Fair point, I took the sentence “Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues”, which is separated from the story about walking to the fields and hoing cotton by ellipsis, as a broader statement disconnected from his direct observations, but on re-read it’s not that clear. It’s pretty hard to get anything definite out of the statement, between not knowing the question, the ellipsis, and the urge to bring in one’s own biases and observations, such as JohT’s “having been around people like this for much of my life, there’s little doubt in my mind what he was saying”.
Robertson could be one of those “people like this”, or he could not be. As you say, it’s speculative.
Either you don’t understand what hypocrisy is or you don’t understand what civil liberties are. This is your first post:
Who is demanding that Robertson’s civil liberties be curtailed, exactly? Has anyone demanded that the government censor his interview? Bar his show from the airwaves?
Good lord. Some of you people just like to read your own posts, nevermind if you actually have a valid point.
I’ve already posted this, but if you have a problem with the definition of “civil liberty” then tell it to Merriam Webster…
civil liberty
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
“Freedom from arbitrary interference in one’s pursuits by individuals or by government.”
That aside- it isn’t just about one man’s (Robertson) opinion or even one man’s liberty to have that opinion and to live that sort of lifestyle. To think that it’s only about this one man and a cable tv network is, well, it’s thick headed.
I don’t agree with all this guy says, either, but he does make a few valid points that are relevant to this discussion…
There are people who would think that having your employment status affected by your religion (or religious views) would implicate your civil liberties.
A Muslim woman is told she can’t wear a hijab while waiting on customers at the upscale clothing boutique which employs her. They suspend her for refusing to follow this directive.
To be fair, the first time you posted it, you didn’t even include the “by individuals” part, so maybe you should read your own posts a bit more? A little proofreading goes a long way!
Way to dive right onto the persecuted christian bandwagon! Yes, not being able to spread bigoted, hateful viewpoints proves that Christians are hated and that the majority religion of the country isn’t allowed to express their viewpoints. Way to link somebody who immediately goes into the bullshit “natural” argument about homosexuality which is both incredibly dumb (you do all sorts of “unnatural” stuff) and provably untrue.
Yes, the article you linked says that Christians are having a non-Christian agenda pushed onto them, ignoring the fact that Christians are trying to keep others from marrying for no other reason than “because I said so”. That’s not pushing your religion on others at all. Let’s not forget when this happened with Chik Fil A, and christians threw a baby fit over the fact that people wanted to boycott a company that donated money to a group that’s partially responsible for getting gay people killed. They didn’t call for government action, they just said not to give money to a violent group, and the Christian response was whining about freedom of speech in a perfect show of hypocracy from the “free market” people. Sorry, I’m pretty sure “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean I have to give money to groups that want to kill my best friend - even though that’s what Christians said I had to do.
Sorry, Christians, but give it up. You aren’t oppressed, no matter how much you really, really want to be. You are the oppressors. Admit it and fix it, or keep being viewed as the bad guys.
Seriously, even though the argument you’re trying to make is “Liberals are mean and nasty”, the argument you’re really making is “It’s justified to assume all Christians are evil”.
If you say “This dictionary definition says I’m right”, and the definition you quote proves you WRONG, you probably do need to spell it out, especially when you try to act all superior to people who respond to the line you actually quoted.
Again, I’m making fun of the fact that you’re blaming people for “Reading their own posts” too much, when the first time you quoted the dictionary, this is what you quoted:
Get it? You then tried to tut-tut me about “missing this part” on a part you didn’t even quote. What I’m saying is, maybe you should read your OWN posts, just to make sure you know what you’re saying.
It’s all on the same page, at the same link, fellow. Most reasonable and intelligent men, though, don’t have to depend on a website to define for them what is simple and clear. But if you must, then read it all, not just part of it…
What do you think arbitrary means? Do you think public figures should be free to say whatever they want without consequences?
Those people should probably address their concerns to situations where someone’s religious views are relevant, then. Robertson didn’t just advocate a Biblical view of sexual relations. He also implied that Jim Crow laws should be brought back and called atheists to Nazis.
My position is that the law of the jurisdiction prescribes whatever accommodations an employer must make to accommodate its employees’ religious practices. However, I would generally be on the side of the employer in this instance, assuming the requirement is part of a general uniform policy.
You’re the one who quoted part of it. You really need to try to work on your comprehensibility, because it’s not very high. Also, the definition you link includes the word “arbitrary”. The dictionary you keep quoting defines arbitrary as:
Are you now claiming all of this is over no reason at all, they just decided to do it randomly? Because if it’s not arbitrary, that definition you keep quoting doesn’t apply!
I am apparently an extremely immoral person. I am apparently a more immoral person than somebody wh
If “don’t say racist and homophobic things” and “don’t lie about facts in order to support your homophobia” is oppressing of your ‘christian religion’, then your religion sucks. If “Faith and family” really means “Dislikes and wants to tear down the family of others, imposing your faith on others”, then I will proudly stand against both.
I have no doubt you are down with that. And it tickles me that you are so proud of this examplary nugget of logic and tolerance of others that you share it so proudly.
I just have to get this off my chest: Robertson tried to defend his views on homosexual preferences based on “logic”. I hate to break it to you, dude, but if you prefer the vagina because it’s “logical”, you’re bisexual.