Read more on Cloud Computing
May 2, 2005 6:22 AM PDT
A megachurch's leader says Microsoft is no match
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft draws new fire for lobbyist ties
April 26, 2005 -
Gay rights travel flap snares Microsoft, Yahoo
February 4, 1999
Ken Hutcherson claims to be the person who forced Microsoft to withdraw its support of a gay rights bill in Washington state.
The New York Times
The story "A megachurch's leader says Microsoft is no match" published May 2, 2005 at 6:22 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
44 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
In my opinion no person has the right to take away someone elses happiness without a truly just cause. I'm sure that Mr. Hutcherson is a good caring man, but if the only way he can get things done is by "forcing" people then he is truly no better than a common bully.
Unfortunatly I see more and more of those tatics being used today by people in all facets of life. I don't tend to convert under presure. I am more of a give me your side let me mull it over and then make a decision kind of person.
My opinion, and it may be wrong, is that it's the few that are turning people like me away from church. (keep in mind I said church and not God)
Either way people are entitle to their own opinion and beliefs and I would stand up and fight to keep that true in America. I don't have to agree with you to want to protect your rights to believe that way.
of plenty others.So 'megachurch' is a major misnomer.
He claims that he has God on his side. I seem to remember that
Hitler said much the same thing. Maybe someone needs to ask
God. Some would say, that with God on his side, he stands
alone. Could be. At least with this minister's version of religion, I
would not want to find any god who would support it.
But, this is America, and every viewpoint can have a podium, so
let the man talk. And give the man room. We don't need another
Waco. He'll blow his own credentials soon enough.
Sadly, he is no different from the religious right that has more or less taken control of our government. I don't think it will be long befor the US is a religious state, and that is not a good thing.
Name one country that is in the hands of religious leaders that isn't a total mess, and violent to boot.
The world does not need another "warrior for Christ". It needs more people practicing what Christ taught us.
The guy is obviously trying to get free pub for his money-making venture on the Eastside of Seattle. His "church" to worship himself is obviously in need of cash...
It's not like boycotting Coke where a similar product is available in Pepsi or Dr. Pepper. Let's face it, Microsoft has the breadth and depth of product lines, and if you have the time and money to learn how to get it all up and running correctly, all the pieces usually work pretty well together.
And as a home user, when we got married, my wife had some other office program on her computer. It was mostly unusable, and she was always having to move stuff to my computer to convert it into Word.
It is a stranglehold that is not so easily broken. It would be hard to successfully boycott Microsoft products.
Also, we use WordPerfect Office 12 and it move in and out of Word docs fairly well (not perfectly though). I have had the benifit of using the three major office apps (Word, WordPerfect, Open Office). I must say that I don't much care for Word or Open Office. I find them to be difficult to work with when it comes down to document formatting. Reveal Codes are the best idea I have ever seen when it comes to documents.
This may sound like I am trying to draw out an argument, but I'm not. I just like to know why people choose this over that. You never know when they might give you answers you were looking for.
People seem to forget that United States is a secular state. If we allow all those religious extremists to influence laws, we'll soon live under another taliban rule.
The biblical argiments invoked against those topics remind me of arguments for racial segregation. But minority rights are not decided by a popular vote.
Remember that it were activist judjes that struck down the ban on interracial marriage. By popular vote, it must have been kept until now. When one of last such provisions was recently repelled from Alabama constitution, the majority in some AL counties voted to keep it!
To decide gay marriage, it should be first defined what marriage is about and what could the states recognize from that definition.
What is marriage?
Is it a permission to have sex? (Not anymore)
Is it a permission to have children? (Not anymore)
Is it church-blessed union? (Cannot be considered by a secular state)
Is it mutual long-term commitment of two loving people? Yes. The privileges afforded by law to the married ones are stemmed from the fact that the married pair have common household, may have common children, and should not be forced to act against each other.
In the light of AIDS problem, it is actually in the state interests to encourage long-term commitment between gay people, instead of casual liasons.
It seems like there's never been a successful answer on this question.
Because if it's a choice, then why stop there? Why not give medical benefits to my dog because he resides at the same address as me?
But if it's a ingrained trait that you're born with, then yeah, it's no different than being born male or female.
But it seems like no one's willing to agree on that answer, and no one's pursuing a scientific course to determine once and for all if it is a trait.
(Granted, if we identified in a DNA strand, would they attempt to "fix" it like the way they've identifed the gene that creates blindness.)
But a unified voice and/or scientific answer on this question would really help frame the debate, or maybe even make any debate moot.
You need to be careful, even MS must not like a neandrathal defending them, and trying to speak for them.
God doesn't hate ****. God hates figs.
www.godhatesfigs.com
"If God is on my side, what's a Microsoft?" Wait, didn't he say he was fighting against lesbian/gay marriage? This seems more like a personal vendetta towards Microsoft. I think there are many other companies out there that support gay marriage. Will he boycott them, too?
"that I will be the most feared man in America, not because of me, but because of who I got on my side." Good luck. I don't think I've ever heard of God intimidating people to get them to convert. In the Biblical times, God did prophesize destruction towards the disobedient, but also promised redemption if the people repented from their ways. Jesus himself was sort of a revolutionary, but he wasn't feared, he was loved by most people. What Mr. Hutch is doing seems to me like attempting to rule by using the fear of the people.
"God plus Hutch is enough". This seems to me like he is comparing himself to God, like God doesn't need anyone else to do his job (maybe I'm just not getting what he meant by this).
Listen, Mr. Hutch. If you are reading this: I live in a place that is highly evangelized, and there are many TV evangelists. But most of those that have become involved in politics, have ended up discreted, some divorced, and some have simply disappeared from the media after much embarassment. If you truly are against gay lifestyle, take to the streets and preach. Let the Word of God do Its thing, but don't try to force it.
would be so incredibly biased against gays.
"It would be devastating to our nation to allow whites to marry
blacks. If we do this, the next thing you know we'll be letting
whites marry dogs or cattle! When will the insanity end?"
Back then people would get away with comparing black humans
to dogs, now a new era of bigots compare gay humans to dogs.
There's very little difference between the two.
If Mr. Huch thinks we should take away rights for gays, we
should take away his ability to marry as well, take away his land,
heck, put him back into slavery.
The only difference between gays and blacks, is that it's much
harder to prove someone is gay, and using that knowledge,
punish them. If gays were apparent from their skin color, you
can bet that jerks like Huch would be doing much more to take
away their civil rights.
It's funny how such an outspoken advocate of civil rights for
blacks could act just like the Klu Klux Klan when it comes to
gays.
And their main reference, the Bible, says essentially the same
thing. It's in the category of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'.
I have no idea of what other religious groups say, like the Jews,
Mulsims, Hindu, Confucians, Etc. But I am pretty sure that none
are in favor of the gay lifestyle.
So, with no likely religious support, and the probability of
serious religious objection, any major attempt to write 'Gay is
OK' legislation is more than likely to get quickly shot down.
It's not the same as discrimination against skin color. Like it or
not, homosexuality is a sexual disfunction created probably by
some sort of brain miswiring It can't be fixed. It can only be
tolerated. And defining an acceptable degree of toleration is
going to be a lot different than defining civil rights.