Experiencing tolerance and intolerance

Mark Schleeter

LGBTQ+ people want more than anything to be accepted for who they are. And if people can’t accept them, then at least to be tolerant, sort of, live and let live philosophy.

Recently, I had an interesting experience of tolerance and intolerance.

Generally, there is a view that more conservative people tend to be less tolerant and more liberal people are more tolerant. But I recently discovered this is not always the case.

Currently in Decatur, there is an anti-abortion group called “Forty Days for Life” demonstrating across from Planned Parenthood. At a Macon County Progressives meeting, we discussed options of how we might support Planned Parenthood during this time.

One option caught my interest: Stop at Planned Parenthood each day during the 40 days of demonstration to donate $1 and tell the staff their work is appreciated. Since Planned Parenthood did many things to help LGBTQ+ persons, I wanted to show my support.

So the first day I showed up, gave them my $1 and expressed support for their work.

When I left, I crossed the street to talk with the demonstrators to begin to understand them and their motives, even though I didn’t agree with their stand on abortion. Over time, I asked questions and learned more about what they were doing. They had two signs: “Pray to End Abortion” and “Ask How We Can Help”.

It became obvious they were demonstrating against abortion by standing in front of Planned Parenthood. But they were also actually praying to end abortion and would offer alternative help to any woman requesting it. I made it clear that I did not support their cause and that every day they demonstrated, I was donating $1 to Planned Parenthood.

Eventually, I began to have dialogue to challenge their positions. Although we were pretty far apart in our positions, we did find some things we could agree on.

There was also a counter-protest group which sought to get the demonstrators to leave. They used signs, some of which were offensive, and a megaphone to harass the demonstrators. One day, as I crossed the street from talking to the demonstrators, I was called a “facist” by the counter-protestors.

Really? Is there is a new definition for facist? I stopped by the counter-protestors to say that I didn’t appreciate being called a facist. I was told that because I talked to the demonstrators, I was a facist because the demonstrators were fasict. When I tried to suggest a less negative protest against the demonstrators and more positive support for Planned Parenthood, they would hear no part of it.

Long story short, I experienced tolerance from a conservative religious group and intolerance from a liberal activist group. A group from which I expected more tolerance and dialogue.

This is the sad state of affairs in our country and I am afraid if we don’t learn how to talk with each other about our differences, we may end up doing something worse.

SOURCE 




If James Bond has gone woke, he might as well be cancelled

Another day, another bout of actorly virtue-signalling. In an interview, Daniel Craig has shed light on his final outing as Bond, No Time to Die, now postponed due to coronavirus.

Unable to resist the luvvie-ish proclamations that have made his profession so insufferable, Craig describes "struggles" to keep politics out of the film ("But of course it is there. It's always there, whether it's Trump, or Brexit, or Russian influence on elections.") Amusingly, he imagines Bond — binge-drinker, destroyer of gadgets, seducer of women — as a selfless public servant.

"There's something I feel that Bond represents, someone who's there, trying to do the job and doesn't want any f------ publicity."

As a lifelong Bond fan, I'm beginning to think Eon Productions shouldn't just delay NTTD but cancel it outright. The series has deteriorated since Craig's triumphant first outing in Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace and Spectre were abysmal failures and news from the set of NTTD has hardly inspired confidence (we recently heard that Bond is to navigate "the world of #MeToo" alongside a female 007). Yet fans don't want to be reminded of the perils of toxic masculinity or the merits of EU integration. We want escapism.

True, the sober direction of the Craig films was an (understandable) reaction to the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan era, especially his swansong, Die Another Day. But the pendulum has swung too far in the Jason Bourne direction and there are correspondingly few laughs amid the disorientating car chases and hair-raising stunts. Though Craig brought a new vulnerability to the role, audiences rarely leave the cinema in stitches. Tellingly, Craig's one old-school Bond moment occurred offscreen, in his cameo with the Queen in the London Olympics opening ceremony.

Craig fans scoff at the antics of Brosnan and Roger Moore. Yet their films, though often ridiculous, entertain in ways recent releases rarely manage. Who would go back for round two of Quantum of Solace? At its best, Bond can be simultaneously funny, thrilling, naughty and stylish (consider From Russia With Love), yet I'd take the Carry On humour of the Moore era, replete with Tarzan yells and double-taking pigeons, over a dour offering any day.

The direction of Star Wars under Disney, and particularly The Last Jedi, which sacrificed plot consistency for feminist propaganda, should remind us of the risks of appealing to the right-on over fans. For the latest instalment, Solo, millions stayed at home. Other woke remakes — including the all-female Ghostbusters — have similarly tanked at the box office.

