King Reasonoid Matt Welch reminds us that ESPN’s Chris Broussard apparently has every right to be a homophobic fundamentalist bigot about NBA player Jason Collins coming out because AMERICA.
Broussard is predictably getting beaten to a rhetoric pulp on Twitter. And while I think today is a wonderful, watershed day for people (especially the artist formerly known as Ron Artest) to live as open and free as they wanna be, I agree with the New York Post editorial Robert George here:
Chris Broussard spoke what more than a few players feel. If such comments aren’t expressed, a real conversation can’t be had.
I’m trying to come up with what “real conversation” Broussard is adding when he says Collins is a sinner who is “walking in open rebellion to Jesus Christ.” But here’s where Welch goes with this as he brings in the civil rights movement in sports and the racism Jackie Robinson faced:
Now, there is no doubt that Jackie Robinson vehemently disagreed with this go-slow sentiment, but he also understood that you can’t always persuade fence-sitters through a two-handed chest-shove.* And sometimes engaging with the I’m not ready to go that far just yet crowd brings out the best in activists. See, for example, Martin Luther King’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”
Bigotry brings conflict which brings “real conversations” which brings out the best in people, not the worst, so apparently we need bigotry, racism, and outright ignorance in America because FREEDOMS AND THE LIBERTY.
On the other hand, Welch basically saying that the struggle of racism was necessary in order to forge a leader as brilliant as Dr. King is just about the best example of false equivalence Glibertarian nonsense that I’ve ever seen, so there’s that. Dave Zirin’s take on Jason Collins is worth reading just as a reminder that Welch is full of crap, as usual, and the real change comes from those standing up to idiots like him who give bigotry acceptable cover in the first place because “conflict creates change”. That’s great if you’re a megalomaniac with a space fortress and an army of flying cyborg raptor ninjas, not so great if you want to live in a world where people are decent towards each other because people are decent.
[UPDATE] Dave Zirin makes this point about Jackie Robinson:@zandarvts Also re: Matt Welch:Jackie R at the end of his life believed w/regret he should have pushed much harder. Read his memoir.
— Dave Zirin (@EdgeofSports) April 30, 2013
Which is true.
BGinCHI
If Dave Zirin isn’t the first sports writer you are reading on any subject, you’re doing it wrong.
JPL
Chris Broussard was not reporting what the players felt, he was reporting what he felt. Since when did ESPN become to go to station for all things, one personally feels. The guy needs to join Fox news.
dedc79
TNC has written brilliantly on this whole idea of needing to have a conversation with people who have no interest in having conversations.
soonergrunt (mobile)
Why do Conservatives think that their right to say bigoted asinine shit does not encompass our right to call them out for being bigoted asinine shitheads?
Bud
“having a conversation” means that one person can say something bigoted and other people can respond.
Why do conservatives feel that any opposition to the stupid stuff they say counts as discrimination?
aimai
An outright statement of pure religious bigotry–albeit one confined to an intra-mural/intra christian dogma fight–is turned into a kind of social cavuto mark? Is that it? “I say you are going to hell for facing the altar while praying, and you say you probably aren’t” is the equivalent of “just adding to the conversation?”
I wish to say “fuck you, Voltaire,” because the only thing the right wing and the religious nutcases retain from the enlightenment is a dim memory of “I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it” which they think means that we are all obligated to do more than point and laugh at their political and religious statements of fact. They are offering us the intellectual equivalent of a child’s first diaper explosion, and they are demanding that we treat it like great art, or at least defer to it as meaningful.
Its not: I’m not interested in what one religious bigot thinks he believes about another person’s private life. Its not authentic, its not educated, its not informative, its not relevant, its not kind, its not thoughtful–why are we obligated to pretend that it is. Not everything deserves to be part of the public conversation. I think the kindest thing we can do is avert our eyes but I don’t see any need to be kind.
Barry
Espn knew this was how Broussard would respond. He said similar things when John Amaechi came out. I think Espn likes and wants this attention.
Cassidy
@Bud: Projection. They know that their whole belief system is founded on bigotry [and some weird psychosexual power fantasies, but that’s another conversation] and that the practical application of their beliefs is institutionalized discrimination. Most of them are barely smart enough to know that is counterintuitive to the Constitution they claim to love, but never read. So, in the simple lizard brain of a Conservative, they figure that if they can accuse the other side of discrimination first it gives them a mulligan on their behavior.
Or they could just be WATB shitheads.
Todd
One wonders if Welch has actually read King’s Birmingham Jail piece – he clearly doesn’t understand who King was skewering, and has, at best, a Conservapedia understanding of it.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@JPL:
Since they let Skip Bayless open his fat dumb mouth on air. At least.
Tokyokie
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): That’s incredibly unfair. Skip Bayless’ mouth isn’t fat. It’s lean. He’s a runner. He’s an athlete. Pretty much the same as Michael Jordan. Just ask him.
Elizabelle
Obama press conference at 10:15 eastern.
Chris
I’m curious.
WHERE THE FUCK… were all these nice, good, clean, high minded, TOTALLY NOT HOMOPHOBIC conservatives, so deeply interested in “having a conversation,” back when homosexuality wasn’t just frowned upon but outright illegal and punishable by law?
Did any of them have an interest in “having a conversation” then, or dis they just go “ewwww, take it away!”
Is there any reason they’re interested in “having a conversation” now, other than “we’re losing, really really badly?”
Todd
@Bud:
Or, in Southern colloquialism, this can be described thusly:
“PC is chillin’ mah Free Speech by makin’ it socially unacceptable for me to tell n*****, f**, k*** and s*** jokes at the annual Rotary Luncheon. Ah’m bein’ oppressed!”
John
Isn’t Welch comparing apples and oranges here. His historical example is a disagreement between people who wanted desegregation to happen immediately and people who, at least ostensibly, were sympathetic to the idea of desegregation but concerned about the pace being advocated by civil rights leaders.
Isn’t that a whole different thing from engaging with a straight up bigot who thinks gay people are sinners?
And, again, what exactly is Welch arguing for? Broussard obviously has the right to say whatever idiocy he wants to about Collins. Is anybody disputing that? From Welch’s post, the only consequences he seems to be facing are that people are being mean to him on twitter. Surely people have just as much right to be mean to Broussard on Twitter as he does to make an ass of himself.
Also: that comments thread at Reason is absurd. I highly recommend the discussion of anal sex.
Cassidy
Guys, this is a good thing. Some dipshit has expressed his dumbass, bigoted religious beliefs and it’s getting airplay. You know what else is getting airplay? The likes of Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, and other NBA Superstars supporting Collins. Which one do you think is going to get more traction?
RaflW
So Chris Broussard is a sportscaster, right?
And Jesus Christ isn’t actually playing in the NBA, right?
So why is what Chris Broussard has to say about Christianity the slightest bit appropriate for an ESPN broadcast?
Aaaagh.
Zifnab25
Well, for starters, I think he wants to turn his little corner of ESPN into another episode of the 700 Club. Then, in classic 700 Club style, he wants to hyper-politicize a religious message of tolerance, peace, and love by proclaiming two dudes kissing is the new Holocaust. And finally, he wants to focus media attention for being SUPER BRAVE by gay bashing when gay bashing has become unpopular. :-p
In short, the “real conversation” is the one we’ve been having for the last two generations. It’s the conversation where someone hides behind arbitrary religious morality to justify being a bigoted prick, and demands to be taken seriously because he’s on national television.
RaflW
No, no, no. As is obvious from the fact that Ann Coulter still has a job (I know, what?!) the right to free speech is the right to say utterly horrible things with no repercussions at all. If you’re a right-winger, anyway.
That’s freedom of speech, IOKIYAR-style.
Tone In DC
Or, in Southern colloquialism, this can be described thusly:
“PC is chillin’ mah Free Speech by makin’ it socially unacceptable for me to tell n*****, f**, k*** and s*** jokes at the annual Rotary Luncheon. Ah’m bein’ oppressed!”
Sasha
Chris Broussard has every right to be a bigot, and everyone else has a right to point out that he’s a bigot.
Omnes Omnibus
@John:
The right generally does not believe this. They posit that they have a right to make any statement they want and any criticism of it is an attempt to shut down their right to free speech. The amount of pure, unadulterated fail in that position is staggering.
eric
The REAL conversation that people like Broussard need to have is “how do i live in a pluarlistic society when I so disagree with the values freely held by others?” this is the issue Broussard’s comments raise. Sure he has a right to have them and a right to express them as loudly as he wants, but at the end of the day he still has to live in a world that mostly rejects his view. In the end, he stands athwart history….
