If Tim Tebow Was An A-Rab....
-
>>People aren't making fun of God. They're making fun of how certain people, like Tim Tebow, think God is someone who grants favors for people who really, really like him. Both the SNL skit and the Maher tweet are mocking this idea. And like I said, it's hardly new territory.>>
Explain the difference. Please.
Making fun of God:
Making fun of Tebow:
If you really consider your God to be just and that he's defending you and your teammates, your moral compass, quite frankly, is fucked.
IMHO, the political elite believe it is fine and dandy to denegrate (sp) Christians, and Jews but not A-Rabs, Atheists, Hindus, etc.?
It's okay to make fun of them all, but if they made fun of atheists, hindus, muslims, etc, not enough people would care about it to make a difference. I'm an atheist, and if you think the 'political elite' don't make fun of us, you're a doofus.
Making fun of God:
Making fun of Tebow:
If you really consider your God to be just and that he's defending you and your teammates, your moral compass, quite frankly, is fucked.
It's okay to make fun of them all, but if they made fun of atheists, hindus, muslims, etc, not enough people would care about it to make a difference. I'm an atheist, and if you think the 'political elite' don't make fun of us, you're a doofus.
Here is something for you to ponder while thinking about evolution
Genesis 2:7 The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
I wouldn't mock God either.If Tebow was from the Islamic faith nobody would say a dang thing about him rolling out his carpet on the field and praying. IMO: That would be boastful and we are taught not to behave in that manor. We are to bring glory and Praise to Yahweh and we are not to use it as a badge of being holier than anyone else.
Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
-
I'll comment a little more later on, but I will repeat this: I don't really know any Christians who hate gays.
For the record on the rare occasion that someone quotes the lying with man quote from somewhere in theBiible, someone else will point out that there are many more helping the poor references.
As I see it Christianity is more about turning the other cheek, being meek and subservient, and getting the kingdom of God as a reward. That and not being concerned with material wealth.
That's certainly 1 reason I don't consider myself a practicing Christian. The reason I can't consider myself an atheist is because I don't know. I can tell you that's the biggest homo phobes and racists I do know personally art card carrying union democrats. (And no, I don't think that's a good standard to judge by either.) Maybe you have noticed, however, the fear the world wide media had about printing cartoons about mohammed.
Doesn't seem like anyone cuts jehovah such a wide berth...
But when I say your protected group I mean blacks, poor people and gays.
Now lets review: racism means that certain behaviors are as they are because of race.
So it would not be racist to make fun of certain attributes that might be affected and adopted by certain group. Still, as I recall, you got angry when I made fun of ebonics.
All that aside, when I think of regular Christians, I think of people like John.
By the way I have contact with a lot of Muslims too all of which seem like a pretty decent folks to me.
Still, I'd say that the world faces more danger in todays environment from Muslim extremism than from Christian extremism.
WSS
But when I say your protected group I mean blacks, poor people and gays.
Now lets review: racism means that certain behaviors are as they are because of race.
So it would not be racist to make fun of certain attributes that might be affected and adopted by certain group. Still, as I recall, you got angry when I made fun of ebonics.
WSS
Next up, let's tackle this because it's all wrong.
Your definition of racism is not my definition of racism, and leaves off the major part. What you're talking about could be construed as "culture." What racism is the believe that certain racial traits make that race inferior, or superior. (Maybe we should have laid this part out first. Might have saved us a lot of trouble.)
So it would not be racist, necessarily, to say that blacks in America aren't as educated as whites. It's racist if the point you're trying to make is that they're not as educated because they're intellectually inferior to white people.
If you're making fun of Ebonics because you have some opinion about Ebonics, that'd be one thing. What I remember is you typing out black lingo as a substitute for how all black people talk, even if they don't talk like that.
...Would it help you if I told you that I don't know any black people who talk like that?
You don't know the difference between generalizing to make a point, and over-generalizing to express a prejudice. And if you can't see how describing inner city black voters as "illiterate criminals on welfare" is both a racist and prejudiced statement, then I don't know what to tell you.
And do statements like that make me wonder about you when you sub in your Ebonics rendition of how black people talk? Yeah, it does. Does it help me understand that what you're really doing is expressing your highbrow opinion of the self-segregating nature of regionalized speech? No, it doesn't.
So you shouldn't wonder why I treat your forays into race politics with a little concern. I don't think you see things all that clearly. I think your views on race are trapped somewhere in the early 80s.
