Homosexuals, famous for their tolerance and compassion, are now the perpetrators of a hate crimes in Provincetown, Massachusetts. Ironic when they are probably the ones who campaigned and organized the most intensely to get those laws on the books. You know the laws, the ones that tell us how to think. But have no fear, though they are perpetrating hate crimes against Jamaicans and straight people, the police won't prosecute them. So it's all good.
This article in the Boston Globe mentions the incidents- Jamaicans being subjected to racial slurs and straight people being called breeders.
More interestingly, the article describes a group called Knowthyneighbor.org that is "outing" the the opponents of gay "marriage". The names and addresses of those who signed petitions opposing gay marriage are being posted on the internet website so that homosexual rights activists can target them for hate.
The article specifically mentions the Catholic Church, a warning shot over the bow if you will:
The names of 43 Provincetown residents are listed on the website. Most of the petition signers attend St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church, which serves the Portuguese community and others in town. The Catholic Church has helped lead the fight against same-sex marriage.
One St. Peter's parishioner, Yvonne Cabral, was verbally accosted last Friday by Provincetown Magazine publisher Rick Hines after Hines learned that Cabral signed the petition, according to police.
Now the point of this article is not to expose the hypocrisy of the homosexual activists who are trying to intimidate those who don't support gay marriage and Jamaicans, remember this IS the Boston Globe. No, the point of the article is to warn the Catholic Church that it is in the sights of the activists and they will not rest until the Church has been silenced or destroyed in Massachusetts.
Remember that St. Peter the Apostle Church just burned down in January - a very strange coincidence if you ask me. Especially when knowthyneighbor.org has a special webpage dedicated to the sponsors of the petition. The Catholic Church receives special mention.. Found here.
16 comments:
The article doesn't describe hate crimes, Mary. Here's a quote: "The town, which prizes its reputation for openness and tolerance, is taking the concerns seriously, though police say they do not consider the incidents hate crimes."
The article--and I think it's a badly written attack on the gay community, frankly--deals with speech "crimes" only. (There's the suggestion of an incident of "manure smearing" which is briefly alluded to. It's a flaw in the article that this is not more fully described and documented, because if it did occur it very well might be a hate crime.) Some of the speech incidents seem loutish and definitely worthy of condemnation--random name-calling.
However, I do think that it is fair for the signers of anti-gay petitions--people who are attacking others with attempted constitutional amendments--to be publicly identified and publicly shamed. I don't have any sympathy for them. (Again, there's no evidence in the article that there were any physical confrontations of any sort--only the exercise of free speech.)
No one has a right to attack others anonymously, secretively, and without facing the people they are hurting. No one has a responsibility to be deferential toward someone who is trying to make it difficult for them to properly care for their loved ones.
Dear Sportin'
Here's another quote from the same article,
"Police Chief Ted Meyer plans to seek charges of disorderly conduct against Hines"
Also, it was the Police chief who reported on the more than one incident of "manure smearing." I assume you were refering to these Anti-Democratic manure smearers when you said, "No one has a right to attack others anonymously, secretively, and without facing the people they are hurting."
Hey Mary,
where on earth do you pick up these trolls?
The disorderly conduct charge is outrageous if all Hines did is yell at this woman. No evidence was presented that that was not the case.
Re: the manure smears. There's no information at all about who did them or who the victims were. That's why I said the article is flawed. The reporter clearly should have pursued that story, but she instead just places blame without any evidence or even any details. If we get beyond the rumor-mongering stage, there might be something there, like I said before. But for all we know those incidents could be unrelated or accidental. Who knows?
In any case, of course I didn't have things like manure smearing in mind when I made my statement, but you're absolutely correct to point out that it would also apply in cases like that.
What exactly is trollish about my comment, Hilary? That I express an opinion different from Mary's? And from yours?
What's Trollish Sport is that in order for you to spin the story you ignore relevant comments right in the story, ignored the fact that it was the chief of Police (in P-Town for crying out loud) who charged Hines with disorderly conduct, and ignored the fact that the evidence will be presented at trial but the Chief could not charge without probable cause.
You ignore the fact that the P-Town Manager Keith Bergman called Hines’ conduct “hate Language” which needed to be nipped in the bud because it could lead to “hate-motivated violence.”
You ignore the title of the article, “A new intolerance visits Provincetown” to make your case that nothing wrong was done by Hines or supporters of same-sex marriage.
You ignore the fact that actually smearing manure on someone’s house because they expressed their Constitutional right to sign an Initiative Petition is a hate-motivated crime, and you described this same political freedom, signing a petition to prevent the SJC from re-defining marriage as attacking those with same-sex attraction and as anti-gay. In other words, if we disagree with you, we’re anti-gay and attacking you. That’s what Trolls do, ignore the facts and take offense when someone presents a logical argument at odds with their feelings and beliefs.
Yeah, actually.
But I think an adequate comparison is when we get hate mail and (quite regular) death threats and worse from homosexuals and their fellow travellers at LifeSite.
I just wonder why they bother. You see, according to their own professed ideology, we should all be "tolerant" by which, I take them to mean, that we should live and let live and allow people to have whatever opinions they want and to publish them. (I've always thought that the tolerance doctrine, quite apart from it being logically self-refuting, if seriously held, would be the most efficient means of separating the whole world into little armed camps).
