Other reactions to this event were strange, and very much revealing of character. In Mudville's first post on this topic a frequent commenter who claims to be "anti-torture" announced he's not opposed to torture of religious fanatics like Phelps.

I can see that irony doesn't translate too well on the Internet. So let me return to the literal and say that, no, I don't favor the torture of "Rev." Phelps. He ought to be allowed to do his thing. He's extreme, but he simply vocalizes what millions of [DELETED] Christians really think. Look at Pat Roberston and Jerry Falwell a few days after 9/11. They said it happened because God withdrew his protection from America on account of this country tolerating homosexuals and the ACLU.

That's not really any different than what Phelps believes, yet there was relatively little [DELETED] outcry over those statements even though they effectively put the Christian Right on Bin Laden's side.

Willysnout -- those comments by Robertson and Fawell were debated and criticized just after they left their lips, by Christian and atheist alike. I recommend you read the third section of this, for a little more perspective on just how independent-minded we "[DELETED]" are!

And, this blast from my past illustrates how different Fred Phelps and this evangelical Christian is!

Rich Casebolt, I went and read your link and I stand by my comments. I think the only thing that separate you and Phelps is tone of voice.

Willysnout ... if you can't accurately tell the difference between Fred Phelps and I, your definition of "tolerance" must be blind, unequivocal acceptance ... predictible, given the [DELETED] guano that permeats your other comments.

Compared to respecting you, respecting those who adopt a lifestyle I consider wrong is easy.

Your oh-so-"tolerant" comments on your blog favored allowing employers to fire homosexuals, and landlords to refuse to rent to them. Tell me, do you also favor allowing employers to fire christians and conservatives? As a landlord (which I have been and could be again), should I be allowed to refuse to rent to Republicans? Trust me, I don't approve of the Republican lifestyle but until now I've considered it none of my business as a landlord.

Willysnout ... if you don't want to rent to Republicans, that's your business ... and I wouldn't want you to have mine as an independent, either.

Neither politcal affiliation nor choice of sexual expression are immutable characteristics like skin color. You ask me to tolerate homosexuality in our nation ... then you tolerate my freedom of conscience to not aid and abet that lifestyle as a landlord, just as I would a straight, unmarried couple.

As for firing ... you overgeneralize my position. I only advocated restrictions on homosexual employment (1) in the military, and (2) when working with children, if the worker cannot keep from expressing a neutral position about sexuality choices.

And BTW, IMO sexual expression is a choice ... as much a choice as I make to stay monogamous, instead of promiscious.

As usual, you paint me with the moonbat-hair broad brush. I encourage other readers to hit the "blast from my past" link in the second comment on this thread, and judge for themselves.

As for firing ... you overgeneralize my position. I only advocated restrictions on homosexual employment (1) in the military, and (2) when working with children, if the worker cannot keep from expressing a neutral position about sexuality choices.

What is it about [DELETED] that renders them incapable of ever telling the truth about anything, including their own opinions? Your website supports the right of employers to discriminate against people on the grounds of their homosexuality. Why do you need to lie about that?

Homosexuals should have the same opportunities for employment as everyone else, as long as their lifestyle is not disruptive to the performance of their job. However, this is NOT something we can legislate -- this must be dealt with at the individual level, or we risk limiting the legitimate discretion of employers in other areas of hiring

Now, as for homosexual conduct being a choice, it's true that homosexuals could at least try to force themselves to remain celibate. Cruel and unrealistic if you ask me, but I realize that the Christian rightwing rarely has a problem with cruelty. As a practical matter, how should an employer distinguish between a celibate homosexual and a non-celibate one, anyway?

What if I decided, as a landlord or employer, to include a religious questionnaire with my lease? I guarantee you that I do not approve of the evangelical christian lifestyle. I don't like them, and my experience has been that my very worst tenants have been Mormons and evangelicals. I'm not making that up just for this argument. I have found people in these groups to be untrustworthy; the more outwardly pious they are, the less I can trust them.

But that doesn't give me the right to refuse to rent to a Mormon or a Bible-thumper. The most I can do is enforce the lease to the letter with them, which is what I have done.

Willy ... I'd have no problem with your religious questionaire, no more than I'd have a problem with one if I was interviewing at a Christian bookstore.

And, I did not lie -- I only advocated active restrictions on hiring in the areas I listed.

What I want to avoid are legal GUARANTEES where -- intentionally, or unintentonally -- homosexual status can be used to inhibit employers from firing a person for other, legitimate reasons ... just as the hassles of proving that you are not "racist" in hiring/firing decisions can leave problem employees on your payroll far longer than prudent.

