jerk

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are certain things that will get a person fired, regardless of their right to free speech. It just depends what the person says. If a person says that they hate a certain group, that person will probably get fired.

If a person says that they are a Christian and they believe that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore they think people should repent from anything that the Bible says is sin, I don't think that person deserves to get fired. By the way, Phil Robertson didn't single out any one group or any one sin. He was talking about all sin (sin according to the Bible). He even mentioned straight men that are sleeping around with a lot of women.

Anyway, I think there is a big difference between that and hate speech. There are certain religions where you can't drink or smoke. I like to have a glass of wine once in a while. Do you think I would be offended if a person said (in an interview) that according to their religion I was sinning by having a drink? The answer is no. I wouldn't be offended at all.

i think this is a fair defense. at least tens of millions in america believe the bible is the literal word of god and live their lives accordingly. in a land with freedom of religion, that is their right.

i wonder though about the focus on the one part in leviticus which forbids lying with a man. leviticus forbids a hell of a lot more than just that. you can't wear clothing that mixes two kinds of fabric. leviticus is also the basis of kosher law which means no lobster or pig as a start. in fact the mere touching of their skin is forbidden. eating fat or blood. having sex with a woman during her period. picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard. holding back wages on an employee overnight. bearing a grudge. cross breeding animals. sleeping with another mans slave (apparently god approves if you both have a slave and sleep with her). cutting your hair at the sides. getting tattoos. failing to stand in the presence of the elderly. selling land permanently. working on the sabbath.

if you are living according to all 73 of the laws stated in leviticus, i have no problem. but since i know that it's almost impossible for anyone in the modern world to do so, i think it's fair to ask if some animus might be behind the focus on that one bit.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i think this is a fair defense. at least tens of millions in america believe the bible is the literal word of god and live their lives accordingly. in a land with freedom of religion, that is their right.

i wonder though about the focus on the one part in leviticus which forbids lying with a man. leviticus forbids a hell of a lot more than just that. you can't wear clothing that mixes two kinds of fabric. leviticus is also the basis of kosher law which means no lobster or pig as a start. in fact the mere touching of their skin is forbidden. eating fat or blood. having sex with a woman during her period. picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard. holding back wages on an employee overnight. bearing a grudge. cross breeding animals. sleeping with another mans slave (apparently god approves if you both have a slave and sleep with her). cutting your hair at the sides. getting tattoos. failing to stand in the presence of the elderly. selling land permanently. working on the sabbath.

if you are living according to all 73 of the laws stated in leviticus, i have no problem. but since i know that it's almost impossible for anyone in the modern world to do so, i think it's fair to ask if some animus might be behind the focus on that one bit.

of course it's animus. when you mention the mixed fabrics, etc, you hear that there's a 'new covenant' from jesus. that the old testament doesn't apply.
except for the homosexual part. but people don't pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow, and what they can now ignore. of course you can eat shellfish now, and pork...

you just..you know, can't lay with another man if you are one. cause leviticus.
it's perfectly logical, god. you just have to know what counts, and what doesn't.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i think this is a fair defense. at least tens of millions in america believe the bible is the literal word of god and live their lives accordingly. in a land with freedom of religion, that is their right.

i wonder though about the focus on the one part in leviticus which forbids lying with a man. leviticus forbids a hell of a lot more than just that. you can't wear clothing that mixes two kinds of fabric. leviticus is also the basis of kosher law which means no lobster or pig as a start. in fact the mere touching of their skin is forbidden. eating fat or blood. having sex with a woman during her period. picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard. holding back wages on an employee overnight. bearing a grudge. cross breeding animals. sleeping with another mans slave (apparently god approves if you both have a slave and sleep with her). cutting your hair at the sides. getting tattoos. failing to stand in the presence of the elderly. selling land permanently. working on the sabbath.

if you are living according to all 73 of the laws stated in leviticus, i have no problem. but since i know that it's almost impossible for anyone in the modern world to do so, i think it's fair to ask if some animus might be behind the focus on that one bit.

