Howard Baker passes

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

Another unbiased article there Robert? According to you only liberals are brainwashed by the media. Im sure the police report said "arrested for reading the bible". Any chance whatsoever that they just happened to be reading the bible while commiting another crime? For you to insinuate that Christians are routinely discriminated against in this country is patently absurd.

I took Rupert's advice and googled those two gentlemen, and Town Hall, unsurprisingly, is not telling the whole story. Those guys weren't "reading aloud," they were preaching Bible verses at people lined up outside the DMV. In other words, they were taking advantage of a captive audience to prosthelytize. Here in NYC, we deal with subway preachers all the time, who enter a car, and start shouting Bible stuff at us, and let me tell you, Rupert, they are annoying as f*ck. If I'd been standing on line at that DMV I would have been pissed as all get out that an already stressful experience was further shat upon by two guys who felt it was their religious calling to preach at me while I stood in line to get my d*mn picture taken.

But, as articles on the subject point out, the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence. Legally, Christians are allowed to annoy the living daylights out of innocent passersby by shouting at them, and they take full advantage of it. Of the many, many times I have been prosthelytized at (to), I can count exactly one person who was not Christian (a taxi driver who was Muslim, almost 20 years ago).

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I took Rupert's advice and googled those two gentlemen, and Town Hall, unsurprisingly, is not telling the whole story. Those guys weren't "reading aloud," they were preaching Bible verses at people lined up outside the DMV. In other words, they were taking advantage of a captive audience to prosthelytize. Here in NYC, we deal with subway preachers all the time, who enter a car, and start shouting Bible stuff at us, and let me tell you, Rupert, they are annoying as f*ck. If I'd been standing on line at that DMV I would have been pissed as all get out that an already stressful experience was further shat upon by two guys who felt it was their religious calling to preach at me while I stood in line to get my d*mn picture taken.

But, as articles on the subject point out, the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence. Legally, Christians are allowed to annoy the living daylights out of innocent passersby by shouting at them, and they take full advantage of it. Of the many, many times I have been prosthelytized at (to), I can count exactly one person who was not Christian (a taxi driver who was Muslim, almost 20 years ago).

Disturbing the peace and probably refused to leave which would be tresspassing.
Arrested for reading the bible, utter bullshit. Anyone reading that article and believing it sight unseen really should never be accusing anyone of being brainwashed.

[GenuineRisk]

While I'm at it (seeing as how I'm sick in bed anyway today), let me google the rest of the examples on the Town Hall site.

1: Florida ministry told to choose between Jesus and helping the poor: No. The ministry was violating USDA rules by taking federally provided food/funds and then prosthelytizing to the recipients. They were violating the separation of church and state. The USDA said they could continue to distribute food; just not in areas where there was religious imagery. This should more accurately be titled, "Florida ministry decides prosthelytizing more important than feeding needy."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09...-groups/195830

2: Billy Graham claims organization was "targeted" by the IRS. In 2010 the IRS informed his ministry it was reviewing their receipts because of concerns they were crossing the no-electioneering line. This is a line many, many churches cross, and they do it with seeming impunity. So, they get to campaign and still don't pay taxes. I don't see how the IRS investigating whether a public figure who has lots of political opinions and doesn't pay taxes on his very wealthy church is a big deal. Nothing came of it, just as it didn't for the Texas church that told its congregants to "Vote for the Mormon; not the Muslim." It's still not paying taxes, either.

3: Already addressed.

4: Colorado Bakery, wedding cake, same-sex couple, blah blah blah. We've already talked about this in other threads. If you are going to sell items in the public marketplace, you may not discriminate against customers based on certain things, including sexual orientation. The baker announced his bakery will no longer make wedding cakes at all. That's his right. I give him a year before he caves because wedding cakes are $$$.

5: Airforce Veteran faces a court martial for opposing gay marriage. No.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/0...-reassignment/

6: Government forces church to get permits for baptisms. Oh good grief. The Town Hall bit ends by saying that the Parks Department changed their mind and said permits weren't needed for baptisms. So, no. As for the part about the Missouri park temporarily requiring 48 hour permit notification- in NYC, if you're going to have more than 20 people at a Park gathering (no matter what it's for) you have to apply for a permit THREE WEEKS in advance. Don't talk to me about permits in Parks. Missouri Baptists have it easy.

7:Florida professor demands student stomp on Jesus: No. This is the hardest one to clarify, as stories vary on exactly what happened in the class, but it is true that the exercise was voluntary and did not demand that students "stomp" on Jesus.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/me...blisher-93174/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...tomp-on-jesus/

(The second one is a blog post, so it's highly opinionated, but it includes the textbook assignment, where it's clear it's not instructing "stomp on Jesus.")

So, seven examples, seven nos.

TL DR - None of the Town Hall citations are examples of discrimination.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

While I'm at it (seeing as how I'm sick in bed anyway today), let me google the rest of the examples on the Town Hall site.

