Leah wrote:

<< Well, not meaning to offend, but I am genuinely puzzled - do you not find there to be a difference between saying an _action_ is wrong, and saying a _person_ or group of people is sick? <<

This eye of the beholder thing isn't really difficult, if you can step outside your little room for a moment. Let me try to make you understand. Please do *not* be offended by what I'm about to say;

Considering that you've just called her narrow-minded, I think you've probably lost her already. Certainly any feeling _I_ might have had, that your previous post might have meant that you were going to calm down and stop name-calling, has just been disproved.

this is not meant to offend, it's my *reality*.

I was born and raised a Jew, in an orthodox Jewish community. In 'my' community, Christianity is not just another religion. It's regarded as a malevolent sickness that afflicts many people in the Western world, and aggressively tries to recruit anyone who will not see the world the way its members do. The symbol of this religion is a cadaverous dead Jew on a

stick.

At every historical opportunity, including a massive example only 5 decades past, followers of this religious and moral belief system have had no

problem

with facilitating massive amounts of dead Jews, for no other reason than a

2

thousand year old legend about some Jews who caused the death of an apocryphal character they claim was the son of God. This strikes us as very funny, since it's common knowledge that the Romans did the actual killing

of

this mythical character, but the Romans cannot be persecuted, because they were the guys who had the poor judgement to adopt, promote and force this religion on the rest of Western Civilization over the next few centuries.

Since then, more blood has been shed 'in the name of God' than any other cause. More torture. More looting. More warfare. More persecution. More massacres. More annihilation of native and indigenous cultures.

And so, because crimes have been committed in the name of Kathryn's religion, this makes Kathryn evil, or somehow responsible for it all?

All because

the souls who embraced the cross felt themselves morally superior to those beings who had not. If there *had* been a Jesus, how do you think he would feel about this? Who would he choose to embrace, if he made that

much-touted

return? Perhaps that's what was meant by the meek inheriting the Earth. I know to you that sounds ironic at best and disgustingly sacreligious at worst, but that is ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW, and a very real one. It is a form of empthy, one that is totally discounted by the Christian doctrine because it's *dangerous* for members of an autocratic, aggressive prosthelitizing faith to empathize with the people and the belief system of others.

Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of many other

faiths

reside among us on this list. They have their own faith system, each of

which

has its own problems, some of them the very same as Christianity.

Yes, and since the original discussion was about homophobia, it should be noted that Judaism has been no more tolerant than Christianity in that regard. Three years ago the Chief Rabbi of England publicly said that homosexuals should not teach children, after all.

Ignoring them or discounting their opinions doesn't make them go away.

Point out to me where Mistral has disparaged other faiths, and I'll consider this point valid. I'll bet you can't.

Disparaging a

different point of view on a moral issue, like a form of sexuality that offends Christians, isn't going to make it go away, nor is it going be 'wrong' to someone who isn't a Christian.

It may not even be wrong to someone who _is_ a Christian. What about the Metropolitan Community Church?

Contrary to what you've been told, you can't pretend the whole world is Christian, with the same lines drawn over acts, beliefs and morals. That is not reality...it's a fairy tale.

It _is_ a fairy tale, yes, but it's not them that's writing it. Nobody on the lyst has said that the whole world is or should be Christian; nobody has said anything to disparage anybody else's faith. The discussion, in case you've forgotten, was about homophobia. Trying to start a religious war isn't going to improve that or bring people round to your point of view.

...

...

Because every time this

sort of issue comes up, it just floors me. We all do things that other people think are wrong. If I cheated on my income tax, I'd consider that I'd done something immoral; I certainly wouldn't consider that I was sick. Those two concepts are poles apart to me. <<

If the subject were stealing, or murder, you would have a good parallel

here.

The issue is what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, with mutual consent.

But some people do consider that immoral. I don't like it either, Leah, but I have to live with it and try and change people's minds about gays one person at a time.

Christianity seems to obsess on this topic to the point of mania. And mania is a form of sickness.

So like Annie, you think Christians are sick?

Why does what two consenting adults do in a bedroom have ANYTHING to do with the price of tea in Rome? Who appointed the members of this faith sexual watchdogs on what sexual acts

are

and are not morally acceptible?

But see above with regard to the Chief Rabbi-- and the newspapers for cases of Muslims executing gays-- and history for secular states prosecuting homosexuals (like Communist Russia). You seem to think there's a Christian conspiracy out there; there isn't. There are people of all faiths who think homosexuality is right and others of the same faiths who think it's wrong. Let's be fair.

Why don't they ban sex between heterosexual couples who are unable to have children? They can't procreate, so they must be doing it just for pleasure and affection. Isn't that a 'sin'?

I'm trying to work out what this has to do with B7, slash or fanfic and drawing a blank.

...

...

As I sit here eating my turkey sandwich and reading my lyst mail, I

come

across a post from Neil. Now, I know Neil thinks it's immoral for me to eat my turkey sandwich - but I don't assume that he thinks I'm a sick and evil person because of it. He might, but I'm not going to jump to that conclusion, because it isn't productive, fair, or kind; and if I did jump to that conclusion, my upset would be my own doing, not his.>>

Annie's comments were an attempt to make certain lyst members see the parallel between telling other lyst members that a certain category of

fanfic

is sick and offensive and how it looks from the other side.

Kathryn said "character assassination." That may mean "offensive," but not "sick." I happen to consider slash a twisting of the characters myself; am I sick?

You may think it's immoral to read or perform the acts in a piece of slash fanfic; but

you

don't assume everyone else believes as you do.

Leah, you and Annie are the only ones assuming that.

You don't jump to that

conclusion, because it isn't productive, fair, or kind; if you did jump to that conclusion, your upset would be your own doing, not anyone else's

(your

own words above).

Perception. Empathy. Respect. Stretch open the door in that little room a

bit.

That tag, on the end of the post as read, is the most supremely ironic thing I've seen on the lyst since I've joined.

Shane

"You really are insane, aren't you?" --Avon

Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015