Those are good points but I don't think most Christians focus on the Old Testament.

Here is a good article that I just read about this whole Duck Dynasty debate. This is the only article I've read that talks about the true conflict that has really been ignored. IMO.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...debate/282587/

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Those are good points but I don't think most Christians focus on the Old Testament.

Here is a good article that I just read about this whole Duck Dynasty debate. This is the only article I've read that talks about the true conflict that has really been ignored. IMO.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...debate/282587/

Towards the top on the right click on..

A True Duck Travesty

Highlights from late-night comedy

to get the comic view...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Towards the top on the right click on..

A True Duck Travesty

Highlights from late-night comedy

to get the comic view...

i'm figuring all those fine people at fox didn't come to martin bashirs defense a few weeks back re: his comments about sarah palin.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm figuring all those fine people at fox didn't come to martin bashirs defense a few weeks back re: his comments about sarah palin.

I think this was meant for fox and others..


Thought for today.

"Those wearing tolerance for a label call other views intolerable"-Phyllis McGinley, American poet and author {1905-1978)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

I think this was meant for fox and others..


Thought for today.

"Those wearing tolerance for a label call other views intolerable"-Phyllis McGinley, American poet and author {1905-1978)

yeah, it's easy to support freedom of speech when someone agrees with what's being said.

it's why, much as i dislike westboro 'church', i know they have their right to their stupidity and standing and saying rotten things at funerals, etc. also why even the kkk has a right to their parades. i don't get why they do what they do...but i get that they can do it.

as the saying goes 'i don't agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it'.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, it's easy to support freedom of speech when someone agrees with what's being said.

it's why, much as i dislike westboro 'church', i know they have their right to their stupidity and standing and saying rotten things at funerals, etc. also why even the kkk has a right to their parades. i don't get why they do what they do...but i get that they can do it.

as the saying goes 'i don't agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it'.

I usta use that line at the old YB message board with a minor change.
'I don't agree with what you say but i will defend with YOUR life the right to say it'

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, it's easy to support freedom of speech when someone agrees with what's being said.

it's why, much as i dislike westboro 'church', i know they have their right to their stupidity and standing and saying rotten things at funerals, etc. also why even the kkk has a right to their parades. i don't get why they do what they do...but i get that they can do it.

as the saying goes 'i don't agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it'.

As I said before, if someone says really nasty and hateful things, they probably should get fired, regardless of their right to free-speech and regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.

As I said before, if a Muslim or a person of any religion is being interviewed and says that they think that something that I do is a sin, I would have no problem with that. Why would I care? If they said that they hate Jews and Christians and all Jews and Christians should die, that would be totally different. I would have a problem with that and I would want the person to get fired.

I don't see any hypocrisy there.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Those are good points but I don't think most Christians focus on the Old Testament.

Here is a good article that I just read about this whole Duck Dynasty debate. This is the only article I've read that talks about the true conflict that has really been ignored. IMO.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...debate/282587/

yeah, i saw that earlier.
i disagree that it is 'strongly condemned' in the bible.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ible_says.html

and this just came out, which bears that out.

as for people justifying hate because it's their 'religious belief', it's still hate...and is counter to what the original christian had to say about loving one another, not judging, etc.



people have freedom of speech...and of course freedom of religion. however, their freedom to swing their religious fist ends at the tip of the other guys nose.

many christians don't focus on the OT, unless it's to support an argument they are making. for the most part, it's thrown out as archaic...again, til useful.

since so many supposed christians pick and choose what's sinful, they are out on a limb when using their religions as their reason for judging.
how great a sin when it's someone else committing it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i saw that earlier.
i disagree that it is 'strongly condemned' in the bible.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ible_says.html

and this just came out, which bears that out.

as for people justifying hate because it's their 'religious belief', it's still hate...and is counter to what the original christian had to say about loving one another, not judging, etc.



people have freedom of speech...and of course freedom of religion. however, their freedom to swing their religious fist ends at the tip of the other guys nose.

many christians don't focus on the OT, unless it's to support an argument they are making. for the most part, it's thrown out as archaic...again, til useful.

since so many supposed christians pick and choose what's sinful, they are out on a limb when using their religions as their reason for judging.
how great a sin when it's someone else committing it.

