Pat Robertson Sez Haitians Made Deal With Devil [Archive]

ShivaX

01-13-2010, 04:32 PM

The more I'm actually paying attention to how bad the quake is, the angrier I'm getting at Pat Robertson.

They're talking about possibly 100k dead and hes saying they deserved it because over a hundred years ago the whole country supposedly made a pact with Satan? Really? How about this Pat, I want proof. Somehow I doubt he'd say the same if something like this happened in say, France, which has a pretty rough history of anti-religiousness. But since its some shithole island full of black people, hes got no problem saying these things.

Not to mention Haiti's religious background...

About 95% of the population claim Christian beliefs, although the most professed denomination by far is Roman Catholicism. Similar to the rest of Latin America, Haiti was colonized during a period during which Roman Catholicism was prevalent among European monarchs. Following in this legacy, Catholicism is enshrined in the Haitian constitution as the official state religion, and between 80 and 85% of Haitians are Catholics.

Using Pat's mental magic that means God hates Christians and especially Catholics (Pat might actually agree on the Catholic part). So obviously the Haitian people should change over to Islam or Buddism because God is apparently furious they decided to go with Christianity.

OR. Maybe its an island that happens to be in the path of hurricanes and likely to have earthquakes. Nah, that can't be it.

Doogie2K

01-13-2010, 05:10 PM

Dear Pat Robertson,

You, sir, are a disgrace to the surname. You are not an example of the very best of Christianity but the very worst: those who would use their faith as justification for hatred.

Burn in Hell.

Sincerely,
Another Robertson, who isn't even religious in the slightest.

TheFlyingOrc

01-13-2010, 05:28 PM

Hi, we support the Christian narrative of God and Satan's relationship, with Satan as the clearly underpowered, definitely going to lose guy, who hates us and only wants what is the worst of us.

Also, we are cognitively dissonant enough of our own believed narrative that we will ask Satan for help, when the option to ask God for help is clearly on the table.

Also, we are an entire country, so planning the seating arrangements for this satanic ritual are going to be A BITCH.

oh no god is earthquaking us we are so bad at our own religion

J Arcane

01-13-2010, 09:02 PM

Using Pat's mental magic that means God hates Christians and especially Catholics (Pat might actually agree on the Catholic part). So obviously the Haitian people should change over to Islam or Buddism because God is apparently furious they decided to go with Christianity.

OR. Maybe its an island that happens to be in the path of hurricanes and likely to have earthquakes. Nah, that can't be it.

See, your error is assuming Robertson acknowledges the validity of Catholicism.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that bit in the constitution is exactly what he's referring to, though he's one of the semi-clever ones who'd never state so directly.

01-13-2010, 09:10 PM

See, your error is assuming Robertson acknowledges the validity of Catholicism.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that bit in the constitution is exactly what he's referring to, though he's one of the semi-clever ones who'd never state so directly.
No way, dude. If arguing with atheists on the interwebs has taught me anything, it's that Catholics founded the Know-Nothing Society and the KKK, believe in sola fide, interpret the Bible literally, and agree with Jerry Falwell.

J Arcane

01-13-2010, 09:13 PM

No way, dude. If arguing with atheists on the interwebs has taught me anything, it's that Catholics founded the Know-Nothing Society and the KKK, believe in sola fide, interpret the Bible literally, and agree with Jerry Falwell.
Hee hee hee. So you do have a sense of humor. ;)

ShivaX

01-13-2010, 10:07 PM

See, your error is assuming Robertson acknowledges the validity of Catholicism.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that bit in the constitution is exactly what he's referring to, though he's one of the semi-clever ones who'd never state so directly.

Nah I'm not assuming that at all, thats why I said "Pat might actually agree on the Catholic part". In fact that might be what Pat meant. The Catholic Church is an agent of Satan, so by making it the national religion they made a Pact with the Devil.

J Arcane

01-13-2010, 10:14 PM

Nah I'm not assuming that at all, thats why I said "Pat might actually agree on the Catholic part". In fact that might be what Pat meant. The Catholic Church is an agent of Satan, so by making it the national religion they made a Pact with the Devil.
The other option is that he just thinks the whole country is this guy:

http://www.dvdverdict.com/images/reviewpics/liveandletdie07.jpg

torrefaction

01-13-2010, 10:18 PM

ShivaX

01-13-2010, 10:22 PM

I don't think he even deserves acknowledgment, and his comments are heinous.

But I wanted to bring something up. I've seen some statements via the AP that up to 500,000 are dead. 500,000.

500k would be just beyond imagining.

I don't think its that high, though they are just piling bodies in the street and on the sidewalks. But the population just isn't that high to support those kinds of losses I wouldn't think.

01-13-2010, 10:53 PM

Estimates are always higher than actual tolls, especially at this point in the crisis. Remember that the Post had a headline on 9/12: "50,000 FEARED DEAD."

txshurricane

01-13-2010, 11:45 PM

Ugh. For a while, I tried to like Pat for having the balls to stand up for Christian values...and then he started saying things like this.

Vigil80

01-14-2010, 12:54 AM

In all seriousness, I think he may be becoming senile. He is 80 this year. We all know that "old man who says crazy things" is a common theme.

Widgetcraft

01-14-2010, 05:45 AM

In all seriousness, I think he may be becoming senile. He is 80 this year. We all know that "old man who says crazy things" is a common theme.

Dude, this shit is not new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies

His whole "career" has been based around playing to most extreme lunatic fringe of white protestants. He is also a really terrible liar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson#Predictions):

Several times near New Year Robertson has announced that God told him several truths or events that would happen in the following year. "I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."[52]
1982: Doomsday

In late 1976, Robertson predicted that the end of the world was coming in November or October 1982. In a May 1980 broadcast of The 700 Club he stated, "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world."[53]
2006: Pacific Northwestern tsunami

In May 2006, Robertson declared that storms and possibly a tsunami would hit America's coastline sometime in 2006. Robertson supposedly received this revelation from God during an annual personal prayer retreat in January. The claim was repeated four times on The 700 Club.

On May 8, 2006 Robertson said, "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms." On May 17, 2006 he elaborated, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."[54] While this claim didn't garner the same level of controversy as some of his other statements, it was generally received with mild amusement by the Pacific Northwest media. The History Channel's initial airing of its new series, Mega Disasters: West Coast Tsunami, was broadcast the first week of May.
2007: Terror attack

On the January 2, 2007 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson said that God spoke to him and told him that "mass killings" were to come during 2007, due to a terrorist attack on the United States. He added, "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."[55] When a terrorist attack failed to happen in 2007, Robertson said, in January 2008, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us."[56] No mass killing has been reported in 2007 in the US.
2008: Worldwide violence and American recession

On the January 2, 2008 episode of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson predicted that 2008 would be a year of worldwide violence. He also predicted that a recession would occur in the United States that would be followed by a stock market crash by 2010.[56]
2008: Mideast Meltdown

In October 2008 Robertson posted a press release on the Georgian Conflict speculating that the conflict is a Russian ploy to enter the Middle East, and that instability caused by a predicted pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran would result in Syria and Iran launching nuclear strikes on other targets. He also said that if the United States were to oppose Russia's expansion, nuclear strikes on American soil are also pending. "We will suffer grave economic damage, but will not engage in military action to stop the conflict. However, we may not be spared nuclear strikes against coastal cities. In conclusion, it is my opinion that we have between 75 and 120 days before the Middle East starts spinning out of control."[57]

nixpayn

01-14-2010, 07:31 AM

lol, i misread the title and thought this was a thread about Rob Pattinson goin on a religious rant.

i was ready to share the video with all the fangirls around the office, but then i saw it and realized it was some grizzled old dude.

Boo!

Still trying to find someway to deflower that dude.. so much hate...

Widgetcraft

01-14-2010, 07:50 AM

Still trying to find someway to deflower that dude..

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2744/4274344438_dd4608c849_o.jpg

carnage11

01-14-2010, 08:08 AM

Perhaps Mr. Robertson is part of Satan's little plan himself. If you wanted to turn people away from God and make Christian's look bad wouldn't you use this guy?

nixpayn

01-14-2010, 09:20 AM

Qo9kJZvYBB0

BlackPete

01-14-2010, 09:40 AM

Perhaps Mr. Robertson is part of Satan's little plan himself. If you wanted to turn people away from God and make Christian's look bad wouldn't you use this guy?

Amen. Pat Robertson is probably the inspiration of this quote I've heard a few times: "I'd follow Christ if it wasn't for the Christians."

National Kato

01-14-2010, 10:39 AM

Perhaps Mr. Robertson is part of Satan's little plan himself. If you wanted to turn people away from God and make Christian's look bad wouldn't you use this guy?

That's a very valid point, carnage, and one I'd likely put some stock in if I believed in Satan. I mean, what better way to plant evil little seeds by speaking through a kindly, aged, 'holy' man?

National Kato

01-14-2010, 11:46 AM

Here's a video from Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/13/haiti_devastated_by_largest_earthquake_in) with a bit of insight you likely won't hear on the mainstream news channels as they continue their ambulance chasing. Includes earthquake news, historical/political context, and thorough reporting on this hemisphere's first Black republic, born of a slave uprising in 1804.

Or, you know, you can watch some more of Pat Robertson's antics. :D

LordDon

01-14-2010, 01:53 PM

Or, you know, you can watch some more of Pat Robertson's antics. :D

His name IS in the title of this thread and all.

National Kato

01-14-2010, 02:16 PM

His name IS in the title of this thread and all.

Heh, yeah I got no problem piling on the hate. But this is the only Haitian thread, so I figure a little protein mixed in with the sugar, you know?

Wraith

01-14-2010, 02:36 PM

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/1/14/1263483689587/image-of-pope-in-earthqua-003.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2010/jan/14/haiti-natural-disasters?picture=358060119)

National Kato

01-14-2010, 02:44 PM

If a Pope dies, does his commemorative plate lose its power?

Panthera

01-14-2010, 03:01 PM

No, I think it works like a horcrux.

Ultima Thulian

01-15-2010, 12:44 PM

Nothing surprising. This kinda shit has been Pat's bread and butter for years.

