Howard Baker passes

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

While I'm at it (seeing as how I'm sick in bed anyway today), let me google the rest of the examples on the Town Hall site.

1: Florida ministry told to choose between Jesus and helping the poor: No. The ministry was violating USDA rules by taking federally provided food/funds and then prosthelytizing to the recipients. They were violating the separation of church and state. The USDA said they could continue to distribute food; just not in areas where there was religious imagery. This should more accurately be titled, "Florida ministry decides prosthelytizing more important than feeding needy."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09...-groups/195830

2: Billy Graham claims organization was "targeted" by the IRS. In 2010 the IRS informed his ministry it was reviewing their receipts because of concerns they were crossing the no-electioneering line. This is a line many, many churches cross, and they do it with seeming impunity. So, they get to campaign and still don't pay taxes. I don't see how the IRS investigating whether a public figure who has lots of political opinions and doesn't pay taxes on his very wealthy church is a big deal. Nothing came of it, just as it didn't for the Texas church that told its congregants to "Vote for the Mormon; not the Muslim." It's still not paying taxes, either.

3: Already addressed.

4: Colorado Bakery, wedding cake, same-sex couple, blah blah blah. We've already talked about this in other threads. If you are going to sell items in the public marketplace, you may not discriminate against customers based on certain things, including sexual orientation. The baker announced his bakery will no longer make wedding cakes at all. That's his right. I give him a year before he caves because wedding cakes are $$$.

5: Airforce Veteran faces a court martial for opposing gay marriage. No.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/0...-reassignment/

6: Government forces church to get permits for baptisms. Oh good grief. The Town Hall bit ends by saying that the Parks Department changed their mind and said permits weren't needed for baptisms. So, no. As for the part about the Missouri park temporarily requiring 48 hour permit notification- in NYC, if you're going to have more than 20 people at a Park gathering (no matter what it's for) you have to apply for a permit THREE WEEKS in advance. Don't talk to me about permits in Parks. Missouri Baptists have it easy.

7:Florida professor demands student stomp on Jesus: No. This is the hardest one to clarify, as stories vary on exactly what happened in the class, but it is true that the exercise was voluntary and did not demand that students "stomp" on Jesus.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/me...blisher-93174/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...tomp-on-jesus/

(The second one is a blog post, so it's highly opinionated, but it includes the textbook assignment, where it's clear it's not instructing "stomp on Jesus.")

So, seven examples, seven nos.

TL DR - None of the Town Hall citations are examples of discrimination.

As I said in my previous post, "I don't necessarily agree that all the other examples on that site are legitimate examples of discrimination." I think some of them are borderline. But with regard to the case at the DMV, the judge said that the law prosecutors tried to invoke was likely unconstitutional. So what law was that? I doubt it was simply a "disturbing the peace law". But even if it was, the question you have to ask yourself is whether these guys would have been arrested had they been talking (or preaching) about Buddhism.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said in my previous post, "I don't necessarily agree that all the other examples on that site are legitimate examples of discrimination." I think some of them are borderline. But with regard to the case at the DMV, the judge said that the law prosecutors tried to invoke was likely unconstitutional. So what law was that? I doubt it was simply a "disturbing the peace law". But even if it was, the question you have to ask yourself is whether these guys would have been arrested had they been talking (or preaching) about Buddhism.

No, it's not, because it's not relevant (and because Buddhists don't prothelytize). The law they were charged under was impeding an open business. Again, they were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

That said, I watched the video put out by the organization that defended them, and it's pretty blatantly obvious that getting arrested was their intent from the start. Their speech is too rehearsed, and they're too quick to cut off the security guard who asks them (politely) to go somewhere else. They got exactly what they wanted; to get arrested (largely for being a**sholes, yes, but there are times as a citizen I sure wished subway preachers could be arrested just so they'd SHUT THE EFF UP), and then they could claim victimization. When in fact, the only people being victimized were the poor souls they were shouting Bible verses at. But that's not their problem, because Jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, it's not, because it's not relevant (and because Buddhists don't prothelytize). The law they were charged under was impeding an open business. Again, they were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

That said, I watched the video put out by the organization that defended them, and it's pretty blatantly obvious that getting arrested was their intent from the start. Their speech is too rehearsed, and they're too quick to cut off the security guard who asks them (politely) to go somewhere else. They got exactly what they wanted; to get arrested (largely for being a**sholes, yes, but there are times as a citizen I sure wished subway preachers could be arrested just so they'd SHUT THE EFF UP), and then they could claim victimization. When in fact, the only people being victimized were the poor souls they were shouting Bible verses at. But that's not their problem, because Jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c

They were arrested for preaching, not for impeding an open business. You heard the police officer. He clearly wanted to know which ones from the group were preaching and that those would be arrested. Why do you think they ended up getting off? It was because they had the video that showed that the only reason they got arrested was because they were preaching.

