Do you also agree that gay people are comparable to people who engage in bestiality?
Also, merely. Even as an atheist, that view seems cruel and pretty hateful.
2 Likes
Um âŚno, it isnât.
Cling to your crappy simplistic quote all you want. Youâre the one who gets to look bad.
Hate and bigotry is learned, and can be unlearned. Making it a sacred belief however puts it above rational discourse, etc⌠I blame religion for that.
I mean⌠if your gullible enough to accept the absurdities required of the faithful, then you are likely not intellectually equipped to make the distinction between the good and bad within your religion.
Not defending the guys beliefs⌠or even giving him a pass on his obvious bigotry. I canât tell if heâs sincerely convinced, or just confirming his bias by putting Jesus on his side. I can tell heâs not motivated to not be a bigot. Generally even the dullest of religious folks can find a way to rationalize any desired behavior to be acceptable within the confines of their beliefs⌠it just raises the transaction cost.
For example the pray the gay away folks and their hypocritical reversal of their press releases.
Or just check out the Variety articles covering this, which have now begun to defend itself against its own readers. The comments there are sub-YouTube level.
Yeah, âDuck Dynastyâ isnât Robertsonâs âplace of workâ, itâs a program that A&E agreed to finance and distribute a la contractual details. They didnât âhireâ Robertson, they drafted an agreement with him. So everything does boil down to the terms of that agreement. In this case, there was almost assuredly a âmorality clauseâ included, which is standard in these kinds of entertainment deals, and would allow for A&E to do precisely what they did here. If itâs a bad precedent, itâs one thatâs been around for decades. And has been used plenty (both Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir in recent memory).
To be reasonable requires one to be knowledgeable/educated on the facts and the precedent/history of the situation. Youâve proven plenty that youâre not.
1 Like
I wonât pretend that I didnât notice the horrible irony of people assuming that all southern americans are bigots.
3 Likes
I have a different theory. I believe this is a cleverly ginned up ârealityâ show stunt. I think that next week they are introducing the newest member of the Duck Dynasty, a flamboyant gay uncle who rides with the Krewe of The Sons of Tennessee Williams in New Orleans. All the other members love with all their hearts despite fearing for his soul. Also, he has the most hilarious antics.
It will be TLCâs first redneck reality show with a crossover audience to Bravoâs.
2 Likes
You say that as if you think I donât know it. For over 40 years Iâve known it. So have women, minorities and, now gingers and bronies face it. People are always going to have different opinions, and they absolutely have the right to express their opinions. It would be nice if they expressed them in calm, thoughtful and reasonable ways, but they donât always. Itâs our job, as humans, to be strong and courageous, loving and forgiving, and tolerant of others even when those others arenât. When the line is crossed, and a crime is committed, then action must be taken.
The duck guy expressed his opinion, when he was asked to, in a way that was consistent with his beliefs. When he said,
âDonât be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlersâthey wonât inherit the kingdom of God. Donât deceive yourself. Itâs not right.â
he was paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 9-10. Iâll paste it here, for accuracy, and extend it to the conclusion which is important (from the NIV):
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
I donât believe what it says, or in what Christianity is. I recognize that he was standing by the tenets of his faith, which is honorable, even if those tenets arenât. Under his beliefs, everyone is offered a way out, those who have offended may repent and be welcomed. You donât have to believe it, I certainly donât. But itâs what he believes.
Further on, he said
âWe never, ever judge someone on whoâs going to heaven, hell. Thatâs the Almightyâs job. We just love âem, give âem the good news about Jesusâwhether theyâre homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort âem out later, you see what Iâm saying?â
which again, in my opinion, demonstrates that he is not being aggressive or hateful, he is just stating his beliefs. We donât get to decide which thoughts are right or wrong, only which actions. I recognize that many people think heâs equating homosexuals to drunks and terrorists there, but I think thatâs a matter of perception. A list of things doesnât have to be the same kinds of things. He lists what he thinks are three different kinds of sinner. He could have chosen to add shellfish eaters, adulterers, thieves, murderers, or people who wear fabrics woven of two kinds of material (everybody). Would the uproar have been the same if heâd said âhomosexuals, swindlers and slanderersâ? I donât know.
Iâm not saying that heâs not a bigot - he is. Iâm not saying that heâs not hateful, but I donât think he demonstrated hate in the article. Every human has a right to hold inside his head whatever thoughts are his. We cannot decide which thoughts a person can have. And as long as someone doesnât commit a crime, we allow them the freedom of speech to express their thoughts.
What gives any of us the right to decide which thoughts are acceptable? Thereâs plenty of hatred out there without us hating back. Accept that people have different opinions, until they threaten you physically, then put them in the morgue. Be supportive of those who need it - thatâs where youâll make the difference.
Of course heâs free to think whatever he likes but as soon as he opens his mouth he pays a price. Sam Harris offers this for an example.
3 Likes
You just spent an AWFUL lot of time telling minorities and those of us who are discriminated against and oppressed to âshhh, be quiet, let the bigots talk!â. Yeah, thatâs never happened before ⌠except every day, since the dawn of time.
