Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Guest American Woman]

For some reason, however, you aren't interested in finding out how he himself described his politics. Got any videos that show that?

For the love of God. I never said that he was a Republican. CAPICE???

[BubberMiley]

Again, I never said you did. Capice?

[Guest American Woman]

Again, I never said you did. Capice?

So you admit that this is complete and utter nonsense?

Of course, the Fact that his politics tended towards democratic socialism and that he supported planned parenthood might cause you to reconsider and think that it also "could very well be" that his niece wanted to get on TV to talk about her politics. For some reason, however, you aren't interested in finding out how he himself described his politics. Got any videos that show that?

Edited September 21, 2013 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

I put up links about how his father was a Republican... How his niece claims he was a Republican.... But I'm not saying he was a Republican.

Talk about nonsense. Passive aggressive, beating around the bush, nudge, nudge, wink, wink nonsense.

[sharkman]

It is what it is, around here people jump to conclusions...

[BubberMiley]

So you admit that this is complete and utter nonsense?

Now see what you did? Now Sharkman is trying to say that we're jumping to conclusions that he said MLK was a Republican, which he clearly did. But yes, I agree, you did not say that. You merely jumped in trying to citate Sharkman's claim for him, and I merely wondered why you wouldn't just go to the original source and not some random niece. Because everyone knows if you want verifiable Facts, you go to the original source.

I think everybody capices now.

[Guest American Woman]

You merely jumped in trying to citate Sharkman's claim for him

I did no such thing.

I think everybody capices now.

Obviously you don't.

[kimmy]

Martin Luther King Jr's party affiliation? What does that have to do with anything? I do think it speaks for itself that the Elephant Team guys have to reach back all the way to the 1960s looking for broad-minded Republicans, though. Or the 1860s. "Abraham Lincoln! And, uh... Martin Luther King Jr? Or was it Sr? And, uh... "

A few straw-men have been set up around here...

"Not all religious people are nut-jobs!" I never said they were.

"Believing in a religion doesn't mean you're nuts." Somebody might have said that, but it wasn't me.

"Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian pastor!" There were and are lots of great Christians. I've never claimed otherwise.

Christian people who I love and think are awesome: Isaac Newton, Stephen Colbert, J.R.R. Tolkien, many others.

Christian people who I think are religious nutjobs: Pat Robertson, E.W. Jackson, the preacher who said to beat the gay out of your kids, the preacher who wanted to build concentration camps for gay people, many others. And to reiterate, these types of news items emanate in disproportionate numbers from the "Bible Belt" region of America.

In regard to AW's attempts to go hyper-lawyer on my earlier comments, I'll just endorse Black Dog's excellent response and leave it at that.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

In regard to AW's attempts to go hyper-lawyer on my earlier comments, I'll just endorse Black Dog's excellent response and leave it at that.

"Hyper-lawyer?"

But yeah. Leave it at that.

Edited September 21, 2013 by American Woman

[kimmy]

"Hyper-lawyer?"

But yeah. Leave it at that.

Well, "hyper" is a pretty fair description, and considering your passion for attempting to finagle a position out of trivialities, I can only assume you're trying to build a resume as an I.P. lawyer.

And I'll leave it at that, as everything you've presented was already smacked down thoroughly by Black Dog. Case closed, Perry Mason.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Well, "hyper" is a pretty fair description, and considering your passion for attempting to finagle a position out of trivialities, I can only assume you're trying to build a resume as an I.P. lawyer.

And I'll leave it at that, as everything you've presented was already smacked down thoroughly by Black Dog. Case closed, Perry Mason.

This response makes me think of the show "Are You Smarter than a Fifth grader?" But yeah, "case closed, Perry Mason."

[kimmy]

At this point, I can only assume that you're attempting to get the thread locked to spare yourself further embarrassment.

-k

[sharkman]

Martin Luther King Jr's party affiliation? What does that have to do with anything? I do think it speaks for itself that the Elephant Team guys have to reach back all the way to the 1960s looking for broad-minded Republicans, though. Or the 1860s. "Abraham Lincoln! And, uh... Martin Luther King Jr? Or was it Sr? And, uh... "

A few straw-men have been set up around here...

"Not all religious people are nut-jobs!" I never said they were.

"Believing in a religion doesn't mean you're nuts." Somebody might have said that, but it wasn't me.

"Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian pastor!" There were and are lots of great Christians. I've never claimed otherwise.

Christian people who I love and think are awesome: Isaac Newton, Stephen Colbert, J.R.R. Tolkien, many others.

Christian people who I think are religious nutjobs: Pat Robertson, E.W. Jackson, the preacher who said to beat the gay out of your kids, the preacher who wanted to build concentration camps for gay people, many others. And to reiterate, these types of news items emanate in disproportionate numbers from the "Bible Belt" region of America.

In regard to AW's attempts to go hyper-lawyer on my earlier comments, I'll just endorse Black Dog's excellent response and leave it at that.

-k

I wish you could talk some sense into mighty ac.

[Guest American Woman]

At this point, I can only assume that you're attempting to get the thread locked to spare yourself further embarrassment.

Gosh. And here I thought that's what you were doing. But perhaps you thought your responses were actually contributing to the discussion?

[The_Squid]

At this point, I can only assume that you're attempting to get the thread locked to spare yourself further embarrassment.

-k

Probably a good assessment... It's bizarre behaviour...

[kimmy]

I wish you could talk some sense into mighty ac.

