or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Saying Homosexuality is a Sin? You're Fired!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Saying Homosexuality is a Sin? You're Fired!

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 

Alternate title:  Freedom of Speech:  A Postmortem 

 

As many have heard recently, "Duck Dynasty" start Phil Robertson has been indefinitely suspended (read: fired) from the show after stating his Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin.  

 

Here are (most of ) the comments made:  

 

Quote:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” Robertson told the magazine. “I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

When the reporter asked Robertson what he found sinful, he said “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

 

And here is the response from GLADD:  

Quote:
"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

 

So, here's my take.  First, as a Christian myself, I don't agree with his comments.  I do not consider homosexuality a sin, and believe that in the vast majority of cases, it is a biological trait.   The Bible can be contradictory on this issue (and others).  I do understand that many Christians disagree with me on this--evangelicals in particular.   

But secondly, the response from GLAAD is perplexing.  What did he say that was "vile?" He considers being gay a sin.  He considers other things sins as well, such as bestiality, being a drunk, and sleeping around.  He did not compare being gay to those things.  He merely said he considers them all sins.   Again, I don't agree...but "lies, extreme stereotypes?  I don't see how his comments can be lies, nor do I see what stereotype he used.  Where did he "show public disdain for LGBT people and their families?"  

It seems to me that organizations like GLAAD have gotten what they want:  A shift in the body politic.  Not only do more people favor legalization of gay marriage, but the dominant cultural expectation is now that one openly embraces homosexuality.  If one does not, he is labeled as a bigot.  Or an idiot.  Or both.  The shift over the past 10, 20 and 30 years on this issue is remarkable.  30 years ago, homosexuality was considered a deviant behavior by the mainstream.  20 years ago, it was an "alternate lifestyle."  We then started promoting "tolerance."  10-15 years ago, "tolerance" became soft bigotry.   5 years ago, even open acceptance of homosexuality was no longer enough.   To be considered enlightened and decent, people and organizations had to create special protections and recognition for gays, as well as publicly proclaim their support.  Anything less was and is intolerable.   

As a Christian, I reject the claim that being gay is a sin.  But, as a stated earlier, many Christians disagree with me.  I think they have every right to state that belief.  They have a First Amendment right to do exactly that.  What GLAAD and the like simply cannot tolerate is any person who would dare express that viewpoint.  We are one short step away from employees having to sign pledges that they won't even HOLD such a belief.  We are, in my opinion, one short step away from the Thought Police. 

Your take?  

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What did he say that was "vile?" He considers being gay a sin.  He considers other things sins as well, such as bestiality, being a drunk, and sleeping around.  He did not compare being gay to those things.  He merely said he considers them all sins.
I don't know, the flow of his words... "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality..." Seem to be linking the two in a stream of consciousness. As a public figure, in a print interview, at absolute best he's been exceedingly clumsy with his language in an inappropriate forum. Why was he even commenting on homosexuality?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #3 of 33

He's free to say what he wants and the show is free not to employ him. Freedom for all!

post #4 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post



I don't know, the flow of his words... "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality..." Seem to be linking the two in a stream of consciousness. As a public figure, in a print interview, at absolute best he's been exceedingly clumsy with his language in an inappropriate forum. Why was he even commenting on homosexuality?

 




It would be clumsy and dumb if he were a politician, but he's not. The flow of the words? Come on. He didn't link anything, except to note that in his view, both are sins. He was essentially fired for talking about what many view as the biblical view of marriage.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post
 

He's free to say what he wants and the show is free not to employ him. Freedom for all!

 

That's what I thought initially. However, I now wonder if they really are free to fire him. He's presumably under contract. Unless his contract prevents him from discussing his, uh,  "traditional" views on gay marriage, they may be guilty of  religious discrimination.   There is no way they'd make a sort of "conduct unbecoming" charge stick with what he said, nor did he disparage the network.  He wasn't charged or convicted of a crime.  How does his termination have any grounds whatsoever?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post



I don't know, the flow of his words... "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality..." Seem to be linking the two in a stream of consciousness. As a public figure, in a print interview, at absolute best he's been exceedingly clumsy with his language in an inappropriate forum. Why was he even commenting on homosexuality?