Cassidy
No. The “Southern Colloquialism” is to look around and then lower your voice.
aimai
@Cassidy:
One of my anthropology professors used to talk about an Australian “physical” language of kinship–the aborigines with whom he worked indicated certain kinship relationships with a gesture such as patting your back to indicate your father because fathers carry their children on their backs. Your comment reminds me that there is, of course, all kinds of discreet ways of indicating in group/out group and up/down in a social situation which don’t require pointing and shouting “N**, N** or F*g*tt” There are nods, winks, sly sidelong looks, silence, withdrawal, etc…
Mark S.
A “real conversation” is when one side says the other side is going to burn in Hell for eternity. It makes for intriguing, productive discussions.
Bob2
When Matt Welch tells Randian Christians like Rand and Ron Paul that they can’t be both, maybe I’ll listen to his other shtick.
Redshirt
I’ve been to Freep land, and herewith I summarize their reaction to Collins’ announcement:
FECES!
Seriously, that’s the sum of it.
Conservatives are sick, simple minded, fear ridden people.
Cassidy
@aimai: I’m just glad that the obvious and exagerated looking around is a long enough signal for me to bow out of the conversation.
Roger Moore
@John:
To quote the great Branch Rickey, who new a thing or two about fighting bigotry in sports, “A moderate is a moral pickpocket.” I think that MLK guy also said something about “the fierce urgency of now”. The people who want to slow walk equality can go fuck themselves.
Mike in NC
After all, they’re as American as motherhood, the flag, and apple pie!
Elizabelle
PBO presser at 10:30 a.
Watching C-Span 1 now. Ron Pollack of Families USA on about the Affordable Care Act, then will cut to live press conference.
A woman caller: her 28-year old daughter has to pay $65/week for insurance coverage, and the company won’t let employees work more than 30 hours because of insurance requirement.
Hello? Maybe this is why our health insurance system needs an overhaul?
Villago Delenda Est
@aimai:
As is often the case, you have captured my thoughts on this entire “freedom of speech” line that vile Christianist and reactionary fuckheads like the asswipe Broussard insist on foisting on everyone.
Fuck you, Voltaire, indeed.
Certified Mutant Enemy
@Bob2:
Randian Christians
It says a lot about such people that they can’t recognize that “Randian Christian” is an oxymoron…
Chris
@Villago Delenda Est:
The only freedom they care about is the freedom to oppress other people.
Comrade Dread
There isn’t a lot of middle ground between those who believe that gays are living in sin and need to change vs. those who believe that homosexuality is natural and people should just be who they are.
I also don’t particularly think it’s wise to go around being the sin patrol:
a.) because it takes the focus off of doing good to others; b.) because it’s the example of the Pharisees and not of Christ;
c.) because if Collin’s church has an issue with his orientation or conduct, then his pastor/priest/bishop should take him aside privately and talk about it;
d.) because there are those who view the scriptures differently than you do, and a touch of humility might be in order with regards to something so deeply personal; and
e.) even assuming the standard interpretation of scripture is right, if God really wants him to change, then have a bit of faith that God will change him without your pointing a finger of condemnation at a brother.
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est:
It is no more Voltaire’s fault that retrograde assholes can’t understand what they read than it is Adam Smith’s fault – you know, the Adam Smith you frequently note that the wingnuts are misinterpreting (or haven’t even read).
SatanicPanic
@Cassidy: I’m still shocked that Kobe Bryant supports anyone other than himself.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Roger Moore: This type of talk reminds me of the line from the SCOTUS ruling in Brown v Board that talked about desegregating “with all deliberate speed.” These are the kinds of words that allowed that school in Georgia to sanction separate white and black proms. Good on those kids, starting with the four girls, who got tired of waiting, and integrated the prom this year. And fuck the wishy-washy governor even more than the white parents who continued to hold a separate “white” prom.
Elizabelle
I don’t follow Chris Broussard.
Any chance he’s reachable on the issue, later in life?
Maybe he’s bible-spouting now, but is he a good enough guy to rethink his opposition once he sees how normal teh ghey athletes are?
(Which is not to say he “thought” to reach his current opposition.)
Comrade Dread
It’s one of the inherent contradictions of Evangelical Christianity, I think.
Yesterday, I was reading an article bemoaning how selfish American has become which focused on delayed child rearing, limiting how many children you had, and abortion.
Suffice to say, when issues of economics come up, the tune quickly changes to how selfishness is good.
aimai
@Omnes Omnibus: It was a joke. Voltaire will probably be able to handle it.
Comrade Dread
@SatanicPanic: Yeah, well, he does have a lot of time to think these days between PT sessions. Maybe he’s getting soft in his middle age.
Cassidy
@SatanicPanic: Nah, this is #24; #8 was the ball hogging rapist.
h/t Daniel Tosh
Villago Delenda Est
@Barry:
Certainly, ESPN does. It means a ratings spike, and that means a money spike, and that’s what it is all about, after all. There is only one thing that is important to an amoral corporate monster, and that’s mo’ money. Mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money.
Every other possible competing value pales in comparison.
Villago Delenda Est
@Comrade Dread:
No selfishness for thee.
Only for me.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elizabelle: You know, there are people with whom I am willing to have serious conversations about issues even when we disagree, but there also are people with whom I see any conversation to be, at best, a waste of time. Based solely on this instance, I am inclined toward putting Broussard in the latter category.
The Dangerman
@SatanicPanic:
I’m shocked anyone gives a shit what Kobe says on sexual matters (after buying his way out of a rape charge).
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
The similarity to the invisible hand fetish is spot on.
Fire for effect.
Redshirt
How do you even have a “serious” conversation with someone who believes in an Angry Sky Fairy who will torture you for eternity if you don’t believe their personal opinion of some old book?
It’s ludicrous!
Elizabelle
@Omnes Omnibus:
Probably wise, and I hope that Broussard surprises people pleasantly.
feebog
Two points here. First, I know Jason and Jerron’s parents. They are loving, and supportive of both their sons. They are also beautiful examples of Christians who actually practice their faith rather than just mouth the words.
Second, there really isn’t a lot of scientific disagreement about whether homosexuality is a choice or a genetic inborn trait. A “lifestyle choice” implies a conscious decision. Mr. Broussard, when did you make the decision to become a heterosexual? Since that is such a momentous decision, you should be able to remember the time and place.
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai: I responded specifically to VDE because of the interesting juxtaposition of his Smith position vs. his Voltaire one. I personally suspect him either a pro-Scottish or an anti-French Enlightenment bias. Possibly both. I also denounce him.
Gex
For some reason, Libertarians think a world where the only grocer in town is able to refuse to serve gays is the pinnacle of freedom. But for consumers of sports media to express an opinion or make a choice as to what kind of product they consume, and ESPN pays analysts for, is a terrible violation of freedom.
HEY DUMBSHIT, HE IS A PRODUCT ON ESPN, NOT A CITIZEN. THIS IS THE FUCKING MARKETPLACE SPEAKING, AND YOU ARE TELLING IT TO SHUT UP.
ETA: Montsanto knows enough to fight to hide labeling what’s on the inside. Maybe sportscasters should consider the same tactic.
Elizabelle
Press conference soon to begin.
Bunch of white press people hanging out in briefing room.
They’re not in nerdprom attire. Cannot tell if any are wasted.
Two minute warning just given.
Certified Mutant Enemy
@Redshirt:
How do you even have a “serious” conversation with someone who believes in an Angry Sky Fairy who will torture you for eternity if you don’t believe their personal opinion of some old book?
It’s ludicrous!
And claim they’re being oppressed when someone expresses the above sentiment…
Matt McIrvin
Did he actually read “Letter from Birmingham Jail”? I’m sure King would have been much happier had the moderate white liberals he was complaining about not been doing what they were doing.
The whole thing reminds me of Dr. Pangloss justifying all the evil in the best of all possible worlds. “‘Twas snake that tempted Mother Eve/Because of snake we now believe/That though depraved/We can be saved/From hellfire and damnation!/Because of snake’s temptation!”
smith
ESPN offered a mealy-mouthed “non-apology apology”. They knew what they were getting when they put Broussard up against LZ Granderson (an openly gay sportswriter).
ESPN has fired and suspended their “talent” for lesser remarks such as these, it is pretty astounding that Broussard is escaping any form of suspension or cooling off period. Which is ridiculous.
Besides, Broussard is an average at beast reporter who gets his his reports from players’ twitter feeds and reporting other reporters’ scoops as his own (ex. ESPN has been ripping off David Aldridge and other legit NBA reporters for years).
However, everyone seems to be focusing on Broussard when Tim Brando of CBS Sports had hateful tweets all day about Jason Collins’ coming out. Why isn’t he getting the same negative attention as Broussard? He (Brando) even tweeted that being a “white, Christian male over 50+” isn’t “valued” these days. He was actually more offensive to me than the moronic Broussard.
Ben Franklin
Daniel Hopsicker is on the Causasus Connection.
http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/04/29/uncle-ruslan-aid-to-terrorists-from-cia-officials-home/#more-3873
Elizabelle
Ed Henry gets the first question, after PBO opens with “Good afternoon.”
