heckofajobbrownie Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 >>You keep believing it, though. Like that when I disagree with the guys in here about, say, the Ground Zero mosque, it's because I'm for mosques because I feel bad for Muslims, but I'm against churches because I hate Christians. It has nothing to do with upholding the American ideal of religious freedom and pluralism guaranteed in the Constitution.>> Here is a couple of scenarios, Heck, and my take on them. They might be wrong but they might be right. #1: Muslims want to build a Mosque close enough to Ground Zero that it offends some folks - some more than others. The Right, for the most part, opposes this because of the imagery they perceive. The Left - on the other hand - believe they should be allowed to build the Mosque where they want to build it because - they can. #2 (Because I can't think of an analogous example, off the top of my head, I'll create a hypothetical. For the sake of discussion). Ultra Conservative Christians place pictures of Homer Simpson around a sacred or, otherwise, important Muslim artifact. The Right says they should be allowed to do it because - they can. The Left - on the other hand - say the Ultra Conservatives CAN do what they did but should have used some discretion about where they did what they did. Maybe move it to another site. My point - perhaps unclear from above - is the Mosque CAN be built where it is proposed to be built. However, because of the strong imagery it creates to some folk, coupled with respect for the families and friends who were directly affected by 911 should build their Mosque somewhere else. Just because the Law allows you to DO something, it doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD do it. Unfortunately a lot of people get all caught up for causes they support and for causes they oppose without regard for consistency of believe or action. Maybe this sounds crazy. John, no, this doesn't sound crazy. But it also doesn't sound accurate to me. If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that. But if the reason to put up posters of Homer Simpson is to piss off Muslims because we can, then what's the grand idea I'm supposed to be supporting? So there's no equivalency in your example. If you want me to support an editorial cartoonist or novelist who runs counter to fundamentalist edicts, I'm way ahead of you. Especially if they're making a good point. But even if they aren't, no one should live under the threat of violence for expressing an opinion. Unless it's that Tim Tebow's full-time prayer service isn't silly and over the top. That is sacred shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 .....would the 'Hollywood' elite (SNL, Bill Mahar, etc.) be making fun of him? IMHO, the political elite believe it is fine and dandy to denegrate (sp) Christians, and Jews but not A-Rabs, Atheists, Hindus, etc.? I know, these folks 'hate' people of these faiths but, in truth, I don't understand why it is so accepted, so pervasive and so 'progressive'? Again, those who cry, 'Tolerance' at the drop of a dime, become completely intolerant of those who believe in Christianity or Judism? SNL and Bill Maher have taken shots at Arabs (one of my partners is in Arab and despises the use of A-rab), hindus etc because their job is COMEDY. I am ok with Tebow believing in whatever superstition, magic chant/prayer, anything he wants. I think Christians who are sensitive to people poking fun at their religion need to grow a thicker skin. Lots of professional athletes have practiced all kinds of ritualistic acts/superstitions over the years that are subject to ridicule.... its ok if its in a major movie like Major League and its about Voodoo but Christians are not subject to the same levels? John.... seriously this is much ado about nothing except your sensitivity to your religion. Get over it Tebow's beliefs are subject to the discipline of statistics and averages over time....... No matter what sport/superstition/rituals the law of averages sooner or later apply. Tebow's last game was a testament to the mathematics and analysis of his weakness as a player proving out statistically. I love the underdog..... Obviously we are all Browns fans we kind of have to love that. Lets not mix up magic and sports and grow some thicker skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted December 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that.>> I agree with your statements RE: religious pluralism. I also don't get bent out of shape over this issue because - maybe - the issue isn't worth getting all hopped up about. On the other hand, I might look at things differently if - for example - my wife was killed on 911. Any way, do you believe it would be a kind gesture to recognize the feelings of those opposed to the building - regardless of motivations - by stating a decision to build elsewhere so they CANNOT be accused of any other motivation than to create a building for their worship and use? Would you advise them to do this? This might not surprise you but I would probably opt to build elsewhere out of respect for those who were deeply impacted by 911 EVEN THOUGH there isn't a true connection between rank-and-file Muslims and fanatical Muslims any more than there is a true connection between politically-charged and ultra Conservative Christians and rank-and-file Christians (or the rank and file Jews in Israel and the fanatics that want to remove certain rights for women - maybe you aren't aware of this current situation. Maybe it is ongoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 What racism is the believe that certain racial traits make that race inferior, or superior. (Maybe we should have laid this part out first. Might have saved us a lot of trouble.) I think we've accepted that definition long ago. Culture is adopted and affected and has no inherent relation to race. The rest (me saying all Black people speak in Ebonics) you just made up. White kids sound just as stupid when they use it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that.