 




It would be clumsy and dumb if he were a politician, but he's not. The flow of the words? Come on. He didn't link anything, except to note that in his view, both are sins. He was essentially fired for talking about what many view as the biblical view of marriage.
Just morph out from there... And he goes straight to bestiality? I disagree, whether intentionally or not he's made a direct verbal association there; and I find that implication pretty distasteful, Gay people are in no conceivable way equivalent to animal rapists, and I don't much care if such an equivalence forms your religious view; it's a disgusting view.

If it is just clumsy wording, well as the public face of the network he needs to conduct himself better, and I'd say they're within their rights to demand that he does, and if not, fire him. Maybe a bit harsh if it's a first offence, an apology would do, but harsh times tell.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

That's what I thought initially. However, I now wonder if they really are free to fire him. He's presumably under contract. Unless his contract prevents him from discussing his, uh,  "traditional" views on gay marriage, they may be guilty of  religious discrimination.   There is no way they'd make a sort of "conduct unbecoming" charge stick with what he said, nor did he disparage the network.  He wasn't charged or convicted of a crime.  How does his termination have any grounds whatsoever?  

 

 

I don't know what his contract states. Presumable they have to pay it out.

 

Many states are employment at will. You can be fired for any or no reason at all. Save for those specified in federal law.  So many employers don't need grounds to fire someone.

post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post



Just morph out from there... And he goes straight to bestiality? I disagree, whether intentionally or not he's made a direct verbal association there; and I find that implication pretty distasteful, Gay people are in no conceivable way equivalent to animal rapists, and I don't much care if such an equivalence forms your religious view; it's a disgusting view.



If it is just clumsy wording, well as the public face of the network he needs to conduct himself better, and I'd say they're within their rights to demand that he does, and if not, fire him. Maybe a bit harsh if it's a first offence, an apology would do, but harsh times tell.

 



You can't "disagree" with a fact. He did not make a "direct verbal association." At best, he made an indirect one, and even that is pretty weak. He was talking about types of sin. That's what he was asked. It's the act of sinning that "morphs out." At no time did he draw an equivalence. He listed different types of sins. In his view, and in the view of millions of Christians, both ARE. This includes Time's Man of the Year himself.

As for the network, what in the hell are you talking about? He talked about his religious views. At worst, he used crude terminology. But that's not what he was indefinitely suspended for. A&E panicked...it's as simple as that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

 

 

I don't know what his contract states. Presumable they have to pay it out.

 

Many states are employment at will. You can be fired for any or no reason at all. Save for those specified in federal law.  So many employers don't need grounds to fire someone.

 



I know what "at will" employment is. Even as a teacher I am at-will. It's quite likely he's not at-will though, because that's how TV contracts tend to go (same with college and pro coaches). They have guaranteed contracts. The same applies in most states to school superintendents and business managers. If they are fired without cause, they have to be paid the balance of their contract. In fact, with these contracts, the situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. They can only be fired (without pay) for certain reasons
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 33

I agree SDW, 100%.

 

What was once an opinion, and our right to free speech, will increasingly be defined as hate speech, and silenced. 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #11 of 33

You guys are being silly. Social and economic pressure to hold one's tongue are a part of every community. It's called a functioning society. 

post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You guys are being silly. Social and economic pressure to hold one's tongue are a part of every community. It's called a functioning society. 

Punishable by law if you cause offence for stating an opinion is different. Then it just becomes a tool to take power away from people.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #13 of 33

WHY do people like this duck guy get so bent out of shape over this?

How does someone ELSE being LGBT have any impact on HIS life whatsoever?

 

Even for those with a  religious response, why does everyone ELSE have to modify their behavior to suit YOUR religion?... Should we also recognize every fatwah issued by any imam as enforceable law?  Should the teachings of Buddah be made law?

​Zealots need to consider if they REALLY want religious ideas to be made into law... because theirs is not the ONLY religion.

 

But really... any answers as to WHY people are bothered by someone ELSE's lifestyle?

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You guys are being silly. Social and economic pressure to hold one's tongue are a part of every community. It's called a functioning society. 