First Q re Syria; where is line in the sand? Do you risk US credibility if you don’t follow through?
And Benghazi. It’s a twofer.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
I accept your denunciation, and remind you, with greatest vigor, that your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.
The Dangerman
@Redshirt:
Happens every day (although opening the conversation with “Angry Sky Fairy” is probably a bad start).
I don’t get it; people get upset when someone like Broussard takes a shit on someone and then they turn around a take a shit on everyone of a certain belief. How about this? Everyone stop shitting on other people. SIMPLE.
SatanicPanic
@Comrade Dread: Thanks for chiming in. I was hoping to hear your take on this.
Elizabelle
@Matt McIrvin:
Letter from a Birmingham Jail is one of the best things I ever read in college. Brought chills, it was that good.
SatanicPanic
@Cassidy: Yikes. Yeah that + it’s a good thing Collins never played for the Lakers, Kobe wouldn’t have anything good to say about him if he had.
Villago Delenda Est
@Gex:
They loathe an actual free market, be it one of ideas, or one of widgets.
Redshirt
@The Dangerman: I don’t believe it’s at all possible to have a real conversation when one of the parties 1. Believes in myth as reality, and 2. Believes that you will literally burn in torment because you don’t believe in said myth.
You can talk at each other, but there’s no discussion when one side of the conversation holds such absolute, and incorrect, beliefs.
Elizabelle
When Obama mentions re Syria “a regime that is more interested in staying in power than in the welfare of its people,” I think — hey, that’s happening here.
It’s called the disloyal opposition.
Omnes Omnibus
@smith:
My guess is that such a person would have little value on the free agent market in any major sport.
GregB
Conservatives seem to think it is a right to not be called an asshole.
Cassidy
@Redshirt: Yup. You can’t have a rational exchange of ideas when one party’s foundation is irrational, and that’s not even getting into the core religious aspect of it; that’s just dealing with the book of Jewish myths and legends used to justify their assholery.
jimmiraybob
Technically, isn’t this the other half of the “conversation.”
The Dangerman
Once again, happens every day, but starting a conversation with insults (“myths”) isn’t a very good ice breaker. If “respect” is desired, “respect” has to be given; it’s really not that hard.
ETA: I see Cassidy has decided to join the Intolerance Parade; same answer, intolerance breeds intolerance. Once again, it isn’t that hard.
Redshirt
@The Dangerman: LOL. “Respect”. That’s funny.
The word “myth” is not an insult, it’s an accurate description. Let me once again emphasize that, because someone is gay, they (according to the God Botherers) will burn in everlasting torment forever.
Now tell me again about “respect”. I’m not seeing it.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cassidy:
When I was working at a non-profit ISP in the go-go 90’s, one of the board members told a friend that he had to agree with her in a discussion about some issue because her logic was solid.
My friend conceded that her logic was indeed solid, but the problem he had was that her unspoken underlying assumptions were to him very problematic indeed.
The Dangerman
@Redshirt:
Some Christians might hold those feelings; most do not. You cast aspersions on the many for the actions of a few. Once again, this isn’t THAT hard. It’s kindergarten material.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@The Dangerman: I thought this diarist (DK) opened up the conversation well.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
Yes, how dare we point out that they’re full of shit.
It’s the equivalent to pointing a gun at their head.
Joey Maloney
Will no one rid me of these meddling Libertarians?
Villago Delenda Est
@Joey Maloney:
Sorry, the four knights are at the Cubs game. You’ll just have to wait a bit.
weaselone
@The Dangerman:
They’re not going to get it because they’re both coming from a place just as emotional, angry and irrational as a segment of the people they are condemning. Even if a belief in God is irrational, irrationality in one area does not suggest irrationality in all others.
Burnspbesq
@Sasha:
Everyone else also has the right to tell Disney that they will no longer watch ESPN if it continues to employ Broussard. And Disney has the right to fire Broussard if it thinks that continuing to employ him threatens its biggest cash cow. It may have to pay the remainder of the salary due under his contract if this reason for firing him doesn’t constitute “cause” under that contract, but that’s a rational investment given the threat to its biggest cash cow.
Punchy
This Jason Collins mess is enough to drive me to a Tom Collins.
The Dangerman
@Villago Delenda Est:
Another fine ice breaker.
Folks, I got real bad news; the majority of people on this planet belong to one of the Abrahamic religions (i.e. “myths”). Starting conversations with “you’re full of shit” isn’t going to get us anyplace.
Redshirt
@The Dangerman: True, you’re talking about the difference between Fundies and not-Fundies, and there is a notable difference there, to be sure. But I’m talking in context of this story, in regards the ESPN commentators remarks that Jason Collins is “walking in sin”.
I’ll add one more thing, which is another layer of ridiculousness, and that in my experience the most Fundamentalist of the Fundies rarely practice anything remotely connected to the lessons of the NT. Remember! Jesus is Love – even for gay people!
Catsy
Bullshit. This is the conversation.
Social opprobrium is the consequence for unpopular speech. Broussard is discovering, to his regret, that his opinions are unpopular. He has every right to express his opinions. And so do his critics.
Redshirt
@weaselone: How is it irrational to condemn someone’s hateful comments that are religiously motivated?
You agree that Jason Collins is now going to Hell? Is that rationality to you?
scav
.”I think you’re damned to burn in Hell for all eternity.” — “I think you’re an ignorant jackass currently.” seems an Alcocks-approved cotillion-worthy exchange of civilities.
Sly
Think of it this way: a “real conversation about race” is something that allows white conservatives to categorically deride blacks as lazy, mentally-inferior criminals without being called racists and suffering the social consequences thereof.
Intolerance of the intolerant is the worst form of bigotry. Haven’t you learned that by now?
Bob2
@Matt McIrvin:
It’s pretty clear he never read Letter from a Birmingham Jail considering there’s this really long passage excoriating moderate whites.
“”I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another mans freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro the wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating that absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all it ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light injustice must be exposed with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion, before it can be cured.”
Omnes Omnibus
@The Dangerman: If someone begins a conversation with me by saying “I was raised to believe that [insert activity] was a sin because [insert reason],” it leads to one type of debate. If someone begins a conversation with me by saying “Your friend [insert gay friend’s name] is going to hell and and shouldn’t be allowed near children,” it leads to an entirely different type of debate. The second one tends to be much shorter, consisting almost entirely of statements along the lines of “Fuck you, you bigoted prick” or “You’re a sad little person, aren’t you?” depending on my mood at the time.
Burnspbesq
@Redshirt:
If that’s your opening line, it’s abundantly clear that a serious conversation is the last thing on earth you’re interested in. Anti-religious bigotry is just as toxic and irrational as any other kind.
The Dangerman
@Redshirt:
Fair enough; I just think there are hot button phrases that should be avoided. In the context of this thread, “walking in sin” and “Angry Sky Fairy” are two fine examples.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
The problem here is that a group that aggressively self-labels as “Christian” actively shits on the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as a central tenet of their version of “Christian”.
On some site somewhere yesterday someone mentioned that, according to the Bible, Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality that was recorded. This was “refuted” by someone quoting chapter and verse from Leviticus and 1st Corinthians. Some else pointed out that the chapter and verse didn’t include anything Jesus is recorded to have said.
Red letter editions really put the chill on bible thumping asswipes, but they don’t seem to realize this. Noting this must be that satanic “critical thinking” again.
weaselone
@Redshirt:
It’s not, but I wasn’t even referring to Broussard.
I was responding to this:
Bob2
@Certified Mutant Enemy:
Don’t get me started on Paul Ryan.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
They start the conversation with “Jason Collins is going to Hell” and then we respond by saying “Hell is a place only within the confines of your skull” and then we’re informed that we too are going to Hell.
That’s a conversation for you.
BTW, I prefer “fucked up asshole invisible sky buddy” over “invisible sky fairy” for future reference.
Chyron HR
@Burnspbesq:
Who can forget the time Richard Dawkins tied a Christian to the back of his truck and dragged him down the road?
Redshirt
@Burnspbesq: Yes, completely irrational. Both sides do it!
The Dangerman
@Villago Delenda Est:
No, the problem here is rampant generalization.
I went to the store yesterday and there was this bin labelled “apples”. One was bad. I bought one that looked good. It tasted good.
I’ll say it again; this isn’t that hard.
Redshirt
@weaselone: And? One side is basing their opinions on observed “facts”. The other one is basing their opinion on a religion they probably don’t even understand.
How can an actual, sincere conversation be had between two parties arguing from such vastly different starting points?
Villago Delenda Est
@Chyron HR:
Yeah, I remember that one well.