Read my lips ... sexual expression is not an immutable characteristic of humanity, like skin color, where discrimination based upon that alone will always infringe upon your and my rights.

Rich, I hope you don't call yourself a christian because you've been lying here. You would allow employers to refuse to hire (or to fire) people for no other reason than that they are homosexual, yet you turn around and say you haven't advocated any restrictions.

What about an employer who refuses to hire Jews? Should this be allowed by the law? When I was growing up, many resorts in my state wouldn't rent to Jews. How about refusing to sell a house to a Jew because he's a Jew? Would you prohibit that under the law?

After all, Judaism is not an immutable characteristic.

Willy ... you're mixing your metaphors, here.

The ethnicity of Judiasm is immutable. The Nazis didn't care whether you were Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform ... they looked at your alleged genetic history, and sent you to the gas chambers or work camps accordingly.

Discriminating with regards to ethnicity, in public or private life, is simply wrong -- for it ignores the uniqueness of the individual, and the need to protect his rights.

OTOH the religious practices associated with Judiasm, or any religion, are not immutable. If a specific practice infringes upon your and my rights, we can restrict that practice in our private dealings ... but not outlaw the belief.

For example, there have been several cases where kids have received medical care by the force of law, ignoring the strict religious beliefs of their Jehovah's Witness or Christian Science parents ... beliefs that even the kids share. We do so, for we believe the greater good comes from overriding the practice of those beliefs in these situations. We have not outlawed either of these sects ... but we have proscribed selected practices that are incompatible with the child's right to live.

Fortunately, the practices of Judiasm are not incompatable with human society ... soemthing that the Islamic world, OTOH, needs to work on, to weed out those elements that do not respect individual rights.

We do protect freedom of religion here in this nation ... but that doesn't give me license to preach to my colleagues during work hours without their approval. I'd get fired ... is that infringing upon my freedom of religion?

Neither does it give a person of color license to cry "racism" at every slight by a colleague or manager. (I've seen that happen at one employer already).

Neither does it give a homosexual license to wear their lifestyle choice on their sleeve, and actively promote it in the workplace.

In all these cases, it is the BEHAVIOR, not the BELIEF, and not the ethnicity, that is proscribed -- and other ways exist to accomodate the behavior.

Problem is, you want our society to not just tolerate, but ACCEPT this behavior as valid ... and even expect society to participate in its promotion. Your position goes as far as inhibiting others' rights to remove jerks from the workplace ... for you wish to grant protections for BEHAVIOR, that will override my rights to avoid said behavior.

Where are my rights, to stay away from this BEHAVIOR?

There is no "ethnicity of Judaism." As with many things, you're wrong about that too. It's true that many Jews have distinctive features, but this is by no means universally true. Not even close.

Like any right-wing [DELETED], you've simply refused to answer the question. In my youth, many of the resorts in my home state asked people to state to state their religion. They would reject Jews, forcing them either to lie about their religion or go elsewhere. Do you support the right of a landlord to do this, yes or no?

Shall I be free as a landlord to refuse to rent to a Mormon, a Jew, a Jehovah's Witness or an evangelical christian for no other reason than their religion? Yes or no?

As an employer, should I be free to require my employees to be of a particular religious group? Leave aside for the moment the question of whether a religious organization can force employees to have the same religion. I'm talking about an otherwise secular company -- say, Office Depot or Wal-Mart. Should they have the right to say they'll only hire Christians? Yes or no?

See if you can bring yourself to give an honest, straightforward answer rather than indulging in the typical [DELETED] gamesmanship.

There is no "ethnicity of Judaism." As with many things, you're wrong about that too. It's true that many Jews have distinctive features, but this is by no means universally true. Not even close.

Go ask the Israelis about that, Willy ... and you'll find you're lying like a [DELETED] (only with a left-handed thread).

BTW, where's the links, from credible sources, about torture and rape of Gitmo? I think you're lying there too ... from what I've seen, except for the time duration, the interrogations there really aren't much tougher than two-a-day football practices were for me in high school.

Like any right-wing [DELETED], you've simply refused to answer the question. In my youth, many of the resorts in my home state asked people to state to state their religion. They would reject Jews, forcing them either to lie about their religion or go elsewhere. Do you support the right of a landlord to do this, yes or no?

It's not that simple ... and I thought Leftists were so adept at nuance?

I don't support rejection based upon religious belief ... on the other hand, if I had a couple whose religious beliefs included sacrificing animals in their backyard, I wouldn't rent to them ... not based on their belief, but on their behavior.