Cyndair

01-15-2010, 06:50 PM

X-PEaWUduCM

LOL..... wow Keith! Not sure that something like this really helps but it sure is funny.

Vigil80

01-15-2010, 08:35 PM

Someone like Olbermann ought to have been in the business long enough to know that he's only giving his "opponents" free publicity. Of course, he's also generating publicity for himself.

"Wowie zowie, did you hear about what Olbermann said the other night?"
"Yeah, wild! Let's watch tonight and see what he says!"

Just more sensational statements and jockeying for attention. Just more taking attention away from where it should be focused.

Crowe

01-15-2010, 10:23 PM

Pat clearly made a deal with the crack pipe.

What a fucking wanker.

ShivaX

01-16-2010, 06:18 PM

Amen. Pat Robertson is probably the inspiration of this quote I've heard a few times: "I'd follow Christ if it wasn't for the Christians."

That actually pretty much sums up where I'm at spiritually.

MagGnome

01-17-2010, 02:56 PM

Am I the only one that always hopes a tornado hits these guy's Churches or homes? I don't want anyone hurt persay, but I'd love to see how they handle "God's Wrath" being targetted at them.

Mispelling "per se" is a good way to bring down the wrath of Mags upon thee! :mad:

Seriously, Falwell's death was a great event, and I cannot wait until Pat Robertson departs this mortal coil as well. The sooner these hateful old fucks are gone, the better.

ShivaX

01-17-2010, 03:20 PM

Mispelling "per se" is a good way to bring down the wrath of Mags upon thee! :mad:

Bite me.

Seriously, Falwell's death was a great event, and I cannot wait until Pat Robertson departs this mortal coil as well. The sooner these hateful old fucks are gone, the better.

I dunno about great event, but neither of them will be missed. I'd actually say they were great agents of Satan in their lives. I think they and their ilk have probably driven more people from Christianity than anyone else.

Generation ABXY

01-17-2010, 03:31 PM

A great event? You know, sometimes you scare me a little, Mags. :D

MagGnome

01-17-2010, 05:16 PM

Bite me.

I love you too. :p

A great event? You know, sometimes you scare me a little, Mags. :D

I wasn't sure exactly how to word my previous post. Suffice it to say that I think they and their ilk are lower than the scum that I scrub off of my bathtub.

ShivaX

01-18-2010, 03:02 PM

Since this is kind of the de facto Haiti thread...

The EU apparently is running estimates of 200k dead. 70k bodies recovered. Pretty mind boggling.

Vigil80

01-18-2010, 05:22 PM

Wow, MagGnome. Just wow.

Ultima Thulian

01-18-2010, 07:06 PM

Seriously, Falwell's death was a great event, and I cannot wait until Pat Robertson departs this mortal coil as well. The sooner these hateful old fucks are gone, the better.

Agreed. HITCHENS GET!

4e9yOPPUIJY

J Arcane

01-18-2010, 07:37 PM

Hitchens has about as much room to criticize the bigoted as Chavez has to criticize communism.

TheFlyingOrc

01-18-2010, 07:55 PM

Hitchens has about as much room to criticize the bigoted as Chavez has to criticize communism.

Hitchens is a self-congratulatory hatemonger, but he's certainly smarter than Falwell ever was.

Vigil80

01-18-2010, 08:42 PM

I had no particular love for Mr. Falwell, and I've made my feelings clear concerning Mr. Robertson's statements. I certainly wouldn't call either of them great men. At best, they have been outspoken about what they believe in. At worst, propagators of regressive, perhaps odious speech. But speech, nonetheless.

The idea that someone - particularly in the developed world - would celebrate or wish for the death of someone else based on those grounds is no less odious. It gives such individuals the appearance of being bitter and small, with little room to criticize others for perceived intolerance.

LordDon

01-18-2010, 08:54 PM

Hitchens is a self-congratulatory hatemonger, but he's certainly smarter than Falwell ever was.

On this we agree.

ClannerDelta

01-18-2010, 09:23 PM

The idea that someone - particularly in the developed world - would celebrate or wish for the death of someone else based on those grounds is no less odious. It gives such individuals the appearance of being bitter and small, with little room to criticize others for perceived intolerance.

I actually think that's tolerance at its finest. To hate someone so much that you'd feel relief at their death and do nothing to harm them their entire life is pretty tolerant.

I get angry at the dude that still uses checks.

Vigil80

01-18-2010, 10:31 PM

I actually think that's tolerance at its finest. To hate someone so much that you'd feel relief at their death and do nothing to harm them their entire life is pretty tolerant.

I get angry at the dude that still uses checks.
Really? "I won't be bothered to do anything to harm you personally, but I'll be thrilled when someone else kills you, or you eventually die."

If that's all that's required, then the general population of the U.S. is much more tolerant than anyone gives them credit for in that case. A near paradise of tolerance. That's including Robertson and Falwell, since I can find no reports that they personally murdered anyone.

ClannerDelta

01-19-2010, 01:11 AM

Really? "I won't be bothered to do anything to harm you personally, but I'll be thrilled when someone else kills you, or you eventually die."

If that's all that's required, then the general population of the U.S. is much more tolerant than anyone gives them credit for in that case. A near paradise of tolerance. That's including Robertson and Falwell, since I can find no reports that they personally murdered anyone.

You assume I think anything less. I put intolerance at actively trying to make someone's life worse or harming them in some way. One can argue that Roberson and Falwell's rhetoric crosses that line. With their frequent tirades about homosexual behavior and its supposed link to the horrible events in our lives. I consider the continued fight against gay rights to be intolerant because of the negative impact it has on homosexuals. I don't find it intolerant for someone to be against homosexuality in general, however. I'm certain many people will find fault with my definition though. :p

But in general, I agree, most Americans aren't given enough credit for how tolerant they are.

01-19-2010, 01:18 AM

I put intolerance at actively trying to make someone's life worse or harming them in some way. One can argue that Roberson and Falwell's rhetoric crosses that line.
But saying things like, "I cannot wait until Pat Robertson departs this mortal coil" doesn't cross that line? Let's get Mason and Dixon in here, because this is a humdinger of a surveying pickle.

ClannerDelta

01-19-2010, 01:27 AM

But saying things like, "I cannot wait until Pat Robertson departs this mortal coil" doesn't cross that line? Let's get Mason and Dixon in here, because this is a humdinger of a surveying pickle.

I said you could argue that their rhetoric went over that line, not that I thought it did. I actually think that if you, in all honesty, think someone is responsible for every horrible event the world suffers as Falwell and Robertson did, you're incredibly tolerant for not trying to physically harm them.

Ink Asylum

01-19-2010, 06:02 AM

The idea that someone - particularly in the developed world - would celebrate or wish for the death of someone else based on those grounds is no less odious. It gives such individuals the appearance of being bitter and small, with little room to criticize others for perceived intolerance.

When that someone uses a tragedy that killed possibly over 100,000 people to promote hate and a misguided view of religion I feel no shame saying that the world will be a better place when they are no longer around.

MagGnome

01-19-2010, 06:22 AM

The idea that someone - particularly in the developed world - would celebrate or wish for the death of someone else based on those grounds is no less odious. It gives such individuals the appearance of being bitter and small, with little room to criticize others for perceived intolerance.

Well I am a gnome, so of course I'm small. :p

All joking aside, I had no idea my opinion would draw such ire. Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but I truly believe that the world is better off without hatemongers like Robertson and Falwell.

01-19-2010, 07:52 AM

Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but I truly believe that the world is better off without hatemongers like Robertson and Falwell.
No, you shouldn't have worded it differently. Your meaning is clear: as Tom Lehrer said, "I'm sure we all agree we ought to love one another. I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!" As that quote and yours both show, both you and Robertson sincerely believe the world would be better off without the other. If one of you is "tolerant" and the other is "intolerant," the only explanation is that "tolerant" simply means "agrees with me".

aIlJ8ZCs4jY

Panthera

01-19-2010, 08:12 AM

I'm intolerant of the intolerant. Yep. You got me there. I'm wounded.

Ink Asylum

01-19-2010, 08:16 AM

Same here. I'm intolerant of people who abuse religion to capitalize off the death of thousands. Proud of it, too.

Generation ABXY

01-19-2010, 08:49 AM

I love Lehrer's stuff. :D

RandoM51

01-19-2010, 09:02 AM

Same here. I'm intolerant of people who abuse religion to capitalize off the death of thousands. Proud of it, too.

Those wolves couldn't be wolves if it weren't for all the sheeple.

Ultima Thulian

01-19-2010, 09:55 AM

Oh, I admit I'm a bastard. I don't pretend to take a moral high ground. I just enjoy it when people I severely dislike die. It's a win win for me. They can't annoy me any longer nor aid in clogging up traffic. What's not to love?

This world is over-populated anyway, and we're long overdue for a courtesy flush. C'mon nuclear winter!

Slack3r78

01-19-2010, 10:23 AM

Why is it necessary to pretend that you feel everyone is deserving of life? I mean, if you're consistent about it, that's cool, I can respect it. But I have a hard time accepting that it's wrong to say that the world is better off without some people in it.

EDIT:

e.g., I feel the world became a better place the day Slobodan Milosevic died. My only disappointment is that he died before being fully tried before the world court. Why should I feel any differently?

Siraris

01-19-2010, 10:45 AM

One thing that binds us all together is that we all will die some day. I wouldn't wish death on anybody, as I wouldn't wish it on myself. I wish that people like Pat Robertson, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Slobodan Milosevic (yes, I lumped Sarah Palin in with a genocidal dictator) would go away somewhere so I don't have to hear from them again, but I don't wish they would die.

And in all honesty, I blame the fools who follow these people just as much as the lunatics themselves, simply because they wouldn't be in the limelight if there weren't people out there who believed in their cause. Nobody would have heard of Adolf Hitler if there weren't millions of Germans who thought he was selling what they needed.

Ultima Thulian

01-19-2010, 11:26 AM

Siraris

01-19-2010, 12:08 PM

Not to Godwin the thread, but Hitler DID sell the German's what they needed, at least at first. But yea, I get your point.

It's not that I wish death on others. That would be redundant, as everyone dies. I just wish some would die sooner than others. And I don't feel bad about it. My empathy is finite, and is best used on those I feel deserving of it, not the entire world population. For example, I have a convicted pedophile that lives in my neighborhood, and our neighborhood will be a much better place when he dies. I won't be shedding any tears.

