Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[Seawytch]

First of all, I didn't say anything about the South. "Christianity" was blamed for Slavery, and I said that was ridiculous. The answer was oh yeah, well Christians in the South... Whatever. My family were northerners and Christians, and they were very anti-slavery, and so were most of the people in the North. In the South, it wasn't as universally supported as believed.

There are a lot of Christian groups who run the gamut. The majority of Christians don't care about gay, it's the Conservative ones who do, and not all of them.

Christianity has never been blamed for slavery.
That is the most bizarre claim I have ever seen on this thread.
What was said that most Christians in the south used the Bible to validate slavery.

It's the rat holes liberals always take discussions down.

Comparing discrimination is a "rat hole"? Only because it points out inconvenient truths I imagine.

 

[Gadawg73]

Christianity was a far bigger player in opposing slavery and racism.

And the south used primarily economics, not religion to justify it.

And equating slavery with that the poor gays can't get government validated marriage is just pathetic.

Very true as my Quaker ancestors were anti slavery.
And take a wild guess which religion persecuted them for that.

I was born and raised in the deep south.
Religion was ALWAYS used to validate segregation.

Would that be the origin of your bigotry against them?

My father worked for the College Entrance Examination Board from the early 60s to early 80s.
He and 2 others went to southern high schools that were giving the SAT and barring blacks from taking it. He told the principals and school boards there that if blacks could not take it then NO one would take the SAT at those schools.
Well documented during those times.
I grew up being called "****** lover" from 2nd grade through about my sophomore year in high school when all of a sudden I was 6'4" and 265 lbs. I played on the first integrated team at our high school.
My family has a history of treating everyone as equals and being vocal and active doing so for over 334 years now in this country.
You?

 

[bendog]

The point is hunarcy, no one tried to stop Robertson from tying homosexuality to beastiality.

And yet, when he did, GLAAD planned a campaign to stop him from acting as a spokesman for any product and to have him removed from the airways and only backed down when the backlash was more than they could handle.

So, while you are smugly impugning people based on where they live and how they talk, you're spreading falsehoods and making yourself look just as pathetic as those you were mocking.

Where you on the old PE2k board?

Of course GLADD wanted him removed from being a spokeperson. But affecting pocketbooks is not "silencing." It's using freedom of speech just as Paul "where's my cow now" Robertson was using free speech.

Frankly it's all good. The DD folks advertising themselves as homophobes is exactly how the founders intended the democracy to work.

I've always been for more freedom of expression.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Before of after they were bombed?

You mean, the ones Bill Clinton saw burned?

 

[kaz]

Christianity has never been blamed for slavery.
That is the most bizarre claim I have ever seen on this thread.
What was said that most Christians in the south used the Bible to validate slavery.

It's the rat holes liberals always take discussions down.

Comparing discrimination is a "rat hole"? Only because it points out inconvenient truths I imagine.

Strawman. Everything is about gay to you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe the Mormons were driven out of Missouri largely because they had the temerity to allow blacks in their congregations and even their clergy (and to their discredit they soon caved on that point and didn't uncave until 1978).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's a new level of stupidity.

The Mormons were driven from Nauvoo because they staged a violent revolution that included armed conflict with federal and state troops, resulting in the arrest of Joseph Smith on the charge of treason, which he was in fact guilty of.

As for how blacks fared under the Mormons;

{From the mid-1800s until 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy which prevented most men of black African descent from being ordained to the church's lay priesthood. This resulted in these members being unable to participate in some temple ordinances. Though the church had an open membership policy for all races, relatively few black people who joined the church retained active membership,[1] despite reassurance that the ban would one day be lifted when "all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the priesthood and the keys thereof".[2]}

Black people and Mormonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smith was an abolitionist, but blacks were hardly equal.

 

[RKMBrown]

Very true as my Quaker ancestors were anti slavery.
And take a wild guess which religion persecuted them for that.

I was born and raised in the deep south.
Religion was ALWAYS used to validate segregation.

Would that be the origin of your bigotry against them?

My father worked for the College Entrance Examination Board from the early 60s to early 80s.
He and 2 others went to southern high schools that were giving the SAT and barring blacks from taking it. He told the principals and school boards there that if blacks could not take it then NO one would take the SAT at those schools.
Well documented during those times.
I grew up being called "****** lover" from 2nd grade through about my sophomore year in high school when all of a sudden I was 6'4" and 265 lbs. I played on the first integrated team at our high school.
My family has a history of treating everyone as equals and being vocal and active doing so for over 334 years now in this country.
You?