The problem is, as it stands, the protections you seek will be so twisted in our legal system, that they will end up protecting the behavior, right along with the belief ... which infringes upon my rights and freedom of conscience.

This is why I want to keep these decisions a private matter, and not codify them into laws that will be folded/spindled/mutilated by compassion [DELETED] and legal [DELETED] to force my acceptance of such behavior.

You develop laws that reliably separate belief from behavior in their application, and I'll be right behind you.

Shall I be free as a landlord to refuse to rent to a Mormon, a Jew, a Jehovah's Witness or an evangelical christian for no other reason than their religion? Yes or no?

I just answered that -- only if their behavior infringes upon my rights and freedom of conscience. Not based on belief.

As an employer, should I be free to require my employees to be of a particular religious group? Leave aside for the moment the question of whether a religious organization can force employees to have the same religion. I'm talking about an otherwise secular company -- say, Office Depot or Wal-Mart. Should they have the right to say they'll only hire Christians? Yes or no?

Not on the basis of belief ... they should only discriminate to avoid antisocial behaviors. Otherwise, not only is it morally unsound ... it is stupid from a business perspective.

See if you can bring yourself to give an honest, straightforward answer rather than indulging in the typical [DELETED] gamesmanship.

No gamesmanship here -- just precise reasoning ... see if your Leftist-influenced mind can appreciate the nuance.

Why don't you take your own advice, regarding Iraq and Gitmo ... hold yourself accountable for the decades of INACTION that resulted from the application of your viewpoint ... INACTION that filled mass graves in Iraq, turned Israeli pizza parlors into slaugherhouses, and gave the term "Ground Zero" new meaning?

The President you criticize with such vitriol has come a long way to putting an end to these atrocities ... by taking ACTION. You lie about that, too.

Let me make something perfectly clear, Willy ...

While there may have been individual soldiers who have took things too far with prisoners, the evidence to date, in my opinon, shows no policies instituted by our military leadership (or their civilian superiors) that can be honestly described as torture ... as I said above, it's like my old two-a-days, only longer.

Those indivdual incidents have been investigated THOROUGHLY, well before the present MSM feeding frenzy, and where violations were found, justice is being meted out.

The rules did change ... we did get tougher, because the misplaced idealism that created those laws has been rendered obsolete by the emergence of an enemy who is willing to both lie shamelessly and die destructively to further their totalitarian ends.

But they did not change to torture.

BTW, where's the links, from credible sources, about torture and rape of Gitmo? I think you're lying there too ... from what I've seen, except for the time duration, the interrogations there really aren't much tougher than two-a-day football practices were for me in high school.
Oh, I think if they did it in Abu Ghraib they did it at Gitmo. There were interrogation tapes at Gitmo but the military destroyed them. We've got detainees who've alleged being raped at Gitmo but of course the right wing would never accept such testimony, even though the Taguba report found ways to accept detainee testimony at Abu Ghraib.

My question: Shall I be free as a landlord to refuse to rent to a Mormon, a Jew, a Jehovah's Witness or an evangelical christian for no other reason than their religion? Yes or no?

Your answer: I just answered that -- only if their behavior infringes upon my rights and freedom of conscience. Not based on belief.
What if I happen to think Mormonism is a dangerous cult? Isn't it infringing on my rights and freedom of conscience to force me to rent to a pair of missionaries who, in my judgment, will spread dangerous heresy in my community? Frankly, I am personally much more worried by that than I am by homosexuals having sex in my rental unit.

But you want to legally protect the Mormons and deny the same protection to homosexuals, even though Mormonism and homosexuality are equally activities of choice. Therefore, you're a bigot no different than Phelps except for tone of voice.

While there may have been individual soldiers who have took things too far with prisoners, the evidence to date, in my opinon, shows no policies instituted by our military leadership (or their civilian superiors) that can be honestly described as torture ... as I said above, it's like my old two-a-days, only longer.
Were you raped, too? Part of the training, was it? Did anyone stomp on your broken leg until you renounced your religion and proclaimed a different one? As for "no policies," like the rest of right-wing America you are afraid of the inconvenient truth.

Those indivdual incidents have been investigated THOROUGHLY, well before the present MSM feeding frenzy, and where violations were found, justice is being meted out.
Wrist slaps to a few hapless enlisted people. The higher-ups got off scot free. It's a whitewash so thorough that you have most [DELETED]denying that there was any torture. See, this is why the rest of the photos and videos from Abu Ghraib must be released. Otherwise you people will just continue to spew your lies. What will you say when the world sees the rapes on camera? "Just like my old two-a-days?" Two what I might ask.

the misplaced idealism that created those laws has been rendered obsolete by the emergence of an enemy who is willing to both lie shamelessly and die destructively to further their totalitarian ends
It's funny. It seems that the only immutable principle you people cling to is a hatred for consensual homosexual practice. You're perfectly o.k. if American soldiers do it as rape. Torture? Hey, no problem. Just like my old two-a-days. Humane treatment? Misplaced idealism. Nice to see the Republican Party showing its true face.