1: Florida ministry told to choose between Jesus and helping the poor: No. The ministry was violating USDA rules by taking federally provided food/funds and then prosthelytizing to the recipients. They were violating the separation of church and state. The USDA said they could continue to distribute food; just not in areas where there was religious imagery. This should more accurately be titled, "Florida ministry decides prosthelytizing more important than feeding needy."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09...-groups/195830

2: Billy Graham claims organization was "targeted" by the IRS. In 2010 the IRS informed his ministry it was reviewing their receipts because of concerns they were crossing the no-electioneering line. This is a line many, many churches cross, and they do it with seeming impunity. So, they get to campaign and still don't pay taxes. I don't see how the IRS investigating whether a public figure who has lots of political opinions and doesn't pay taxes on his very wealthy church is a big deal. Nothing came of it, just as it didn't for the Texas church that told its congregants to "Vote for the Mormon; not the Muslim." It's still not paying taxes, either.

3: Already addressed.

4: Colorado Bakery, wedding cake, same-sex couple, blah blah blah. We've already talked about this in other threads. If you are going to sell items in the public marketplace, you may not discriminate against customers based on certain things, including sexual orientation. The baker announced his bakery will no longer make wedding cakes at all. That's his right. I give him a year before he caves because wedding cakes are $$$.

5: Airforce Veteran faces a court martial for opposing gay marriage. No.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/0...-reassignment/

6: Government forces church to get permits for baptisms. Oh good grief. The Town Hall bit ends by saying that the Parks Department changed their mind and said permits weren't needed for baptisms. So, no. As for the part about the Missouri park temporarily requiring 48 hour permit notification- in NYC, if you're going to have more than 20 people at a Park gathering (no matter what it's for) you have to apply for a permit THREE WEEKS in advance. Don't talk to me about permits in Parks. Missouri Baptists have it easy.

7:Florida professor demands student stomp on Jesus: No. This is the hardest one to clarify, as stories vary on exactly what happened in the class, but it is true that the exercise was voluntary and did not demand that students "stomp" on Jesus.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/me...blisher-93174/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...tomp-on-jesus/

(The second one is a blog post, so it's highly opinionated, but it includes the textbook assignment, where it's clear it's not instructing "stomp on Jesus.")

So, seven examples, seven nos.

TL DR - None of the Town Hall citations are examples of discrimination.

As I said in my previous post, "I don't necessarily agree that all the other examples on that site are legitimate examples of discrimination." I think some of them are borderline. But with regard to the case at the DMV, the judge said that the law prosecutors tried to invoke was likely unconstitutional. So what law was that? I doubt it was simply a "disturbing the peace law". But even if it was, the question you have to ask yourself is whether these guys would have been arrested had they been talking (or preaching) about Buddhism.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said in my previous post, "I don't necessarily agree that all the other examples on that site are legitimate examples of discrimination." I think some of them are borderline. But with regard to the case at the DMV, the judge said that the law prosecutors tried to invoke was likely unconstitutional. So what law was that? I doubt it was simply a "disturbing the peace law". But even if it was, the question you have to ask yourself is whether these guys would have been arrested had they been talking (or preaching) about Buddhism.

No, it's not, because it's not relevant (and because Buddhists don't prothelytize). The law they were charged under was impeding an open business. Again, they were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

That said, I watched the video put out by the organization that defended them, and it's pretty blatantly obvious that getting arrested was their intent from the start. Their speech is too rehearsed, and they're too quick to cut off the security guard who asks them (politely) to go somewhere else. They got exactly what they wanted; to get arrested (largely for being a**sholes, yes, but there are times as a citizen I sure wished subway preachers could be arrested just so they'd SHUT THE EFF UP), and then they could claim victimization. When in fact, the only people being victimized were the poor souls they were shouting Bible verses at. But that's not their problem, because Jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, it's not, because it's not relevant (and because Buddhists don't prothelytize). The law they were charged under was impeding an open business. Again, they were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

That said, I watched the video put out by the organization that defended them, and it's pretty blatantly obvious that getting arrested was their intent from the start. Their speech is too rehearsed, and they're too quick to cut off the security guard who asks them (politely) to go somewhere else. They got exactly what they wanted; to get arrested (largely for being a**sholes, yes, but there are times as a citizen I sure wished subway preachers could be arrested just so they'd SHUT THE EFF UP), and then they could claim victimization. When in fact, the only people being victimized were the poor souls they were shouting Bible verses at. But that's not their problem, because Jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c

They were arrested for preaching, not for impeding an open business. You heard the police officer. He clearly wanted to know which ones from the group were preaching and that those would be arrested. Why do you think they ended up getting off? It was because they had the video that showed that the only reason they got arrested was because they were preaching.

That being said, I'm kind of on the fence about whether they should be allowed to preach there. I think it is kind of obnoxious to loudly preach to people who are stuck in line. I don't agree with those kind of tactics. On a street corner where people can walk away is one thing. A line at the DMV is another thing. On the other hand, the DMV is a public place. I guess it is really a matter of what the policy is there. What was the policy? Is it "no preaching"? Is it "no loitering"? Is it "no soliciting"?