I have a similar background, but my parents grew up in the race wars of the south and started out as racists and bigoted against gays. I watched them change over time.

The difference is I don't blame christianity for the bigotry. The bigotry is a weakness of man. Jesus did not teach us to be bigots. IOW your experience led to your own personal bigotry against christians in general. My experience led to be being against bigotry of all kinds. Reverse bigotry/racism is not excusable any more than the bigotry that caused it.

 

[hunarcy]

How is it that you seem to find something wrong if people choose to boycott "obsene music groups" or growers employing spokeswoman for fla orange juice who takes a political position, or an entertainment giant with movie studios and theme parks who supports full inclusion of gays .....?

I'm just not seeing the outrage of telling some private entity that if it takes a position ,contrary to a position some voters like, they're not gonna buy the entities stuff

If you don't understand the argument, feel free to stop posting. The CLAIM was that no one was trying to silence Robertson and I have proven that is a lie. Nothing you have posted changes that fact, so your comments, while yours to make, are merely distractions.

You haven’t ‘proven’ anything, and in fact you are wrong.

Only the state has the authority to seek to silence someone for his speech, using its police powers – only the state can arrest, detain, try, convict, and imprison someone for his unpopular speech. Private citizens and organizations lack that power. They do not have the authority to arrest, detain, try, convict, and imprison someone for his unpopular speech. Lacking that power and authority, private citizens or organizations cannot seek to ‘silence’ anyone, which is why this is not a free speech issue, as First Amendment restrictions apply only to government.

Consequently, this ignorant notion of private citizens or organizations seeking to ‘silence’ someone is mere partisan contrivance by the right hostile to opposing views and dissent.

You sir, are a liar.

 

[Seawytch]

It's the rat holes liberals always take discussions down.

Comparing discrimination is a "rat hole"? Only because it points out inconvenient truths I imagine.

Strawman. Everything is about gay to you.

Was/is the bible used (by religious extremists) to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation?

Is the bible used ( by religious extremists) to justify anti gay bigotry?

The answer to both questions is "yes". How is that a Strawman?

 

[koshergrl]

*yawn*

 

[kaz]

Comparing discrimination is a "rat hole"? Only because it points out inconvenient truths I imagine.

Strawman. Everything is about gay to you.

Was/is the bible used (by religious extremists) to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation?

Is the bible used ( by religious extremists) to justify anti gay bigotry?

The answer to both questions is "yes". How is that a Strawman?

It's a strawman because you said I said something I didn't say. What you just stated here has nothing to do with what you said I said and I didn't say. If you don't know what a strawman is, it'd take you about 30 seconds to learn by typing "strawman fallacy definition" into Google.

You must really be fun to watch TV with. When they talk about Saddam Hussein, you say, OMG, he gassed his own people, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, the Bataan Death march, that was horrible, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, Attila plundered and murdered all those villagers, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, the Holocaust, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. You're a one trick pony, I can't take you seriously you comparing slavery and gay marriage.

The problem with the slavery, bible discussion is the implication Christianity is somehow responsible is not established just because some people used the bible to rationalize slavery. Anyone can misuse the Bible, it doesn't make Christianity responsible for their actions. Oddly you get this concept when you say all Muslims are not responsible for the actions of the fundamentalist radicals.

 

[Pogo]

Comparing discrimination is a "rat hole"? Only because it points out inconvenient truths I imagine.

Strawman. Everything is about gay to you.

Was/is the bible used (by religious extremists) to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation?

Is the bible used ( by religious extremists) to justify anti gay bigotry?

Clearly it was and is, starting with Chris Columbus and right through Fred Phelps.

They try to deflect by morphing the idea proposed to "Christianism caused bigotry", which is not at all the same point.

THAT is a strawman. When you can't handle or don't wish to deal with the point, change it to something you can shoot down. Dishonest.

Edit: Ironically the post before this one grudgingly acknowledges the original point in its last paragraph, while failing to acknowledge it got changed into something completely different. A clumsy attempt to concede.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is it that you seem to find something wrong if people choose to boycott "obsene music groups" or growers employing spokeswoman for fla orange juice who takes a political position, or an entertainment giant with movie studios and theme parks who supports full inclusion of gays .....?