One has to remember that Burnsie is the guy who is apparently willing to put up with a religious hierarchy that engages in all sorts of ass covering for covering asses and doesn’t do the right thing, the Martin Luther thing…getting the fuck out of Dodge.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
OT: FOX yesterday was reporting that Democrats in Congress are trying to get them and their staff out of Obamacare. Anyone know what, if any, substance there is to this? I know it’s FOX, but I work at a place where “it’s FOX” is not a defense: Most of them watch it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Redshirt:
By looking for common ground.
BGK
@Certified Mutant Enemy:
Yep. I was driving home last week, and there was a car in front of me with both the star-spangled-Jesus tag and a “Who’s John Galt?” sticker. I would’ve snapped an image, but I figured I should concentrate on driving, as the driver might’ve been raptured by Ayn Rand at any moment.
Cassidy
@The Dangerman: Let us know when you’re done wanking to your mythological tolerance. We can wait. We’re patient.
ETA: And stop being such a mendacious prick about it. I gives a flying monkey fuck what your personal beliefs are or what fucking god or gods you choose to pray to. But, the facts are, religious books are no different than a book of myths and legends, just actively worshipped. There is no difference between the stories of Thor, Zues, and Jesus except the first two got a lot more tail.
Certified Mutant Enemy
Yep. I was driving home last week, and there was a car in front of me with both the star-spangled-Jesus tag and a “Who’s John Galt?” sticker.
That whirring sound you’re hearing is Jesus spinning in his grave. ;)
Redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: The common ground will never be religiously based.
It could be based on charity, or sharing, or good deeds; it could be in helping the poor or the persecuted; it could be based on the idea that all living creatures deserve praise and respect.
But it will never come from “You’re gonna burn in Hell for being different than me!”.
SatanicPanic
Looking like Cole’s Law is in effect, as usual
Cassidy
@The Dangerman: Your “concern” is duly fucking noted.
MattR
@The Dangerman: I don’t see the generalization at all. In fact I see people specifying that they are referring to those Christians who use religion to justify their anti-gay position and not making general comments about Christians.
The Dangerman
@Redshirt:
Refraining from calling people names is a fine starting point. This subthread, for example. Burns is right, all forms of bigotry, whether anti-Gay or anti-Faith, add fuel to the fire.
Elizabelle
PBO had concluded press conference and was walking away when someone shouted a question about Jason Collins.
He returned, said he would take the question, said he’d spoken with Collins yesterday and could not be prouder of him.
Also said the LGBT community deserves full opportunity, that Collins is a great role model, and this is ongoing recognition that “we treat everyone fairly and we judge everyone on their performance and not their sexual orientation.”
Face
Being anti-religious is bigotry? Is anti-bigotry bigotry?
Also, can both religion and anti-religion be irrational? Both sides of the fence lack rationality? Essaywut?
Keith G
@Elizabelle: I’m still wiping away tears.
Broussard who?
The Dangerman
@Cassidy:
I surely appreciate such internal consistency. Well done.
Ash Can
@Redshirt: Yes, both sides do do it, in this case. You’re getting pushback because you were, up until your acknowledgment of the difference between fundies and non-fundies, equating all Christians with fundies. It’s no different than equating all Muslims with the violent extremists who make headlines.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
Look, buddy, I’m not the one who declares that my version of Christianity is the one true faith and all others are outrageous heresy that condemns them to fiery eternal torment with a giant robot that speaks in the voice of Dan Castellaneta.
If the Christians who genuinely follow the teachings of Jesus do not actively defend those teachings, and actively do SOMETHING about those who claim the name “Christian” as the label for their toxic belief stew of intolerance and hate, I can’t help them.
This is the problem. The haters insist that they’re the only REAL “Christians” out there, and the others (the ones actually paying FUCKING ATTENTION to the teachings of Jesus concerning how we should live together in peace and harmony) are namby-pamby dirty fucking hippie types who are ALSO all going to Hell.
The face of “Christianty” in this country, unfortunately, is most widely represented by Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, and Chris Broussard. They do so aggressively and constantly.
I understand that there is more than one flavor of “Christian” in this country. Those who don’t like the generalizations that they’re all bigoted assholes need to do something to take the label BACK from the bigoted assholes who proudly proclaim it as their label.
MikeJ
@Villago Delenda Est:
Now there’s a band name.
shortstop
@Burnspbesq: Toxic? Maybe. Irrational? I do not think this word means what you’re always desperately wishing it meant.
Cassidy
@Chyron HR: Or the time a militant atheist bombed an abortion lcinic and killed an abortion doctor or denied a woman/ girl life saving treatment because of an unborn mass of cells leading to her death…yup love me some of that good ol’ fire and brimstone false equivalency.
Omnes Omnibus
@Redshirt: See my comment above. One of the things I look for in that kind of conversation is the response to this question: “Okay, you think [insert activity] is a sin and a person who engages in it is a sinner, now what?” If all one gets is condemnation, the person isn’t someone I want to continue to know. If the response is more along the lines of “We are all sinners,” it is possible to to continue the conversation. One might not come to an agreement, but there is something with which to work.
Redshirt
@The Dangerman: I haven’t called anyone any names. I’ve disparaged religion – and please note, it’s not just Christianity. But since that’s the dominant religion here, that gets the focus.
Redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: You’re more charitable than I. I am currently reading “The Handmaiden’s Tale” and it’s got my druthers up.
Pooh
The biggest problem for Welch is that Broussard isn’t close to the best avatar for this argument in that he goes beyond ignorance into hateful, whereas fit example Mile Wallace was just being ignorant which dies present a “teachable moment”
gbear
@Elizabelle: :)
I’m going to have to look for that video when I get home.
scav
To a large measure, we already know the common ground, it’s that the parties involved disagree. This is more about the expectation of soft touches and immediate “respect” ceded to all expressions of hatred so long as they come stamped with a religiousity of a xian extremity in this nation. The keening about gay “recruitment” efforts by an actively proselytizing religion shows a similar self-unawareness.
Certified Mutant Enemy
@Redshirt:
My standard response when asked why I usually vote for Democrats: “I like living in the United States, I don’t want to find myself living in the Republic of Gilead.”
John
@Roger Moore:
I don’t necessarily disagree. But I think one can at least make an argument that engaging constructively with self-declared moderates can be productive, and that minds can be changed. That is not what is going on with Broussard – the analogy is totally wrong.
weaselone
@Redshirt:
I think the point here is that what a person actually believes has little to do with your sky fairy. Just because someone believes in God, does not mean their views are fixed in stone. Conversely, someone who does not believe in God can still be a stone cold bigot on this issue. If the goal is to convince those who can be convinced, you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you don’t at least have the conversation.
Face
Or they need you to quit generalizing that all Christians are pricks. You implore them to do “something”, even though there’s billions of Christians with an entire spectrum of beliefs, and nothing is black and white as you envision. I’m sure if a few guys speak up for the non-bigots, that the bigots will listen and change. Worked for the RCC. Wait, no it didn’t.
Villago Delenda Est
@Ash Can:
As I’ve said earlier, the fundies insist that THEY are the only REAL Christians.
As fundie Muslims, Jews, and Hindus do.
It’s up to the others of those faiths to demonstrate that the fundies are NOT the sole face of those faiths.
Jimmy Carter pretty much nailed this when he discussed where Jerry Falwell could go.
ChrisNYC
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): No, not really true. Brian Beutler at TPM did a few pieces on this last week. They are the ones titled, “Cruel Irony” and “Obamacare for thee and not for me? parts I and II”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/brian_beutler.php
Omnes Omnibus
@Redshirt: My mom is religious. She attends a nice solid Lutheran church at which her grandparents were founding members. She has thrown a couple of public hissy fits at the MO Synod’s take on political and social issues.
Ash Can
@Face: What’s toxic and irrational is one side shutting down the conversation upon the revelation that the other side has religious beliefs. It’s the declaration that “your beliefs negate everything you say,” as opposed to “your beliefs are making you do hurtful things.” And yes, it’s irrational.
El Cid
If it’s anti-religious bigotry for me to say that it’s okay for people to believe whatever they want but (1) their belief in what one or more magical beings said or did should play no part what so ever in public policy or the public sphere of rational debate and (2) I do not agree to refrain from emphasizing whenever necessary that no one anywhere on Earth of any belief has or ever has seen any writing or heard any speech which was performed or influenced by magical beings, then I’m totally okay with being labeled as an anti-religious bigot by unreasonable people.
scav
And, hands up everyone still waiting for the nuanced, measured and moderately-expressed condemnation to hell of non-believers by the bible-thumping devout?
Villago Delenda Est
@scav:
Projection. Pure and simple.
Cacti
This gets at the heart of Dawkins’ argument on deserved respect vs. undeserved respect. Having a sincerely held belief doesn’t put it above scrutiny or having a mirror held up to it.
Religious folk often argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Well, religion is 100% a lifestyle choice. No child is born a believer.
kindness
To a Conservative a real conversation isn’t inhibited by a starting premise that gays are all going to hell and what is there to talk about anyway?
