I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Attributed to Voltaire but probably not by him. But it’s not a sentiment that liberals would agree with.
You still think this whole kerfuffle is just about rights, huh?
Wrong. The Big Guy wanted us to love every person. Not necessarily their viewpoints.
Corporations are persons too, my friend.
Is that the same guy who said, “Don’t judge.”? 'Cause I see a LOT of judging from the [del]Pharisees[/del]Christians these days including one named Phil Robertson…
I wasn’t talking to anyone in particular. Just making a general statement.
FYI - The Dixie Chicks became famous and rich because of their fans. The ditzy chicks then turned on their fan base. Oops. Their fans took it personally and stopped buying their songs about killing boyfriends. Goodbye Earl.
As it turns out, the DC didn’t have any support outside of their chosen genre. Surprise! No fans = no money = no new records = no careers.
Duck Dynasty, OTOH, still has many fans. Fans who made it clear to A&E and Cracker Barrel that they would not support organizations that did not support DD.
It’s not like Robertson licked doorknobs, or coughed on people to pass along any disease he had.
Untrue. It’s a statement that liberals live and breathe daily.
You may remember the ACLU and the neo-Nazis of Skokie.
What - the one where you demanded to know what “Jesus” said about homosexuals? Why should I respond to it? I am not Christian and never studied what “Jesus” said. The Old Testament, which is what I am familiar with, considers homosexual acts an abomination, though, and I believe that particular part has not been rescinded by Christians.
Meh, Robertson’s a dick, but his particular brand of dickery is popular in some American circles. Frankly, I blame America more than Robertson.
And…that didn’t take long at all, about a week.
“Duck Dynasty to resume filming with the entire Robinson family.”
Well, yeah, that pretty much is their doctrine. The Old Testament is the stuff Jesus was sent by God to save us from. It’s the Before picture. It takes some somersaults for a Christian to adhere to something in the OT while ignoring what *Christ *had to say about it, but many of them manage to do it. There’s a whole buncha other things in the OT that nobody really wants to claim to believe in today, too.
I think you’re misrepresenting it. If you were right, then the text that you needed to be “saved from” would be removed from the “Scriptures”.
By the way, I need to correct what I wrote. It is not “homosexual acts” that the Old Testament considers an abomination. It is male homosexual acts. Female homosexuality is not mentioned in that portion at all. Or in any other portion, AFAIK.
Really? And all the other parts too? So any Christian who eats pork sins? That’d be news to Phil Robertson I’m sure. I think he “works” on the Sabbath too. Damn the bad luck.
Look, either Mark 12:29-31 removed the requirement of OT law (and replaced it with the new two) or it didn’t, but let’s not have cafeteria “ChristJews” and just pick and choose which Mosaic laws we’ll worry about. Either they ALL apply or none of them do.
The committee-written Bible is brim-full of contradictions, yes. The doctrine is pretty damn confused, as you’d expect from something accreted over centuries by humans via word of mouth, and with so much Roman and pagan tradition folded in. Which doesn’t keep a lot of self-described Christians from claiming to believe with their whole heart in every word of it. And which in turn makes it easy to identify when they’re cherry-picking part of it as a rationalization. As in the present example.
Again, you’re asking the wrong person. I am not Christian. Try someone else.
Too true.
Oh? You’re the one that brought up that homosexual acts must be sinful - I assume according to Phil Robertson’s definition - so I thought you must be an authority on sin by his “Christian” standards. You now say you’re not, so maybe you should stop talking about it, huh? I mean, either you know what’s a Christian sin and what isn’t, or you don’t.
Too true. What do liberals have to offer in the defense of free speech that can match the efforts of such conservative luminaries as… Um… Huh.
Well, there’s always the staunchly conservative organizations that have fought so tirelessly to protect the rights of every to free speech, such as… Hmm.
Help me out here. I’m trying to think of iconic, right-wing free speech defenders, and all I can come up with are people like Joseph McCarthy, Bull Connor, the ongoing efforts to ban any book that says anything remotely positive about gay people from public schools and libraries, or the frequently rabid hate on the right for the ACLU, a group that exists specifically to defend people’s first amendment rights.
So, uh, exactly how are “liberals” particularly bad on free speech, as compared to conservatives?
Buncha bullshit, aldi.
Look, if by “tolerate” you mean" protect the legal right to express it," then yeah, liberals are the goddamned kings of protecting free speech. Always have been, always will be.
But if by “tolerate” you mean “don’t criticize,” then that’s not something I’ve ever heard a liberal express.
So let’s break it down:
You, and the Klan, and Mr. Robertson, and the Revolutionary Maoist Youth League, and Carrot Top, and Rush Limbaugh, and every asshole with an opinion has a legal right to express that opinion. I will tolerate it to the extent that if the government tries to shut you up, I’ll try to stop them.
But I’ll not waste any time tolerating any fool’s foolishness. And I’ll applaud other people that answer an asshole’s opinion with facts, incisive rebuttals, or even plain old mockery, and I’ll argue vociferously against “tolerating” it, if that means treating the asshole’s opinion as sacred and immune to criticism.
Seriously, this is one of the dumbest arguments conservatives ever trot out, and that’s really saying something.
So the whole controversy was a brilliant P.R. stunt. It’s a scripted, fake reality show. It should have been obvious.
Unlikely. A&E looks bad here. Blatant hypocrisy, and now potential backlash from the other side of the controversy. The LGBT community should be pissed about the flip flop, and they spend money, too. With a little organization, they can make this sting if they choose to do it.