Debate and Discussion

Why I can't stand CNN.
EmilyTheStrange at 6:33PM, Aug. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 156
joined: 1-5-2006
TnTComic
Careful, Emily, I said America is riddled with racists and sexists and I was branded an America hater.

Lol, dude been there done that.

I laugh at people who say I hate America.
I'm a Daughter of the Revolution, I've had family fight in every major war in American history (my dad was even a sargent in the Amry,) and I support our troops. I just don't support what our country is doing right now.

I stand by my feelings because, wether people like it or not, they're the truth. I love this country, so much that it kills me to watch the moral and poltical decay of it caused by the ignorence of half the American population. I live in a town where if you so much as mention you are unhappy with something the current administration has done you may get shot (it's happened) and where the army recruiters are in every lunch period, looking you up and down, stalking those who they think will make good soldiers knowing they'll join up because they have no money to intulectually better themselves after high school.

America is an amazing country, but thanks to whats been happening in the last few years its hard to look passed our government and see the good that lies beyond the corruption.

WHEW~! D:
-rant over-
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:21PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:10PM, Aug. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
The “Do you hate/love” your country is one of those Pavlovian conditioning things. People fall for it every time. One of the pillars of Fascism is rampant Jingoism. Be very careful.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 9:48AM, Aug. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
TnTComic
Careful, Emily, I said America is riddled with racists and sexists and I was branded an America hater. Reminds me of when I protested going to war in 2003.

Yeah, well unlike you, I wouldn't consider that a glowing assessment of America.

TnTComic
It'd be nice to live in a place where i'm not confronted by the fact that this country has deep racist and sexist roots, but I'm in Indiana, so its not gonna happen.

Because like you know, there aren't any other countries at all that have racist and sexist roots, except for of course, every other country on the face of the planet. But hey AMERICA is RACIST AND SEXIST! OOH RAH!

You said you can't stand CNN because they are focusing on race and sex, and i'm simply saying that there are many Americans who focus on race and sex. In a way, we're saying the same thing, except you're saying “CNN” and i'm saying “America”. I don't know why you think I have to refrain from criticizing my country, but i'm not going to do it. As comic people, we all know what a powerful tool criticism can be. And I don't even know what point you're making with that second comment. You're acknowledging the simple fact that racism and sexism is everywhere… but you hate CNN for doing a story on it?

In a way, the little differences between CNN, FoxNews et al is completely necessary. If cable news did completely vanilla stories, black and white reporting of the news, not only would they not have enough material for 24 hours of broadcast, but they'd be identical. There would be no reason for someone to watch one over the other. That's exactly why Fox came out with the angle that they have. CNN was the top dog, so why would people tune in to a new kid on the block? In that way, I don't really hate one network over the other, because they're all doing the same thing: tweaking news to cater to a demographic.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
TitanOne at 1:59PM, Aug. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
Now the topic was OMG, a black man and woman are running for president! OMG OMG OMG.

First of all, I don't care that Obama is black or that Clinton is a woman, I care about what they would do as president.

Yep, me too, which is why I'd never consider voting for them in a million years.

But, lest you think I am a partisan, I honestly don't think I will ever vote Republican again, either. Both parties are doing great harm to our nation.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
TitanOne at 2:09PM, Aug. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
mapaghimagsik
Great discussion. So why hasn't America had a person of color or a woman for president?


Because the two prevailing political parties have not nominated one yet. It has nothing to do with the general population of America, and everything to do with the preferences of rich people who make campaign contributions. Those are the people who run both the DNC and the RNC. What a surprise, the country club crowd does not want anything but white men as leaders!;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
TnTComic at 7:35PM, Aug. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
TitanOne
mapaghimagsik
Great discussion. So why hasn't America had a person of color or a woman for president?


Because the two prevailing political parties have not nominated one yet. It has nothing to do with the general population of America, and everything to do with the preferences of rich people who make campaign contributions. Those are the people who run both the DNC and the RNC. What a surprise, the country club crowd does not want anything but white men as leaders!;)


What a horrible allegation to make! To think… America's cream of the crop don't want a woman or a black man as a candidate!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 10:43AM, Aug. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
TitanOne
mapaghimagsik
Great discussion. So why hasn't America had a person of color or a woman for president?


Because the two prevailing political parties have not nominated one yet. It has nothing to do with the general population of America, and everything to do with the preferences of rich people who make campaign contributions. Those are the people who run both the DNC and the RNC. What a surprise, the country club crowd does not want anything but white men as leaders!;)


What a horrible allegation to make! To think… America's cream of the crop don't want a woman or a black man as a candidate!