You know what? FUCK NO. I am not shutting up. I have just as much of a right to speak as do the bigots, you do realize that, donât you?
And I really donât think you know what freedom of speech means. It means you have a right to speak freely, BUT IT DOES NOT mean you donât have a right to face the consequences of that speech. It does NOT mean that the oppressed get to sit in silence while the bigots get to spew their bigotry.
Be supportive of those who need it - thatâs where youâll make the difference.
Also, that is highly condescending and unnecessary. I have been an activist â even so much as risking arrest while protesting John McCainâs stance on DADT a year before it was repealed â and a volunteer in the fight for equality since 2008. I do not need YOU trying to silence me and then in the next sentence telling me what to do to make a difference, and in such a vague way to boot. I really, really donât. Itâs unnecessary, condescending as shit, and not even a little bit helpful.
And how is speaking out against hate in itself âhatefulâ?! Is that the same as the âbe tolerant of intolerance!â bullshit? Because it sure sounds like it. How about a big fat FUCK NO?
7 Likes
It would also be nice if people didnât historically gather together behind these opinions to collectively oppress - physically and legally (by pressuring legislatures or the legal system to have it their way) - those people with âdifferent opinionsâ.
The sticking point with your approach is that opinions are not harmless âuntilâ there is action. The is ALWAYS action when an opinion is expressed, whether by the one expressing it or others, whether the people acting claim that itâs in the name of the opinion or not, thought leads to action, always and forever.
Most bigotry has occurred when it was not a crime to commit it. Even today, a lot of bigotry has to be argued in the courts as the lines are not clearly drawn, or are constantly being challenged even when they are abundantly clear. If itâs our jobs as human beings to be strong, courageous, loving, forgiving, and tolerant, then we cannot stand idly by while people express âbeliefsâ of the exact opposite of all of those things, i.e. advocating the lesser status, demonizing, or the striping of rights from others. Advocating for the end of all advocating for the demonizing of others, striping their rights away, or calling them lesser, is the very definition you describe. Taking that to the extension of biblical allegory, wherein we all wait around like Jesus to be crucified in hopes that humanity will be redeemed by our sacrifice, is not pertinent to the real world as we understand it today, with all of its historical precedent. Itâs martyrdom, but itâs not productive, it doesnât save humanity but rather allows it to slide while the âreasonableâ people are convinced they canât take an active stand on anything without becoming the enemy.
Also, tone and word choice do not determine the danger or meaning of the thoughts expressed. These are just social cues that help to get particular reactions out of your listeners. Itâs largely meaningless to the actual content, though.
Peopleâs actions give us that right. If certain thoughts have historically and consistently led to oppression of others, and to this very day continue to do so, then we can correctly connect the thought with the oppression or attempted oppression. No one should wait for a physical attack to be proactive about what ability they allow others to wield in relation to their well being. No one should have to wait passively while they see if the courts will allow them to be equal human beings again THIS year. They should advocate that equality is not a belief - it is a RIGHT. If your belief is that equality can be determined through organized or personal beliefs, then those beliefs will be challenged on every front available, because the belief itself is a challenge to the concept of equality via law.
Mostly, though, if you share your beliefs with the people around you, theyâll all challenge you as they see fit. If you share those beliefs on a national platform, then the NATION gets to challenge you as they see fit. Itâs proper and what is supposed to happen via free speech and equal rights.
5 Likes
Not to mention that SPEAKING is actually, quite literally, an action! And it can often be a negative action, such as in this case, or when Rush goes on and on about what whores female college students are. Itâs all bigotry and we, as progressives, have the right to speak out against it. Itâs really, really upsetting when people who claim to be on our side are telling us to be silent and just let those bigots speak their mind, as if we donât also have a right to drown those hateful fuckers out. Really upsetting.
Anyway, your entire post here is very well put. Thank you!
1 Like
As an atheist, even I know that there are plenty of self-identified Christians who arenât hateful bigots. My younger sister lives in Alabama, where her husbandâs family is from and still resides. They are all very progressive southerners who are pro-gay and anti-racist and are quite vocal about it. They really do exist. That said, I am an Arizona native, and so I am more aware than some that some regions just produce shittier people than others. Not that there arenât plenty of awesome people in Arizona, particularly in the quite progressive Central Phoenix areas, but you know, itâs still Arizona.
He reminds me of the God in the clouds in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Must be the beard.
Thatâs WG Grace.
1 Like
Damn, thats a nice kettle.
1 Like
Nathan,
I donât have any suggestions or ideas that would further the discussion with people who espouse or harbor racism or sexism. As a black woman married to a white guy for many, many decades I have always wondered why certain white males feel they have the right to express their disdain for blacks by physically shoving me or by coming dangerously close to my person with their cars while I am walking? In other words, vile statements happen but when someone decides to physically attack an individual based on the assumptions and prejudices, then that is where I draw the line.
But donât you think that perhaps drawing the line a little earlier will help prevent situations like those? If you keep the line so close to your undesired experiences, then people will inevitably cross it.
Sorry to hear that you experience such horrible treatment though, Iâll never understand people like that.
