Followup: "The Hypocrisy of Acceptance?"

"One should not be too quick to judge how websites are operated and how they choose what content they want posted in their websites. If anyone wants to complain that one website or another does not allow them to post whatever they want, then, they should start up their own website and they will see that running your own website is not an easy task to control content according to the website motto. 

If anyone wants to join a website, they must agree to some TOA (terms of agreement). you can not ask the website owner to change the content just because they do not like it.

As a website owner, I am willing to tolerate some activities but not when the activities do not follow the basis in which the website was created for. No website owner should be told they have too allow any content. It is like the gay community wanting to convert a heterosexual into a gay person.

I am a Christian who will tolerate many things but there are limits. I do forgive those who cause me distress and will continue to be friends with those that cause me distress."

The above statement is a comment left as response to my latest post, The Hypocrisy of Acceptance.  You can readily tell that this is obviously one of the offended website owners.  The fact that you can easily surmise this, is part of the larger problem - denial.  I understand some more of this site's membership has bailed due to the new transparency of the site's intent which, by the way, was not made obvious or he would not have gone out of his way to woo a woman of Wicca to be one of the officers of the site and then disrespect her for being Wicca after all the work was done.  He knew what she was when he invited her in to assist in setting it up, just as he knew I wrote on subjects of controversy and never said a word to me concerning my post about the LGBT Christian community.

I feel the Terms of Agreement for a site must not run contrary to the mission statement or welcome statement on the homepage of a site.  Personally, I don't remember there being any terms of agreement, and if there were I would have scanned over them assuming they were simply "boiler plate," reflecting the intent on the welcome statement, and asking for the usual courtesies.  Again, no one ever complained about the content my posts.

No one asked the owner of this particular site to change the content.  I most certainly did not.  The owner took it upon himself to change directions in mid-stream, deleting and changing content, posts, and philosophy.  It was our understanding this site would offer a freedom to discuss, in a mature manner, those topics forbidden by the other "conservative" minister sites.  This is what I was led to believe.  The comparison made of content requests being similar to gays converting heterosexuals is pertinent only in that it mirrors the site's Christian attempt to convert the Wiccan.  This was a clear case of misunderstanding nurtured by a lack of clear communication and feedback as to the purpose of the site.  Personally, after all of this hoopla, it would seem these sites tout the "all accepted" philosophy as bait, if you will, and, once many members are inside, the doors were closed and reality set in as the smoke and mirrors were removed.  I find the tactic very reminiscent, for me, of Scientology.

But, to state one is a tolerant Christian after perpetrating this on the membership?  No, sorry, I'm not buying into this.  The final paragraph, for anyone with a background in psychology, is telling; this is narcissistic shifting of blame when the deceptive mechanisms used to achieve goals become all too apparent to the target audience.  I'm not sure that the site owners understand when they are doing this, or even care.  It does seem they fail to predict the outcome of their actions, however.

I apologize if our revelations caused this particular site owner "distress."  Honesty comes with the territory of running a website, and he should be well aware of it.  But, distress can also be also indicative of guilt.  I'm not sure that continuing to be friends with those that cause you to feel guilt, or distress, is in any way healthy, however.

My prediction for these sites is that they will, sooner than later, become populated by the same narrow-minded mainstream Christians we were all trying to escape.  These sites seem to, whether by accident or design, prey on those that are hurting and have been hurt.  They seek out those that have a need to belong and hold out the carrot of "acceptance."  As with religious and spiritual cults, they only seem to exist on the off chance no one will see through their thin veil of hypocrisy, and God help the ones that do.

The path to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.  Watch your step.


Note from Pastor Tony, the founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance, as well as the author and editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Frank Anthony Villari, Pastor