The country club set doesn't control the country any more than the country lets them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 1:28PM, Aug. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
The country club set doesn't control the country any more than the country lets them.

What's that supposed to mean?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 4:13PM, Aug. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Vindibudd
The country club set doesn't control the country any more than the country lets them.

What's that supposed to mean?

It's supposed to mean that people need to stop making excuses for what is wrong with the country so they can excuse their own complicity in how things are. The “country club” set does not make you vote one way or another. You simply listen to what is said by who is running and then vote for what you believe. If you don't win, that doesn't mean the country is broken, it merely means that most people do not agree with you.

It doesn't mean they don't like you because you are black, or female, or gay or whatever other crutch you want to use to differentiate yourself from The Man and overcome any intellectual reasoning for your failure to convince everyone that you are the best choice for the leader of the country.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 4:31PM, Aug. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Maybe you should get out more, because the world is full of people who will hate you simply because you are black or a woman or gay, or the wrong religion, whatever. You may not be racist or sexist, but you have got to stop acting like racism, homophobia and sexism don't exist.

Like I said before, exit polls in the '04 election showed that the #1 issue that had people voting the way they did was the gay marriage debate. So if you want to ignore that the voting masses are small-minded people, then you go right ahead. But the fact is that Barak Obama will lose votes because he is black and Hillary Clinton will lose votes because she is a woman. As much as I would prefer this world was not so ignorant, it is.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
bongotezz at 7:22PM, Aug. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 451
joined: 2-13-2007
i don't vote for polititions. no politition is worthy of my vote. they are all out for themselves without doing what's in the best interest of the people the claim to represent. they all lie and treat people like idiots. they constantly bash each other in smear campaigns and their only real agenda is to get elected and get a paycheck and any payola they can. and remember voteing for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. i vote for myself but i never win.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
mapaghimagsik at 12:23AM, Aug. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
While its true the Country Club set doesn't make you vote one way or another, the country club set – or more likely – the country club owners *do* control the vertical and the horizonal. They also control the agenda.

They also control the votes. Google “voter caging” to find out how that was done. The justice department also put undue pressure on attorneys to drop cases of real fraud to go after mythical voter fraud. There's also cases of Americans getting “deported” despite the fact they were US citizens. This doesn't happen to people who vote Republican.

The question is whether this all is enough to keep them in power.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 4:06AM, Aug. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
bongotezz
they constantly bash each other in smear campaigns

Boy, do I wish this was true. I didn't particularly like John Kerry during the ‘04 election, but for the love of god, man… stand up for yourself! Bush was a reservist safely at home during Vietnam, while Kerry was in combat in Vietnam… and they smeared Kerry’s military service record. It was ridiculous, yet the man never stooped to their level. Its that sort of thing that has given the democratic party the “spineless” image.

just for fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IufvDc0_Mws
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 6:20AM, Aug. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
The Blue Dogs completely capitulating on the FISA laws is what makes me want to buy a bunch of Dems spines. But the Democrats have to elect better Democrats. The Republicans could *try* to elect better Republicans, but they have completely caved to the Religious Right, so they've got a super tough fight ahead of them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 6:53AM, Aug. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
mapaghimagsik
The Blue Dogs completely capitulating on the FISA laws is what makes me want to buy a bunch of Dems spines. But the Democrats have to elect better Democrats. The Republicans could *try* to elect better Republicans, but they have completely caved to the Religious Right, so they've got a super tough fight ahead of them.

Actually, with Giuliani (or however the fuck its spelled) in the front of Republican hopefuls, that doesn't hold true. Rudy pisses off most of the Religious Right with his stances on gay marriage and abortion.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 12:23PM, Aug. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Maybe you should get out more, because the world is full of people who will hate you simply because you are black or a woman or gay, or the wrong religion, whatever. You may not be racist or sexist, but you have got to stop acting like racism, homophobia and sexism don't exist.

Like I said before, exit polls in the '04 election showed that the #1 issue that had people voting the way they did was the gay marriage debate. So if you want to ignore that the voting masses are small-minded people, then you go right ahead. But the fact is that Barak Obama will lose votes because he is black and Hillary Clinton will lose votes because she is a woman. As much as I would prefer this world was not so ignorant, it is.