And Conservatives don’t seem to get that others just can’t use that premise as their starting point for a conversation.
Cassidy
@Ash Can: It’s irrational to choose not waste one’s time trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who willingly believes in fairy tales?
Villago Delenda Est
@Ash Can:
You can’t have a conversation with someone who starts it with “you’re going to Hell, sinner!”.
There is no sense in wrestling with that pig.
RSA
@Omnes Omnibus:
This is an important point, I think. In one case you’re talking about ideas, in the other it’s personal. Similarly, there’s difference between “I don’t believe in an Angry Sky Fairy” and “You’re an idiot for believing that.” In my experience a lot of religious people identify so deeply with their beliefs that they take insults against their gods as personal attacks. But they’re not always personal.
The Dangerman
@Redshirt:
You may be right; I could be confusing you with those that called me FOS or mendacious prick. To that end, my bad.
FWIW, I may be more of a Buddhist than a Christian (yes, you can be both) but have enjoyed Islamic and Jewish services as well (given the common roots of the Abrahamic Religions). I don’t see being religious as a problem if it’s done “right” (note that I’m not saying I’m doing it right; I’m just trying to figure it out the best that I can).
shortstop
@Villago Delenda Est: Well, it is projection, but it’s something more, too. They’ve lost this war for public opinion; they’ll win a few more skirmishes, but their Appomattox is inevitable. Many of them — not all — know it.
It’s much more attractive to feel victimized by scheming, child-corrupting conspiracists who have an active step-by-step plan to destroy true marriage and bring down Christianity than to admit that the world goes on and doesn’t give a good goddamn about the opinions of a bunch of control-freak dinosaurs. Martyrdom is so much sexier than irrelevance.
Cassidy
@The Dangerman: 1) I’m the one who called you a mendacious prick. Trying to equate our collective disgust with the Christian Taliban as an insult to all Christians is mendacious, assuming your educated about the religious right and their focused attempt to codify their bigotry into law.
2)Saying “if religion is done right” is the same as saying “if communism is done right”. They might have good ideas, but then people get involved and start killing and subjugating others. There is no good done by religion that is outweighed by the evil it perpetrates on society.
MomSense
@Cassidy:
and finish with “bless his heart”.
MattR
From what I can tell:
Generalizations about Republicans = OK
Generalizations about firebaggers or Obots = OK
Generalizations about Christians = worst thing ever
burnspbesq
@Face:
In the somewhat narrow sense that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven within the limits of our current science, yes. Both sides are guessing based on incomplete evidence, and the conversation could be more productive if both sides were willing to forthrightly acknowledge that they are guessing based on incomplete evidence.
Joey Maloney
@Cacti: Or as the late Molly Ivins once said, “‘I feel more strongly about this than you,’ may be a fact, but it’s not an argument.”
Elizabelle
@Keith G:
The whole press conference was balm for the soul.
Seeing an adult, responding in an intelligent and reasoned manner.
One tragedy of the Obama presidency is that we got such a good president, with mostly good instincts (I get tired of his own “both sides do it” schtick) and a treasonously bad and immoral opposition party.
It’s a colossal opportunity lost, and the problems are not going away.
Obama made a great point about “eating our seed corn” with shifting money around to fund the FAA, and how badly that was handled. That (if memory serves) not one American airport was in the world’s top-25 rated.
(A press person shot back “so why did you sign it?” which gave another opportunity to indicate PBO does the best he can with the bad hand he is saddled with.)
JoyfulA
Broussard isn’t entitled to say categorically that Collins can’t be a Christian, only that Collins can’t be a member of Broussard’s bigoted denomination, whatever that is. Collins is courageous and very welcome in my brand of Christianity and my congregation, which performs commitment ceremonies (PA does not allow marriage) for gays and will have an ordained lesbian pastor next month.
For his salvation, I suggest Broussard buy a red-letter Bible and read exactly what Jesus said about homosexuality (not one word).
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
There are a whole passel of “Christians” out there who will roundly insist that you cannot be both. Ever.
You’re going to aich-ee-double-hockey-sticks, you know, for even SAYING that.
shortstop
@burnspbesq: Similarly, I cannot prove that my having superstitiously snapped my fingers isn’t the reason there are no tigers in my office right now. It’s the mirror image of being able to empirically observe actual tigers!
Desperate, old man. Desperate.
Ash Can
@Villago Delenda Est:
They do. Every second of every minute of every day. They do it so much and so often that, hey, whaddya know, it’s not news. And as such, it doesn’t get reported on, pointed out, or put in headlines. Every time Muslim extremists blow something up, countless other Muslims excoriate it. Every day, all day, the people who populate religious-based charities work to make the lives of other people better. None of it is news. Which means, if you don’t look for it, you won’t ever see it.
Those of us who have religious beliefs and do not believe our neighbors are going to burn in hell for being gay/being atheists/being black/believing in a different version of the Bible/believing in something other than the Bible/etc. have been saying that wacko fundies are full of it, in both words and deeds, for ages. It’s not our fault if some people don’t care to listen.
Roger Moore
@The Dangerman:
And if we were actually starting the conversation, that would be a problem. In practice, though, we’re joining a conversation that’s been going on for ages, and any kind of rational, respectful basis for discussion was discarded long ago. If we want to have a reasonable conversation, the people who want to use their own interpretation of the bible as the basis for policy need to accept the right of others to disagree.
scav
@shortstop: Recently, yes, there’s a strong bit of Appomattox to it, but they spouted it too when the polls and mores were more solidly on their side — there’s a strand that seems to enjoy being the threatened martyed underdogs from the social-dominating top. Sheer unawareness.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cassidy:
This this this this this.
Word, also, too.
burnspbesq
@El Cid:
That’s not anti-religious bigotry per se. What it is, is pissing on the First Amendment. Nice to know who shares fundamental American values and who doesn’t.
The Dangerman
@Cassidy:
Interesting choice of words; I’d have no problem with the collective disgust with the Christian Taliban if it was initially expressed that way. It was not; it was a far broader brush initially. To deny that broad brush generalization would be mendacity on YOUR part, not mine.
Nonsense.
Comrade Dread
No. The purpose of reformers is specifically to say that we’re failing at some point in our actions and we need to do better.
Your response is similar to the conservative response with regards to government, “Well, that idea isn’t working, so let’s just not try anymore” when the proper response is to examine why it’s not working or why we’re falling short of our goal.
shortstop
@scav: Well, that’s true. They don’t seem to get sexual gratification from much else besides feeling victimized, but they’ve got a permanent hardon for that, apparently. Still, I think they’ve ramped it up lately so as to get extra afterlife credit for having sacrificed themselves to the merciless “bullying” of the LGBT community and its allies. I hear this crap every day as I do what I can for the Illinois ME bill.
burnspbesq
@shortstop:
Not desperate. Comfortable in my beliefs. You clearly aren’t comfortable in yours, so you feel it necessary to attack mine. I feel sorry for you.
Gex
Ugh. I am so fucking sick of this dynamic.
1) The anti-gay movement in America is a Christian movement. Period.
2) When we talk about what these Christians are doing, we describe them as Christians because they are.
3) We spend the rest of our time defending ourselves from allies who need to defend faith instead of defend us from faith.
I get that you are a Christian and you aren’t a hater. That doesn’t make the haters not Christians. Must you force us to continually weaken our arguments having to start out apologizing for the points we are going to have to make?
All these allies do is help to escalate this into a sectarian argument because instead of arguing rule of law vs. religion, we end up arguing about religion.
And to what end? Are they proving that Christians aren’t the biggest problem gays have in America?
Redshirt
@The Dangerman: As far as religions go, Buddhism is a great one. I think of it more of a philosophy anyways, since after all – no Gods required.
And to be as specific as I can, I very much know there are tons of great Christians (and Jews, and Muslims, and Sikhs, and so on), but the Taliban among them all kinda ruin everything for me. Because they’re the ones calling the shots in the Church or the Temple. They’re the ones driving the forces of intolerance and hate. They’re the ones on TV declaring a gay man Hellbound because he had the courage to open up about his sexuality. They’re the ones I have a problem with, as should all decent people.
Ash Can
@Villago Delenda Est:
I agree. And likewise, I can’t have a conversation with someone who says, “Because you’re a Christian, you believe gays are going to hell.” (That is, I can’t unless they actually listen when I say “no, that’s wrong.”)
Villago Delenda Est
@Ash Can:
And I salute you for it.
We can, I suppose, discuss how our totally fucked up media, in its Ferengi pursuit of latinum, pushes guys like Broussard on everyone as the “Christian” perspective in order to generate more eyeballs for their content.
How do you get the more reasoned, compassionate, actually paying attention to that Jesus guy’s words perspective to be what Christian is all about, as opposed to “Christians” like Broussard?