-
>>You keep believing it, though. Like that when I disagree with the guys in here about, say, the Ground Zero mosque, it's because I'm for mosques because I feel bad for Muslims, but I'm against churches because I hate Christians. It has nothing to do with upholding the American ideal of religious freedom and pluralism guaranteed in the Constitution.>>
Here is a couple of scenarios, Heck, and my take on them. They might be wrong but they might be right.
#1:
Muslims want to build a Mosque close enough to Ground Zero that it offends some folks - some more than others. The Right, for the most part, opposes this because of the imagery they perceive.
The Left - on the other hand - believe they should be allowed to build the Mosque where they want to build it because - they can.
#2 (Because I can't think of an analogous example, off the top of my head, I'll create a hypothetical. For the sake of discussion).
Ultra Conservative Christians place pictures of Homer Simpson around a sacred or, otherwise, important Muslim artifact.
The Right says they should be allowed to do it because - they can.
The Left - on the other hand - say the Ultra Conservatives CAN do what they did but should have used some discretion about where they did what they did. Maybe move it to another site.
My point - perhaps unclear from above - is the Mosque CAN be built where it is proposed to be built. However, because of the strong imagery it creates to some folk, coupled with respect for the families and friends who were directly affected by 911 should build their Mosque somewhere else.
Just because the Law allows you to DO something, it doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD do it. Unfortunately a lot of people get all caught up for causes they support and for causes they oppose without regard for consistency of believe or action.
Maybe this sounds crazy.
And the people who didn't want that mosque have really strong beliefs, and obey the Constitution. Whereas I don't have any beliefs, and hate America.
>>You keep believing it, though. Like that when I disagree with the guys in here about, say, the Ground Zero mosque, it's because I'm for mosques because I feel bad for Muslims, but I'm against churches because I hate Christians. It has nothing to do with upholding the American ideal of religious freedom and pluralism guaranteed in the Constitution.>>
Here is a couple of scenarios, Heck, and my take on them. They might be wrong but they might be right.
#1:
Muslims want to build a Mosque close enough to Ground Zero that it offends some folks - some more than others. The Right, for the most part, opposes this because of the imagery they perceive.
The Left - on the other hand - believe they should be allowed to build the Mosque where they want to build it because - they can.
#2 (Because I can't think of an analogous example, off the top of my head, I'll create a hypothetical. For the sake of discussion).
Ultra Conservative Christians place pictures of Homer Simpson around a sacred or, otherwise, important Muslim artifact.
The Right says they should be allowed to do it because - they can.
The Left - on the other hand - say the Ultra Conservatives CAN do what they did but should have used some discretion about where they did what they did. Maybe move it to another site.
My point - perhaps unclear from above - is the Mosque CAN be built where it is proposed to be built. However, because of the strong imagery it creates to some folk, coupled with respect for the families and friends who were directly affected by 911 should build their Mosque somewhere else.
Just because the Law allows you to DO something, it doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD do it. Unfortunately a lot of people get all caught up for causes they support and for causes they oppose without regard for consistency of believe or action.
Maybe this sounds crazy.
John, no, this doesn't sound crazy. But it also doesn't sound accurate to me.
If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that. But if the reason to put up posters of Homer Simpson is to piss off Muslims because we can, then what's the grand idea I'm supposed to be supporting?
So there's no equivalency in your example.
If you want me to support an editorial cartoonist or novelist who runs counter to fundamentalist edicts, I'm way ahead of you. Especially if they're making a good point. But even if they aren't, no one should live under the threat of violence for expressing an opinion.
Unless it's that Tim Tebow's full-time prayer service isn't silly and over the top. That is sacred shit.
-
.....would the 'Hollywood' elite (SNL, Bill Mahar, etc.) be making fun of him?
IMHO, the political elite believe it is fine and dandy to denegrate (sp) Christians, and Jews but not A-Rabs, Atheists, Hindus, etc.?
I know, these folks 'hate' people of these faiths but, in truth, I don't understand why it is so accepted, so pervasive and so 'progressive'?
Again, those who cry, 'Tolerance' at the drop of a dime, become completely intolerant of those who believe in Christianity or Judism?
.....would the 'Hollywood' elite (SNL, Bill Mahar, etc.) be making fun of him?
IMHO, the political elite believe it is fine and dandy to denegrate (sp) Christians, and Jews but not A-Rabs, Atheists, Hindus, etc.?