Could things change under a new Bond? Rumours abound about possibilities for the lead role, from Tom Hardy to Benedict Cumberbatch. Based on Bond's current trajectory, I predict a rather worthier line-up: Olivia Colman as Jane Bond, with Ken Loach directing, and George Clooney as Bond's ally Felix Vaper ("Leiter" could be seen as endorsing smoking).

And Q? Perhaps George Monbiot could be enticed away from the Guardian and onto the silver screen to dole out electric cars and help defeat the shady oil corporations, airline executives and other foils of the woke Bond era. Okay, I'm exaggerating. But how depressing that this outcome seems more likely than a return to Fleming's source material, and the style and humour that once made Bond so irresistible.

SOURCE 






Churches, Don't Let the Government Trample on Your Rights in the Name of Fighting Coronavirus

As President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over the coronavirus, state and local governments have leaped into action, prohibiting large gatherings and in some cases even mobilizing the National Guard to combat the spread of the virus. Yet even in this time of crisis, Americans still have constitutional rights — and some governments have arguably already trampled on those rights.

In order to equip churches in this trying and confusing time, the religious freedom law firm First Liberty released an essential guidance document.

"Unlike other, voluntary restrictions self-imposed by organizations such as the NCAA or the NBA, state-mandated restrictions carry the power of law, violating them may lead to legal consequences," the guidance notes.

First Liberty presents three important pieces of advice.

First, churches and other religious institutions "should continue to serve their local communities." The guidance encourages churches to persist in "acts of mercy, providing shelter, or simply being a source of encouragement and peace in times of crisis," carrying on a proud tradition of religious contributions to American life. Before worrying about asserting their rights, churches "should continue to be a source of strength through service to their local community, especially as their communities may be particularly burdened during this pandemic."

Second, the guidance notes that "evenly applied restrictions may be permissible. The government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion unless it has a compelling reason for doing so, and even then it must use the least burdensome approach that achieves that compelling interest. Temporary action to reduce the spread of a global pandemic is almost certainly a compelling reason, so long as the government is not treating religious institutions unfairly compared with how it treats other comparable gatherings."

The government may not engage in religious discrimination by requiring that each religious service has no more than 250 persons, for example, but failing to prohibit the same for secular gatherings.

Finally, the First Liberty guidance notes that "extraordinary state action to limit the peaceful gathering of American citizens must be temporary. Permanent restrictions on the peaceful assembly of American citizens—and especially those gathered to exercise their religion— violate the U.S. Constitution and are not permissible."

The government may use extraordinary measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, but those measures must be applied equally and they must be temporary. Churches should be on the lookout to make sure that their rights are not infringed.

However, churches and other religious institutions cannot be more focused on their rights than on their central calling. Churches best prove their value to society by serving others and by preaching the gospel. Indeed, the coronavirus should remind churches that the ancient Roman plagues in the 160s and 250s A.D. proved central to the rise of Christianity — because Christians, unlike their pagan neighbors, cared for the sick and dying, exposing themselves to the disease but also keeping people alive and forming closer social bonds. The important work of following Jesus' example of charity — not asserting legal rights — enabled the church to grow by leaps and bounds.

SOURCE 





'Are they saying we're all paedophiles?' Fury as fire bosses are ordered to SACK nearly 10,000 hero firefighters who haven't applied for 'working with children' checks

Almost 10,000 firefighters face losing their jobs for refusing to get a Blue Card to work with children.

Queensland Fire and Emergency Services Minister Craig Crawford said 60 of 20,000 QFES staff and volunteers who applied for a Blue Card were denied - and warned those who do not obtain one by the end of the month will be sacked.

Blue Cards can be denied to people with a history of serious offences including selling drugs, rape, murder, child abuse and burglary.

Mr Crawford said the 60 refusals was 'powerful evidence of the need for a Blue Card', The Courier Mail reported. He said due to the nature of the work many firefighters have to come into contact with children. 

A QFES spokesman said only 58 per cent of staff and volunteers had applied for a Blue Card despite being ordered to apply by January 1. The deadline was extended until the end of March. 

'Those who choose not to obtain a Blue Card will be choosing not to continue their role with QFES,' the spokesman said.

Veteran firefighter Will Giumelli said many in the industry had taken offence to the demand and a petition has been launched objecting to the Blue Card order. 'Are they saying we’re all bloody paedophiles?’ he said.

Rural Fire Brigades Association general manager Justin Choveaux said the move could leave many communities with no one to defend them next bushfire season.

He said many long serving firefighters had already resigned after repeated phone calls from the QFES.

'Let’s make children safe, but let’s also make communities safe by not losing their volunteer fire brigades,' Mr Choveaux said.

He said the RFB still has 8,578 staff and volunteers still needing to apply for a Blue Card.

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************