I'm just not seeing the outrage of telling some private entity that if it takes a position ,contrary to a position some voters like, they're not gonna buy the entities stuff

If you don't understand the argument, feel free to stop posting. The CLAIM was that no one was trying to silence Robertson and I have proven that is a lie. Nothing you have posted changes that fact, so your comments, while yours to make, are merely distractions.

1. Regarding media and public response, I have yet to find ANY media group that didn't try to control its own content for which the owners/operators would be deemed responsible.

2. As for the actual CONTENT of Robertson's actual stance that homosexuality is unnatural,
science has shown close to 50% correlation in twins reporting the same orientation.

Because it is not perfectly 100% it can be argued homosexuality is not solely genetic.
Because the chances are GREATER of matching orientations, it can be argued this is INFLUENCED by genetics as a "tendency" that can change with social/environment factors.

So why don't the media and protestors on both sides of this debate
promote and publicize research that shows there are BOTH types of cases:
some natural/some unnatural, some genetic/some environmental or social,
some that CAN be healed cured or changed and some that CANNOT be changed.

As long as people either promote "one position as right and the other as wrong" we will continue to see protests on BOTH sides. Because they are BOTH equally right and wrong.

Not ALL cases of homosexuality are unnatural and can be changed.
Not ALL cases of homosexuality are natural and cannot be changed.

So both sides are right that the other side is wrong if they say "all cases are the same."
When are we going to see THAT viewpoint expressed in the media?

Wouldn't that silence the opposition by confirming
they are BOTH right that the other side is WRONG.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. Everything is about gay to you.

Was/is the bible used (by religious extremists) to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation?

Is the bible used ( by religious extremists) to justify anti gay bigotry?

Clearly it was and is, starting with Chris Columbus and right through Fred Phelps.

They try to deflect by morphing the idea proposed to "Christianism caused bigotry", which is not at all the same point.

THAT is a strawman. When you can't handle or don't wish to deal with the point, change it to something you can shoot down. Dishonest.

Edit: Ironically the post before this one grudgingly acknowledges the original point in its last paragraph, while failing to acknowledge it got changed into something completely different. A clumsy attempt to concede.

What is the point of bringing up that Christianity was used to justify bigotry other than to criticize Christianity? None of you have explained that.

 

[Seawytch]

Strawman. Everything is about gay to you.

Was/is the bible used (by religious extremists) to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation?

Is the bible used ( by religious extremists) to justify anti gay bigotry?

The answer to both questions is "yes". How is that a Strawman?

It's a strawman because you said I said something I didn't say. What you just stated here has nothing to do with what you said I said and I didn't say. If you don't know what a strawman is, it'd take you about 30 seconds to learn by typing "strawman fallacy definition" into Google.

You must really be fun to watch TV with. When they talk about Saddam Hussein, you say, OMG, he gassed his own people, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, the Bataan Death march, that was horrible, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, Attila plundered and murdered all those villagers, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, the Holocaust, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. You're a one trick pony, I can't take you seriously you comparing slavery and gay marriage.

The problem with the slavery, bible discussion is the implication Christianity is somehow responsible is not established just because some people used the bible to rationalize slavery. Anyone can misuse the Bible, it doesn't make Christianity responsible for their actions. Oddly you get this concept when you say all Muslims are not responsible for the actions of the fundamentalist radicals.

Nobody implied Christianity was responsible for any of those. You went there, nobody else.

 

[kaz]

Was/is the bible used (by religious extremists) to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation?

Is the bible used ( by religious extremists) to justify anti gay bigotry?

The answer to both questions is "yes". How is that a Strawman?

It's a strawman because you said I said something I didn't say. What you just stated here has nothing to do with what you said I said and I didn't say. If you don't know what a strawman is, it'd take you about 30 seconds to learn by typing "strawman fallacy definition" into Google.

You must really be fun to watch TV with. When they talk about Saddam Hussein, you say, OMG, he gassed his own people, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, the Bataan Death march, that was horrible, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, Attila plundered and murdered all those villagers, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. OMG, the Holocaust, that's like the United States where gays do not have the right to the validation of government marriage. You're a one trick pony, I can't take you seriously you comparing slavery and gay marriage.