Now, we know perfectly well, that barring an intervention from the Holy Spirit, gays and the people who talk a lot of marxist blather about "gay rights" are people whom we will not be reaching. Whom we will never please with our opinions. We know that we will not change their minds.
And we don't care.
We post the information because it is true and the truth needs to be told. Whether it is believed by anyone, whether it 'changes hearts and minds' is not ours to worry about.
But I am continually puzzled by the need of these people to write us their screeds. They have their own sites where their doctrines are lauded and loved.
Do they really think they are going to change our opinions by threatening to commit sexual crimes on the children of the editor? (Yes. Often.)
Why do you, and people like you, insist on hanging out in places and rehashing ridiculous leftist plattitudes in places where your ideas are not only perfectly well known, but also clearly not interesting, not accepted, and will be refuted and mocked?
Honey, you aren't telling us anything we have not heard, from every source from the New York Times to the pulpit of the local Untarian Universalists. It is the common wisdom. So, congratulations! You've won the culture. But is there really anything in particular you think you will accomplish by coming in here and gibbering on reading from the Gay Rights/feminist/abortionist/new age/Globe and Mail/New York Times/Democrat Catechism?
Honey. We've. heard. it.
Can probably recite the cant as well as, or possibly even better than you can. It's cliches are everywhere to see and its slogans are well memorized by everyone.
Been there. Done that.
What astonishes me is the need to go into the pit and start stirring them up.
Do I go to the EGALE listserve and preach Christianity? Do I visit the NARAL chat room and start refuting the tenets of abortionism?
Something about not casting your pearls before swine springs to mind (yesyes...I'm sure I'm very 'hateful' spare me the trite accusations), something about knocking the dust of that town off your sandals and going somewhere the message will be heard and accepted...(Sorry, those were both biblical references.)
It always amazes me and strikes me as a religious fervour. Akin to that which Muslims employ when issuing fatwas against all Jews and Christians. Did you know that some mad mullah sent a letter to Pope Benedict exhorting him to abandon Christ and the Church?
What makes me wonder is why they think it is fun. What is to be gained?
The question, you understand was rhetorical. (That means, intended to illustrate a point and not one meant to be answered.)
But, just in case you missed the point, the answer is that the tolerance doctrine is a ruse, a red herring.
No one who professes an ideology is tolerant of dissent.
and tolerance for those who agree is not tolerance.
Hilary, one word...
Brilliant!
"Sportin' Life said...
What exactly is trollish about my comment, Hilary? That I express an opinion different from Mary's? And from yours?"
Excellent point! That seems to happen a lot around this blog. It's the standard response when either logic or the facts turns against them.
Leslie;
1. What 'seems to happen a lot around this blog'?
2. What is 'the standard response when either logic or the facts turns against them'?
3. To which 'logic and facts' are you referring?
4. And, finally, who is 'them'?
Are you trying to say that whenever someone disagrees with M. Alexander on this blog he or she is called a Troll?
The on-line Wikipedia definition of an internet troll is as follows:
"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.
Are you not familiar with sportin' life's history of leaving offensive, nasty and/or annoying comments on this blog? Have you visited his/her web-site? Do you really believe that sportin' life is looking for any meaningful discussion on religion, morality and/or cultural values?
If you do, then I also offer the Wikipedia definition of naïveté:
"is the state of lacking experience or understanding and/or having a lack of sophistication."
bye-bye, now.
Madeline,
Yes, I know what a troll is, and it doesn't seem to me like sportin' life is a troll. He just disagrees with you. I know it's hard to wrap your pretty little head around that concept (well, judging by the photo, middle-aged head) but that's the deal. Life with it.
So what if his blog is a big "colorful" (shall we say). At least he's not spouting the same party-line and hanging out with a gaggle of chicks who all congratulate themselves on how they know so much more than anyone else, including the Holy Father!
madelaine wrote:
"Have you visited his/her web-site?"
Have you ever taken a serious look at YOUR website. Talk about someone having an axe to grind. You remind me of an old hippy prof I once had in college.
LifeSite isn't a real news agency. It's run by a bunch of amateur journalist wannabe's who can't get jobs at real newpapers.
Who cares if they get hate mail?
Hilary wrote "Now, we know perfectly well, that barring an intervention from the Holy Spirit, gays and the people who talk a lot of marxist blather about "gay rights" are people whom we will not be reaching. Whom we will never please with our opinions. We know that we will not change their minds.
And we don't care. "
Hilary, if you are a faithful Catholic you MUST care. Every soul losts goes straight to the devil and our mission is fight against that.
Hilary's comments frequently are out of sync with the teachings of the Catholic church. I suspect her motives are much more secular (political) than religous. No faithful Catholic would ever claim not to care about whether another person is in danger.
Catholics are concerned about things like homosexuality, divorce, etc, because they endanger people's souls and we have an obligation to help these people. Unless you happen to work for lifesite in which case you just blab about how morally superior your are and then claim not to care about those in most need of our help. Sure, you pray for the unborn babies, but what about the mothers, the homosexuals, the adulterers, etc. They need our help too!
Post a Comment