I know, these folks 'hate' people of these faiths but, in truth, I don't understand why it is so accepted, so pervasive and so 'progressive'?
Again, those who cry, 'Tolerance' at the drop of a dime, become completely intolerant of those who believe in Christianity or Judism?
SNL and Bill Maher have taken shots at Arabs (one of my partners is in Arab and despises the use of A-rab), hindus etc because their job is COMEDY.
I am ok with Tebow believing in whatever superstition, magic chant/prayer, anything he wants. I think Christians who are sensitive to people poking fun at their religion need to grow a thicker skin.
Lots of professional athletes have practiced all kinds of ritualistic acts/superstitions over the years that are subject to ridicule.... its ok if its in a major movie like Major League and its about Voodoo but Christians are not subject to the same levels?
John.... seriously this is much ado about nothing except your sensitivity to your religion. Get over it Tebow's beliefs are subject to the discipline of statistics and averages over time....... No matter what sport/superstition/rituals the law of averages sooner or later apply. Tebow's last game was a testament to the mathematics and analysis of his weakness as a player proving out statistically.
I love the underdog..... Obviously we are all Browns fans we kind of have to love that. Lets not mix up magic and sports and grow some thicker skin.
-
If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that.>>
I agree with your statements RE: religious pluralism.
I also don't get bent out of shape over this issue because - maybe - the issue isn't worth getting all hopped up about. On the other hand, I might look at things differently if - for example - my wife was killed on 911.
Any way, do you believe it would be a kind gesture to recognize the feelings of those opposed to the building - regardless of motivations - by stating a decision to build elsewhere so they CANNOT be accused of any other motivation than to create a building for their worship and use?
Would you advise them to do this?
This might not surprise you but I would probably opt to build elsewhere out of respect for those who were deeply impacted by 911 EVEN THOUGH there isn't a true connection between rank-and-file Muslims and fanatical Muslims any more than there is a true connection between politically-charged and ultra Conservative Christians and rank-and-file Christians (or the rank and file Jews in Israel and the fanatics that want to remove certain rights for women - maybe you aren't aware of this current situation. Maybe it is ongoing.
-
What racism is the believe that certain racial traits make that race inferior, or superior. (Maybe we should have laid this part out first. Might have saved us a lot of trouble.)
I think we've accepted that definition long ago.
Culture is adopted and affected and has no inherent relation to race.
The rest (me saying all Black people speak in Ebonics) you just made up.
White kids sound just as stupid when they use it.
WSS
-
If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that.>>
I agree with your statements RE: religious pluralism.
I also don't get bent out of shape over this issue because - maybe - the issue isn't worth getting all hopped up about. On the other hand, I might look at things differently if - for example - my wife was killed on 911.
Any way, do you believe it would be a kind gesture to recognize the feelings of those opposed to the building - regardless of motivations - by stating a decision to build elsewhere so they CANNOT be accused of any other motivation than to create a building for their worship and use?
Would you advise them to do this?
This might not surprise you but I would probably opt to build elsewhere out of respect for those who were deeply impacted by 911 EVEN THOUGH there isn't a true connection between rank-and-file Muslims and fanatical Muslims any more than there is a true connection between politically-charged and ultra Conservative Christians and rank-and-file Christians (or the rank and file Jews in Israel and the fanatics that want to remove certain rights for women - maybe you aren't aware of this current situation. Maybe it is ongoing.
If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that.>>
I agree with your statements RE: religious pluralism.
I also don't get bent out of shape over this issue because - maybe - the issue isn't worth getting all hopped up about. On the other hand, I might look at things differently if - for example - my wife was killed on 911.
Any way, do you believe it would be a kind gesture to recognize the feelings of those opposed to the building - regardless of motivations - by stating a decision to build elsewhere so they CANNOT be accused of any other motivation than to create a building for their worship and use?
Would you advise them to do this?
This might not surprise you but I would probably opt to build elsewhere out of respect for those who were deeply impacted by 911 EVEN THOUGH there isn't a true connection between rank-and-file Muslims and fanatical Muslims any more than there is a true connection between politically-charged and ultra Conservative Christians and rank-and-file Christians (or the rank and file Jews in Israel and the fanatics that want to remove certain rights for women - maybe you aren't aware of this current situation. Maybe it is ongoing.
I wouldn't look at it differently if my wife were killed on 9/11. For the same reason I don't expect them to move the site. They had nothing to do with 9/11 any more than you had something to do with the Norway attacks. So why would they feel guilty and feel like the should build elsewhere? Because other people incorrectly lump them all together? The whole point is to stop lumping all Muslims in with fundamentalist Muslims.