The problem with the slavery, bible discussion is the implication Christianity is somehow responsible is not established just because some people used the bible to rationalize slavery. Anyone can misuse the Bible, it doesn't make Christianity responsible for their actions. Oddly you get this concept when you say all Muslims are not responsible for the actions of the fundamentalist radicals.

Nobody implied Christianity was responsible for any of those. You went there, nobody else.

You were clearly going there, you just wanted the implication without being called on it. What about answering the question I asked? Why are you talking about Christianity being used to justify slavery and oppose gay government marriage other than to criticize Christianity? If that wasn't your point, why did you bring Christianity into it? You may proceed with your dodging and evasion now.

 

[Pogo]

Was/is the bible used (by religious extremists) to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation?

Is the bible used ( by religious extremists) to justify anti gay bigotry?

Clearly it was and is, starting with Chris Columbus and right through Fred Phelps.

They try to deflect by morphing the idea proposed to "Christianism caused bigotry", which is not at all the same point.

THAT is a strawman. When you can't handle or don't wish to deal with the point, change it to something you can shoot down. Dishonest.

Edit: Ironically the post before this one grudgingly acknowledges the original point in its last paragraph, while failing to acknowledge it got changed into something completely different. A clumsy attempt to concede.

What is the point of bringing up that Christianity was used to justify bigotry other than to criticize Christianity? None of you have explained that.

So... first it was morphing the point into a completely different point to evade the original. Now it's "waaahhh, they're criticizing Christianism!".

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, grow a pair. Metaphorically speaking of course.

The fact remains, Christianism and other religions (any organized religion) have been and continue to be used as a basis for violence, slavery, persecution, war, torture, rape and discrimination from time immoral. Trying to deny that is insanity.

 

[kaz]

The fact remains, Christianism and other religions (any organized religion) have been and continue to be used as a basis for violence, slavery, persecution, war, torture, rape and discrimination from time immoral. Trying to deny that is insanity.

And the question remains, why make that point other than to criticize Christianity? If you are not doing it to criticize Christianity, why are you making that point?

 

[Pogo]

The fact remains, Christianism and other religions (any organized religion) have been and continue to be used as a basis for violence, slavery, persecution, war, torture, rape and discrimination from time immoral. Trying to deny that is insanity.

And the question remains, why make that point other than to criticize Christianity? If you are not doing it to criticize Christianity, why are you making that point?

What the hell are you whining about now? Is this on some list of topics that dare not speak their names?

The original comment, referring to Phil Robertson's opinions, was:

Keep in mind, that slavery and segregation ALSO used to be "religious opinions".

Comparing that basis (religion) for both Robertson's homosexual comments and those used to justify slavery and racism

--- and you have proceeded to dance from "no they weren't, you're making up crap" to "Chrisitianism blamed for slavery" (hilarious Checkers speech impression btw ) to now whining that someone dared to find fault with Christianism.

First it was "false", then it was morphed to something entirely different, now it's "true but why does it have to be said out loud?"

You're all over the map here, dood.
Sorry, dude-of-indeterminate-gonads.

The original point stands as a comparison of the same basis for slavery, segregation and Robertson's comments. NONE of them need to be universal for the point to be made.

 

[kaz]

The fact remains, Christianism and other religions (any organized religion) have been and continue to be used as a basis for violence, slavery, persecution, war, torture, rape and discrimination from time immoral. Trying to deny that is insanity.

And the question remains, why make that point other than to criticize Christianity? If you are not doing it to criticize Christianity, why are you making that point?

What the hell are you whining about now? Is this on some list of topics that dare not speak their names?

The original comment, referring to Phil Robertson's opinions, was:

Keep in mind, that slavery and segregation ALSO used to be "religious opinions".

Comparing that basis (religion) for both Robertson's homosexual comments and those used to justify slavery and racism

--- and you have proceeded to dance from "no they weren't, you're making up crap" to "Chrisitianism blamed for slavery" (hilarious Checkers speech impression btw ) to now whining that someone dared to find fault with Christianism.

First it was "false", then it was morphed to something entirely different, now it's "true but why does it have to be said out loud?"

You're all over the map here, dood.
Sorry, dude-of-indeterminate-gonads.

The original point stands as a comparison of the same basis for slavery, segregation and Robertson's comments. NONE of them need to be universal for the point to be made.

Can't answer the question, got it. There was of course no basis to state it except as a criticism. I guess by dancing and evading, you're in your way acknowledging that.