First, I hope that “you’re full of shit” gets no patience from mods.
Second, there’s a strong case to be made for his claim that Chik-Fil-A is criticized for donations to hate groups.
Case made.
Cool. Gotcha. And agree!
Well, now, your point was so good, up until this; surely no one could ever be so absurdly paranoid as to say that!
(Heavy sigh… Never mind; some of them are exactly that paranoid…)
This is not The BBQ Pit.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
How much patience should the Mods have for junior modding?
[ /Moderating ]
You shouldn’t have to give up any assumption to be “entitled to respect and civility”–that was my point. I am an atheist and entirely disagree with the Republicans’ religiously-based positions on this and other issues, but I refuse to take that further to saying they are not entitled to be heard or that their opinions are invalid.
Re “coming to the table”–do you do so with an open mind? I would guess not. I agree that religion should be divorced from civil law. Nonetheless, there are many people in this country who insist on deriving their political positions from religious principles, and they are as much Americans as you or I. What would you do, then? Set up a state of permanent gridlock, permanent non-engagement?
My time is too valuable to waste with someone entranced with childish fairy stories. When they wish to come to the table prepared to intelligently discuss and argue their points, they are more than welcome. If they wish to do no more than brandish their religion like a club, I have better things to do.
They’re entitled to be heard. They’re entitled to vote their conscience. But they do not feel bound by any rules other than those derived from the Bible, even when it commands them to do so with respect to non-believers. That means they’re not coming to the table on equal footing for dialog. If your fingers are crossed behind your back at the negotiating table, you are not worthy of respect or civility.
Open mind is relative thing. Can I compromise? Certainly. Can they? Does God permit them to? I’m not even an atheist. (Cue Emo Philips “Die Heretic” bit.)
And yes I would set up gridlock if the other side demanded that the only possible compromise was total agreement with their side. Of course, I’d argue that it was they that defined the gridlock by abandoning the notion of dialog and negotiation.
You found 1 crazy LGBT person in 100000000000 years of history of violence related to movements and you think that means theres parity on violence stemming from political movements? Give me a break. Were gonna have to lynch a few hundred thousand straight white Christians to get that close.
You’re right, this was mentioned before and it is certainly a response worthy of respect and appreciation. Kudos to the LGBT orgs that condemned the shooting so quickly and definitively. Same to those here in this thread who are able to do so.
So is the standard here “opinion leader” or elected official?
Seems like you’re going a bit too far here. You seem to be saying you’ve peered into the motivation behind Cathy’s statement and know that it was hatred of gays that made him say it. I doubt you have any further insight into Cathy’s motivation than I do. From my perspective, he seems like a loving husband and father who lives a devoted Christian lifestyle. I don’t see the “hate” there.
Did FRC say something like that? If so, where and when?
I have a question. Why Chick-fil-A? Sure that idiot worked against gay marriage. So does the entire fucking Republican party. Thus every major donor to the GOP is just as deserving of a boycott as that poor deluded chicken pedlar.
Hell, I point to you Fedex and UPS which have donated millions to the GOP, and they are trying (and mostly succeeding) to kill the USPS as their motive. The chicken dude only wants to sell you some nuggets. But donations by Fedex and UPS to the GOP work against gay marriage even more effectively than that idiot.
So- why target him?
How does being a loving husband and devoted father relate to actively working to oppress gay people? My dad is a loving husband and a devoted father, and he was able to do that without stripping rights from minorities. And while Cathy is free to live a “Christian lifestyle” if he wants, the issue herd is that he’s trying to use the law to force me to follow a Christian lifestyle.
Not being a Christian, I think my annoyance at that is entirely understandable.
See the extensive cite posted by Left Hand of Dorkness upthread.
And made a point of announcing it to the world. And then his fellow homophobes made a mass spectacle of their support for his bigotry. It was like watching white people lining up to buy Klanburgers.
It depends on where you think the lines should be drawn. I see a lot of name calling and gratuitous insults by both sides that aren’t helpful at all, but are we supposed to refrain from calling out bigotry because it makes people uncomfortable?
Part of the process of civil rights is to make people uncomfortable and make them aware of the issue. You force them to look at it a think about it.
I think you do need to rationally be able to defend your positions when called to.
That’s a good question. I work for a staunch republican who embraces a conspiracy theory now and then. I think the media had a lot to do with it when they decided to make his interview public. Then two mayors decided to make political hay by using it to get face time.
When I do it, let me know. On the other hand, if you want to set up a new rule telling me to shut up about my hopes and dreams, let me know that, too.
There is absolutely no objective standard that exists in which can be rationalized that gays deserve less rights than straights, or can it be asserted that they are not as deserving of marriage specifically. The only rationale that people attempt are cultural, traditional, and religious, and Dan Cathy has made it clear which reasoning he’s using. The religious argue is full of hate, per religion’s long history of attacking those who do not believe as they do, and thus Dan Cathy’s beliefs are coming from a position of hatred even if he does not consider it so
Oh, for pity’s sake. Here goes: IT WAS VERY BAD FOR THIS PSYCHO TO DO THIS. Now, unless you want me to demand you, as a (hypothetical) supporter of gun rights, condemn every single murderer who uses a gun, simmer down. Of course we think this guy was a horrible person. Of course we can condemn him easily for his actions.
Both, of course. Elected officials ARE opinion leaders: that’s how they got to be elected officials. I don’t get upset when some asshole on Twitter says racist things about Hunger Games, because hey, there are assholes on Twitter. But if a congressperson said something equally racist, yeah, I’d get upset. If someone on Fox or MSNBC or Der Spiegl said something equally racist, we’d have a problem.
This is so odd. History is rife with family men who commit atrocities, and positively lousy with devoted Christians who engage in genocide. What on earth does his family life or his Christianity do to defend him from charges of hate? They’re totally irrelevant.
What IS relevant is what he says:
At the point where you’re calling people who want to get married “prideful” and “arrogant” and suggesting that God will judge the entire nation (and his tradition, this “judgment” means “eternal hellfire” or possibly “plagues of frogs”), it requires no extrapolation to call him hateful. He’s just using his God as an intermediary for his hate, as if I put on a hand-puppet before I punched someone and said, “Roger the Angry Bunny hates you!”
Praise Roger!
I really guffawed at this. It’s not only hilarious but raises a valid point. {which may be why it’s hilarious}
I’ve had several discussions with people who can’t understand why quoting the Bible doesn’t mean you know what God thinks, you are speaking divine truth, or that it’s no longer just their opinion , but God’s opinion.
Cathy obviously failed to see the inherent arrogance in his statement when he assumed he personally knew what God thought about things.
With all the different religions and all the disagreement over the interpretation of the Bible within Christianity, and all the variations and changes in dogma and doctrine you’d think it would be obvious that even if you happen to believe in God and Jesus, you still might be mistaken about some of the details, and maybe you should refrain from insisting that what you say God thinks, must be exactly what God thinks.
Believers have to understand that ultimately they cannot defend or justify their words and actions by invoking faith and God. No matter the source , or the level of your sincerity, it’s still just your personal opinion, and you must take responsibility for it and all the actions it results in.
Sincere believers defended slavery and all manner of immoral nonsense and quoted scripture to do so. It’s no better excuse than saying “It was the liqueur talking”
Agreed; it genuinely did make me LOL. Beware Roger’s wrath!