Different rules for Christians
From a UK Briefing reader:
When the pressure group Christian Action posted on its website the names and addresses of those responsible for Jerry Springer The Opera with the request that people write to them about the production, many hands were thrown up in horror. If anyone from Christian Action was interviewed on TV to explain their action, someone always followed to declare how totally irresponsible it was, because ‘extremists’ might get hold of the information and endanger these people.
I know of no armed, militant and violent Christian groups offering harassment and intimidation to those who offend them, but if that is what they feared, then they had the right to express their prejudices.
However, when animal rights extremists sent letters to shareholders in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) threatening to publish their personal details on a website unless they sold their shares, an apologist for the animal rights movement was interviewed, who said these people were “absolutely a legitimate target” for this kind of action; but guess what? Nobody came on after that to say what a totally irresponsible action it was, despite the fact that there are known extremists who will use almost any means at their disposal—certainly violence, intimidation and even grave-robbing—to attain their ends. Even if the people doing the publishing of the names would not use those tactics, it is known that others would: so to threaten to publish names is to threaten violence and is in itself intimidation. But nobody came on to say so.
Isn't that odd?