I don’t know.
All I do know is that the brand is tainted by guys like Broussard and Robertson. It’s not my brand, but I can bemoan that tainting nevertheless.
SatanicPanic
@burnspbesq: I totally agree. And my biggest concern about a Mars mission is that we’ll run into that teapot orbiting the sun.
Redshirt
@Villago Delenda Est: Seriously. According to your Christian Fundamentalist, what, 5.8 Billion people or so living right now are going to burn in everlasting Hellfire, right? And there’s plenty of Christians among them.
The Dangerman
@Villago Delenda Est:
They can believe what they want to believe and I’ll do likewise. I’ll say it again, it isn’t that hard.
shortstop
@burnspbesq: Yes, your deep comfort shines through in every one of these threads. At least in this one you’re not screaming “Get out of my LIFE!”* like a preteen girl.
*Verbatim quote
Kristin
This whole discussion is interesting.
But, I have to say that what I learned on the Twitters yesterday is:
1) It’s not bigotry if it’s based on a sincerely-held religious belief; and
2) If you simply disagree (without name calling or discussion of “sky fairies” or whatever) with the “sincerely-held religious belief,” you are an anti-Christian bigot.
Nice gig they’ve got going.
MattR
@burnspbesq: It doesn’t piss on the First Amendment in the least to say that public policy should not be based on religious doctrines. It pisses on the First Amendment to actually prevent religious arguments from being used in discussions about public policy.
El Cid
@burnspbesq: That’s not pissing on the First Amendment.
Listen, dumbass lawyer guy, note that I said that it was about (a) what I would say and (b) what I would say about what should be the case.
‘First Amendment’ concerns. You’re a fucking joke.
So now you think that your religious beliefs are so protected by the Amendment explicitly favoring freedom of speech and religion over any establishment of religion that it morally prevents me from declaring that beliefs rooted in alleged magical phenomena should not be employed in rational public debate?
How about you examine what rational and reasoned debate actually means? Literally, rational and reasonable debate exclude invocations of magic by fucking definition.
You’re a fucking joke.
A Ghost To Most
I’ve been walking in open rebellion to jesus christ all my life.
Can I get a t-shirt now?
Certified Mutant Enemy
@Redshirt:
Which is ultimately my problem with fundamentalist Christians (which, worldwide is not a majority of Christians): They worship a monster.
Gex
I also like the implied threat. Don’t alienate us “good” Christians.
Or else what?
Yeah, that right there makes you not a “good” Christian then, doesn’t it? They said mean things about us, so we won’t support their rights is the message I hear EVERY. SINGLE.TIME. this comes up.
The Moar You Know
@Cassidy: My local wingnut who reports the news doesn’t dare say one bad word. The overwhelming majority of the NBA players and owners are actively in favor and supportive of this guy, full stop. The dipshit minority – and they must be freaking out because this has shown just what a small minority they really are – can have their fuckfit today and then go away, because they are unimportant and no one cares what they have to say. History’s dustbin.
Patrick
@Elizabelle:
We have the most useless media in the world. This idiotic bill (and I have a hard time containing my anger at the pathetic Democrats in Congress) passed with veto proof majorities in both chambers. What difference did this press person think a veto would do? Or perhaps he doesn’t understand our constitution.
El Cid
@Certified Mutant Enemy: Hey, that’s not fair: though yes, the Biblical God did once proudly murder every single solitary living human in a complete genocide save one single family (and some animals), filling their lungs up in the cold cold waters of the firmament, snuffing out their lives, sending mothers and fathers and children to cough and struggle and grow still in the depths, He did send a rainbow to show that He wouldn’t ever drown everybody again.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@ChrisNYC: Thanks. That’s what I needed to know.
Matt McIrvin
@Bob2: All I can figure is, Welch thinks the white moderates were doing good work by irritating King into writing those excellent passages. It’s like Charles Atlas! Dynamic tension!
MattR
@Patrick:
Umm, it would signal displeasure and disapproval of the bill while signing it seems to indicate approval and agreement.
Redshirt
@El Cid: Don’t forget about all the unlucky animals not worthy of enough to be chosen for a boat ride too!
But still, a very loving God.
Certified Mutant Enemy
@El Cid:
Also torturing forever the majority of all humans who have ever lived isn’t so bad…
SatanicPanic
@Ash Can: This. I’m not religious myself, but our country is highly religious. That’s just how it is. We can argue for gay rights and we can argue in favor of atheism, but arguing for both at once is going to be tough. I’d prefer we focus on the former.
I personally see atheism as a default, so I’m not all that eager to promote it, but that’s just me.
Ash Can
@Cassidy: Actually, Dangerman is right. This whole debate started with the implication that Broussard speaks for all Christians. It’s being parsed out now that this was not the original intention, but it seems to be taking an awful lot of work to make that original intention clear.
scav
@El Cid: in re rainbow. Well, variety is the spice of deity-based universal destruction.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@El Cid: He also created the world in 6 days, twice (which, I believe, is also scientifically justified by the creation of the moon).
You should see how hard it’s been teaching my kids general relativity when they ask how we don’t fall off the earth.
Seriously, though, it probably would have been hard to be taken seriously as a religion if you didn’t explain what seems to have been a major flood in that area. Other religions and texts also make mention of the flood, texts that predate the creation of the Torah.
El Cid
@Redshirt: Picture this: there is a real God, one day you meet, and you show God the Old Testament and say ‘This is what lots of people think you are like and how you acted.’
You have at least two choices, but among the more interesting two are: Is God complimented that lots of Earthly humans think that the God of the Universe got mad and killed everybody because they misbehaved and worshiped the wrong God because that was the best that God could possibly imagine doing? Or is God insulted?
The amazing thing to me is that so many people think these ridiculous and frankly mean beliefs are somehow the sort of thing a truly powerful and intelligent Supreme Being would identify with.
No Supreme Being worth the title would otherwise get mixed up in this crap.
Patrick
@Face:
You could say the same thing about Muslims and their religion, couldn’t you?
shortstop
@scav: It’s so cliched, though. You’d think the almighty could come up with less derivative symbolism. Start a new trend, kind of.
El Cid
@Certified Mutant Enemy: ‘I so fucking love you that I will burn you forever without relief because your belief in my love was weak or misapplied. Except for some of you who met my Son or said nice things about Him, in which case I might not burn you forever.’
chopper
@burnspbesq:
what the fuck does what one dude on the Internet says about what other people should or shouldn’t say have to do with the fucking first amendment?
Patrick
@MattR:
Umm, it would signal weakness having your meaningless veto being overridden by congress. Lame duck, anybody?
The Dangerman
@Redshirt:
That’s how I see it.
What is particularly interesting to me is the growth of “belief” in far different cultures (note that I’m ignoring that Jesus may have traveled to India in some of the “lost years”) that share great commonality. Buddhists might call it “Universal Consciousness”. Christians might call it being “one in the body of Christ”. Same thing, different words.
Curiously, atheists and believers do the same thing; Christians call it “Genesis” while atheists call it “The Big Bang”. Same basic idea, especially since that which existed before the Big Bang is rather beyond human comprehension (which is but one small step towards the Supernatural and, wham bam, pretty soon you might see that which you might call a “God”).
Redshirt
@El Cid: Dude. What if God smoked Cannabis? And He’s all like “Naw dawg, I ain’t like that! But they won’t edit the damn book!”
El Cid
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): The irony of the story is not what a band of patriarchal tribalists asserted about their God versus their hated female land-based God rivals several thousand years ago during one of the earlier Egyptian eras; it’s that people tell the story of the Flood today and hear it as a story of love and not of murder.
I guess if you kill someone by flooding them and drowning them it makes you sound a lot less guilty of murder than if you, say, went up to each child, mother, brother, grandparent, husband, and so forth, and strangled them to death with your hands.
El Cid
@Redshirt: Or, how about, ‘Um, you people wrote all those books. I didn’t write any of them. I didn’t talk to you about them, I didn’t tell anyone what to write. You wrote them. I didn’t grant any interviews. I didn’t even tell any of you to write any books about me.’
chopper
@Patrick:
also, the side benefit I pissing off congress. even easier to get your agenda passed then, amirite?
Redshirt
@The Dangerman: I think the topic of Christianity being influenced by Buddhism/Hinduism is very interesting.
That said, is it fair to say the kind of Christianity you’re espousing, that others here are espousing (like in the gay friendly churches) aren’t actually practicing “Christianity”, but rather a mix of Buddhism and secular christianity (IE focused on the behaviors and morals of the NT rather than the theocratic implications)?
Villago Delenda Est
@A Ghost To Most:
I don’t rebel against Jesus of Nazareth.