>> I agree with your statements RE: religious pluralism. I also don't get bent out of shape over this issue because - maybe - the issue isn't worth getting all hopped up about. On the other hand, I might look at things differently if - for example - my wife was killed on 911. Any way, do you believe it would be a kind gesture to recognize the feelings of those opposed to the building - regardless of motivations - by stating a decision to build elsewhere so they CANNOT be accused of any other motivation than to create a building for their worship and use? Would you advise them to do this? This might not surprise you but I would probably opt to build elsewhere out of respect for those who were deeply impacted by 911 EVEN THOUGH there isn't a true connection between rank-and-file Muslims and fanatical Muslims any more than there is a true connection between politically-charged and ultra Conservative Christians and rank-and-file Christians (or the rank and file Jews in Israel and the fanatics that want to remove certain rights for women - maybe you aren't aware of this current situation. Maybe it is ongoing. I wouldn't look at it differently if my wife were killed on 9/11. For the same reason I don't expect them to move the site. They had nothing to do with 9/11 any more than you had something to do with the Norway attacks. So why would they feel guilty and feel like the should build elsewhere? Because other people incorrectly lump them all together? The whole point is to stop lumping all Muslims in with fundamentalist Muslims. And how did we get here from Tim Tebow? Why don't you tell me what was wrong with the comments/skit about Tim Tebow in your mind? Until then, you can watch this. Something I obviously got really upset about - Bill Maher making these comments about the repression of women in some Muslim societies. I almost cancelled my HBO! Doesn't he know all liberals like me reflexively protect Muslims from attacks on Muslim culture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 >>Until then, you can watch this. Something I obviously got really upset about - Bill Maher making these comments about the repression of women in some Muslim societies. I almost cancelled my HBO! Doesn't he know all liberals like me reflexively protect Muslims from attacks on Muslim culture?>> Five words: Poor taste. Not funny. Disrespectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 >>Until then, you can watch this. Something I obviously got really upset about - Bill Maher making these comments about the repression of women in some Muslim societies. I almost cancelled my HBO! Doesn't he know all liberals like me reflexively protect Muslims from attacks on Muslim culture?>> Five words: Poor taste. Not funny. Disrespectful. I think forcing women to wear burqas is in poor taste, and disrespectful. I guess we have different senses of humor. But that's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that. But if the reason to put up posters of Homer Simpson is to piss off Muslims because we can, then what's the grand idea I'm supposed to be supporting? John *************************** But it's subjective to redefine situations in conflicting terms for liberals/inherently marxist oriented whiners... Like: Liberals emotionally want to protect the rights of mothers, but couldn't care less about the lives of unborn and just born children. Liberals HATE lying - it's a serious offense... for Nixon. But for Clinton, it's fine - they LOVE it. Liberals HATE infidelity - like Gingrich. But they are fine with it if it's Edwards... or Clinton THEN they love it. Liberals HATE restrictions on freedom of speech...for the occupy slimeballs. But they LOVE restrictions on conservatives, especially the Tea Party and Talk Radio. Liberals Christianity in gov. But let Obamao have an Ishtar dinner, and say that we are a Muslim country... whatever... then they LOVE that. Liberals HATED the Patriot Act. But Obamao extends it's reach... and they then LOVE it. Liberals HATED the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ridiculed our soldiers ... while Bush was pres. But now, they LOVE them, albeit quietly, because there's a Dem in the wh. it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and... never ends. The real challenge is to get just one of them to admit it. Like Heck. Just once ... admit it. No reason, no principle, no values.... just emotional self-serving ideology - that flips the beliefs back and forth to suit the agenda at hand, to fit the current circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 >>I think forcing women to wear burqas is in poor taste, and disrespectful. I guess we have different senses of humor. But that's okay.