Laigle’s Forum

by Donald Hank
Ever since my article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56545)
“Will ex-gays bring down Big Sodomy?” ran at WND, I have been exchanging emails with people who originally wrote me in regard to it, some wildly enthusiastic about the column and others, mostly gay, not so enthusiastic, but none all that angry, which came as a surprise.
One of the writers is a homosexual gentleman who sparred with me for a while and then found that I was not about to give in. So we just drop each other a friendly line once in a while. I think it is safe to say both sides are hoping in the end to convert the other, which may be wishful thinking for me and is wishful thinking for him. Let us call him Ron, though it is not his name.
When I saw the article in WND about Bill Whatcott, who was fined $17,500 for opposing homosexuality, I couldn’t resist sending Ron, who is Canadian, a link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217
Ron magnanimously granted that “laws against bigots are not necessary.” He compared Whatcott with Fred Phelps, which seems to be the standard barb for anyone who opposes the lifestyle. But he later also indicated that, considering that gays are executed in Iran, he felt no sympathy for people who are fined large amounts of money for opposing the gay lifestyle.
He asked me about my theology and when I mentioned something about the Apostle Paul, he reiterated another standard gay stance, namely, a disdain for the Apostle Paul, who, as I have long known, gay activists claim is unchristian (because of Paul’s passage in Romans about how unnatural it is for men to do, you know, with each other), but a predilection for Jesus (who is not quoted in the New Testament as specifically opposing homosexuality).
As we were going around on this issue, I got an email alert to the WND article on Mark Steyn, the renowned author who is being charged with a hate infraction in Canada for saying that Islam is hostile to free speech. This Muslim group wants to silence Steyn for saying that Islam tries to silence people.
So I sent this link to Ron:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm
with this comment:
Ron,
A friend just sent the article linked above.
Now, you indicated that you were unsympathetic to those who embrace the Apostle Paul’s theology and don’t feel any sympathy for those who have to pay fines in Canada for practicing free speech if they embrace that theology.
You indicated this was because, in comparison to the execution of gays in Iran, this free speech issue is insignificant.
Ironically, the article linked above shows that if Canada continues to ban the spoken and written word just because it is deemed offensive by favored groups, it will not be your liberal viewpoint that prevails over the traditional Christian one but rather the Muslim viewpoint that trumps them both. Sharia law, when it comes to Canada, will declare gays outlaws punishable by death and the gay agenda is enabling this, unwittingly sowing the seeds of its own demise.
Thus the ultimate winner under a speech-banning government like yours will inevitably be a group that you need to fear much more than the Christians, and as you indicated in your earlier email, you do fear them, although you probably don’t dare to admit it for fear of your government. It must be horrible to fear both friend and foe alike.
If you draw the logical inferences from the article linked above, you will understand that banning free speech will ultimately hurt active gays much more than protecting free speech will. The current Canadian position is internally inconsistent: ban free speech if it offends gays and also if it offends Muslims, even though Muslims are the most dangerous homophobe group by far!
So in this light, are you sure you want free speech restricted only to “nice” speech?
If speech is protected, and the gay position is superior intellectually, you will prevail, right? But if the Christian position prevails, you will at least be able to keep your heads, and no one will ever forbid you to defend your Constitutionally (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761553359)
protected viewpoint.
Don

I haven’t heard from Ron since. Of course, he did offensively mention that Iranian Muslims execute gays. I sincerely hope his computer has not been seized by his “friends” in government.
 
Donald Hank is a technical translator and the Editor-in-Chief of Laigle’s Forum.

Contact the author: zoilandon@msn.com

Retraction:
Laigle’s Forum just got an email from reader Greg Smith regarding our recent column on “Bush’s new tax.” It turns out this increase in the minimum age for full social security benefits is not directly attributable to President Bush. Greg says:

Actually this change was made 24 years ago.
However it is just now catching up to those who are ready to retire.
Greg Smith / Pittsburgh
_______________________________________________________________________
Social Security Today
The first recognition of the fragility of the Social Security program occurred in 1975. A report developed by the Treasury Department indicated that Social Security payroll taxes collected would be insufficient to meet Social Security payments by 1979. In response, Congress increased the tax rate, reduced benefits, and made the automatic adjustment to the amount of earnings subject to Social Security independent of the COLA. These steps averted a potential Social Security failure.
In 1983, another potential Social Security crisis was avoided. President Ronald Reagan formed the Greenspan Commission to study the financial state of Social Security. The commission issued a detailed report calling for numerous, sweeping changes to be implemented in order to strengthen Social Security. A bill passed by Congress based upon the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission taxed some Social Security benefits, included federal employees in the definition of employees for Social Security payroll tax purposes, and scheduled increases in the retirement age in the next century.

Thanks for that friendly alert, Greg! It is always good to hear from our readers, regardless of the message.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.