Nobody claims that it is ok to hate based on religious beliefs. Hate is not a part of Christianity. I'm sure there are some so-called Christians who hate, but I didn't hear any hate in Phil Robertson's comments.

If I say that a man and a woman having premarital sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them? If I say that watching pornography is a sin, does that mean I hate people that watch pornography? If I say that two men having sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them?

Where does the word "hate" even come into this debate?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Nobody claims that it is ok to hate based on religious beliefs. Hate is not a part of Christianity. I'm sure there are some so-called Christians who hate, but I didn't hear any hate in Phil Robertson's comments.

If I say that a man and a woman having premarital sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them? If I say that watching pornography is a sin, does that mean I hate people that watch pornography? If I say that two men having sex is a sin, does that mean I hate them?

Where does the word "hate" even come into this debate?

i think what created the firestorm in some peoples minds was his linking homosexuality to bestiality, etc and it 'morphs out from there'. as tho it's some sort of gateway sin to other things.
my discussion about hate, religion, etc, is part of a broader discussion. i'm sorry that you think i was only discussing phil. i was thinking of westboro, who i mentioned above, tony perkins, my mother in law, etc.

are you sure 'nobody claims' that it's ok to hate based on religion? that's not been my experience, based on what i've seen, read, heard.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think what created the firestorm in some peoples minds was his linking homosexuality to bestiality, etc and it 'morphs out from there'. as tho it's some sort of gateway sin to other things.
my discussion about hate, religion, etc, is part of a broader discussion. i'm sorry that you think i was only discussing phil. i was thinking of westboro, who i mentioned above, tony perkins, my mother in law, etc.

are you sure 'nobody claims' that it's ok to hate based on religion? that's not been my experience, based on what i've seen, read, heard.

I think the one thing that I didn't take into account is that gay people have a history of being persecuted so they are obviously going to be sensitive to these types of statements. If I have sex with a woman and I hear a guy on television say that is a sin, I'm not going to get mad or say that the statement was hateful. But I don't have a history of being persecuted for having sex with women, so I'm obviously not going to be sensitive about someone calling it a sin.

So I understand where a group like GLAAD is coming from, but I think they have to understand where other people are coming from too. Sure there is a history of bigotry against gay people. But that doesn't mean that Phil Robertson or any other Christian has a hatred of gay people. I think a group like GLAAD does themselves a huge disservice when they start accusing people of beating "hateful". It reminds me of when guys like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton accuse of everyone of being racists. It's not good for their cause. It actually causes a huge backlash, as we've seen in this case.

GLAAD would have been much better off making a measured statement saying something to the effect of, "We are very sensitive to comments like this and although Mr. Robertson probably did not have bad intentions, we are concerned that comments like these could conceivably cause some people to discriminate against gay people. We would like to see Mr Robertson explicitly state that gay people should be accepted and treated like everyone else."

If GLAAD would have made this type of statement, it would have helped their cause and there would not have been such a firestorm and backlash. But instead, they overplayed their hand like a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and it totally backfired.

[Danzig]

i don't think they overplayed it at all. and they haven't just been persecuted, people have been attacked and killed because of others not liking their sexuality.
i'm not sure why someone can make such comments, and everyone is supposed to 'understand where he's coming from'.
so, he can say what he wants and point to a book as to why? but if someone takes offense, they need to be more tolerant?
i know it's the general rule, oh just ignore it. but that's what people who behave badly are counting on. that altho they are uncivilized, they can depend on civilized people to stay...civil.
his comments don't reach the level of, say, tony perkins. but they certainly deserved to be called what they were. and it's not the first time he's made those type comments.
he certainly didn't make them to get dialogue going, but to stop it.
and it's too bad that the homosexual comments got so much more attention than him trying to gloss over the days of jim crow.