>> Well you set a trap, Heck. I decided not to follow the course of action you wanted me to take. If I said it was funny then you'd ask why the SNL skit, for example, was distasteful. The fact is I agree that forcing women to act and dress the way they are supposed to is extremely distasteful and a disregard for human rights. On the other hand, I dislike Mahar and would be shocked if I found anything he did funny. That is probably my 'problem' but I don't toss and turn all night worrying about it. In the end, though, the skit wasn't funny. IT WASN'T FUNNY, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Maher nails certain things on the head, and I like him for that. But he's often a condescending asshole, and could probably accomplish more if he was a bit more kind. Check out Religulous if you want to see what I mean. I also don't get bent out of shape over this issue because - maybe - the issue isn't worth getting all hopped up about. On the other hand, I might look at things differently if - for example - my wife was killed on 911. Any way, do you believe it would be a kind gesture to recognize the feelings of those opposed to the building - regardless of motivations - by stating a decision to build elsewhere so they CANNOT be accused of any other motivation than to create a building for their worship and use? Would you advise them to do this? This might not surprise you but I would probably opt to build elsewhere out of respect for those who were deeply impacted by 911 EVEN THOUGH there isn't a true connection between rank-and-file Muslims and fanatical Muslims any more than there is a true connection between politically-charged and ultra Conservative Christians and rank-and-file Christians (or the rank and file Jews in Israel and the fanatics that want to remove certain rights for women - maybe you aren't aware of this current situation. Maybe it is ongoing. I completely disagree. Grow a thick skin. If you complain about this, you're no different than, say, this dude. The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt. If you think they're being distasteful assholes about it, then buy some property next to it and open up a distasteful store that you think would put them down. These people just need to quit fucking whining, I don't care how many friends they lost in 9/11. The law of the land needs to be respected, and for anyone to try and take this to trial is a waste of everyone's time and tax money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 >>The law of the land needs to be respected, and for anyone to try and take this to trial is a waste of everyone's time and tax money.>> You miss my point, Vape. I don't believe this should be taken to court. However, I believe it would be a nice gesture for the building to go somewhere else. That has nothing to do with right or wrong. There are many cases, in my opinion, that are legal but not tasteful. Personally, I don't care about the Mosque. I really don't. I am just suggesting a graceful solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yeah, I get you, mine was more of a rant against those type of people, but if someone wants to do something that's disrespectful to you, but completely legal, let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 >>Yeah, I get you, mine was more of a rant against those type of people, but if someone wants to do something that's disrespectful to you, but completely legal, let it go.>> I can't wait for second semester to start..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt. You're kidding right? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 .....would the 'Hollywood' elite (SNL, Bill Mahar, etc.) be making fun of him? IMHO, the political elite believe it is fine and dandy to denegrate (sp) Christians, and Jews but not A-Rabs, Atheists, Hindus, etc.? I know, these folks 'hate' people of these faiths but, in truth, I don't understand why it is so accepted, so pervasive and so 'progressive'? Again, those who cry, 'Tolerance' at the drop of a dime, become completely intolerant of those who believe in Christianity or Judism? I'm not setting a trap at all. Read this, your original post. You claimed the "Hollywood elite" like Bill Maher and SNL (SNL is in New York, by the way, not Hollywood) believe it's fine and dandy to denigrate Christians, but not Jews and Arabs, etc. I just showed you Maher doing a five minute bit in a stand up special where he takes on the treatment of women in many Muslim countries. I also pointed you to his movie, which does make fun of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, and more. I could also point you to SNL skits about Muslims, too. And Jews. So clearly, your original point is wrong. But it's even better: you accuse me and the "Hollywood elite" of only targeting Christians and being selectively outraged when someone else targets our "protected" groups, when you're the one who is mad about Maher and SNL going after Tim Tebow - your religious group - but never said a word about any of their comedy about other religions. ...And then you accuse me of being