To your first point, the Germans would have accepted ANYTHING at that point; they were desperate. If someone came along and offered concrete ideas on how to rebuild the country that didn't involve taking over the world, I'm sure people would have been on board. A starving man would eat pretty much anything to stop from starving.

The implication of your second statement is very callous, and unfeeling. You are saying that people cannot make mistakes, and if they do, they should have their life shortened in punishment. This pedophile who lives in your neighborhood, I don't know the details on him, but he could have had a very troubled childhood, and acted out in a way that reflects how twisted his mind was. Is that his fault? He should be wiped off the face of the earth because of actions of others? Have you never made a mistake in your life?

You also eliminate any possibility that our lives have any meaning and purpose. What if this pedophile who you wish would die, some day saves a family member of yours from the fire in your home, or pushes one of your neighbors children out of the way from a speeding car?

Vigil80

01-19-2010, 02:00 PM

As that quote and yours both show, both you and Robertson sincerely believe the world would be better off without the other. If one of you is "tolerant" and the other is "intolerant," the only explanation is that "tolerant" simply means "agrees with me".
There is a nail here, sir, which you have struck firmly on the head.

Why is it necessary to pretend that you feel everyone is deserving of life? I mean, if you're consistent about it, that's cool, I can respect it. But I have a hard time accepting that it's wrong to say that the world is better off without some people in it.
I didn't say that, and I don't believe everyone is deserving of life. I am not an opponent of capital punishment, for example, and few would argue that it isn't better for Hitler to be dead.

Edit: I had a lot more written, but mostly just paraphrasing. In the end, arguing morality is almost as pointless as arguing taste. Suffice to say that there are no one-way streets here.

MagGnome

01-19-2010, 03:41 PM

txshurricane

01-19-2010, 03:47 PM

Several posters have already explained it quite nicely, but I'll reiterate:

I don't care that I'm not tolerant of every single person on the planet. Pat Robertson has repeated shown himself to be a hateful, delusional bastard.

As Slacker said, the world is crowded as it is. I won't miss a few hateful old men when they are dead and buried.
Hm. So that whole "everyone should get equal treatment" shtick just got thrown out the window, eh? I guess that's fair; maybe if Maine and California had voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage, you'd be okay with ol' Pat hatemongering, right?

Slack3r78

01-19-2010, 04:03 PM

Hm. So that whole "everyone should get equal treatment" shtick just got thrown out the window, eh? I guess that's fair; maybe if Maine and California had voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage, you'd be okay with ol' Pat hatemongering, right?

I know you very badly want to catch Mag in a gotcha here, but there's nothing hypocritical about what he said. If you're saying you just want to be left alone to live your life, and somebody else does everything they can to prevent that, it's fairly understandable that you'd develop some animosity toward that person.

txshurricane

01-19-2010, 04:07 PM

I know you very badly want to catch Mag in a gotcha here, but there's nothing hypocritical about what he said. If you're saying you just want to be left alone to live your life, and somebody else does everything they can to prevent that, it's fairly understandable that you'd develop some animosity toward that person.
I'm not looking for points on Mag in particular. It's appropriate that he be on the other end of my skepticism, given the topic.

But as far as being left alone...I fail to see how Pat Robertson has affected anyone's life here. At all. Ever.

He's just a big mouth. So what?

torrefaction

01-19-2010, 04:08 PM

txshurricane

01-19-2010, 04:11 PM

He's a figurehead, and fires up bigotry in others. That's the problem.

In who, exactly? The only people that could possibly see this as a positive thing to say are people that already agree with him. He's not converting anyone anytime soon; if nothing else, he's pushing conservatives with common sense away from his program.

Bigotry doesn't multiply just because someone makes a dumb statement. If someone who didn't seem like a bigot before suddenly does, then it was there to begin with and just needed a certain reaction to be seen.

Kind of like someone saying one week that they want equality for all, and the next week that they want to see someone die over a comment made on TV. I just can't believe that Mag's sentiment is seriously something he lives by, and I'm calling him out on it. If that's a hard and fast statement on his behalf, then what I said above applies: it just takes the right situation for inherent bigotry to show.

torrefaction

01-19-2010, 04:14 PM

Bigotry doesn't multiply just because someone makes a dumb statement. If someone who didn't seem like a bigot before suddenly does, then it was there to begin with and just needed a certain reaction to be seen.

Actually, it does. Followers teach their children. Uneducated people who believe people like him typically breed faster. I mean, do I need to sit here and enumerate how the beliefs of figureheads have lead to bigotry throughout history?

txshurricane

01-19-2010, 04:15 PM

Actually, it does. Followers teach their children. Uneducated people who believe people like him typically breed faster. I mean, do I need to sit here and enumerate how the beliefs of figureheads have lead to bigotry throughout history?

Nope. I've seen Roots already.

Slack3r78

01-19-2010, 04:15 PM

But as far as being left alone...I fail to see how Pat Robertson has affected anyone's life here. At all. Ever.

Yeah, you're right. Pat Robertson has never had any effect on anyone ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_robertson#Political_activism

Hemalin

01-19-2010, 04:31 PM

Vigil80

01-19-2010, 04:51 PM

torrefaction

01-19-2010, 04:52 PM

So he should die for political activism? We should hope that people who may mislead others should die soon? Maybe that the misled should also die, with any luck? If someone has wrong beliefs, and happens to speak loudly about them, here's hoping they are killed? Only certain values are worthy, and others should lead to untimely death? Rather than hope to reach understanding with other groups, it's right to hope for their demise instead? Bigotry is ok as long as you're the "good" kind of bigot?

What are we really saying here?

Actually, as Slack3r can attest due to offline conversations, I'm playing devil's advocate here (he isn't.) I just don't like txs' core argument. You can't argue that these things aren't dangerous to say.

It's not difficult to understand Mags' position. If a particular person had said how much he hated you, over and over again, for years...and used his political influence to exert pressure on your rights, you may grow some intolerance to the individual.

I've seen Mags be very civil towards people who don't necessarily agree with gay marriage, and attack the idea. In this case, it's too much for, for too long, and has led probably more to direct hatred than intolerance.

*Edit*

Caught you before your edit ;)

Slack3r78

01-19-2010, 04:59 PM

I just can't see equivocating people who preach hatred with those who have gotten fed up with the former. Tolerance isn't the same thing as moral equivalence.

MagGnome

01-19-2010, 05:04 PM

Hm. So that whole "everyone should get equal treatment" shtick just got thrown out the window, eh? I guess that's fair; maybe if Maine and California had voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage, you'd be okay with ol' Pat hatemongering, right?

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that I should treat Pat Robertson exactly as I would treat ANYONE else? That's ridiculous.

If my mother died, I would cry my eyes out.

If Pat Robertson died, I wouldn't miss him at all. I doubt I'd pop open a bottle of champagne, but I definitely wouldn't shed any tears either.

It's not like I said that I want to kill Pat Robertson or that he shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else.

Slack3r78

01-19-2010, 05:05 PM

It's not like I said that I want to kill Pat Robertson or that he shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else.
I was wondering if I was the only one that noticed that.

ClannerDelta

01-19-2010, 05:06 PM

Edit:
Let's just hope that the majority of the population doesn't decide that it's best to hope your opponents just die off. Sounds like a rather sad, hypocritical world, and a living example of what everyone says is supposed to be wrong with an "eye for an eye" ideology.

That's life. People do things to others and those people wish they'd go away. There's a big difference between being relieved that someone is no longer around and going out and trying to kill them for their viewpoint or actions. I tolerate drunk drivers, I still report them if I see them on the road, but I don't hound their every waking moment or attempt to murder them.

Does that mean I don't do a little jig every time one of them manages to take themselves out without killing someone's family? Nope, I even have special shoes.

That may not fit your idea of the world. I already know we have a very different view, but that's ok, I totally wouldn't be happy if you died.

Siraris

01-19-2010, 05:29 PM

But as far as being left alone...I fail to see how Pat Robertson has affected anyone's life here. At all. Ever.

Are you serious? Pat Robertson was, and in many ways is one of the most influential people in the United States of America. His influence on getting Bush elected alone effected every single one of our lives. There's plenty of links on Google that you can look at to see how Robertson has been involved in many aspects of our lives, and those of people around the world.

Doogie2K

01-19-2010, 05:41 PM

A great event? You know, sometimes you scare me a little, Mags. :D

It's not like he isn't right.

The idea that someone - particularly in the developed world - would celebrate or wish for the death of someone else based on those grounds is no less odious. It gives such individuals the appearance of being bitter and small, with little room to criticize others for perceived intolerance.

Oh, fuck that. His contribution to society is well in the negative. He uses tragedy to promote hatred while hiding behind a shield of religion. He's despicable and worthless and the day we're rid of him and his poison will be a good day for Western society.

Same for the Westboro folks, far as I'm concerned. Any time the whole lot of them want to pop off, that'd be peachy.

(And yes, I've read the rest of the thread, and no, I don't think holding a strong intolerance of hatred somehow makes me a hypocrite.)

J Arcane

01-19-2010, 05:59 PM

I'm not looking for points on Mag in particular. It's appropriate that he be on the other end of my skepticism, given the topic.

But as far as being left alone...I fail to see how Pat Robertson has affected anyone's life here. At all. Ever.

He's just a big mouth. So what?
Do you have any idea what it's like to be a hated minority? To have your entire society, your entire culture, look down on you, on the way you live, on who you love, to discriminate against you in everything you do? To have people shout slurs at you simply for opening your mouth? To see men like this broadcast hatred about you and yours to a national audience of millions of people?

Because just in case we've forgotten here, or never really understood it in the first place, that's what we're talking about here. This isn't just one guy saying some mean things on the TV, it's one guy who's part of an entire cultural front of discrimination, bigotry and hatred.

I think sometimes, especially for people who don't have that experience, we lose that perspective, and don't really realize how far reaching this kind of shit can be.

diablopath

01-19-2010, 06:05 PM

It's not like he isn't right.