I rebel against the straw man that some of his alleged followers insist on substituting for the guy who’s actually red-letter quoted.
shortstop
@chopper: Remember, this is the guy who watched someone here laugh about a particular douche having to use a public defender, and indignantly accused the laugher of “denying the right to counsel.” His emotions run deep. His legal and civic knowledge…not so much.
shortstop
@The Dangerman:
Sir, you are really going to pull some back muscles if you keep this up.
Ash Can
@Gex: Why should we defend you “from faith” when it’s precisely our faith that motivates us to defend you?*
See, this is what broadbrushing does. Yes, the anti-gay bigots use their Christian faith as the basis for their bigotry. Others, like me, use our Christian faith as the basis for fighting against that bigotry. Some Christians use scripture as the basis for their bigotry, others of us maintain that this is an incorrect interpretation of scripture. The correct response on the part of non-Christians, therefore, is “Christians don’t agree on this point,” rather than “All Christians share these bigoted beliefs.” The latter statement is demonstrably not true, but it’s treated as if it is in way too many instances, and that’s what I find objectionable.
*This is also not to say that I would not have had this motivation had I not been brought up in the Christian tradition I was. I’d like to think I would, but I obviously can’t say for sure. As we see every day and have debated ad nauseum in this very thread, some religious upbringings put people on the path to empathy and compassion, some don’t.
Villago Delenda Est
@Patrick:
This is the Village: heads I win, tails you lose.
Both sides do it, you know.
Cassidy
@Ash Can: No he’s not. And honestly, I never tried to make that distinction. Fuck the toxic, death cult, zombie jewish guy, murdering, raping, bigoted, mysogynistic, piece of shit, not even fucking original religion that the asshats in this country call Christianity. Look, if you want to wake up every day, close your eyes, and beg to an invisible sky daddy for something, that’s your business. If you need a book of mythology to tell you what’s right and wrong, that’s your failing, not mine. By perpetuating this dynamic, this myth of “we’re the good Christians” as Gex pointed above, all you[ve done is enable the bigots to do their damage. Good job keeping control of your house. Now the rest of us get to clean up the fucking mess.
If you can’t be a good person without this particular toxic and evil strain of doctrine telling you how to do it, you might want to consider a new belief system, but I am under no obligation to respect it.
scav
@Redshirt: The interplay of religions / ethos go way back, and the influences aren’t necessarily in one direction or the other. The Jesus Sutras are from 635 AD. Seriously wish I could find better books on the, pretty sure they’re called Syriac (etc) Eastern churches.
Villago Delenda Est
@shortstop:
Well, I’m not buying this “snapping your fingers” thing as a tiger repellent.
Now, if you had a magical rock, I might be interested.
shortstop
@Villago Delenda Est: Bigot.
Ash Can
@Villago Delenda Est:
Yep, that’s the question, all right. The answer would be to shut off the news media and get out and around more, and do more first-hand observing. This, however, poses the risk of being ill-informed about important issues that the media do cover. And I couldn’t agree more with your entire comment.
MattR
@chopper: As opposed to the level of cooperation Obama will get from Congress as a result of signing this bill?
rk
Maybe someone has written this before as I haven’t read all the comments. I would be perfectly willing to have a conversation about “open rebellion against Christ”, but just after the conversation about why we should stone adulterers and people having sex before marriage, also why should disobedient children not be killed and we really should shoot people eating shellfish. Next we can talk about closing all businesses on the Sabbath (and death penalty for those not observing Sabbath). Then if there are any humans left over they can discuss homosexuality among themselves.
Redshirt
@scav: Well, there’s no doubts about that. Early Christianity absorbed tons and tons of other religious symbols and traditions. Heck, there was a Jesus before Jesus and the Roman soldiers loved him – Good old Mithra!
Keith G
@Elizabelle:
There, we part company.
Middle class travelers must not be put head of poor children, yet Obama will sign the bill so here we are.
fuckwit
FREE-DUMB! we’re free to be dumb!
didn’t kerry recently apologize to the germans fir american neo-nazis, because FREE-DUMB?
The Dangerman
@Redshirt:
I’m rather uncomfortable trying to define things beyond saying there’s a large variety of flavors of Christianity; even those we might view as “Christian Taliban” probably shouldn’t be defined as a monolithic entity. Basically, I don’t know what IS or ISN’T fair; I just believe we have to find our way, COLLECTIVELY, through the challenges that face us.
Ash Can
@Redshirt:
Blockquoted and repeated, because awesome.
Joey Maloney
@Patrick: Every so often I have to dig out my box set of The West Wing and replay the scene where C. J. publicly humiliates the former fashion reporter in the press briefing by asking her such stumpers like “how many people are there in Congress?”
I put that on a repeat loop and after it’s run through eight or ten times I can stop rocking and hugging my pillow and I’m ready to open C-SPAN.org again.
Ash Can
@Cassidy: Thank you for demonstrating why there’s no debating this topic with you. You declare that “If one, then all.” That’s called prejudice. And you declare that “All are bad.” That’s called bigotry. Sorry.
chopper
@MattR:
“not much” is more than “less than ‘not much'”.
Cassidy
@Ash Can: Go nail yourself to a fucking cross you victim of discrimination you.
ETA: And you’re right, this isn’t something we can debate. As I said, and you reiterated about yourself, if you need a book of mythology to tell you how to be a good person, that is your ethical failing. I’m not obligated to go, “well, you believe in Jeebus, so it’s cool.”
scav
@Ash Can: FYWP is stronger than GOD.
El Cid
@scav: WordPress is still at the stage of directly intervening in our lives, whereas God kind of weaned off that by the New Testament’s latter bits.
kuvasz
I don’t give a flying fuck about what Broussard’s make-believe god has to say. He should take his hateful religion and stick it up his ass.
60 years ago white people used the same fucking argument to disenfranchise the black race, and now a member of the same race that was discriminated against “because god made them inferior” uses the same bullshit argument against another outsider group?
A Ghost To Most
@Villago Delenda Est:
Absolutely; it is not jesus I have come to despise.
It is his selfish and self-righteous followers.
Props to El Cid for rippin on cardinal burns.
Chris
Wow. The entire conservative argument about Muslims – “there’s no point talking to any of them because they’re all evil or crazy, and the moderate Muslims are the worst of the lot because they don’t denounce the evil ones, YES, I’m talking to YOU, Muslim-standing-right-in-front-of-me-denouncing-the-evil-ones, LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” – that I’ve read time and time again on PJMedia played out on Balloon Juice. Happy day.
rb
@kuvasz: now a member of the same race that was discriminated against “because god made them inferior” uses the same bullshit argument against another outsider group?
Yep. On TV no less, just like any comparably bigoted, overpaid white pundit waste of space. It’s slow progress.
Now if he’d been a woman of color free to unleash her unhinged rantings all over the Worldwide Leader, that’d be a real step forward, the kind we may one day aspire to.
But to live as a gay person without being shit all over by sad little people on the teevee? That sort of sea change is decades away, sadly. Basically when Broussard and his compatriots are in the ground.
Bob2
@Matt McIrvin:
It’s not like MLK wasn’t in prison or anything when he wrote those? Right? Right?
AxelFoley
@The Dangerman:
This.
scav
There is a bit of the power-assymetry going on here that complicates issues of minority-community-based racism and female sexism / female workplace harassment / female on male rape, etc. Wrong all around, but elements remain rather different in scale, pervasiveness, and immediate social impact
rb
@AxelFoley / The Dangerman: I hear what you’re saying. But if you sincerely believe that an almighty being is going to torture my kid for all eternity and yet you quote-unquote worship this sadistic fuck, you can kiss my ass. If you go around saying that certain things that have happened to people I’ve known (christian and not) because the “good Lord works in mysterious ways,” have yourself a heaping mug full of STFU, on me.
To use your phrasing: I will shit ALL OVER that ‘certain belief’ and its adherents, and I don’t care whether you call them ‘Christian’ or ‘Dumbledore’s Dreams’.
If not – and a whole bunch of other ‘nots’ – then go in peace. JC seems like a swell dude, unless you’re the guy for whom “it would be better had he never been born.”
Darkrose
I love that the discussion about why Chris Broussard is an asshat has become totally derailed into a discussion of why everyone’s so mean to Christians.
C.S.
@SatanicPanic:
My dad’s first comment when he heard about what Kobe tweeted was “does that count as an assist?”
Bill
@The Dangerman:
Well that depends on whether you want to have a conversation about the topic on which the speaker is “full of shit.” If you want to substantively debate the question, you are at some point going to have to utter some version of that phrase. You may prefer something like “you’re wrong,” but really that’s just another way of saying “you’re full of shit.”