inconsistent with my outrage. When I'm not outraged by any of it. You other point is that I would get mad if Maher or someone like him went after Muslims or Jews instead of Tim Tebow. Well, did I? ...No, you did. You called Maher's skit "disrespectful" and in "poor taste." To whom, people who subjugate women by force? Really? I'm supposed to care if they're offended? In the end, I guess I get your only remaining points - that you'd like non-religious people to be nicer to religious people, even comedians and comedy shows. And if xenophobes and bigots or the families of victims who can't tell the difference between Muslims and jihadists want a mosque moved, we should yield to their wishes and move the mosque from two blocks away from Ground Zero to, I don't know, four blocks away, where everyone will now be safe from, well, nothing at all. Or should we do six blocks? Or somewhere on Long Island? I guess we're going to have to disagree on all of these points. Have a Happy New Year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt. You're kidding right? WSS Why would he be kidding? It doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt. You're kidding right? WSS Why would he be kidding? It doesn't. Maybe it shouldn't but in the real world it often does. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 It does? Can you give an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 "You (fill in blank......) suck so bad, I wish a bomb would explode under you"... If someone insulted you that way on an airplane.. etc.... wouldn't you think that would be illegal? I would. The 1st Amendment has certain limitations, to protect the rights of individuals, and society, too. Or, Heck, would you still think that racist, gender, cultural, religious etc, hate rhetoric, be perfectly fine? Seriously. The 1st Amendment is to PROTECT rights, not allow rights to be taken away. It's more complicated than a simple emotional reaction like you posted. "Inciting to riot" is illegal for good reason. But defining intent to incite, as compared to just having an unpopular opinion, is more a subjective appraisal than simply "The 1st Amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Steve? No? I can't think of any 1st Amendment restrictions because of "feelings." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Heck, Why are you participating with John in this discussion? Its a simple problem of people who identify themselves as Christians being over sensitive. Hows was Tebow's last game or last 3 games? Shit..... the law of averages caught up to the hype that people were associating with his ritualistic behavior. You know what Maher's real problem? its not the content of his positions rather his delivery. Do Christians Chant incantations? YES they just call them prayers.... Do Christians refer to a "tome" or book of magic? YES its called the bible... Do Christians believe in the supernatural? YES Angels, demons, heaven, hell overlord beings like Satan, God, Jesus... Holy Spirit, demi gods like Arch Angels.... etc Do Christians practice magic rituals? YES Baptism, exorcisms, prayers of healing, They wear funny robes, use magic I mean Holy Water, power relics like crosses etc... This is all fact they all follow a system that they want to believe some how effects the natural world. They practice a socially acceptable version of magic worship that essentially mimics other magic systems. John get a thicker skin... if you cant take the criticisms of Hollywood.... which by the way they are brutal on anything than maybe you have a bigger problem. Like I stated earlier in this thread..... the law of averages would catch up to Tebow and they already have. Luck does not mean supernatural interventionism... its just random but over time patterns prove themselves out. I dont know if your magic beliefs are the basis of our existence... I highly doubt it. I dont make it practice to define my understanding of the natural world by following the logic of humans 2k plus years ago..... The world was flat and we were the center of our solar system not the sun. Flying would be super natural to them and vaccines would be magic potions and the nuclear bomb would be super natural wrath... Can you imagine what they would think of sonic weapons? John I would love to see you or any other person on this board meet some of my Arab,Persian or any of the other middle eastern descent friends and call them A-Rabs.... I doubt you would just like I doubt you would ever try to debate the merits of your religion with any geneticist, social anthropologist, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted January 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 >>John I would love to see you or any other person on this board meet some of my Arab,Persian or any of the other middle eastern descent friends and call them A-Rabs.... I doubt you would just like I doubt you would ever try to debate the merits of your religion with any geneticist, social anthropologist, etc.>> I'm not going to repeat why I chose the word A-Rab. You either missed it or ignored it. Any way, I have no intention to sit down with your friends, although, I am quite sure we'd get along just fine. Zero problems Especially if we Hookah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.