I can't comment on his views, and he can certainly speak for himself.

I started this thread to respond to a claim made by you-know-who that comments I made, critical of politicians in the American south and south-west amounted to anti-Christian bigotry. I don't apologize for any of it. It's not anti-Christian bigotry, it's anti-dumbass bigotry. And I don't even object to dumb-asses, as long as they don't try to inflict stupidity on others, especially when it's done with malice.

I don't care if Pat Robertson doesn't like gay people, but it makes me pretty sick when Pat Robertson gets on his TV show and tells his audience that gay men wear special rings that cut people and infect them with AIDS. I don't object if a politician thinks that oral sex is sinful, but if he's trying to get a ban on oral sex reinstated, I object.

That's not anti-Christian bigotry. Calling it anti-Christian bigotry is insulting to everybody involved, particularly the considerable majority of Christians, because the considerable majority of Christians would object to that stuff too. And I think it's sad and pathetic when some people, who are either religious nutjobs themselves or Elephant Team members or both, claim it's an attack on religious freedoms when stupid public statements or stupid public policy are confronted. And I'll never apologize for doing it.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

And I think it's sad and pathetic when some people, who are either religious nutjobs themselves or Elephant Team members or both, claim it's an attack on religious freedoms when stupid public statements or stupid public policy are confronted. And I'll never apologize for doing it.

I don't see criticism for confronting policy, but I think it's sad and pathetic when people who are confronting stupid public policies that by their own admission have nothing at all to do with religion attribute said policies to "religious nutjobs."

Edited September 21, 2013 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

I don't see criticism for confronting policy, but I think it's sad and pathetic when people who are confronting stupid public policies that by their own admission have nothing at all to do with religion attribute said policies to "religious nutjobs."

Quite a number of those policies did have religious undertones, if not overtly.

[bleeding heart]

Could very well be, but even MLK Jr's niece is saying that he was a Republican.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CZWXmoC5CYw

Yeah, but his son says it's flatly untrue.

At any rate, there's no strong evidence....beyond his own statement that he usually voted "the Democratic ticket."

So the jury's out. (I say that to be generous to Republicans.) Ultimately I think it's profoundly unimportant, anyway, just the usual partisan bickering. However he voted or didn't vote doesn't change what he did and said, of course.

[Guest American Woman]

Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't think MLK Jr. was a Republican. If I thought he were, I would have said so. It's why I said that MLK Sr. was a Republican. My post about his niece was in response to Sharkman's post saying "It could be that some of the links I found on King Jr being a republican, were actually on King Sr." Again, it could be, but even his niece is saying that he was a Republican. IOW, there are a lot of sources out there claiming that MLK Jr. was a Republican - including his niece.That's what I was saying and all I was saying.

Whether or not it's important or unimportant is an individual call. You say you think it's "profoundly unimportant," yet you've been responding to the claim, so it appears as if it holds some importance to you on some level.

I personally don't think the jury is out; I don't think he was a Republican - or a Democrat.

[sharkman]

I can't comment on his views, and he can certainly speak for himself.

I started this thread to respond to a claim made by you-know-who that comments I made, critical of politicians in the American south and south-west amounted to anti-Christian bigotry. I don't apologize for any of it. It's not anti-Christian bigotry, it's anti-dumbass bigotry. And I don't even object to dumb-asses, as long as they don't try to inflict stupidity on others, especially when it's done with malice.

I don't care if Pat Robertson doesn't like gay people, but it makes me pretty sick when Pat Robertson gets on his TV show and tells his audience that gay men wear special rings that cut people and infect them with AIDS. I don't object if a politician thinks that oral sex is sinful, but if he's trying to get a ban on oral sex reinstated, I object.

That's not anti-Christian bigotry. Calling it anti-Christian bigotry is insulting to everybody involved, particularly the considerable majority of Christians, because the considerable majority of Christians would object to that stuff too. And I think it's sad and pathetic when some people, who are either religious nutjobs themselves or Elephant Team members or both, claim it's an attack on religious freedoms when stupid public statements or stupid public policy are confronted. And I'll never apologize for doing it.

-k

Well I don't think what you're saying is bigotry, you're taking issue with something said or done, not someone's faith. But to me it appears that AW may have a point if some policy or legislation being promoted has no religious overtones by itself.

There are some here who consider people of faith to be not the equal of others. That is discrimination on the basis of religion, and while they would protest such an attitude towards black or gay people, they see nothing wrong with having such an attitude towards people of faith.

[BubberMiley]

There are some here who consider people of faith to be not the equal of others.

Once again, you're making things up to justify the ridiculous position that criticizing religion equals racism. Provide one citation that indicates someone here thinks people of faith are not equal to others. Just one.

[BubberMiley]

Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't think MLK Jr. was a Republican. If I thought he were, I would have said so. It's why I said that MLK Sr. was a Republican.

And why you said MLK Sr. was "all that his son was."

[Guest American Woman]

And why you said MLK Sr. was "all that his son was."

Try not cutting off what I was referring to, then read it as many times as it takes to comprehend it: he was all that his son was - a Baptist pastor, missionary, and an early leader in the American Civil Rights Movement. In other words, he had the same characteristics that Sharkman had attributed to MLK, Jr.

[BubberMiley]

Oh, I see. You can understand that one might think that you were inferring they are so much the same, there's a good chance they also had the same political affiliation. It's good to sometimes reread our posts to see if there are potential misreadings, because I know you find it frustrating when there are.