Of course all of those things exist, the problem with what you are saying is that the majority of the country falls under that category. I am sorry but I have to disagree. Maybe you THINK the country is full of people like that but it doesn't make it so. And you know what? There are white male politicians will also lose votes because they are white or male, that doesn't make it the rule rather than the exception. For the most part, politicians are elected on issues.

As for the gay thing, maybe if the Mayor of San Francisco had not been marrying gay couples in flagrant violation of the California state constitution then the gay issue would not have been such a hot button topic that year. As much as you may loathe it, the majority of the planet believes that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic trait. Thusly, many people are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds. Yeah, you might not like it, but it doesn't make them bigots any more than it makes you a bigot of religion.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 12:24PM, Aug. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
The Blue Dogs completely capitulating on the FISA laws is what makes me want to buy a bunch of Dems spines. But the Democrats have to elect better Democrats. The Republicans could *try* to elect better Republicans, but they have completely caved to the Religious Right, so they've got a super tough fight ahead of them.

Do you even know what FISA does? Do you not see any purpose for eavesdropping on calls outside of this country?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 4:27PM, Aug. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
Of course all of those things exist, the problem with what you are saying is that the majority of the country falls under that category.

Never once did I say that!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Rori at 5:44PM, Aug. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 471
joined: 12-3-2006
Despite a serious urge to respond to other things in this thread, I'll keep it on topic ;)

I find myself seriously malnourished by tv news. Actually, I think the msm in general has a conversion disorder. Think about it, sensational news isn't just eye-catching, it's easy, the causes are easy, the solutions easy, most of all it's easily dismissed, because it's either a tertiary issue, or a problem that's so simplistically explained that it fosters the sense that although these problems are fearful, the are controllable.

Let me use an example from John Clute: children face many problems, poverty, inept schooling, violence, etc., but all these problems are complex, both in origin and possible solutions. Discussing these things is complex and depressing, and requires an attention span. So we get sensational stories of pre-school molestation rings and satanic abuse. These stories are small, and their solutions are small. They entertain us and offer striking denouements and conclusions. If tv has taught us anything, it's that life's most powerful issues can be resolved in 45 minutes…maybe a two-parter.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if tv, as a medium, is really capable of delivering the highest content news. Although that's not an out, most aren't even trying.

On the medium note, I tend to get most of my news from the internet. I honestly think it's a great medium, you can find several sources/angles on any issue. It requires some knowledge of how to spot garbage articles, but so does print and broadcast media (and the choices there are lest than vast). My only reservation is the mailable nature of articles and the lack of the physical archives created by newspapers, but meh on that for now.

…and I'm spent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:11PM
bobhhh at 1:21PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
Where I work, they have two break rooms and both of them have CNN on 24 hours a day. Now, people love to complain about Fox News being soooooo far right wing, making retarded jokes like Faux News (HURG), and so on, but let me tell you why CNN is the spawn of Satan.

Last night on Paula Zahn, she had a minority issues writer, a democrat strategist, and some other politically left individual, I think she was from Obama or Clinton's campaign.

Now the topic was OMG, a black man and woman are running for president! OMG OMG OMG.

First of all, I don't care that Obama is black or that Clinton is a woman, I care about what they would do as president. So anyway, that is the first thing, but this whole segment was about how this is so unusual that a black man and a white woman are running and would Americans vote for a black man or a woman?

So the guests were all saying the following:

1. If voters can get past all their *isms, they will vote for these two.
2. This is a great opportunity for Americans to vote for a black man and a woman.
3. I don't think Americans can bring themselves to vote for a black man and a woman, because black people can't be trusted with Michael Vick and O.J. Simpson (this guy was black which made his statements all the more outrageous) and Americans won't vote for a woman, because of Clinton's cleavage.

That, my friends, is insulting to anyone who votes based upon issues.

How about this, I won't vote for Clinton because she has stated that she wants “to go after the oil companies and the oil speculators and the manipulators of the money, because they're the ones who I think are really behind this,” Nevermind that over 50 percent of every dollar goes to the government in taxes and oil companies only get 10 cents on the dollar. So Clinton is all for destroying the economy by attacking private enterprise. She wants to make the government the enemy of its citizens, and if the oil companies go out of business, where are we the people going to get our gasoline?

I won't vote for Barak, because he wants to force kindergarten students to have sex education. (“sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is ‘age-appropriate,’ is ‘the right thing to do.’ ‘But it’s the right thing to do to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.'” )

I'm sorry, I thought learning the alphabet and how to count was what kindergarten was for.