Anyway, I do admit that the original article was misleading. The original article made it seem like they were simply reading the bible aloud to each other, when in fact they were reading aloud (preaching) to anyone within earshot. I don't condone any website (whether conservative or liberal) trying to mislead people through half-truths. I will be the first person to call out a source for a half-truth regardless of the political leanings of the source. The way I look at it, if you think you're right about something and that you have a winning argument, why would you need to mislead people with just one half of the story?

So I do admit that conservative sites will sometimes mislead people with half-truths. Do you admit that liberal sites will try to mislead people with half-truths?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So I do admit that conservative sites will sometimes mislead people with half-truths. Do you admit that liberal sites will try to mislead people with half-truths?

Boy, now I know you don't read the vast majority of my posts. I have b*tched on here many times about the media depicting things inaccurately in order to craft a narrative.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said in my previous post, "I don't necessarily agree that all the other examples on that site are legitimate examples of discrimination." I think some of them are borderline.

No, none of them were borderline. They were very clear examples of not being discriminated against, and, in at least two cases, were examples of Christians using positions of power to try to force their views on non-Christians (the food bank church, the military guy). Read the links I put up, if you really do try to get all sides to a story.

More fun stories of Christians claiming victimization when they break rules or just act like entitled jerks:

http://www.alternet.org/christian-ri...ion?page=0%2C0

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, none of them were borderline. They were very clear examples of not being discriminated against, and, in at least two cases, were examples of Christians using positions of power to try to force their views on non-Christians (the food bank church, the military guy). Read the links I put up, if you really do try to get all sides to a story.

More fun stories of Christians claiming victimization when they break rules or just act like entitled jerks:

http://www.alternet.org/christian-ri...ion?page=0%2C0

Anyone could write a very similar article to that alternet.org article about any other group that has at times falsely claimed persecution. So what? If I wrote an article like that with examples of false claims of discrimination by muslims or blacks, you would probably say that the article was bigoted. But since the article was about Christians, you think the article is full of "fun stories". It's a good thing you don't have an anti-christian bias.

Did you know that if a person has negative attitudes toward muslims that the person is bigoted. But if you have negative attitudes towards christians that is fine. That is just being "progressive".

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyone could write a very similar article to that alternet.org article about any other group that has at times falsely claimed persecution. So what? If I wrote an article like that with examples of false claims of discrimination by muslims or blacks, you would probably say that the article was bigoted. But since the article was about Christians, you think the article is full of "fun stories". It's a good thing you don't have an anti-christian bias.

Did you know that if a person has negative attitudes toward muslims that the person is bigoted. But if you have negative attitudes towards christians that is fine. That is just being "progressive".

I have an anti-majority-claiming-to-be-a-victimized-minority bias, that's for sure. The ones in the article I linked to happen to be part of the Christian majority because you're the one who brought up false examples of discrimination against Christians. I was keeping this particular thread tangent on topic.

You're making a lot of accusations about my character there, Rupert, and I don't think I've made any personal accusations about your character in this thread. Not cool, dude. Not cool. If you're going to accuse me of claiming inaccurate things are bigoted, you need to cite some examples in my own words, in context. Otherwise, you're just making things up about me. There's a word for saying things about someone that aren't true, but I can't remember it. Anyone remember it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I have an anti-majority-claiming-to-be-a-victimized-minority bias, that's for sure. The ones in the article I linked to happen to be part of the Christian majority because you're the one who brought up false examples of discrimination against Christians. I was keeping this particular thread tangent on topic.

You're making a lot of accusations about my character there, Rupert, and I don't think I've made any personal accusations about your character in this thread. Not cool, dude. Not cool. If you're going to accuse me of claiming inaccurate things are bigoted, you need to cite some examples in my own words, in context. Otherwise, you're just making things up about me. There's a word for saying things about someone that aren't true, but I can't remember it. Anyone remember it?

There are two sides to every story. Here is another take on the song whose nomination was withdrawn for the Oscar:

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/01/chri...r_an_oscar_nod

I never claimed that you hate christians. I said that it sure seems like you have at least some sort of anti-christian bias. If you don't, then I misconstrued you views and I apologize. If you say you don't have a negative opinion of christians, I will take you at your word. Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda. According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people. If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I took Rupert's advice and googled those two gentlemen, and Town Hall, unsurprisingly, is not telling the whole story. Those guys weren't "reading aloud," they were preaching Bible verses at people lined up outside the DMV. In other words, they were taking advantage of a captive audience to prosthelytize. Here in NYC, we deal with subway preachers all the time, who enter a car, and start shouting Bible stuff at us, and let me tell you, Rupert, they are annoying as f*ck. If I'd been standing on line at that DMV I would have been pissed as all get out that an already stressful experience was further shat upon by two guys who felt it was their religious calling to preach at me while I stood in line to get my d*mn picture taken.

But, as articles on the subject point out, the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence. Legally, Christians are allowed to annoy the living daylights out of innocent passersby by shouting at them, and they take full advantage of it. Of the many, many times I have been prosthelytized at (to), I can count exactly one person who was not Christian (a taxi driver who was Muslim, almost 20 years ago).

I don't condone obnoxious and aggressive public preaching. But I don't have any problem with a person doing it in a quiet, calm, and non-confrontational way.