So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

Engineer: Consider the mass of humanity like a beehive - prone to swift action when prodded.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The USA represents a fair chunk of humanity, E, yet it fails badly when it comes to any action with regard to USA war crimes. Why do you think that is?

That the Bible condemns homosexuality? No, there is no debate on that.

What you want to debate is that agreeing with the Bible is something that should not be tolerated. You have the narrow end of this argument if you support free speech, and if you do, the debate is over.

I agree with the bible cj. You are fool and need to learn sense.


Proverbs 8:5

O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense.

First, I never said that. Second, for you to say that agreeing with some of the ideas in the Bible is foolish does not have much thought behind it.

I don't think anyone tried to silence Phil. A & E certainly didn't. They actually didn't do anything to him.

But, even if they had fired him, I don't think it would have been because his ideas were "feared", I think it would have been because the things that he said, about blacks and gays, were repugnant to his employer, and offensive to others also employed by A & E, and they didn't want to be associated with those opinions by someone who represents their brand. And firing him would not have silenced him, it simply would have affected his employment with them.

There is neither logic nor evidence in the things Robertson said. His comments about how much happier blacks were in pre-civil rights Jim Crow Louisiana were just plain absurd. That's why the civil rights movement happened--they weren't happy living in a society where they were subjugated and kept under the control of white men.

His negative comments about gays, branding them "murderers" among other things, were not based on any evidence at all. The Bible is not "evidence" it's a collection of writings he choses to believe as true, it's something he takes on faith. Faith is not "evidence".

Even putting the Bible aside, there is nothing "unnatural" about homosexual behaviors--homosexuality occurs spontaneously in animal species other than humans--it's a completely natural form of sexuality that is simply less frequent than heterosexuality, and it also occurs among heterosexuals when opposite sex partners are not available--quite a bit of fully consenting sex takes place in prisons. And many heterosexuals engage in both anal and oral sex.

I don't know how one could even debate Phil if his response was simply, "The Bible says so," or "the only purpose of sex is to procreate," or "vaginas are more appealing than an anus." I really don't care what his Bible says, and sexual acts outside of marriage are really no different than sex within marriage, sex is pleasurable and fine, even when procreation is not involved, and specific sex acts are a matter of individual preference. Because he cites the Bible as his authority doesn't mean anyone else has to accept it, agree with it, or believe it. If he wants to live his own life in accord with his Bible, that's fine with me. No one else has to do that, except if they want to. That's what religious freedom is all about.

What's "feared" about the sort of fundamentalist thinking Phil Robertson engages in and espouses is that it's laced with hatred and contempt for anyone that doesn't believe as he does--you can't really respect and value all those people you think are going to Hell, or are going to burn in a lake of fire--and this has historically resulted in considerable hostility, including murder, toward various groups for that reason. Fundamentalist religious believers tend to abhor diversity, their evangelical mission is to convert, or impose, their own beliefs on everyone else.

I think better, and opposing, ideas have been voiced--things like tolerance, equality, diversity, acceptance, etc. by both other Christians and non-Christians, which is why we have seen major shifts in social and cultural attitudes toward both blacks and gays. And relatively few people share his belief that all sex outside of marriage, including pre-marital sex, is intrinsically wrong, because sexual mores have also undergone major shifts in social and cultural attitudes.

So, I think the "debate" on Phil's ideas has already taken place. And, on most of what he said, the majority do not agree with him. Our legislatures and courts increasingly do not agree with him. Homosexuality has found greater acceptance, and Americans now overwhelmingly support basic civil liberties and freedom of expression for gays and lesbians, and there is increasing acceptance of same sex marriage. He's already lost the debate.

I don't want to silence someone like Robertson, but, as an employer I want the right to disassociate myself, and my other employees, from the sort of hateful and bigoted ideas he espouses. By doing that I would be voicing my opposing ideas. He can go express his ideas elsewhere, somewhere where he is not representing my company.

chomping her way through the nutrient bed with her masticating molars and mincing mandible?

And America has lost moral clarity. And that is a death sentence for anyone, or any nation.

cj: And America has lost moral clarity.



-------------------

cj: And that is a death sentence for anyone, or any nation.

Do you think that might be the wish of any Afghans or Iraqis, cp?

They are pretty busy killing themselves, think they have time to answer questions?

That's part and parcel of USA war crimes. From the initial illegal invasion, the ultimate war crime, all subsequent war crimes flow.

Nothing about the killing and terror that is Islam? But they don't fight wars, so I guess they aren't criminals. just your run of the mill stone cold haters and killers.

You are missing the point Phil stated that the bible consider homosexuals acts as sins and as far as the bible stating that it is the end of the debate.

