad school having to be a "covert Christian" because every time I stated my faith to a professor, my intelligence and ability to be a sincere academic researcher was suddenly in question."

At first blush, I might express outrage that anyone would think less of someone because of how they chose to conduct themselves in their personal lives.  BUT I looked again.  This wasn't judgment based on personal-life conduct, this was judgment based on a set of beliefs.  And since "beliefs" in an academic setting are (or at least should be) based on logic and fact and thoughtful discussion, it really shouldn't be a surprise that you have been and probably continue to be judged by academia and intellectuals.  

What someone can assume of you, blue collar daughter, when you declare yourself a Christian is, at the very least, the fundamental, base, core belief-system inherent to Christianity.

You, at the very least, believe: that there is a God who lives up in heaven that created everything and has a son who came to earth to die for our sins and if you don't believe in him you are also going to a hell God created but if you do believe in him you will spend eternity in heaven when you die.  

Essentially, that is the very least you believe.  And if you don't believe what I just wrote (with some accompanying caveats, perhaps), then you might want to reconsider whether or not you label yourself a Christian.

Anyway, my point is, by the very virtue of believing these aforementioned beliefs, you are undermining your own intelligence.  Why?  Because you are knowingly (because educated people SHOULD know) believing something that is for all intents and purposes false.  Can we prove beyond a doubt that there is no God?  Not yet.  But all evidence is pointing in that direction.  And even if there is a God, believing in a magical world we won't be able to perceive until we die (heaven and hell) is just crazy-talk.  So please don't be surprised or offended when your professors and other people who like facts and scientific studies think less of your intelligence and assume certain things about you because you are a Christian.

Again, I am all about tolerance.  I think you should have the ability to believe what is most likely false and to practice it with others in a peaceful setting.  But I still think you are less intelligent because of your beliefs.  And that is a right of mine.  I am an atheist.  That now gives you the right to make assumptions about me and to judge the state of my morality.  I am not saying you will, but I have no problem accepting that many people do.  That is what happens when you choose affiliation.  People think things about you, good and bad, depending on their affiliations.  Is it right or fun or pleasant?  Should people express their thoughts to you?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  But it IS inevitable.  So let's just all grow up and accept what is what.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts.

---

by: jnleareth @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 15:15:21 PM UTC

Great, now it looks like I have DID (0.00 / 0)

So I apparently left myself logged in on my computer and my wife commented on this without realizing that. So the first comment is me (jnleareth) and this one is Mrs. jnleareth. Sorry for the confusion.

---

by: jnleareth @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 15:27:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Context, speaker, and audience matter (3.00 / 1)

Most progressives are going to have a problem when you claim a dominant group is being oppressed. Christians are the dominant religion in our country. It's easier to get a non-white President than it will be to get a non-Christian. I have different faith than our dominant culture.

However, can't you guys separate the Religious Right movement from the individual? Can't you have some empathy for the personal experience of someone from a dominant group who has found themselves in the minority? It is pure, utter arrogance to think a believer can't offer anything to our movement. I do believe Jesus was a great teacher, community organizer, and fighter for social justice. Whether I believe he is a God is irrelevant if someone wants to follow his teachings.  

Dan, you have a wonderful way of debating people into taking the opposite view of you, just because of the decorum you present. We are probably 99% in line with each other, but I remember you convinced me to support Entenza for Governor because of your caustic approach.

I could say being a liberal in the military was quite annoying/frustrating. I wasn't oppressed or anything, but I can have empathy for someone who is in a minority within a majority.

---

by: Alec @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 17:47:38 PM UTC

Well (0.00 / 1)

Think of me as the bad cop to your good cop, Alec.  

I don't know what to tell you about Entenza.  My problem with him wasn't his politics, which were just fine, but his Richard Nixon-esque character.  So that's what I talked about.  It may have been negative, but the truth behind Entenza - and everything I said was true - was not pretty.  

I have a real problem with this diary because it accuses the St. Paul city council of discriminating against this guy because of his religion.  Looking at the facts (and the law) its clear that nothing of the sort happened.  If Blue Collar Daughter wasn't a regular here and a Democrat, this would be seen as a Republican smear.

And to complain about Jingle Bells at the winter concert?  With all the real discrimination that takes place in this world, that is what she is complaining about?  And in response to a comment about gay kids committing suicide because of bullying in schools?  Not feeling the empathy.  

 

---

by: Dan @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 22:00:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]