And how did we get here from Tim Tebow?
Why don't you tell me what was wrong with the comments/skit about Tim Tebow in your mind?
Until then, you can watch this. Something I obviously got really upset about - Bill Maher making these comments about the repression of women in some Muslim societies. I almost cancelled my HBO! Doesn't he know all liberals like me reflexively protect Muslims from attacks on Muslim culture?
-
>>Until then, you can watch this. Something I obviously got really upset about - Bill Maher making these comments about the repression of women in some Muslim societies. I almost cancelled my HBO! Doesn't he know all liberals like me reflexively protect Muslims from attacks on Muslim culture?>>
Five words:
Poor taste. Not funny. Disrespectful.
-
>>Until then, you can watch this. Something I obviously got really upset about - Bill Maher making these comments about the repression of women in some Muslim societies. I almost cancelled my HBO! Doesn't he know all liberals like me reflexively protect Muslims from attacks on Muslim culture?>>
Five words:
Poor taste. Not funny. Disrespectful.
>>Until then, you can watch this. Something I obviously got really upset about - Bill Maher making these comments about the repression of women in some Muslim societies. I almost cancelled my HBO! Doesn't he know all liberals like me reflexively protect Muslims from attacks on Muslim culture?>>
Five words:
Poor taste. Not funny. Disrespectful.
I think forcing women to wear burqas is in poor taste, and disrespectful.
I guess we have different senses of humor. But that's okay.
-
If the purpose of supporting the mosque in NYC was to support religious liberty and pluralism in America, which is one of our core values, then there's an important reason to support it, and to win out over the people who don't support that. But if the reason to put up posters of Homer Simpson is to piss off Muslims because we can, then what's the grand idea I'm supposed to be supporting? John
***************************
But it's subjective to redefine situations in conflicting terms for liberals/inherently marxist oriented whiners...
Like:
Liberals emotionally want to protect the rights of mothers, but couldn't care less about the lives of unborn and just born children.
Liberals HATE lying - it's a serious offense... for Nixon. But for Clinton, it's fine - they LOVE it.
Liberals HATE infidelity - like Gingrich. But they are fine with it if it's Edwards... or Clinton THEN they love it.
Liberals HATE restrictions on freedom of speech...for the occupy slimeballs. But they LOVE
restrictions on conservatives, especially the Tea Party and Talk Radio.
Liberals Christianity in gov. But let Obamao have an Ishtar dinner, and say that we are a Muslim country...
whatever... then they LOVE that.
Liberals HATED the Patriot Act. But Obamao extends it's reach... and they then LOVE it.
Liberals HATED the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ridiculed our soldiers ... while Bush was pres.
But now, they LOVE them, albeit quietly, because there's a Dem in the wh.
it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and... never ends. The real challenge is to get just
one of them to admit it. Like Heck. Just once ... admit it.
No reason, no principle, no values.... just emotional self-serving ideology - that flips the beliefs
back and forth to suit the agenda at hand, to fit the current circumstances.
-
>>I think forcing women to wear burqas is in poor taste, and disrespectful. I guess we have different senses of humor. But that's okay.>>
Well you set a trap, Heck. I decided not to follow the course of action you wanted me to take.
If I said it was funny then you'd ask why the SNL skit, for example, was distasteful.
The fact is I agree that forcing women to act and dress the way they are supposed to is extremely distasteful and a disregard for human rights.
On the other hand, I dislike Mahar and would be shocked if I found anything he did funny. That is probably my 'problem' but I don't toss and turn all night worrying about it.
In the end, though, the skit wasn't funny. IT WASN'T FUNNY, IMHO.
-
Maher nails certain things on the head, and I like him for that. But he's often a condescending asshole, and could probably accomplish more if he was a bit more kind. Check out Religulous if you want to see what I mean.
I also don't get bent out of shape over this issue because - maybe - the issue isn't worth getting all hopped up about. On the other hand, I might look at things differently if - for example - my wife was killed on 911.
Any way, do you believe it would be a kind gesture to recognize the feelings of those opposed to the building - regardless of motivations - by stating a decision to build elsewhere so they CANNOT be accused of any other motivation than to create a building for their worship and use?
Would you advise them to do this?
