Very special snowflakes: Pence's scheduled speech makes Notre Dame students "feel unsafe"

Catholics do not believe in Capital punishment, yet they live in a society which practices it.
Quakers do not believe in war and live in a culture that is almost constantly at war
Atheist live in a culture that can't sneeze without busting out a God reference
The list literally goes on and on and on and on and on

I live in the midst of a society than openly denies the very legitimacy of my identity

When your society conducts itself in a manner inconsistent with your values, that's not persecution when it actively works to repress your ability to practice your values, you have a case. Unless of course the practicing of your values involves you infringing on the rights of others.

For example, the SSM debate was always bullshit because the state never has and never would require a minister to preform a SS marriage, the case at issue was about CIVIL marriage which has never been, in this country, a religious act. The state was willing to recognize your religious act as sufficient for civil recognition, but one could always get married with no religious participation.

So the Pharisees were never (honestly) saying "you are making me do something against my religion" or "you are corrupting my religious institution" - their REAL complaint was "you are limiting our ability to control the lives of these other people who do not believe as we do"

THAT, good sir, AIN'T persecution.

so, in nations where conversion to Christianity is punishable by death, the individual rights of the convert are trumped by the rights of the government to enforce religious uniformity?

inform? Sure.
Dictate and enforce? Nothing in NT Scripture remotely implies that. In fact, you are specifically instructed in 2 separate places by 2 different apostles to submit yourself to the existing government - and THAT government actually WAS hostile to Christians.

The opinion of those who have had full legal equality for centuries about whether or not anyone else should have full legal equality and whether that would be a "positive social change" is often in the majority, but is also loaded with a vested selfish interest and so is suspect.

Well, a professor is also an investor. They are vested in the venture, and have interests related to it succeeding. The speaker is a guest, one who may cause more trouble than is worth. Still, to get out from under the analogies and metaphors, the truth is that most college campuses are liberal, and Mike Pence represents neo-conservativism. While that alone shouldn't be enough to have someone denied the opportunity to speak, Mike Pence is also well known for enacting legislation that directly impacts women in a negative way, and is also known for disregarding their valid concerns in the process. Why should they have to hear him speak? Doesn't he force his views upon them quite enough already?

Dayton thinks having a piece of paper makes him a Christian.

What other choice do they have? You keep saying that the students have the right to go around the administration and uninvite a speaker that administration invited. How do they go about exercising that right? How do they force Pence to not show up while at the same time force the administration to not interfere?

They have the right to protest his being invited. If the administration invites him anyway, they have the right to protest that decision as well. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind said "yeah, sure, we'll invite the Vice President, who is embroiled in corruption charges, to come speak here" anyway? For me, it would be the same inviting a Grand Dragon of the KKK to speak at Tuskegee University. The students should not have to be a party to that decision. The best thing the University administration could do would be to work in collaboration with student representatives. These people aren't special snowflakes, they're telling those whom they consider to be toxic to modern civilization, to the advancement of humanity, that they need to fuck right off, and I can't disagree with that. Compared to Trump, Pence seems sane, but he's just as much a neo-con as Ted Cruz.

Who's saying they don't have a right to protest?

No one, as far as I know. You asked me what choice they had. They have the right to protest the speaker, and to protest the administration that approved his invitation.

to clarify, I support the students right to bitch about it, I do not support the school actually de-platforming the VP. It's not like he's Milo. I think their resentment towards him is justified, but find me a President/VP who does not have passionate opposition.

No no, then it is do as I say not as I do. They are all happy when they get to make the rules, but if there is a popular view like legal gay marriage or trans people using the bathroom of their proper gender not their birth gender then fuck the majority and democracy because Jesus is the ultimate law even though none of them follow the teachings of Jesus.

Could you imagine if love, compassion and tolerance were followed on this planet as Jesus taught? The whole world would turn into pastel ponies that occasionally shoot rainbows out of their asses. Certainly not a place where most people can exist.

Well, I guess we've been talking across each other. I've said over and over again that they have the right to protest, cajole, leverage, anything to try to convince the administration to uninvite Pence. They just don't have the right to uninvite him themselves.

We may be, as I joined this conversation late.

And once again, as has been explained numerous times in this thread, no one is disagreeing with that.

Stupid comments like this are why it's so hard to take you seriously.

So I take it you would be on board with the students telling the University to not invite any speaker to a commencement ceremony that is pro-choice, such as they did in 2009 with President Obama right? To them, Obama's stance on abortion was toxic to modern civilization and the advancement of humanity.

I wasn't responding to you.

My worst day is better than your best.

Yes.

I like to sometimes.

The problem with capitalism is it's a fine economic system, but more and more it's invading the rest of life, and it's a terrible everything-else philosophy.

Where in the New Testament among the teachings of Jesus is the word "tolerance" mentioned?

You didn't know that although his words are recorded in basically only four books of the Bible.........Jesus still mentioned "hell" more than anyone else?

It's true. Jesus teaches us to hate those that are different than us because different, in the words of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, is scary.

I swear, every time Dayton starts talking about anything related to Christianity, this is all I can picture in my head:

I didn't say that either.

Interesting isn't it.

When people who know MASH want to bring up an example among the characters as "conservatives" they bring up Frank Burns.

But not Emerson Winchester.

Not tolerance, just love:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Mark 22:37-40

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous . . . If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? . . . And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?" Matthew 5:43-48

If you love your neighbor (or anyone) you should care about the state of their soul.

So if you truly love someone, you shouldn't fail to point out when they are committing sins or not following the will of God.

Besides Garamet (correct me if I'm wrong about this) but you are not a Christian. A nonChristian has no standing to criticize the actions of a Christian in accordance with Christian practices and doctrine.

Frank was a vindictive, hypocritical prat. He hit others over the head with the Bible, but was having an affair with Hot Lips. He was in a constant war with Father Mulcahy, whom he deemed too soft and liberal. He was racist. He was prideful, even though his abilities as a doctor were mediocre at best. He craved power and influence without earning it. He was covetous, and he had no problems telling lies of omission in order to get what he wanted. He always pushed to be number one, to be first in line. In the O.R., Frank was incapable of keeping up with everyone else, and even then he would make myriad mistakes, and when he would verbally spar with Hawkeye, Trapper, or B.J., he couldn't even come back with an intelligent riposte. In all areas, Frank Burns lacked.

Charles Emerson Winchester, on the other hand, was an accomplished doctor who practiced his faith in secret. Remember when he gave the special chocolates to the children for Christmas, and attempted to do so anonymously? He loved children, and was livid when he thought the director of the orphanage had sold off the candies for a profit.Winchester could be proud and boastful, but he had the skills to back it up. While he would indeed bemoan the antics of Pierce and Hunnicut, he also lauded them when they came to his aid, and it was often that their verbal sparring was that of grudgingly respected equals. He had an appreciation for beauty, and kindness. He adored his sister Honoria, and in doing so, had a soft spot for anyone with a perceived disability, like the young soldier who stuttered.

Frank Burns was nothing like Winchester, and was quite unfit to be a doctor, aside from just being a terrible human being.

In other words, no Frank, it's not interesting, and nerts to you.

John 8:7 seems to imply it.

That's my point. Winchester was more conservative than Frank in practice if not in speech, though he did describe himself to the Congressman's aide investigating Margaret as "I'm so conservative I make you look like a New Dealer".

Yet whenever people want to characterize a conservative on MASH they bring up Burns and not Winchester.

For sure. Specifically because he's black.

Perhaps but Frank Burns does, in fact, eat worms.