Oh, fuck that. His contribution to society is well in the negative. He uses tragedy to promote hatred while hiding behind a shield of religion. He's despicable and worthless and the day we're rid of him and his poison will be a good day for Western society.

Same for the Westboro folks, far as I'm concerned. Any time the whole lot of them want to pop off, that'd be peachy.

(And yes, I've read the rest of the thread, and no, I don't think holding a strong intolerance of hatred somehow makes me a hypocrite.)

@WBC: I'm convinced they're just genius lawyers. Pissing people off to the point of physical violence that can result in lawsuits. I just don't see how any group of educated people could be so...well, y'know.

J Arcane

01-19-2010, 06:07 PM

@WBC: I'm convinced they're just genius lawyers. Pissing people off to the point of physical violence that can result in lawsuits. I just don't see how any group of educated people could be so...well, y'know.
Not to stereotype too much, but of all the groups to try to incite to violence, gays dont' seem like the best pick. ;)

txshurricane

01-19-2010, 06:10 PM

Do you have any idea what it's like to be a hated minority? To have your entire society, your entire culture, look down on you, on the way you live, on who you love, to discriminate against you in everything you do? To have people shout slurs at you simply for opening your mouth? To see men like this broadcast hatred about you and yours to a national audience of millions of people?
I'm a straight, white, conservative Republican, American, Christian male gun owner on Colony of Gamers. Of course I do!

In all serious, though...really: are you playing the minority card? Do we really want to pull out the "woe is me" guns over Pat frigging Robertson?

J Arcane

01-19-2010, 06:17 PM

I'm a straight, white, conservative Republican, American, Christian male gun owner on Colony of Gamers. Of course I do!

In all serious, though...really: are you playing the minority card? Do we really want to pull out the "woe is me" guns over Pat frigging Robertson?
I'm just saying I think it's more than a little uncouth to invalidate someone's experiences and feelings on a pretty serious, deeply felt issue that runs pretty deep in our present culture.

Are you telling me you could live a life like that, deal with that kind of thing every day, and not have the slightest sense of hostility towards a man like Robertson?

Even the Christ got pissed at the Pharisees.

torrefaction

01-19-2010, 06:20 PM

I'm a straight, white, conservative Republican, American, Christian male gun owner on Colony of Gamers. Of course I do!

In all serious, though...really: are you playing the minority card? Do we really want to pull out the "woe is me" guns over Pat frigging Robertson?

If there's anyone who that card IS applicable, it's Pat Robertson.

And keep in mind, I'm a straight, white, conservative registered Republican (they're not conservative.), male gun advocate (don't currently have one.)

Slack3r78

01-19-2010, 06:30 PM

gun advocate (don't currently have one.)

Because you suck.

torrefaction

01-19-2010, 06:31 PM

Because you suck.

Give this man a gold star.

Vigil80

01-19-2010, 06:47 PM

I was wondering if I was the only one that noticed that.
There has been some backpedaling there.

I was never trying to discount anyone's experiences, nor claim anyone's anger was totally unjustified, nor claim that Robertson hasn't been in the wrong.

I can see where this is going, so I'm going to sum up and wash my hands of the topic. I encourage folks to do the best they can to be the bigger men in situations like these. Otherwise, you risk playing right into the hands of the haters you love to hate, shooting yourself in the foot, etcetera.

01-19-2010, 06:49 PM

I don't care that I'm not tolerant of every single person on the planet. Pat Robertson has repeated shown himself to be a hateful, delusional bastard.
I think I cut out a crucial part of that post when editing. I'm not trying for a gotcha here: I don't like Pat Robertson either, and while I'm not wild about wishing someone dead, there sure are other people upon whose graves I look forward to pissing. If you dislike Robertson because he's a "delusional bastard," fine. Just don't add the word "hateful" as if you think it's a bad thing. Intolerance is just fine so long as you're intolerant of the right things. You and Robertson just disagree on what "the right things" are.

txshurricane

01-19-2010, 06:58 PM

I'm just saying I think it's more than a little uncouth to invalidate someone's experiences and feelings on a pretty serious, deeply felt issue that runs pretty deep in our present culture.

Are you telling me you could live a life like that, deal with that kind of thing every day, and not have the slightest sense of hostility towards a man like Robertson?

Even the Christ got pissed at the Pharisees.

I don't feel the seriousness of the issue you speak of. Ignoring Pat Robertson and the so-called hatefulness of apparently anyone whose heart doesn't bleed for those who throw their own pity parties...keeps an unnecessary load off my shoulders.

Ultima Thulian

01-19-2010, 08:57 PM

The implication of your second statement is very callous, and unfeeling. You are saying that people cannot make mistakes, and if they do, they should have their life shortened in punishment. This pedophile who lives in your neighborhood, I don't know the details on him, but he could have had a very troubled childhood, and acted out in a way that reflects how twisted his mind was. Is that his fault? He should be wiped off the face of the earth because of actions of others? Have you never made a mistake in your life?

You also eliminate any possibility that our lives have any meaning and purpose. What if this pedophile who you wish would die, some day saves a family member of yours from the fire in your home, or pushes one of your neighbors children out of the way from a speeding car?

You read too much into me on this. I don't "eliminate" any possibility of anything, nor do I think mistakes are unforgivable.

It's like this, and I'll make it simple as I possibly can.

Some people may wrong me or society as a whole to a point for enough where I become apathetic to their well-being or maybe even to the point where I'd feel some sense of relief or happiness of their passing. If that's callous, so be it. But I bet you, deep down in most peoples' guts, they feel like this. Preach to me about your Carebear bullshit when that pedo with the "troubled childhood" rapes one of YOUR kids.

Again, if this makes me a "bad" or "callous" person, then fine. Good and bad are subjective anyway, and morality is best left to the whim of the individual. If you think I'm a big ole meanie, okay. I'm gravy with that. *shrugs*

LordDon

01-19-2010, 09:35 PM

I don't feel the seriousness of the issue you speak of. Ignoring Pat Robertson and the so-called hatefulness of apparently anyone whose heart doesn't bleed for those who throw their own pity parties...keeps an unnecessary load off my shoulders.

Of course you don't feel the seriousness of the situation! You're a white male christian republican! You wake up every day and this country kisses your ass because other guys just like you tailor made this country for you. You have no imagination or sense of perspective of what it's like for someone who doesn't fit into the mold created. You don't even try.

01-19-2010, 10:30 PM

I dunno, I kind of think if someone were to tailor-make a country for us white male Christians, it might look like, oh, England circa 1775. I know my family, for one, lost basically all our assets when that fucker Lincoln freed the slaves. And of course this whole "we're not hanging witches anymore" totally nerfs my favorite hobby. Actually this country seems to be dreamed up as a paradise for pantywaist tofu-fellating tree-hugging hippies like yourself. Of course, I don't expect you to understand my plight. You don't even try.

Gee, y'know, that came out kind of obnoxious-sounding. It's awfully presumptuous for me to say what problems you have or have not experienced in your life, and it's borderline outrageous for me to suggest you don't even make an effort to sympathize with people unlike yourself. Gosh, I'm sorry LordDon. I didn't mean to be rude.

LordDon

01-19-2010, 10:50 PM

Ink Asylum

01-19-2010, 10:57 PM

TG4f9zR5yzY

Ultima Thulian

01-19-2010, 11:44 PM

Thanks Ox, I get your point, but I still say the ball is in TX-boy's court a lot more than it's in Mag's.

On a general basis, I think I'd normally agree with TX.

But not on this. Pat just isn't your average loud mouth idiot. He's an idiot with power and influence.

But overall he's mostly got the right idea.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 07:22 AM

On a general basis, I think I'd normally agree with TX.

But not on this. Pat just isn't your average loud mouth idiot. He's an idiot with power and influence.

But overall he's mostly got the right idea.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "overall he's mostly got the right idea."

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 08:13 AM

Of course you don't feel the seriousness of the situation! You're a white male christian republican! You wake up every day and this country kisses your ass because other guys just like you tailor made this country for you. You have no imagination or sense of perspective of what it's like for someone who doesn't fit into the mold created. You don't even try.
No, you've got it all wrong. See, I don't get a check from the government. I didn't get federal grants to glide through college. People like me don't get sympathy votes as a general rule. Do you know why people like me don't need these things? Because we get up off our fat butts and we take care of ourselves.

If my house floods, I have insurance to cover it. If I break my arm or die, I have insurance for those situations also. I will likely put my kids through private school and still pay taxes so that children in public school have a fighting chance. I would venture that I've given more support to charities currently operating in Haiti than you, good sir. Every paycheck, I give 10% of my gross income to my home church, and then some. After all of this, I still provide for my family, with God's blessing.

So, no - you're right...I don't get to cry "woe is me". You're absolutely right about that. And when someone points the finger at me and says "you're a privileged American!" I respond: "Yes, I am privileged to be an American. So are you."

Whether it's you or Mags that you're throwing the pity party for, I have the same response: mount up and protect your balls. There's a rude awakening on the trail ahead.

On a general basis, I think I'd normally agree with TX.

But not on this. Pat just isn't your average loud mouth idiot. He's an idiot with power and influence.

But overall he's mostly got the right idea.
Until visiting this forum, I've never given a second thought to Pat Robertson or his followers. I just don't see the impact. But maybe I'm blind to it.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 08:43 AM

Whether it's you or Mags that you're throwing the pity party for, I have the same response: mount up and protect your balls. There's a rude awakening on the trail ahead.

Until visiting this forum, I've never given a second thought to Pat Robertson or his followers. I just don't see the impact. But maybe I'm blind to it.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not talking about welfare or charity or any form of material assistance. I'm talking about the fact that you can live your life openly with no glass ceilings of any form.

Of course you haven't given a second thought to Pat Robertson or his followers, they don't regularly point at you as the cause for everything that goes wrong with this country.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 08:53 AM

You misunderstand my point. I'm not talking about welfare or charity or any form of material assistance. I'm talking about the fact that you can live your life openly with no glass ceilings of any form.

Of course you haven't given a second thought to Pat Robertson or his followers, they don't regularly point at you as the cause for everything that goes wrong with this country.
There are pundits from all walks of life that do. Our own president heckled my kind during his campaign, lest ye forget (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/891685,CST-NWS-obama12.article).