He also wants to “talk” to every 3rd world dictatorship who throws a tantrum, rather than taking a hard line with them, like any real American president should do.

So my not voting for either of these two has nothing to do with race and gender, and all to do with a completely 180 degree out of phase vision for this country.

So that is why I can't stand CNN. I am not a racist and I don't look at candidates' skin color or gender as my primary factor for judging their qualifications. It is too bad that CNN is so obsessed with race and gender that they cannot discuss issues that are important to this country.

CNN was so surprised to be dressed down by Michael Moore, but ALL news outlets need to be warned. Network news practices, and increasingly print as well, is whoring out the fourth estate. The news media is being sold like diet coke and truth and depth are being supplicated by sound bites and punditry. The absence of in depth news gives rise to jingoist staments like those quoted here.

Love that truly John Wayne bullshit about a hard line. Where's the proof??? Uses of force to bully people always have blowback.

For example, the reason we are in deep shit with Iran is that we supported the Shaw. Had we have left their country alone instead of backing the installion of an unelected monarch who proceeded to brutalize and suppress his people, we might now enjoy freindly relations. Had the news media made it plain we were helping the oil companies admister their agenda in Tehran, perhaps we wouldn't have allowed it!

…or the assylum we later granted the Shah, or the financial and military support we poured into Saddam's pocket in the name of containing the now hostile Iranians!!

The extent of how far we gain respect and unconditional bonds with allies is how well we treat them. Bullying people to keep them in line just fosters animosity, resentment and suspicion. Why is it we are so willing to waste billions of dollars killing people, when feeding them and building up their infrastructure would produce more permanent and desirable results?

My feeling is that poor Barak has two strikes against him but race is the smaller issue. The big one is youth. It's his perceived naivete that gets him the most bad press. As long as we believe this fallacy that we can armtwist sovereign nations into docile compliance, his suggestion of opening dialog will remain a percieved weakness.

The other big paper tiger here is that Hillary wants to tank the economy by going after oil companies. Jeez, where to begin?

How about the obvious thing. We simply cannot sustain an oil economy any longer. Oil is poisoning our environment, we have to stop some day or we will perish. Why not start now in earnest? Here is where the news media needs to ask the hard questions of our leaders and CEO's. CNN and ther rest of their ilk continue to report on green technology as if it was a puff piece and not the last desperate chance we have of surviving as a species.

Further it is clear that money flows like water to the path of least resistance, so subsidizing our oil industry with tax breaks , lax standards and favorable legislation will ensure the status quo. Oil companies are posting record profits, they don't need corporate welfare. Remove this cushion, and the money will slowly begin to flow toward greener technologies.

The fact is had we taken the chance to implement these ideas earlier, we wouldn't have to be facing such bitter medicine now. Hillary is talking tough, but in the end I believe that she is a realist, and will make deals to make this transition eaiser for the economy and the citizenry.

Bob
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
mapaghimagsik at 2:20PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
mapaghimagsik
The Blue Dogs completely capitulating on the FISA laws is what makes me want to buy a bunch of Dems spines. But the Democrats have to elect better Democrats. The Republicans could *try* to elect better Republicans, but they have completely caved to the Religious Right, so they've got a super tough fight ahead of them.

Do you even know what FISA does? Do you not see any purpose for eavesdropping on calls outside of this country?

Do you think people should be spied upon without any tracking whatsoever, like was done during Watergate? Spy all you want. Get your warrant before or a reasonable time after. Why is that so hard?

The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.

It also offers a case study in how changing a few words in a complex piece of legislation has the potential to fundamentally alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a landmark national security law.

Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of �electronic surveillance,� the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States.

For instance, the legislation would allow the government, under certain circumstances, to demand the business records of an American in Chicago without a warrant if it asserts that the search concerns its surveillance of a person who is in Paris, experts said.

I think that if you're going to spy on Americans, you should have to get a warrant. Simple as that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 3:37PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Do you think people should be spied upon without any tracking whatsoever, like was done during Watergate? Spy all you want. Get your warrant before or a reasonable time after. Why is that so hard?

I think that if you're going to spy on Americans, you should have to get a warrant. Simple as that.


I definitely endorse the idea of getting warrants before spying on Americans but I also understand that calls could be coming in internationally that are from suspicious sources and could be dangerous for the country if they are not intercepted.