Now whether you care to give the bible any weight is another matter but Phil was correctly stating the correct position in the bible.

So do we wish to punished someone for daring to correctly explain the bible positions or not?

Should we ban the bible as being a major source of hate and very non PC?

The USA propaganda system ensures that the crimes of others gets full press,which has the effect of disguising the war crimes of the USA. The USA is the cause of most of the problems in the world . This because the USA is full of greedy fucks who have the USA government completely bought.

It's dickheads like you ,CJ, that give your cash to help murder innocents and steal their wealth.

I'll find you some more Layla.

You are wrong. The American media whitewashes Islam.

I'm not missing the point as much as not considering it valid. I really don't care who told you it is ok to demonize people. If your religion says white people are superior or gays are the source of evil or slavery is ok or whatever, it doesn't make you less of a bigot than someone who hates just because. "It's my religion" should not be a screen for bad behavior. Robertson was not attempting to explain the Bible, he was expressing his personal beliefs so he gets to own the backlash. If he wants to explain his bigotry as justified by the Bible, he certainly can. If he drags his employer into it, that backlash might include loss of his job. Ask Justine Sacco. Let's compare her comment to Robertson's. She made a bad racial joke (not related to religion) and not a soul came to her "free speech" defense. Robertson calls a diverse group of people evil and it's all ok because he says it's his religion. Does a claim of religion really trump everyone else's ability to call hate speech what it is? I'll say it again: If you support Robertson's freedom to spew hatred then you should support everyone else's freedom to spew hatred back. If you think others are wrong to demonize Robertson for his beliefs they you should feel Robertson is wrong to demonize gays for their sexual inclinations.


I'm not talking about banning anything. Robertson can talk all he wants and everyone else can talk back at him, both using whatever level of vitriol they choose. The only suggestion of censorship on this thread is from those suggesting those opposed to Robertson tone down their criticism.

The Biblical position is simply that homosexual behavior is unacceptable--it doesn't include calling them "murderers" or "terrorists" and all the other things and terms that Robertson uses to vilify them. So Robertson was not "correctly explaining the bible position"--he added his own hate speech to it. Even other Christians do not necessarily view homosexuals, as human beings, in that same extremely derogatory way.

The Pope has recently urged "acceptance" regarding homosexuals, is he incorrectly stating a Biblical position?

Why wouldn't a society do if it was felt that homosexuality was dangerous to its social cohesion and welfare. You need to say that those who wrote the Bible unreasonably condemned homosexuality. Then you would have a real argument to deal with rather than a platitude.

Homosexuality is not condemned now and is in fact paraded as a superior style of life for its gaiety, its anarchic tendencies, its opportunities to dress up and to gain attention and to feed grist to the mill of various vested interests. Homosexuals have appeared in our Honours Award lists for years.

And those who support the condemnation now need to show that it is reasonable to do so and to not look back for their sole justification at a record of a time and a place which was surrounded by societies which enthusiastically accepted and practiced homosexuality openly and which rejected it for reasons the leaders must have thought valid and which might not be now.

Such people give Christianity a bad name which is why they are so eagerly quoted and so often by those who seek to abolish Christianity. There are not many organised groups that don't know that arranging for one of their members to wave a "FAGS, BURN" sign before the cameras is a ploy which works in their favour. It demonstrates what cretins the other side are. Cute eh?

I guess most of you don't believe that possible and have been certain that the sign waver was an authentic demonstrator in all the many examples you have seen in such lurid news gathering processes which are carefully orchestrated to keep the pot simmering gently and you all glued to your screens in time to see the ads for all the shite we cannot stop ourselves producing. Maybe we dare not stop producing shite or even slow down swallowing it. A vacuum cleaner, say, which has a keyboard built into the handle so that the housewife, more likely the house husband the way the tectonic plate is inching along, the big jerk coming when it gets stuck, may network on the internet and just follow the machine where it leads her. Or him as the case might be. The in thing for a short while.

The imagination might soar too near the sun in that line of thinking.

What I was meaning was that the homosexualists need the cretins, the more cretinous the better: orange spikey hairstyle with shaved stylings and tattoos, a ring through the nose and a thick hanging bottom lip. Preferably dribbling. Making an utter nuisance of himself. Available at RENTAMOB. com.

That should do the trick. Obviously judges and professors will not wish to be associated with such like in any way, shape or form. They need them because in the event of their being no cretins they would have to justify themselves in another manner.

Back to sanctimonious, ff. You're a real Jekyll & Hyde .

Good ole American delusion. It's a sewer and y'all see a shining city on a hill.

It actively supports it in Syria and Egypt. Although it does seem to have hung Morsi out to dry.