LordDon

01-20-2010, 09:13 AM

There are pundits from all walks of life that do. Our own president heckled my kind during his campaign, lest ye forget (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/891685,CST-NWS-obama12.article).

Is it even possible for you to step in someone else's shoes? I understand you catch shit here among the land of the rampaging liberals but your comments are the veritable bull in the china shop. And it doesn't seem like you care to try to understand why we get upset about them.

(Yes Ox, stones and glass houses, at least I occasionally take a step back and admit when I get too rhetorical)

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 09:17 AM

Is it even possible for you to step in someone else's shoes?
Sure. What did you have in mind? Please say something meaningful, like adopting a Haitian orphan, or deploying to Iraq with the Marines. If you're talking about "boo-hoo, I can't buy beer with my food stamps" or something along those lines, I can't help there.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 09:19 AM

Sure. What did you have in mind? Please say something meaningful, like adopting a Haitian orphan, or deploying to Iraq with the Marines. If you're talking about "boo-hoo, I can't buy beer with my food stamps" or something along those lines, I can't help there.

"Boo-hoo, I can't get married to the person I love, who means the world to me, who I want to grow old with because some people feel it's a sin and I'm the cause of everything from natural disasters to the economic downturn."

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 09:24 AM

"Boo-hoo, I can't get married to the person I love, who means the world to me, who I want to grow old with because some people feel it's a sin and I'm the cause of everything from natural disasters to the economic downturn."
Sorry, I can't empathize there. My belief is very strong that there is a certain qualification for traditional marriage, and if someone feels that not being able to marry their significant other renders the relationship somehow less valuable, then they're even more shallow than I am.

But you're welcome to blame natural disasters and economic downturn on me. I'll walk in those shoes. Obviously, it's such a terrible thing to be blamed for natural disasters.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 09:27 AM

Your hubris knows no bounds. I don't miss knowing everything with such a certainty as you do.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 09:28 AM

Your hubris knows no bounds. I don't miss knowing everything with such a certainty as you do.
Not certainty. Confidence. That thing that motivates people to go up the ladder. I suggest that all of the pitiful, downtrodden wrecks give it a shot. :)

Edit: edited for more ambiguity, thanks to Slacker's reminder.

Panthera

01-20-2010, 09:49 AM

On the other hand, the ignore list is doing wonders for my blood pressure.

A bit more on topic, I was very surprised to find that Pat's claims actually had some basis in prior myth, albeit ridiculously superstitious and more than likely apocryphal, instead of being invented whole-cloth in Pat Robersonland.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2918/whats-this-pact-with-the-devil-that-pat-robertson-says-caused-haitis-woes

Slack3r78

01-20-2010, 10:08 AM

This is treading right on the line of personal attacks. Try not to let this get personal, people.

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 10:39 AM

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "overall he's mostly got the right idea."

From my understanding, his point is that the hateful emotions geared towards Pat are not worth the effort cause he's just a loudmouth. So who cares?

I believe that sentiment works with most people. But not with Pat.

But I may be misinterpreting his statement.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 10:44 AM

I believe that sentiment works with most people. But not with Pat.

But I may be misinterpreting his statement.

Ah gotcha, I agree, Pat is a different case from most people.

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 10:45 AM

Your hubris knows no bounds. I don't miss knowing everything with such a certainty as you do.

I think you're being unfair to TX and being somewhat hypocritical. You say that he somehow doesn't understand being in other people's positions, but when he explains his own position to you, you just simply more or less call him smug.

Honestly, what is he saying that has you so pissered off? At the very worst, he's not as sympathetic to others as you. Who cares, move on. This isn't going anywhere.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 10:45 AM

From my understanding, his point is that the hateful emotions geared towards Pat are not worth the effort cause he's just a loudmouth. So who cares?
Exactly.

I believe that sentiment works with most people. But not with Pat.

But I may be misinterpreting his statement.
I must have missed the part where Pat Robertson was particularly influential. My bad. (That's not sarcasm, I really feel like I must be missing a piece to the whole picture.)

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 10:54 AM

Exactly.

I must have missed the part where Pat Robertson was particularly influential. My bad. (That's not sarcasm, I really feel like I must be missing a piece to the whole picture.)

Well, here is why I believe he is influential, and that his statements are worth considering. However, I will say this particular instance seems to have backfired on him, so your point still stands. My apologies.

But I'd argue his influence largely stems from his several things he has created. Christian Broadcasting Network, Christian Coalition, Flying Hospital, ACLJ, etc are all his, just to name a few. And many of them allow him a lot of clout and influence. For example, the Christian Coalition is known for mostly endorsing conservative Christian politicians, and with 2.5 million supporters, that is an arguably influential. Pat has many people who will act both politically and religiously as he sees fit, and he certainly has experience in the political realm as well (he ran for the Republican nomination for Presidency in '88). This doesn't include the other things mentioned, such as CBN.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 11:13 AM

Well, here is why I believe he is influential, and that his statements are worth considering. However, I will say this particular instance seems to have backfired on him, so your point still stands. My apologies.

But I'd argue his influence largely stems from his several things he has created. Christian Broadcasting Network, Christian Coalition, Flying Hospital, ACLJ, etc are all his, just to name a few. And many of them allow him a lot of clout and influence. For example, the Christian Coalition is known for mostly endorsing conservative Christian politicians, and with 2.5 million supporters, that is an arguably influential. Pat has many people who will act both politically and religiously as he sees fit, and he certainly has experience in the political realm as well (he ran for the Republican nomination for Presidency in '88). This doesn't include the other things mentioned, such as CBN.
I'm not arguing the validity of your point, because I consider myself more informed now. But I do question just how influential a man can possibly be if - despite all of those networks and "accomplishments" - a conservative Christian like myself has never even brought he or his networks up in the large circle of Christians that I interact with.

I still venture that his so-called influence is restricted to those who have an agenda that jives with his, which still excludes the majority of right-wingers like myself. Sure, you can cause some political mayhem with a following of a million people, but those million would still push their agenda, Pat Robertson or no Pat Robertson. In my opinion he's just a patsy, and wishing him dead only distracts people like MagGnome from their ultimate goal.

Slack3r78

01-20-2010, 11:13 AM

torrefaction

01-20-2010, 12:10 PM

Sorry, I can't empathize there. My belief is very strong that there is a certain qualification for traditional marriage, and if someone feels that not being able to marry their significant other renders the relationship somehow less valuable, then they're even more shallow than I am.

But you're welcome to blame natural disasters and economic downturn on me. I'll walk in those shoes. Obviously, it's such a terrible thing to be blamed for natural disasters.

I actually used to have the same beliefs as you, until a long debate on the forums. Gay people are having rights withheld from them that married people share, by way of the government. I've been convinced that legally, eliminating marriage (at the very least at the Federal level) is no cure, unless the entire concept is changed to civil unions, for same-sex and straight couples.

The naming isn't the issue, it's the associated rights with respect to taxes, adoption, private healthcare, etc, etc....If you're truly a conservative, you'll at LEAST recognize these rights are violated by withholding them from a certain class of people.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 12:18 PM

I actually used to have the same beliefs as you, until a long debate on the forums. Gay people are having rights withheld from them that married people share, by way of the government. I've been convinced that legally, eliminating marriage (at the very least at the Federal level) is no cure, unless the entire concept is changed to civil unions, for same-sex and straight couples.

The naming isn't the issue, it's the associated rights with respect to taxes, adoption, private healthcare, etc, etc....If you're truly a conservative, you'll at LEAST recognize these rights are violated by withholding them from a certain class of people.
This is a whole different topic, but gay people do have access to legal marriage, which is a privilege - not a right. What they don't have is access to change the eligibility of what traditional marriage requires.

And for the sake of trying to avoid this argument, I used the word traditional in both posts.

Slack3r78

01-20-2010, 12:21 PM

This is a whole different topic, but gay people do have access to legal marriage, which is a privilege - not a right.
How do you figure? The trend has been states expressly prohibiting gay marriage; I'm not sure I understand your definition of legal.

Panthera

01-20-2010, 12:26 PM

Let me guess, we're free to marry the opposite sex?

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 12:27 PM

How do you figure? The trend has been states expressly prohibiting gay marriage; I'm not sure I understand your definition of legal.
Read it again: gay people have access to legal marriage. I've never heard of a judge turning down a marriage license application just because one of the participants was gay.

torrefaction

01-20-2010, 12:28 PM

This is a whole different topic, but gay people do have access to legal marriage, which is a privilege - not a right. What they don't have is access to change the eligibility of what traditional marriage requires.

And for the sake of trying to avoid this argument, I used the word traditional in both posts.

How can you avoid this argument when it's crucial to the feelings about people and Pat Robertson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

So the tax cuts and adoption rights granted by marriage are privileges? Granted by the US government? To only one class of people?

How does that fall in line with previous rulings that separate is not equal? Riding at the front of the bus used to be a privilege, and not a right as well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hSwJKwwjVl0C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=riding+at+the+front+of+the+bus+a+privilege&source=bl&ots=Z73LAn7G5i&sig=5IZCR6M4ouHiXl9F56vm_KyooJo&hl=en&ei=2FhXS-b_IIT8NZb0pdgE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=riding%20at%20the%20front%20of%20the%20bus%20a%2 0privilege&f=false

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 12:29 PM

Let me guess, we're free to marry the opposite sex?
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Aren't I supposed to be on your Ignore list (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=465801&postcount=122)?

In any case: you got it. Cookie for you.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 12:29 PM

This is a whole different topic, but gay people do have access to legal marriage, which is a privilege - not a right. What they don't have is access to change the eligibility of what traditional marriage requires.

This is why he's pissered me off, Ultima, he's like a walking talking neocon cliche. And having less empathy makes all the difference when you're talking about casually dismissing other people's rights.

torrefaction

01-20-2010, 12:31 PM

This is why he's pissered me off, Ultima, he's like a walking talking neocon cliche. And having less empathy makes all the difference when you're talking about casually dismissing other people's rights.

You know, if you can't post tame, don't post. Reported.

*Edit*

It's the both of you....ugh. I'm not bothering reporting, since you both are reverting to menial jabs. Could you just act like adults?