Willy ... you've ducked into the last refuge of the truth-deficient: the conspiracy theory.

Oh, I think if they did it in Abu Ghraib they did it at Gitmo. There were interrogation tapes at Gitmo but the military destroyed them.

We've got detainees who've alleged being raped at Gitmo but of course the right wing would never accept such testimony

Could that maybe be because the Al Quada training manuals we have acquired call for such accusations (regardless of truth) to be made by detainees to "gum up the works"?

even though the Taguba report found ways to accept detainee testimony at Abu Ghraib.

Cite me the sections in the Taguba report where rapes were proven, let alone where it was proven that they were part of a systematic policy.

Put up ... or shut up.

As for your Mormon example ... when it comes to belief, that is between a person and God, IMO. I will not infringe upon that ... I expect God to interact with others to lead them to the truth, with no forceful compulsion from me (though I do reserve the right to make my case regarding Him in a respectful manner).

If the missionaries in your example were being deceitful in FACT (not in belief) about what their church stands for, to be more "successful" in recruting converts, I would strive to evict them ... if they had a history of deceit, I would not rent to them ... not because they are Mormon or even wrong in their beliefs, IMO, but because they (unlike the vast majority of Mormons) are deceitful. If for no other reason, that reputation of deceit could spill over into their business dealings with me.

And by the way, disdain for behavior does NOT equal hatred of those who engage in it ... any more than tolerance does not equal unequivocal acceptance of behavior otherwise disdained.

Willy ... you've ducked into the last refuge of the truth-deficient: the conspiracy theory.
It's not "conspiracy theory," it's inductive logic, i.e., if it happened before, it'll probably happen again. Lots of pitfalls in inductive logic, but it's a good starting point.

Cite me the sections in the Taguba report where rapes were proven, let alone where it was proven that they were part of a systematic policy.
You can read the Taguba report yourself. There are unreleased photographs and videos of rapes. The ACLU is in court to secure the release of that material, which is necessary to prevent people from lying about what happened like you're doing here. As for the policy angle, Taguba didn't deal with it. I note that before Taguba's report was final, your lying president went on TV and said it was all "isloated incidents."

The conclusion was therefore predetermined. No general military officer is going to directly and publicly contradict his commander-in-chief. Seymour Hersh, whose reporting of the Iraq War has been spot-on throughout, confirmed the existence of the "Copper Green" torture program, and its expansion to Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and elsewhere in Iraq.

Of course, you people won't even believe the official evidence, so you're naturally going to dump all over Hersh. This is because you never met a lie you couldn't tell. You hate the truth and you hate the freedom you claim to be interested in protecting, and there isn't a single principle you won't abandon on a whim.

As for your Mormon example ... when it comes to belief, that is between a person and God, IMO. I will not infringe upon that ... I expect God to interact with others to lead them to the truth, with no forceful compulsion from me (though I do reserve the right to make my case regarding Him in a respectful manner).
I don't care about what YOU would do. I want to know what you want the law to require. As I understand it, you want THE LAW to permit employers, landlords and other public accommodations to be able to discriminate against homosexuals on the grounds that homosexual behavior is voluntary, but you want THE LAW to forbid these types of discrimination against people who practice their religion, which is an equally voluntary act.

This means that you're a bigot, no different than Fred Phelps. The only difference is in your tone of voice. You, too, think that "God Hates Fags." You just wouldn't hold a sign out there on the street, but would keep your hate inside until you found a more polite way to express it. This all reminds me of how, in my youth, I heard some black people saying they welcomed George Wallace because at least you knew what he really thought.

Again, you twist my words, Willy ... I have no problems with belief, but I reserve the right to restrict behavior over what I own and/or manage.

I will work with gays, eat with gays, befriend gays ... but that does not mean that I have to condone the disruptions that occur when they wear their sexuality on their sleeve in my office, nor am I morally required to aid and abet their behavior by renting to them.

Same way with religious people ... if their behavior infringes on my rights, I have the moral right not to aid and abet it.

You continue to dodge my question. Perhaps I am not making it simple enough for you.

It sounds to me as if you want THE LAW to forbid me from discriminating on the basis of religious practice, but you want THE LAW to allow me to discriminate on the basis of sexual practice.