And frankly, people who use magical thinking are full of shit. Not just because their belief system lacks an evidentiary foundation, but because they provide cover for the magical thinking of assholes like Broussard.
aimai
@The Dangerman:
Its not bigotry if its based on real concerns about real world violations of autonomy, privacy, and personal honor. If (for example) a particular religion actively campaigns to limit my health care options with respect to sexuality and reproduction its not bigotry (in the sense of unthinking prejudice or unwarranted dislike) to say “Hey, get your fucking dogma off my body.” Its just common sense. Its not bigotry at all–its politics.
aimai
@Ash Can:
I think you mistake the role of non christians in what is clearly an intramural dispute. I don’t have the social standing to say “sir, I think there are other christians out there who disagree with Mr. Broussard on this point.” I mean–sure there are, but its not my problem to go locate them and reassure gay people that those people are out there. Its the job of self described Christians to fight that battle–and you guys need to be fighting harder because I have sad news for you: the other brand version of your religion is winning out. This has nothing to do with any threads on Balloon Juice it has to do with the fact that for whatever reason the nice Christians have let the nasty ones own the brand and own the name. Maybe you guys are too nice and refuse to call schism, or refuse to hurl insults at your own side and defenestrate them? Broussard et al certainly have no problem choosing a smaller and more exclusive church–he would deny you the very name of Christian. That’s not my problem, however. I’m outside this debate and if you want to welcome people like me into your understanding of your faith you are going to have to do a better job of protecting outsiders from attack by your co-religionists. You can either do this by being more vocal, more supportive (of outsiders) or more territorial and demanding of your co-religionists. Its got fuck all to do with the rest of us. Its not our job to make it ok for you to be a cafeteria christian.
shortstop
@Darkrose: I feel the same way every time the discussion here is about some objectively horrible treatment of people of color…and some white person needs to make it all about not unfairly stereotyping white people as racists. Or someone points out that old people tend to vote Republican and the thread devolves into outraged cries of “unfair” from superannuated liberals.
You can tell a lot about people by what they choose to be offended by. If it’s always something that directly targets a group to which you belong, you may be a little too inward-focused.*
*This doesn’t include Ash Can, who is highly skilled at empathizing with demographics other than her own.
jl
Well, it is a free country. If the vast majority of people deeply disapproved of the gay, Collins could say what he wants but there would be problems functioning in a sports team. Broussard can say what he wants to say, and if the vast majority of people disapprove of what he says, then there will be problems. Those are the breaks in a free society. I don’t see any need to come to defend Broussard’s for what he said. He has a right to say what he wants to say, he said it (Edit: and it was ugly), and he is getting a public reaction in a free society.
I don’t see how Alvin Dark is equivalent to Broussard in any way. If they were, Dark would have ranted about how racial integration was against the laws of God. I don’t see where Dark said anything like that, and I doubt it would have resulted in any pleasant rounds of golf with Robinson.
The comment in one of the links (edit: I mean, bottom of the post) , and other commenters here note that Welch ignores Robinson’s latter attitudes. The deal Branch struck with Robinson was ugly, and I think both understood it. And ugly agreement to get something done. No reason to admire it.
And the characterization of Martin Luther King as never giving anyone a (nonviolent) two handed chest shove is more falsification of King in order to push a hobby horse.
I guess there is a sentence or two in his piece that makes sense, but don’t have time to look for it.
shortstop
@jl:
Broussard is an employee of ESPN and made this comment in the context of his employment — it’s really up to them whether he goes or stays.
jl
@shortstop:
That’s true. But what what ESPN decides to do will be at least partly determined by whether people want to watch and listen to the guy after he said what he said, especially in the context of his employment.
Just like, if the vast majority of people were freaked out by Collins public announcement and there was noticeable fan or severe team reaction, that would determine what happened with his employment.
I don’t understand Welch’s point that somehow, in a free society, people who make ugly comments in inappropriate contexts (which I think is definitely the case with Broussard, but not Collins) need some special protection.
Why didn’t Welch just shrug and say ‘Eh, the market will dispense justice.” That is what his response should be to anything that happens at all, as long as jack booted big government thugs are not involved, or, say, counterproductive totalitarian fertilizer plant safety regulations.
Patricia Kayden
@JPL: And will probably get a job on Fox after he’s let go from ESPN. I don’t get why he felt the need to speak about religion at all.
eyelessgame
This is yet again Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan’s legacy. The libertarians hitched their wagon to the bigots, so they have to give them aid and comfort, or they know they’ll lose every election from now till doomsday.
Joel
Chris Broussard has displaced Rick Bayless’ older troll-brother as the biggest shitheel in the ESPN roster. Well done, Broussard.
gbear
@aimai: Thank you for that perfect comment.
El Cid
In fairness, I don’t think it’d be any easier for the average Christian-identifying US resident to persuade the fundamentalist types of anything than it would be for sane Americans to try & convince the neo-Confederate Teabirchers of anything.
I mean, it’d be a nice thing to see being tried, but the Christianist nut squad would no more be persuaded than the conservatarian nut squad would be.
ricky
I guess the heterosexuals who have openly engaged in pre-marital sex weren’t offended enough to attack Broussard for his heterophobia.
I guess bloggers weren’t concerned enough to even quote him fully.
Darkrose
@ricky: I watch a lot of ESPN, and I have yet to hear Chris Broussard say that Dwight Howard having 5 kids with 5 different women is being in “rebellion against God”. Oddly enough, it’s only gay extramarital sex that he feels the need to comment on. I wonder why that is….
gbear
@ricky: I guess Broussard didn’t ever consider the sins of others to be an issue worthy of comment until it became a queer issue.
Broussard never said boo about this until a gay athelete spoke up. He doesn’t give a rat’s pitootie about couples shacking up. That was just a toss-off to cover his butt when he realized that he was outing himself as a complete homophobe.
Edit: That’s what I get for writing too slowly. Darkrose beat me to it.
Joel
@ricky: you are useless vile sack of troll shit.
just wanted to put that out there.
PopeRatzo
The great thing about what Jason Collins is doing, is that the expected ugliness from people like Welsh is an opportunity for a lot of ordinary people, gay and straight, to be a little bit heroic by telling them to F-off.
This morning, I heard one of the local sports radio meathead announcers taking a very impassioned position in support of Collins. This cannot be an easy thing to do in sports media.
Debbie(aussie)
@soonergrunt (mobile):
This!!!
John
@Chyron HR:
Right, because Richard Dawkins is the most radical anti-religious bigot who has ever lived.
Hint: trying looking at the history of Marxist-Leninist communism.
El Cid
Is it now “anti-religious” that in public discourse one insists that people at least publicly justify their policy preferences in ways that do not directly refer to things based on magical assumptions?
I.e., if you happen to believe that a Supreme Being inspired the writing of the Bible and that a particular section of that writing leads you to support policy X, fine, but you must find a reason to publicly advocate your preference other than that you believe that a magical being said to do or not do something.
Is that so crazy now?
You can believe whatever, but is it somehow so cruel to one’s religious sensitivities to suggest that when you enter the public sphere and advocate for or against some policy by a democratically-elected, secular government, that your arguments (if you choose to make any) also should rely upon justifications which do not found themselves upon claims to be divinely proclaimed in your preferred religious texts or speeches?
Is that now the measure of “anti-religious”?
Are the very notions of reasoned and rational debate, i.e., arguments which do not depend upon reference in anything which is more than stylistic or perhaps biographical or self-analytical declarations regarding to things alleged to be related to the acts of gods or magic, now once again to be see as “anti-religious,” as was the view before the founding of this nation?
ricky
@Darkrose: @gbear: @Joel:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9225225
When you’ve watched it all, we can have a conversation.
In the meatime allow me to say many bigots always object when someone speaks up for the once beleagured HLIS community.
fuckwit
@Redshirt: There’s more to it. The god botherers are so up in arms because THEIR GOD DOES COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, like the US military does, and worse.
Read the fucking bible. Their god is a complete asshole. He smites entire civilizations because of the “sinfulness” of them, or their leaders, or even a few of them. He destroys the village in order to save it!
The god people are so freaked out by gays because they think– and have ample evidence in their own holy books– that they themselves will be smitten with furious anger by a vengeful god for what two completely unrelated gay people do down the street, behind closed doors.
You can argue that someone has the right to choose their own sexual partners, and they will argue, if they admit it, that they’re personally terrified for their own personal safety, because their god will fuck them up for standing by and letting someone buttfuck someone else, anywhere in the world, and not trying to stop it or get them to repent.
Basically, they don’t believe in privacy, because their god doesn’t either. That’s why it’s such a hard sell, and we are so often speaking different languages.
El Cid
@fuckwit: This is a significant point: for fundamentalists in particular (and more broadly though more subtly), the threat is that we invite God’s retribution upon us all by sanctioning gay marriage.
That’s why the grifting shitbag TV preachers continually blame gay marriage for hurricanes & New Orleans (I guess God forgot his rainbow promise not to drown people again) — because they have to invoke theories of looming collective punishment.
That’s a big chunk of their favorite section of the Bible, the Old Testament. (Yeah, they talk a lot about Jesus, but stylistically they’re all about smiting the Midianites.)