Slack3r78

01-20-2010, 12:37 PM

Read it again: gay people have access to legal marriage. I've never heard of a judge turning down a marriage license application just because one of the participants was gay.

I don't see how this is significantly different from old prohibitions on interracial marriages. You had access to legal marriage as long as it was to the right class of person.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 12:38 PM

I still venture that his so-called influence is restricted to those who have an agenda that jives with his, which still excludes the majority of right-wingers like myself. Sure, you can cause some political mayhem with a following of a million people, but those million would still push their agenda, Pat Robertson or no Pat Robertson. In my opinion he's just a patsy, and wishing him dead only distracts people like MagGnome from their ultimate goal.

To try to get my comments somewhat back on topic:

Can you agree that your evidence for his influence is anecdotal and Ultima's is statistical? 2.5 million are part of the Christian coalition. Whether or not you've personally heard of the man you can agree that's a lot of people that are influenced by him.

Ink Asylum

01-20-2010, 12:40 PM

Yep. Marriage was "traditionally" limited to people of the same race.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 12:45 PM

How can you avoid this argument when it's crucial to the feelings about people and Pat Robertson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Okay...if you insist...

So the tax cuts and adoption rights granted by marriage are privileges? Granted by the US government? To only one class of people?

How does that fall in line with previous rulings that separate is not equal?
Well...you don't get a child tax credit without a child, do you? See, you have to have a human child legally registered as your dependent in order to get a tax credit. Pets don't count. So why should someone without the appropriate eligibility get to file jointly?

I don't get any money for being affiliated with the Tuscarora Indian Reservation...know why? Because I don't live there and I'm not of Native American descent.

Boy, that was easy. For a second there, I thought I was being discriminated against.

Riding at the front of the bus used to be a privilege, and not a right as well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hSwJKwwjVl0C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=riding+at+the+front+of+the+bus+a+privilege&source=bl&ots=Z73LAn7G5i&sig=5IZCR6M4ouHiXl9F56vm_KyooJo&hl=en&ei=2FhXS-b_IIT8NZb0pdgE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=riding%20at%20the%20front%20of%20the%20bus%20a%2 0privilege&f=false
And all it took was a ballsy 42-year-old lady. Amazing.

But, technically, it's still not a right. Unless you're talking about city buses. Private lines can do whatever they want.

I don't see how this is significantly different from old prohibitions on interracial marriages. You had access to legal marriage as long as it was to the right class of person.
I can't truthfully say that I believe any one of us would have had the same empathy during that time period as we do today. Hindsight is always 20/20. Looking into the past, I don't agree with those sanctions. And I never said that marriage was perfect as it was. But I believe my attitude to be appropriate for this period in history. Maybe one day my descendants will see me as a bigot; and maybe one day when their grandkids can legally marry animals and 10-year-old children, they'll be seen as bigots in retrospect.

Can you agree that your evidence for his influence is anecdotal and Ultima's is statistical? 2.5 million are part of the Christian coalition. Whether or not you've personally heard of the man you can agree that's a lot of people that are influenced by him.
Yes, absolutely I can agree that. Everything on this topic and any others in this forum are completely based on my limited experience and whatever my feeble brain cooks up. Hopefully everyone else can agree that most of what we're discussing is anecdotal to a point, with some historical evidence thrown in. :)

LordDon

01-20-2010, 01:13 PM

I can't truthfully say that I believe any one of us would have had the same empathy during that time period as we do today. Hindsight is always 20/20. Looking into the past, I don't agree with those sanctions. And I never said that marriage was perfect as it was. But I believe my attitude to be appropriate for this period in history. Maybe one day my descendants will see me as a bigot; and maybe one day when their grandkids can legally marry animals and 10-year-old children, they'll be seen as bigots in retrospect.

I can't say for certain I would have had empathy during that time period but based on my feelings, actions, and motivations towards same-sex marriage I'd like to think I would've come out on the side of being for interracial marriage.

My question is with 20/20 hindsight in that particular case, how can you turn around and choose to be against gay marriage today? Many of the exact same arguments against gay marriage were used back then against interracial marriage (just noticed the date on one quote, I guess some still use them today):

Interracial marriage runs counter to God's plan:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he
placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard
Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3
(1967))

Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of
conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than
execration.”
(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago
Tribune, May 19, 1996)

“It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon
the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a
marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such
inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's
argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))

And yet society hasn't collapsed. I'm not even going to grace your conflation of gay marriage with pedophilia and bestiality with further comment. If you don't choose to understand the concept of consenting adults then you're not worth engaging on those points.

Yes, absolutely I can agree that. Everything on this topic and any others in this forum are completely based on my limited experience and whatever my feeble brain cooks up. Hopefully everyone else can agree that most of what we're discussing is anecdotal to a point, with some historical evidence thrown in. :)

I hope you can understand why some choose to place greater value in statistical evidence over anecdotal.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 01:28 PM

I can't say for certain I would have had empathy during that time period but based on my feelings, actions, and motivations towards same-sex marriage I'd like to think I would've come out on the side of being for interracial marriage.

My question is with 20/20 hindsight in that particular case, how can you turn around and choose to be against gay marriage today? Many of the exact same arguments against gay marriage were used back then against interracial marriage (just noticed the date on one quote, I guess some still use them today)
Interracial marriage isn't the same thing as gay marriage. I see the correlation, and it's a great argument for the pro- gay marriage side...but the fact is that interracial relationships can still be approved morally on the basis of my Christian faith and the bible. Gay relationships cannot. And until marriage is disproved by a legal authority as being a traditionally man/woman affair, then the legality of marriage is in line with my beliefs, and it continues to be a sacred institution - simply because that's how I view it. If the legal definition of marriage is changed, then marriage will no longer be particularly sacred to my beliefs.

I wouldn't vote against legalizing gay marriage. Really, I wouldn't. If the privilege is deemed fit for all, then so be it - I'll have no qualms. My current reasoning applies to why it isn't already legal, and that's why I am perfectly content with the way it is now.

And yet society hasn't collapsed. I'm not even going to grace your conflation of gay marriage with pedophilia and bestiality with further comment. If you don't choose to understand the concept of consenting adults then you're not worth engaging on those points.
If you don't grasp the concept of snarkiness, then you're probably better off not engaging on those points.

But at what point did marriage become two consenting adults instead of two consenting adults of the opposite gender? Going the other direction: at what point does it become four consenting adults?

It's easy to draw a line in the sand in front of where you're standing; try drawing one behind you, and you have to change your position.

I hope you can understand why some choose to place greater value in statistical evidence over anecdotal.
Of course I do. It's because there is statistical evidence to support every argument ever made...including Pat Robertson's comment that spawned this thread.

Slack3r78

01-20-2010, 01:34 PM

but the fact is that interracial relationships can still be approved morally on the basis of my Christian faith and the bible.
The opposite argument was common 50 years ago.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 01:35 PM

The opposite argument was common 50 years ago.
Define "common".

roboninja

01-20-2010, 01:39 PM

From the National Public Radio (NPR) Website:
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune published a letter
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/81595442.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUqEiaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc :aUU

from Satan to evangelist Pat Robertson,
responding to his comment that Haiti's persistent troubles, including
the earthquake, are due to a pact the nation made with Mephistopheles

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/01/pat_robertson_blames_haitian_d.html

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the
shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people
when they are down, so I'm all over that action.

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally
humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you
put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.

Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they
first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth,
fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean
nothing. And that was before the earthquake.
Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?

If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks,
skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing.
An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style.

Nothing against it -- I'mjust saying: Not how I roll.

You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings --
just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad.

Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we
may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best, Satan

Ink Asylum

01-20-2010, 01:40 PM

The opposite argument was common 50 years ago.

Religious arguments were used to justify miscegenation, slavery, and countless other injustices. When the social moods shift to something more liberal the interpretation of religion often changes to stay relevant and retain followers. Any religious argument against a liberal policy is destined to change within a generation or two, but it'll stay around long enough for conservatives to justify their fear of change and social progress until they fade away and are replaced by their more accepting children.

It's only the liberal arguments in religion for peace, love, and charity that never go out of style. /hippie

Slack3r78

01-20-2010, 01:42 PM

Define "common".

Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. However, attitudes towards bans on interracial marriage quickly changed in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Biblical interpretations were used at various points about as long as there have been black people in America.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 01:46 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Biblical interpretations were used at various points about as long as there have been black people in America.
The Gallup poll shows evidence that most people disapproved, but does not reflect anyone using the bible as their reasoning. I gather much of it was plain ol' racism.

Edit: In fact, according to that link, the "Bible belt" region was one of the first groups to legalize interracial marriages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#After_American_Independence

LordDon

01-20-2010, 02:03 PM

Interracial marriage isn't the same thing as gay marriage. I see the correlation, and it's a great argument for the pro- gay marriage side...but the fact is that interracial relationships can still be approved morally on the basis of my Christian faith and the bible.

People quoted:

Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."

Acts 17:24-26: "God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ..."

from the bible stating the Christian faith was against interracial relationships. If you're using the bible as your measuring stick for whether something is approved or not, you've got your work cut out for you.

I wouldn't vote against legalizing gay marriage. Really, I wouldn't. If the privilege is deemed fit for all, then so be it - I'll have no qualms. My current reasoning applies to why it isn't already legal, and that's why I am perfectly content with the way it is now.

I'm a little surprised by this, to be honest.

If you don't grasp the concept of snarkiness, then you're probably better off not engaging on those points.

But at what point did marriage become two consenting adults instead of two consenting adults of the opposite gender? Going the other direction: at what point does it become four consenting adults?

It's easy to draw a line in the sand in front of where you're standing; try drawing one behind you, and you have to change your position.

You're being snarky on those points, others are dead serious when they bring those two examples up. They are honestly concerned we'll have inter-species and underage marriage legalized. I don't know you well enough to tell whether that was a toss-away comment or something you have a concern about.

At what point did marriage become two consenting adults of the opposite gender instead of two juveniles of the opposite gender forced into marriage to unite nations or kingdoms?

You'll probably take issue but I honestly have no problem with polygamy if it's among consenting adults. It's certainly not for me but I don't see why others shouldn't have that option as long as all involved are aware.

Of course I do. It's because there is statistical evidence to support every argument ever made...including Pat Robertson's comment that spawned this thread.