Is my understanding correct? For once, try not to weave, dodge and quibble.

Willy ... I want the law to protect the right to believe whatever you want, but still allow discrimination based on behavior that unreasonably infringes upon the rights of others, in both cases.

For instance, if I am renting to someone whose religious faith includes the belief that they should handle poisonous snakes, I have no problem with that ... until they start bringing the snakes home with them. Then, I have to be able to act to protect my neighbors from the threat those snakes present to my community.

If I protect belief here, in the same way you think it should be regarding homosexual behavior, it will also end up protecting the behavior ... and force me to put up with those snakes sitting on my property.

Now, I do not consider homosexual behavior as a threat to life or liberty ... only to social stability, and even then the theat is not significant enough to demand the use of the force of law to stop it.

However, I also believe that the law should not compel one to violate their freedom of conscience (as in, force them to provide the environment for actvities that they believe are wrong), as long as protecting your conscience does not infringe on the rights of life and liberty for others. For some (mot all), being forced to condone homosexual behavior on their property infringes upon their freedom of conscience ... and since the homosexuals involved are still free to fufill their needs for housing in a miryad of other ways, their life and liberty are not threatened. Therefore, the freedom of conscience of the landlord needs to be respected.

In a similar vein, from what I see the Greyhawks will not ban you for your ideology or your beliefs ... they will only ban you when you become obnoxious in your posts. When that happens, you will not be a martyr to your cause ... just obnoxious.

Rich, I expect Greyhawk to ban me. Not sure when, but it will happen. Like all of the right wing, the time will come when he'll label telling the truth as obnoxious. This is because he and you and most of the others here run from fact like cockroaches from the light. You have no principles or morals that you won't throw away in an instant.

So, let's see if we can simplify your long-winded answer above. Yes or No: Do you want the THE LAW to allow me to discriminate on the basis of religious practice that is otherwise legal? Rattlers in the living room are illegal. Should I be able to refuse to hire or to rent to a member of a religion that I disapprove of?

Why is it so hard to get you to answer a simple question? Hiding from the truth again?

Willy ... If you can't understand the following, you never will.

You should be able to discriminate based on PRACTICE. For example, if the PRACTICE of their BELIEF infringes upon your rights, you shouldn't have to rent a room to them.

OTOH, if it is shown that you discriminate against them solely on BELIEF, in the absence of actual PRACTICE that infringes upon your rights, including freedom of conscience, the law should sanction you for doing so.

That is the way the law should be ... problem is, in the twists-and-turns of our legal system, protecting the belief is too often twisted to protecting the practice, whether or not it infringes upon my rights.

That is why I want to keep these choices in the private sector.

Other readers can review the debate here, and the links I provided at the start of the comments section, and judge for themselves.

In accordance with the statement I left on one of the Gitmo/Durbin threads, this will be the last response to you on this subject until you PROVE your case regarding torture-as-US-policy, except for the following -- the answer I will direct to any comment you direct at me, or others that I respect -- so get used to it:

PROVE that the torture was policy, Willy ... put up, or stop lying and shut up!

Rich, you won't answer my question because you know that a straight answer would invalidate your justification for discrimination against homosexuals. You justify it on the grounds that homosexual behavior is voluntary. I note that religious practice is also voluntary.

I'm asking a simple question: As a landlord or employer, should the LAW allow me to discriminate against a practicing Mormon or Christian? I've already told you that I deeply object to Mormonism and evanglical Christianity. I don't like the people, and I think their religions are false and dangerous. They offend my conscience. But you won't tell me if I, acting as an employer or a landlord, should be allowed to discriminate on that basis. Instead, you give me vagueness and sophistry.

This is the tactic of the right wing. You don't want to tell the truth if that truth will cause you to be put in a light in which you choose not to be seen, i.e., in this case, as an anti-gay bigot who differs from "Rev." Phelps only by the style in which you display your hatred.

As for the rest, I can only hope that the censor here will notice your verbatim repetition of the same question in multiple threads and block it as he, she or it blocked my having done the same thing last week. I doubt that will happen, because I think Greyhawk isn't running a "military" site or a "support the troops" site, but rather a site that seeks to politicize the Iraq War to advance and partisan, ideological agenda.

The worst thing that can happen to such a true believer is to encounter effctive, articulate opposition. It is only a matter of time until "Greyhawk" bans me. I predict that he, she or it will justify this cowardice on grounds that I am "obnoxious" or a "broken record," even though I am no more or less such than this site is in its advancing of the partisan, pro-torture, pro-war Republican agenda.

Ban me, Greyhawk. Show your true colors, and make my day.