That being said, I'm kind of on the fence about whether they should be allowed to preach there. I think it is kind of obnoxious to loudly preach to people who are stuck in line. I don't agree with those kind of tactics. On a street corner where people can walk away is one thing. A line at the DMV is another thing. On the other hand, the DMV is a public place. I guess it is really a matter of what the policy is there. What was the policy? Is it "no preaching"? Is it "no loitering"? Is it "no soliciting"?

Anyway, I do admit that the original article was misleading. The original article made it seem like they were simply reading the bible aloud to each other, when in fact they were reading aloud (preaching) to anyone within earshot. I don't condone any website (whether conservative or liberal) trying to mislead people through half-truths. I will be the first person to call out a source for a half-truth regardless of the political leanings of the source. The way I look at it, if you think you're right about something and that you have a winning argument, why would you need to mislead people with just one half of the story?

So I do admit that conservative sites will sometimes mislead people with half-truths. Do you admit that liberal sites will try to mislead people with half-truths?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So I do admit that conservative sites will sometimes mislead people with half-truths. Do you admit that liberal sites will try to mislead people with half-truths?

Boy, now I know you don't read the vast majority of my posts. I have b*tched on here many times about the media depicting things inaccurately in order to craft a narrative.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said in my previous post, "I don't necessarily agree that all the other examples on that site are legitimate examples of discrimination." I think some of them are borderline.

No, none of them were borderline. They were very clear examples of not being discriminated against, and, in at least two cases, were examples of Christians using positions of power to try to force their views on non-Christians (the food bank church, the military guy). Read the links I put up, if you really do try to get all sides to a story.

More fun stories of Christians claiming victimization when they break rules or just act like entitled jerks:

http://www.alternet.org/christian-ri...ion?page=0%2C0

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, none of them were borderline. They were very clear examples of not being discriminated against, and, in at least two cases, were examples of Christians using positions of power to try to force their views on non-Christians (the food bank church, the military guy). Read the links I put up, if you really do try to get all sides to a story.

More fun stories of Christians claiming victimization when they break rules or just act like entitled jerks:

http://www.alternet.org/christian-ri...ion?page=0%2C0

Anyone could write a very similar article to that alternet.org article about any other group that has at times falsely claimed persecution. So what? If I wrote an article like that with examples of false claims of discrimination by muslims or blacks, you would probably say that the article was bigoted. But since the article was about Christians, you think the article is full of "fun stories". It's a good thing you don't have an anti-christian bias.

Did you know that if a person has negative attitudes toward muslims that the person is bigoted. But if you have negative attitudes towards christians that is fine. That is just being "progressive".

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyone could write a very similar article to that alternet.org article about any other group that has at times falsely claimed persecution. So what? If I wrote an article like that with examples of false claims of discrimination by muslims or blacks, you would probably say that the article was bigoted. But since the article was about Christians, you think the article is full of "fun stories". It's a good thing you don't have an anti-christian bias.

Did you know that if a person has negative attitudes toward muslims that the person is bigoted. But if you have negative attitudes towards christians that is fine. That is just being "progressive".

I have an anti-majority-claiming-to-be-a-victimized-minority bias, that's for sure. The ones in the article I linked to happen to be part of the Christian majority because you're the one who brought up false examples of discrimination against Christians. I was keeping this particular thread tangent on topic.

You're making a lot of accusations about my character there, Rupert, and I don't think I've made any personal accusations about your character in this thread. Not cool, dude. Not cool. If you're going to accuse me of claiming inaccurate things are bigoted, you need to cite some examples in my own words, in context. Otherwise, you're just making things up about me. There's a word for saying things about someone that aren't true, but I can't remember it. Anyone remember it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I have an anti-majority-claiming-to-be-a-victimized-minority bias, that's for sure. The ones in the article I linked to happen to be part of the Christian majority because you're the one who brought up false examples of discrimination against Christians. I was keeping this particular thread tangent on topic.

You're making a lot of accusations about my character there, Rupert, and I don't think I've made any personal accusations about your character in this thread. Not cool, dude. Not cool. If you're going to accuse me of claiming inaccurate things are bigoted, you need to cite some examples in my own words, in context. Otherwise, you're just making things up about me. There's a word for saying things about someone that aren't true, but I can't remember it. Anyone remember it?

There are two sides to every story. Here is another take on the song whose nomination was withdrawn for the Oscar:

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/01/chri...r_an_oscar_nod

I never claimed that you hate christians. I said that it sure seems like you have at least some sort of anti-christian bias. If you don't, then I misconstrued you views and I apologize. If you say you don't have a negative opinion of christians, I will take you at your word. Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda. According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people. If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are two sides to every story. Here is another take on the song whose nomination was withdrawn for the Oscar:

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/01/chri...r_an_oscar_nod

I never claimed that you hate christians. I said that it sure seems like you have at least some sort of anti-christian bias. If you don't, then I misconstrued you views and I apologize. If you say you don't have a negative opinion of christians, I will take you at your word. Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda. According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people. If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

Nope. Only bias is against those trying to shove their religion down their throats or bring their religion into public places such as public schools. Religion is personal and should not be pushed on others especially in a country founded on seperation of church and state.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nope. Only bias is against those trying to shove their religion down their throats or bring their religion into public places such as public schools. Religion is personal and should not be pushed on others especially in a country founded on seperation of church and state.

What is your definition of "shoving it down people's throats? For example, sometimes we will see an athlete win a competition, and in the post-competition interview he says he "wants to thank his lord and savior, Jesus Christ". Do you have a problem with that?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With a statement like that, the onus is actually on you to prove that "many in the progressive movement have an anti-Christian bias" not on me to prove they don't. You know, not proving a negative and all that. Or, if we flip it around: Do you admit that many in the "conservative movement" have an anti- blacks, women, Latino(a)s, Asian, immigrants, Islam, Judaism, atheist, vegan, environmentalist, Wiccan, gay/lesbian/transgender bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda.

That's some big assuming you're doing about the "progressive movement." (whatever that is) Back it up with proof. And "I think" and "probably" don't count as proof.

According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people.

If you oppose gay marriage, don't get gay married. Any other action you take, such as trying to block same sex couples from gaining the right to get married, is pushing your religion on people who don't believe it. That's not loving the sinner, or whatever crap excuse is used to justify denying people their rights.

If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

That's a very safe thing for you to say, as no one, other than Drew Magary, heard the Duck Dynasty interview; it was an article printed in Esquire about Magary's day with the family. I know, because I actually read it. And I recall people accused him of being racist and homophobic. Which, reading the interview, I certainly took him to be. In addition, I found him to be willfully ignorant of American history. Here's the link:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...phil-robertson

And an addendum piece by Drew Magary:
http://deadspin.com/the-devil-and-ph...sty-1485612609

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

With a statement like that, the onus is actually on you to prove that "many in the progressive movement have an anti-Christian bias" not on me to prove they don't. You know, not proving a negative and all that. Or, if we flip it around: Do you admit that many in the "conservative movement" have an anti- blacks, women, Latino(a)s, Asian, immigrants, Islam, Judaism, atheist, vegan, environmentalist, Wiccan, gay/lesbian/transgender bias?



That's some big assuming you're doing about the "progressive movement." (whatever that is) Back it up with proof. And "I think" and "probably" don't count as proof.



If you oppose gay marriage, don't get gay married. Any other action you take, such as trying to block same sex couples from gaining the right to get married, is pushing your religion on people who don't believe it. That's not loving the sinner, or whatever crap excuse is used to justify denying people their rights.



That's a very safe thing for you to say, as no one, other than Drew Magary, heard the Duck Dynasty interview; it was an article printed in Esquire about Magary's day with the family. I know, because I actually read it. And I recall people accused him of being racist and homophobic. Which, reading the interview, I certainly took him to be. In addition, I found him to be willfully ignorant of American history. Here's the link:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...phil-robertson

And an addendum piece by Drew Magary:
http://deadspin.com/the-devil-and-ph...sty-1485612609

Come on! Go to any one of these progressive sites and see how they bash christians. They're not tame about it. Most of them don't even attempt to hide their disdain for christians and republicans.

To answer your question as to whether I think there is an anti-minority bias in the conservative movement, that is a tough question. I think it depends on how you define negative bias. There are certainly some stereotypes that I'm sure some people in the conservative movement may have about certain groups. I have no idea what the percentages are. But I think some of those stereotypes are fairly common amongst non-conservatives too. For example, if you are travelling and there is a group of 5 Muslim men on your plane, would you get a little bit nervous? I think plenty of people would. That doesn't mean these people hate Muslims. But that is at least a subtle anti-Muslim bias. Are these types of biases more common amongst conservatives than liberals? I don't know for sure but I would guess that these types of biases are probably at least slightly higher amongst conservatives.

I think conservatives would at the very least be more likely to admit to the type of bias I gave in the example. Some liberals may not want to admit to such a bias because it wouldn't be politically correct.

I read much of the Duck Dynasty interview. I have a different take from you. I don't think the guy has any hate in his heart for gays or minorities. If you think he does I disagree with you.

Going back to your other question about the conservative movement, I think people often times make incorrect assumptions about a person based on that person's stance on a policy. This seem to happen more in partisan politics than other things. For example, do you remember the disabled golfer Casey Martin? Because of his disability, he couldn't walk the golf course. He needed to ride in a golf cart. But golf carts are not allowed on the PGA Tour. So there was a controversy. Casey Martin sued claiming that the no-cart policy was discriminatory against disabled people. Anyway, there were plenty of people on his side and plenty of people against him. They weren't against him because they didn't like disabled people. They were against him because they don't think anybody should be be allowed to ride in a cart because they think walking is part of the game. If this was partisan politics, these people would probably be accused of being anti-disabled people. In the case of Casey Martin, I never heard that accusation.

It's too bad that politics aren't the same way. If a person thinks we need to secure our borders, that certainly doesn't mean that the person doesn't like Latino people. But the person will be accused of this all day by some on the left. In many cases, I don't think it's just an accusation thrown out there for effect. I think they really believe it.