There's evidence they prayed during the Bois Caiman Ceremony (http://thelouvertureproject.org/index.php?title=Bois_Ca%C3%AFman) for God's help in securing their independence from the French. I wouldn't say that's statistical nor empirical evidence that they "made a pact with the devil" and that pact was the cause of the recent earthquakes.

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 02:05 PM

We could go 'round and 'round for days. In fact, I think we have...

Anyway: point taken.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 02:13 PM

The Gallup poll shows evidence that most people disapproved, but does not reflect anyone using the bible as their reasoning. I gather much of it was plain ol' racism.

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham"

Edit: In fact, according to that link, the "Bible belt" region was one of the first groups to legalize interracial marriages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#After_American_Independence

Anti-miscegenation laws overturned on 12 June 1967 by Loving v. Virginia (I.E. states FORCED to change their laws because of the court ruling) shown in red.

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc346/jerimmortal/800px-US_miscegenationsvg.png

txshurricane

01-20-2010, 02:28 PM

Anti-miscegenation laws overturned on 12 June 1967 by Loving v. Virginia (I.E. states FORCED to change their laws because of the court ruling) shown in red.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 1967 Supreme Court a majority of white conservatives with Christian background?

Ink Asylum

01-20-2010, 02:46 PM

And Lincoln was a white guy.

LordDon

01-20-2010, 02:48 PM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 1967 Supreme Court a majority of white conservatives with Christian background?

Very good question. I'll have to check that when I get home.

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 02:58 PM

And Lincoln was a white guy.

...who firmly believed in the superiority of the white race, as did most white men at that time. And yea, I'll back that shit up if you want.

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 03:00 PM

01-20-2010, 03:01 PM

White, yes. Christian, yes. Conservative, no. On the other hand, Loving was unanimous.

Ink Asylum

01-20-2010, 03:01 PM

No need, Ultima. The point is that members of government often move forward on social progress even when they personally disagree. Some people are able to respect equality and justice even when they disagree with it.

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 03:02 PM

No need, Ultima. The point is that members of government often move forward on social progress even when they personally disagree. Amazingly, some people are able to respect the law and justice even when they disagree with it.

True, but the Lincoln example is piss poor, and I think we both know it.

But point taken nonetheless.

Vigil80

01-20-2010, 03:08 PM

Alright, I'll bite. "Back that shit up."

Apparently, it isn't enough to be responsible in part for planting the seed of American civil rights as we know them. You have to be a swell guy, too.

Edit:
And when you're through with that, explain how the last few arguments on your and LordDon's part have been more than tarted up "white devil" attacks.

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 03:21 PM

Alright, I'll bite. "Back that shit up."

Apparently, it isn't enough to be responsible in part for planting the seed of American civil rights as we know them. You have to be a swell guy, too.

No. I said that Lincoln believed that whites are superior to blacks or other "lesser" races. And I said I'd back that up. And I will.

I never said he didn't "plant the seed for civil rights as we know them." Granted, that is hyperbole, but not entirely inaccurate.

But sorry folks. Lincoln didn't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about black people*, his primary purpose was the preservation of the Union. Lincoln would have glady allowed slavery to continue IF it would have preserved the Union or prevent war. However, thanks to a lot of bad circumstances (not the least of which is our nation's shittiest president, James Buchanan fucking everything up), such a method was not to be.

As for Lincoln thinking he was better than blacks? You bet your ass. This is not to say he hated blacks or was a negrophobe. However, to say he was a champion of civil rights is to miss the point entirely as well. In short, he believed whites superior and to be the rightful rulers of America. It was not racial animosity so much as feelings of superiority. Feelings that many Americans, abolitionists included, shared.

Here's some sources:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2206706
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/vorenberg.html

I'll give ya more, if those don't suit ya. Lincoln was an incredibly shrewd and effective politician. Perhaps the best of the 19th century. He played the game and played it well. To bring morality into is to miss the point.

*insert Kanye joke here

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 03:22 PM

And when you're through with that, explain how the last few arguments on your and LordDon's part have been more than tarted up "white devil" attacks.

You're gonna have to explain further, as I don't understand what you're accusing me of or what you're asking me to do.

Vigil80

01-20-2010, 03:33 PM

You're gonna have to explain further, as I don't understand what you're accusing me of or what you're asking me to do.
Nevermind, I retract the statement.

I never said he didn't "plant the seed for civil rights as we know them." Granted, that is hyperbole, but not entirely inaccurate.
A statement can't really be hyperbole and true at the same time, can it? Which is it? And speaking of hyperbole...
Lincoln didn't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about black people
Regardless of disappointment that he not have the same outlook and ideology as a man born a century and a half later, he did what he did, and certainly could have attempted different methods. I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Lincoln was a lout in spite of it all?

Tough crowd.

Ultima Thulian

01-20-2010, 03:37 PM

Nevermind, I retract the statement.

I don't mind answering questions, good sir. I just didn't understand what you were getting at. If you run it by me again, I'll try to answer. Or if your question was already answered, then that's gravy too. :)

Vigil80

01-20-2010, 03:45 PM

I don't mind answering questions, good sir. I just didn't understand what you were getting at. If you run it by me again, I'll try to answer. Or if your question was already answered, then that's gravy too. :)
I don't doubt that. I decided it was an avenue which was not going to be productive; a metric I should probably use more religiously if I'm going to continually fail to resist the temptation to get wrist deep in P&R doodie. :)

MagGnome

01-20-2010, 05:27 PM

LordDon

01-20-2010, 05:33 PM

White, yes. Christian, yes. Conservative, no. On the other hand, Loving was unanimous.

Found a site listing the case and the justices involved (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395).

Harlan was pretty conservative.
Harlan was the intellectual leader of the conservatives on the Court, frequently dissenting from the liberal activist decisions of the Warren Court. He defended federalism against centralization of power and he never accepted the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow incorporated or embraced the Bill of Rights.

Black was a member of the Klan briefly.
Black had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Black gave a nationally broadcast radio address explaining his decision to join and then resign from the Klan.

Douglas wasn't a fan of big government.
His opinions were characterized by a fierce commitment to individual rights and a powerful distrust of government power.

Warren's supreme court was decidedly Liberal though. Regardless, we all understand the vote on Loving vs. Virginia in favor of repealing miscegenation laws was a positive, right?

01-20-2010, 06:09 PM

Harlan was pretty conservative.
That's 1 of 9.
Black was a member of the Klan briefly.
So was Robert Byrd. Still at 1 of 9.
Douglas wasn't a fan of big government.
Douglas was a civil libertarian: he got his start in law because he wanted to defend members of the Industrial Workers of the World, an anarchist-socialist-radical trade union group. I'm not sure whether that really qualifies as "conservative." He also wrote the lead opinion in Griswold.

MagGnome

01-20-2010, 06:10 PM

Speaking of gays...

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." –Pat Robertson, on "gay days" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200505020002) at Disneyworld

Your nation? Is Pat Robertson referring to Orlando as a nation?

I had a very amusing post planned, but I'm replacing it with a warning:

Never do a Google image search for "hot aladdin" with the safe search filter turned off. Ugh....

LordDon

01-20-2010, 07:15 PM

Never do a Google image search for "hot aladdin" with the safe search filter turned off. Ugh....

Goddamn you Mags.

MagGnome

01-21-2010, 06:03 AM

Goddamn you Mags.

I warned you!

My childhood has been ruined.

Ultima Thulian

01-21-2010, 11:52 AM

A statement can't really be hyperbole and true at the same time, can it? Which is it? And speaking of hyperbole...

Regardless of disappointment that he not have the same outlook and ideology as a man born a century and a half later, he did what he did, and certainly could have attempted different methods. I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Lincoln was a lout in spite of it all?

Tough crowd.

But it can. Hyperbole is merely exaggeration. The truth can be exaggerated. And I said that what you said was "not entirely inaccurate."

And my point is simple. I've stated it multiple times. Lincoln shared a view that most white men of that time did and did not care about black people in the way most people do. Our culture lionizes Lincoln as this great civil rights leader who genuinely cared for the oppressed (i.e. slaves). He did not. Again, this does not make him a "lout" or make him bad. I'm just saying what most people perceive Lincoln to be is off because of how our society treated him like a martyr after his assassination. It's a treatment that persists to this day, facts be damned.

Again, read the links. I don't really know how I can make my point clearer. If you're thinking I'm posting this to "diss" Lincoln or try to prove he was not a good person, you're mistaken. I'm not dissing Lincoln (in fact, I'm in a roundabout way praising him and his shrewd political tact) and I don't care whether he's viewed as "good" or "bad". I care about the facts. And fact is he was much more concerned with the preservation of the Union than slavery or civil rights. In fact, he did a lot of questionable things, many which scholars regard as unconstitutional today, to achieve his methods. He didn't really care if the slaves remained free or not.

TheFlyingOrc

01-21-2010, 12:18 PM

People quoted:

from the bible stating the Christian faith was against interracial relationships. If you're using the bible as your measuring stick for whether something is approved or not, you've got your work cut out for you.

People went to the Bible to find verses to justify their opinions. Disagreement with homosexuality, to a much larger extent, arises because the Biblical principles against it exist. The burden of proof is really on the "not a sin" people this time around.

The first verse you quoted was directly made to the Hebrews as part of their very complex law system, and is one of the many laws given specifically to keep them set apart as a nation. Furthermore, Christian theology since there has been Christian theology has claimed that Jesus' actions free modern Christians from the confines of the specific commands of the old testament.

Whereas homosexuality is used in Romans (arguably Paul's masterwork, and certainly his greatest theological book) as the example of people who had fallen into sin. Arguing about how "abomination" is used in multiple places in Leviticus doesn't really matter.

Ink Asylum

01-21-2010, 12:25 PM

The burden of proof is not on people trying to disprove the bible, it's on adherents to the bible to explain why since they reinterpret the bible every generation when it becomes inconvenient it's suddenly unmoving on the subject of homosexuality.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 12:49 PM

Whereas homosexuality is used in Romans (arguably Paul's masterwork, and certainly his greatest theological book) as the example of people who had fallen into sin. Arguing about how "abomination" is used in multiple places in Leviticus doesn't really matter.

