Also, I want to emphasize that my understanding of Ms. Higgins motives were my opinions, she never stated in our conversations that she wanted Hemant fired or frightened.

Hemant, I’m glad that no impact on your employment has come from this, and I’m glad this thing is over.

In my book, once you tell me you identify as “christian” is the moment you fall on deaf ears. If I want to hear kooky stuff, I’ll go home and watch cartoons.

Hemant is on-target when suggesting we call out the IFI and similar religious folks on their ridiculous ideas and behaviors. They should not be permitted to hide behind the skirts of moderate Christians – and moderte Christians need to be continually reminded that the IFI and similar groups all fall under the umbrella of Christianity. If moderate Christians are forced to continually distinguish themselves from the more extreme groups, then the whole irrational fabric will fray.

Your professionalism was very evident to this reader.

Pastor Keith’s correspondence and comment here does not show much. If I was Laurie, I probably wouldn’t correspond with him either given the leading nature of his questions.

Well the questions were leading… they were leading toward understanding that Higgins’ motivation wasn’t to change Hemant or seek understanding from Hemant. They were to exact political revenge on Hemant for saying the things he did.

So, yes, it’s plain to see to everyone here exactly where Keith’s questions were leading. They were leading to the truth of what Higgins actions were motivated by.

The gloves came off when Hemant attacked the IFI’s warning.

Oh reaaallly? So folks are having a kiss in rally, and Higgins (to use your word) ‘attacks’ that… gloves still on at this point.

And then Hemant posts a blog post about her blog post, and BAM, that was just TOO much! Gloves were totally off then. Hemant went TOOOO far in making a blog post about HER blog post! How DARE HE?!?!?!

And calling up Hemant’s employers was, what, a de-escalation?

Wow. Awesome thinking there, Jon.

Waitaminute. Back in the original thread about the IFI, I posted that I would kiss a dog in front of Higgins house, if I lived in Chicago.

Are you going to call my boss now and tell them I support bestiality? What a SCANDAL!!!!

The gloves came off when Hemant attacked the IFI’s warning.

Attacked? Are you serious? He told a joke, and Higgie threatened his job over it.

Get some damned perspective.

Is this a thinly veiled threat to Hemant?

How in the world are you getting that?

The gloves came off when Higgins started contacting Hemant’s employers behind his back.

She knew what she was doing, as pastor Keith’s correspondence with her shows.

The gloves came off when Hemant attacked the IFI’s warning.

Pastor Keith’s correspondence and comment here does not show much. If I was Laurie, I probably wouldn’t correspond with him either given the leading nature of his questions.

As I’ve said before, Laurie Higgins is such an offensive person that she actually works against herself.

————-

I’ve just read what you tried to do to Hemant Mehta. Your organization is disgusting in how you went after Mehta and his job.

If you ever wanted show how tolerant your brand of Christianity is, you’ve utterly failed.

You disgust me, and I am an angry because of it.

No doubt, you’ll put this in your perceived persecution files as a defense of your actions, and take it as confirmation for your abuse.

No doubts there.