This might not surprise you but I would probably opt to build elsewhere out of respect for those who were deeply impacted by 911 EVEN THOUGH there isn't a true connection between rank-and-file Muslims and fanatical Muslims any more than there is a true connection between politically-charged and ultra Conservative Christians and rank-and-file Christians (or the rank and file Jews in Israel and the fanatics that want to remove certain rights for women - maybe you aren't aware of this current situation. Maybe it is ongoing.
I completely disagree. Grow a thick skin. If you complain about this, you're no different than, say, this dude.
The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt. If you think they're being distasteful assholes about it, then buy some property next to it and open up a distasteful store that you think would put them down. These people just need to quit fucking whining, I don't care how many friends they lost in 9/11. The law of the land needs to be respected, and for anyone to try and take this to trial is a waste of everyone's time and tax money.
-
>>The law of the land needs to be respected, and for anyone to try and take this to trial is a waste of everyone's time and tax money.>>
You miss my point, Vape.
I don't believe this should be taken to court.
However, I believe it would be a nice gesture for the building to go somewhere else. That has nothing to do with right or wrong.
There are many cases, in my opinion, that are legal but not tasteful.
Personally, I don't care about the Mosque. I really don't. I am just suggesting a graceful solution.
-
Yeah, I get you, mine was more of a rant against those type of people, but if someone wants to do something that's disrespectful to you, but completely legal, let it go.
-
>>Yeah, I get you, mine was more of a rant against those type of people, but if someone wants to do something that's disrespectful to you, but completely legal, let it go.>>
I can't wait for second semester to start.....................
-
The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt.
You're kidding right?
WSS
-
.....would the 'Hollywood' elite (SNL, Bill Mahar, etc.) be making fun of him?
IMHO, the political elite believe it is fine and dandy to denegrate (sp) Christians, and Jews but not A-Rabs, Atheists, Hindus, etc.?
I know, these folks 'hate' people of these faiths but, in truth, I don't understand why it is so accepted, so pervasive and so 'progressive'?
Again, those who cry, 'Tolerance' at the drop of a dime, become completely intolerant of those who believe in Christianity or Judism?
.....would the 'Hollywood' elite (SNL, Bill Mahar, etc.) be making fun of him?
IMHO, the political elite believe it is fine and dandy to denegrate (sp) Christians, and Jews but not A-Rabs, Atheists, Hindus, etc.?
I know, these folks 'hate' people of these faiths but, in truth, I don't understand why it is so accepted, so pervasive and so 'progressive'?
Again, those who cry, 'Tolerance' at the drop of a dime, become completely intolerant of those who believe in Christianity or Judism?
I'm not setting a trap at all. Read this, your original post. You claimed the "Hollywood elite" like Bill Maher and SNL (SNL is in New York, by the way, not Hollywood) believe it's fine and dandy to denigrate Christians, but not Jews and Arabs, etc. I just showed you Maher doing a five minute bit in a stand up special where he takes on the treatment of women in many Muslim countries. I also pointed you to his movie, which does make fun of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, and more. I could also point you to SNL skits about Muslims, too. And Jews. So clearly, your original point is wrong.
But it's even better: you accuse me and the "Hollywood elite" of only targeting Christians and being selectively outraged when someone else targets our "protected" groups, when you're the one who is mad about Maher and SNL going after Tim Tebow - your religious group - but never said a word about any of their comedy about other religions. ...And then you accuse me of being inconsistent with my outrage. When I'm not outraged by any of it.
You other point is that I would get mad if Maher or someone like him went after Muslims or Jews instead of Tim Tebow. Well, did I? ...No, you did. You called Maher's skit "disrespectful" and in "poor taste." To whom, people who subjugate women by force? Really? I'm supposed to care if they're offended?
In the end, I guess I get your only remaining points - that you'd like non-religious people to be nicer to religious people, even comedians and comedy shows. And if xenophobes and bigots or the families of victims who can't tell the difference between Muslims and jihadists want a mosque moved, we should yield to their wishes and move the mosque from two blocks away from Ground Zero to, I don't know, four blocks away, where everyone will now be safe from, well, nothing at all. Or should we do six blocks? Or somewhere on Long Island?
I guess we're going to have to disagree on all of these points. Have a Happy New Year.
-
The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt.
You're kidding right?
WSS
Why would he be kidding? It doesn't.
-
The first amendment doesn't go away because your feelings are hurt.
You're kidding right?
WSS
Why would he be kidding? It doesn't.
Maybe it shouldn't but in the real world it often does.
WSS
-
It does? Can you give an example?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login