Interestingly... the interpretation even in the New Testament isn't quite as clear. The passage in Romans is closest to a true condemnation of homosexuality, and even that has a lot of possible interpretations. If anything, it seems like it's condemning pagan practices. Theological interpretation, of course, can take it even further away from a strict condemnation. The historical idea of homosexuality is very far removed from our modern one. Homosexual behavior was something ordinary people may have conducted - something unnatural for a 'straight' person, back when it wasn't a sexual orientation. But if someone's nature, granted by god, is homosexual, when exactly did they 'change,' as the passage puts it?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm

Other places where homosexuality is mentioned by Paul use the ambiguous term Arsenokoitai, which has many possible translations - but 'homosexual' is not really likely. Hell, for years people translated it as 'masturbators'.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

This page also makes a very good point about the words of Jesus, and I think it's worth quoting here:

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it a sin, or that he viewed it as a minor sin not worth mentioning, or that the author of Matthew did not fully record all of Jesus' categories.

TheFlyingOrc

01-21-2010, 01:06 PM

Interestingly... the interpretation even in the New Testament isn't quite as clear. The passage in Romans is closest to a true condemnation of homosexuality, and even that has a lot of possible interpretations. If anything, it seems like it's condemning pagan practices. Theological interpretation, of course, can take it even further away from a strict condemnation. The historical idea of homosexuality is very far removed from our modern one. Homosexual behavior was something ordinary people may have conducted - something unnatural for a 'straight' person, back when it wasn't a sexual orientation. But if someone's nature, granted by god, is homosexual, when exactly did they 'change,' as the passage puts it?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm

To be honest, I do not find that page's arguments about that verse particularly compelling. They have no attacks towards the phrase "burn with lust for one another". You have to take a LOT of the interpretations as contrary to how it reads naturally in order to get to that verse not condemning homosexuality. I'm not discounting the argument completely, but I really don't feel it makes its case.

This page also makes a very good point about the words of Jesus, and I think it's worth quoting here:

That can be countered VERY easily by saying that Jesus really had more important things to worry about. I'd say an omission of him condemning those who are AGAINST homosexuality would be greater, considering his constant condemnation of many people for unjustified hatred.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 01:19 PM

I didn't need to say that the interpretation was wrong, all I needed to do there was point out that it wasn't clear. It does unambiguously refer to homosexual activity; it's just a stretch to say it unambiguously condemns it as sinful in all occasions, especially when taken into context as part of a condemnation of pagan cult activities. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul himself found it abhorrent, but my point here is that there's enough room for argument to drive a convoy through, which is why there are multiple Christian sects out there who very pointedly do not consider it a sin and are still on solid theological ground.

This is especially the case when you consider that there are no other contexts in the new testament where homosexuality is (mostly) unambiguously mentioned.

And yes, that's the point. Jesus did have more important things to worry about. You've now gone from calling it the example of people fallen into sin to something not even worth mentioning.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 01:42 PM

As an addendum, I find that website is a very useful source of information on religions in general because it does catalog opinions of all kinds on a subject and generally does a pretty good job of cutting through the bullshit and mud slinging.

TheFlyingOrc

01-21-2010, 01:45 PM

And yes, that's the point. Jesus did have more important things to worry about. You've now gone from calling it the example of people fallen into sin to something not even worth mentioning.
Tsk, tsk. THE example Paul used, not THE example of the whole New Testament.

And again, I try very hard to be skeptical about assuming that my interpretation of the Bible is correct and that others are strictly wrong, but their interpretation of Romans really, really stretches the text from where I'm sitting.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 01:54 PM

Tsk, tsk. THE example Paul used, not THE example of the whole New Testament.

And again, I try very hard to be skeptical about assuming that my interpretation of the Bible is correct and that others are strictly wrong, but their interpretation of Romans really, really stretches the text from where I'm sitting.

They don't present an interpretation, that was just their overview of the passage. If a list of the facts is what you view as an 'bad interpretation', then you kind of need to rethink things. If you'll notice, there are a wide variety of opinions and it lists the two main schools of thought at the bottom.

To these ends (and the ends are to inform) they compiled a list of opinions in two more pages:
Religious conservatives: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc4.htm
Liberal interpretations: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

If after all this you're not convinced there's any room for debate on the passage, then you're simply misinformed.

TheFlyingOrc

01-21-2010, 01:58 PM

They don't present an interpretation, that was just their overview of the passage. If a list of the facts is what you view as an 'bad interpretation', then you kind of need to rethink things. If you'll notice, there are a wide variety of opinions and it lists the two main schools of thought at the bottom.

To these ends (and the ends are to inform) they compiled a list of opinions in two more pages:
Religious conservatives: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc4.htm
Liberal interpretations: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

If after all this you're not convinced there's any room for debate on the passage, then you're simply misinformed.

*sigh* Their presentation of the opposite side of the debate from where I'm sitting seems super-duper un-persuasive, and they're trying to paint both sides in a reasonable light. You're being super pedantic because I accidentally targeted the site as a whole rather than one of the arguments it presents.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 02:02 PM

If after all this you're not convinced there's any room for debate on the passage, then you're simply misinformed.

I stand by this.

TheFlyingOrc

01-21-2010, 02:06 PM

I stand by this.

There's room for debate on anything. How can you possibly say that "you are misinformed if you don't come to the conclusion I did that both sides have good arguments"? Are you truly lacking this basic level of introspection?

Panthera

01-21-2010, 02:18 PM

There's room for debate on anything. How can you possibly say that "you are misinformed if you don't come to the conclusion I did that both sides have good arguments"? Are you truly lacking this basic level of introspection?

No. "There's room for debate on anything" is a cop-out. I'm going to ignore your insults. This is something with legitimate difficulty in translation because of major differences in culture. The only counterpoint you've offered is pointing out that they didn't 'attack' (again, it wasn't an argument on that overview, it was just laying out the details and possibilities) the phrase about burning for each other with lust, when it wasn't actually doubted that it referred to men sleeping with men in some way.

I don't care what you actually believe, and I don't think for a second that I'm going to actually change your beliefs; or that you will be persuaded; certainly not any more than finding a more charitable interpretation of Paul's words in the new testament is going to make me a believer.

You're talking about how the phrase 'reads' as if a given translation - especially one made hundreds of years ago with poorer scholarship - isn't an interpretation. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but the bible is not a document that can be read without context or close examination. If you want more sources of information, I can find them.

TheFlyingOrc

01-21-2010, 02:22 PM

You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like,

"I'm going to ignore your insults"

"insults u"

edit: I'm done.

Panthera

01-21-2010, 02:26 PM

I had no idea you were that fragile.

See, that was an insult.

Voodoo

01-21-2010, 02:40 PM

Orc & Panthera, you two need to get a room. Hell, I'll even pay.

MagGnome

01-21-2010, 04:45 PM

I find it absolutely absurd that a book written several centuries ago and subsequently translated multiple times across various languages, cultures, and agendas is the basis for so much ignorance, hatred, argument, etc.

It's ridiculous to think that such a silly thing is constantly held up as the shining example of why I can't marry another man or live my life in peace.

As soon as someone brings up the Bible as the basis of their argument (often it's the ONLY thing supporting their argument) I usually shake my head and walk away. Rational thinking tends to fly out the window once religion enters the picture.

Of course I know that not every Christian is close minded, etc.

*insert disclaimer here*

There, now I feel better.

01-21-2010, 07:00 PM

If it makes you feel better, Mags, I feel exactly the same way about the Constitution.

LordDon

01-21-2010, 07:22 PM

If it makes you feel better, Mags, I feel exactly the same way about the Constitution.

I would've pegged you as an origianalist.

01-21-2010, 07:53 PM

I sort of am. But I kind of roll my eyes when people talk about the majesty of the Constitution, because it was a set of compromises and some line-drawing. If someone violates the Constitution, there are various reasons why we should punish him; but some people view it like he built a golden calf.

Oddly, those tend to be the same people who have very little notion of what the Constitution actually says. E.g., the 25% of Americans who believe the Constitution protects your right to own a pet.

OUX

01-21-2010, 08:06 PM

As soon as someone brings up the Bible as the basis of their argument (often it's the ONLY thing supporting their argument) I usually shake my head and walk away. Rational thinking tends to fly out the window once religion enters the picture.

I always got the impression that the bible/religion was the sole basis of dissent in this case.

Slack3r78

01-21-2010, 09:15 PM

If someone violates the Constitution, there are various reasons why we should punish him; but some people view it like he built a golden calf.
About the only part of the Constitution that I really come close to considering genius is the First Amendment. While our form of government is kind of retarded in its own way, our tradition of free speech is nearly unmatched anywhere else in the world. Even states that are generally more progressive than the US tend to have more restrictive speech laws here and there.

ShivaX

01-21-2010, 09:20 PM

I always got the impression that the bible/religion was the sole basis of dissent in this case.

Well of course it is, otherwise it comes off on the level of trying to ban foods you don't like.

"I don't like it and think it is gross" isn't a valid basis for something. It would be like someone saying they think mushrooms should be illegal cause they think they taste bad.

MagGnome

01-22-2010, 06:21 AM

If it makes you feel better, Mags, I feel exactly the same way about the Constitution.

Would you like to come over and join me in burning both of them? We can light some candles, put on some music, open a bottle of wine...

I agree that it's ridiculous to point to the Constitution as the end-all, be-all, as if it's entirely infallible.

01-22-2010, 07:31 AM

I get seduced enough, thank you.

TheFlyingOrc

01-22-2010, 09:30 AM

I find it absolutely absurd that a book written several centuries ago and subsequently translated multiple times across various languages, cultures, and agendas is the basis for so much ignorance, hatred, argument, etc.

It's ridiculous to think that such a silly thing is constantly held up as the shining example of why I can't marry another man or live my life in peace.

...If a person actually believes that the book was written as the message of an all-powerful creator God to his people, you'd be hard pressed to get them to not take it seriously.

As soon as someone brings up the Bible as the basis of their argument (often it's the ONLY thing supporting their argument) I usually shake my head and walk away. Rational thinking tends to fly out the window once religion enters the picture.

I agree, but I imagine that your definition of what constitutes a religion is much narrower than mine.