I'm not a Patriot Act Waving rubber stamper.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 4:48PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Vindibudd
As much as you may loathe it, the majority of the planet believes that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic trait. Thusly, many people are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds. Yeah, you might not like it, but it doesn't make them bigots any more than it makes you a bigot of religion.
And here we go, Vindibudd has unveiled the truth! The majority of the planet is *drum roll* uneducated! The majority of the world includes China and India, two very poor countries based off religion. As much as you may loathe it, the smart people of the planet know that homosexuality a genetic trait. Thusly, many important people are supportive of gay marriage on logical grounds. Yeah, you might not like it, but it doesn't make them abominations any more than it makes you an abomination of science.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
mapaghimagsik at 5:12PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Religious reasons were used to justify slavery too. Does that mean that those that justified slavery on religious grounds were not bigots?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 5:22PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
And here we go, Vindibudd has unveiled the truth! The majority of the planet is *drum roll* uneducated! The majority of the world includes China and India, two very poor countries based off religion. As much as you may loathe it, the smart people of the planet know that homosexuality a genetic trait. Thusly, many important people are supportive of gay marriage on logical grounds. Yeah, you might not like it, but it doesn't make them abominations any more than it makes you an abomination of science.

You are welcome to show me the gay gene any time you like.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 5:24PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Religious reasons were used to justify slavery too. Does that mean that those that justified slavery on religious grounds were not bigots?

That's a red herring and I am not fishing for red herring today.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 5:29PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
mapaghimagsik
Religious reasons were used to justify slavery too. Does that mean that those that justified slavery on religious grounds were not bigots?

That's a red herring and I am not fishing for red herring today.

I realize you might think it is, but answer the question. Lots of things have been justified through religious grounds. There's religions in Africa that support female genital mutilation. A whole host of horrors are supported through religion.

So its a serious question that people of faith should consider.



last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 5:36PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
I realize you might think it is, but answer the question. Lots of things have been justified through religious grounds. There's religions in Africa that support female genital mutilation. A whole host of horrors are supported through religion.

So its a serious question that people of faith should consider.

The first thing to point out is that all religion is not the same. To say that “religion” was used as an excuse to do X is like saying “people” murder. Well not all people murder and not all religion is used to justify whatever evil is currently in style.

The next thing to point out is that the idea that some people do not believe that homosexuality is genetic is not evil. Just because you have no problem with something doesn't mean that they rest of the world has to subscribe to it. The Bible makes clear statements about homosexuality and therefore those people that are adherents of it are typically not going to accept homosexuality as being genetic, which again I might add, has never been proven to be anything other than a preference or even a conditioning.

Again, show me the gay gene.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 5:45PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
Again, show me the gay gene.

I have no dog in that hunt. I'm more curious about this:

Thusly, many people are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds. Yeah, you might not like it, but it doesn't make them bigots any more than it makes you a bigot of religion.

It sounds like you're saying that any discrimination which is religious isn't discrimination. So people who used the bible to endorse slavery were not discriminating?
From what you have written, you're saying that as long as they gave a good religious excuse for slavery, they were not being bigots.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 5:57PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
It sounds like you're saying that any discrimination which is religious isn't discrimination. So people who used the bible to endorse slavery were not discriminating?
From what you have written, you're saying that as long as they gave a good religious excuse for slavery, they were not being bigots.

I can see how you might see that so I will elaborate.

The tag of bigot (which is really kind of inaccurate because in reality they are attempting to classify someone as ignorant and backwards) is being tossed at people who are opposed to homosexuality and special rights accorded to individuals who identify with that lifestyle. Now, most people who are opposed to homosexuality on the basis of religious grounds do so because they feel their religious belief dictates that, not because they are ignorant or backwards.

Now the key to all of this is: does one have a choice to be homosexual or not?

Because to point out an example of what you are saying that is valid: Mormons once discriminated against black people, and everyone knows that no one can pick the color of their skin. So obviously that was “bigoted” or rather ignorant and backwards and entirely non Christ-like (The legitimacy of Mormonism as Christianity is a whole other story)

Not so clear cut with sexual preferences.

So no, I am not saying that cloaking one's social policy choices in the guise of religion makes everything skippy, I am saying that it is not correct to paint someone a bigot in the homosexuality issue, really at all, regardless of religious belief.

Bigot is a strong word and is used to categorize someone who is intolerant of a differing view. Well, being opposed to homosexuality does not make one a bigot. It simply makes them opposed to homosexuality.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved