Dallass sportscaster has a shocking reaction to Sam announcing he's gay

[slag]

igitis

[slag]

No, I merely stated that it appears to me that he indicated tolerance (and the attendant sensitivity) for sexual preference is more important than that to be given Christian beliefs.

That does not translate to him not being "tolerant of Christian beliefs" and you should know it.

And it was pretty clear to me he holds tolerance for one over the other because of exactly what you state ... that Christians are not as oppressed.

And I find that to be as bad a reason to give religion a back seat to sexual preference, when tolerating a civil right, as the idiotic notion that a distinction in tolerance is valid because one is genetic and the other is a choice.

I feel that you either respect people's civil rights or you don't and they don't have a pecking order.

[TerpEagle]

No, it means that he thinks tolerance (and the attendant sensitivity) for sexual preference is more important than that to be given Christian beliefs.

That does not translate to him not being "tolerant of Christian beliefs" and you should know it.

And it was pretty clear to me he holds tolerance for one over the other because of exactly what you state ... that Christians are not as oppressed.

And I find that to be as bad a reason to give religion a back seat to sexual preference, when tolerating a civil right, as the idiotic notion that one is genetic and the other is a choice.

I feel that you either respect people's civil rights or you don't and they don't have a pecking order.

If one's civil rights specifically allow the abuse or denial of another then it's a problem. Free speech is a right but use of free speech to harm another is not. Freedom of religion is a right, however its observance should not be allowed to restrict the rights of others.

And it's perfectly fine to question/disagree/disrespect the CONTENT of one's speech or religious belief but not the right to have them.

When it comes to inherent traits, there is nothing regarding behavior to agree or disagree with.

[Melchior]

While I think the "choice" argument is misguided, comparing some mocking of Christians' to the civil rights plight of the LGBT community is asinine. Last time I checked, the persecution of Christians wasn't being endorsed by state legislators.

It's the typical mindset, that acceptance of something different is somehow an attack on your own beliefs and sensibilities. "Why does this guy deserve recognition and praise when Tebow was mocked for expressing his religious beliefs?"

Well, because anybody can make fun of anyone for anything. To act like having your feelings hurt is equal to having to endure harsh institutional and societal oppression is kind of a dick move.

It does seem to be a growing trend among Christians that they view themselves as an oppressed majority, being bullied by the liberal media.

[Dim Bulb]

Hey George Slagwell

No, I merely stated that it appears to me that he indicated tolerance (and the attendant sensitivity) for sexual preference is more important than that to be given Christian beliefs.

That does not translate to him not being "tolerant of Christian beliefs" and you should know it.

And it was pretty clear to me he holds tolerance for one over the other because of exactly what you state ... that Christians are not as oppressed.

And I find that to be as bad a reason to give religion a back seat to sexual preference, when tolerating a civil right, as the idiotic notion that a distinction in tolerance is valid because one is genetic and the other is a choice.

I feel that you either respect people's civil rights or you don't and they don't have a pecking order.

You are both making my argument and then disagreeing with yourself. Switch to decaf.

[slag]

It certainly is revealing to see people twisting into pretzels to defend the hypocrisy of a person who mocks religion but insists on tolerance and sensitivity for gays.

Some focused on the general term "media" as overly broad.

Others focused on relativity of oppression.

One other focused on genetics versus choice.

Yet the concept is simply equal respect.

Very fucking interesting.

[DJCon57]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ow-a-bad-idea/

MSNBC mocked him too, but you make a good point - neither of these outlets are the media either...

Um...ok...
I don't consider the article you posted as mocking Christianity.

AGAIN, if you could find me an article mocking Brian Dawkins and his religion would be appreciated. Thanks.

[slag]

Really?

Hows' that?

[Dim Bulb]

I don't care enough to deconstruct

Really?

Hows' that?

your missives. I also don't really care about who values which civil rights over others, as I agree with something you said somewhere in all this mess that civil rights shouldn't be ranked (although as you know the Supreme Court seems to feel differently).

I was just saying your arguments create a perception that you believe religious beliefs, and specifically Christian ones, are less valued by those other Evil People Out There including anyone that supports gay rights but doesn't feel sufficiently aggrieved that poor Tim Tebow was criticized for being a lousy QB.

You might not actually feel that way, but your posts leave that distinct impression, you arguing fool.

[DJCon57]

Brian Dawkins was not mocked for his religious beliefs. Kurt Warner was not mocked for their religious beliefs. Why were Brian Dawkins and Kurt Warner not mocked? Can someone answer this question for me? Anyone?

[Dim Bulb]

Warner's Wife was mocked

Brian Dawkins was not mocked for his religious beliefs. Kurt Warner was not mocked for their religious beliefs. Why were Brian Dawkins and Kurt Warner not mocked? Can someone answer this question for me? Anyone?

But I think mostly for being a blowhard with weird hair.

[TerpEagle]

It certainly is revealing to see people twisting into pretzels to defend the hypocrisy of a person who mocks religion but insists on tolerance and sensitivity for gays.

Some focused on the general term "media" as overly broad.

Others focused on relativity of oppression.

One other focused on genetics versus choice.

Yet the concept is equal respect.

Very fucking interesting.

Respecting the right of one to hold a belief doesn't mean agreeing with the belief. People on different sides of an issue mock, question, argue, etc. with each other all the time. For the most part, that doesn't mean they don't respect the right of their opponent to hold their belief - just the content of that belief. Look at political cartoons and satire. They're based on mockery. That's not infringing or denying the rights of free speech and assembly of the participants being mocked. Denying rights because those beliefs are held is different.

I'm a broken record, but I can't see how you're equating choice and opinions with inherent traits. And you can't equate the tolerance of formed opinions and the right to have them with tolerance of one's right to exist and have equal treatment based on being born different.

[TerpEagle]

Um...ok...
I don't consider the article you posted as mocking Christianity.

AGAIN, if you could find me an article mocking Brian Dawkins and his religion would be appreciated. Thanks.

If anything, he's mocking the fans of Tebow that think he's actually good at football.

[DJCon57]

If anything, he's mocking the fans of Tebow that think he's actually good at football.

Agreed. That's the basis of all Tebow mocking. He's not good at football.

[TerpEagle]

"Several readers have asked a good question: Why do the media demand we be sensitive to and tolerant of Michael Sam’s sexuality, yet so many mocked Tim Tebow’s religiosity?"

Edited to add: Not that I'm saying Hansen did this, I don't really follow him, but it is an interesting point

Can this guy be mocked? Not because he's Christian but because he has stupid ideas?

http://gawker.com/heres-why-this-vir...arr-1524389554



---
Hybreeding, hybreeding, oh, how terrible, hybreeding. They hybreed the people. You know it's a big molding pot. I've got hundreds of precious colored friends that's borned again Christians. But on this line of segregations and things they're talking about, hybreeding the people. What, tell me what fine cultured, fine Christian colored woman would want her baby to be a mulatto by a white man? No, sir. It's not right. What white woman would want her baby to be a mulatto by a colored man? God made us what we are. Let's stay what God made us; I believe it's right.
---

---
What—what business would a beautiful, young, intelligent colored girl want to marry a white man for, and have mulatto children? What would a fine, intelligent colored girl want to do a thing like that for? I can't understand it. And what would a white woman want to marry a colored man, with mulatto children? Why don't you stay the way God made you?
---