Exactly. Phil is completely free to express his opinion, and the network is completely free to decide that his choice to express that opinion is incompatible with their business model. If there was a contract then there may be a settlement, but freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from any consequences of what one chooses to say. Either way, this is a civil matter, and the assertion that it has thought police connotations is, indeed, silly.
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Just morph out from there... And he goes straight to bestiality? I disagree, whether intentionally or not he's made a direct verbal association there; and I find that implication pretty distasteful, Gay people are in no conceivable way equivalent to animal rapists, and I don't much care if such an equivalence forms your religious view; it's a disgusting view.

If it is just clumsy wording, well as the public face of the network he needs to conduct himself better, and I'd say they're within their rights to demand that he does, and if not, fire him. Maybe a bit harsh if it's a first offence, an apology would do, but harsh times tell.

So if he'd mentioned sleeping around with different women before he mentioned bestiality the association you're making would have been different?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 33
I think free word association of sins is a pretty stupid thing to do generally, you're always creating an association by proximity. Gays can be promiscuous, but aren't always, and a suggestion (intended or not) that they are is a negative stereotype.

If you don't equate bestiality, promiscuity and homosexuality... well don't lump them together in a sentence then.

"Oh, I was just listing things I consider sinful"

- Oh, I don't care, idiot. Don't do that.

"Freedom of speech"

- Freedom to fire your idiot ass.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You can't "disagree" with a fact. He did not make a "direct verbal association."
He went from talking about homosexuality straight to bestiality. That's direct. I don't agree that what you say is a fact is a fact.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #18 of 33
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
He went from talking about homosexuality straight to bestiality.

 

Not if you read the article.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #19 of 33
The article that says:
Quote:
During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there," he says. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."
?

Am I missing something?

He "starts with" homosexuality, and his next thought is bestiality. Pretty clear cut.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

The article that says:
Quote:
During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there," he says. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."
?

Am I missing something?

He "starts with" homosexuality, and his next thought is bestiality. Pretty clear cut.

 

He doesn't say one leads to the other. You are correct that he considers them both to be sin but then so is everything else on the list.

 

Has anyone read the actual article?

 

As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

 

No judgement, just love them and share Jesus and let God sort it out. I can see an issue if you just can't tolerate religious thought or conclusions but I don't see any hate there.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #21 of 33

"Americans had better watch what they are saying". Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary, September 2001.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #22 of 33

I support this person's right to freedom of speech (while we still have it)... even though the content - imho - is obnoxious and hate-inspired. 

 

One thing that stands out re. the religious "Christian" right - is why are they so freaking obsessed with gays? They quote one arbitrary verse out of Leviticus until purple in the face and frothing at the bit -  even though the original wording suggests that it was 'pedophilia', not homosexuality, that was being referred to. Meanwhile, all the other admonitions and commandments in that same biblical book are roundly ignored. Perhaps the duplicity is to avoid having to make personal lifestyle compromise - whereas rounding on gay people is just an cheap and easy way to vent hatred? 

 

 

Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. Some of these carried the death penalty  (!)

 

Quote:

 

Unless you’ve never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it’s time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?

 

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)

 

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)

 

3.       Eating fat (3:17)

 

4.       Eating blood (3:17)

 

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

 

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)

 

7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2)

 

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)

 

9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)

 

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)

 

11.   Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)

 

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

 

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)

 

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)

 

15.   Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)

 

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)

 

17.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)

 

18.   Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)

 

19.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)

 

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)

 

21.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)

 

22.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)

 

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

 

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)

 

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)

 

26.   Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)

 

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)

 

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

 

29.   Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

 

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

 

31.   Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)

 

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

 

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

 

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)

 

35.   Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

 

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

 

37.   Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)

 

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)

 

39.   Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)

 

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)

 

41.   Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

 

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

 

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your  vineyard (19:10)

 

44.   Stealing (19:11)

 

45.   Lying (19:11)

 

46.   Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)

 

47.   Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)

 

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)

 

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)

 

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)

 

51.   Spreading slander (19:16)

 

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)

 

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)

 

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)

 

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19)

 

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)

 

57.   Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)

 

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)

 

59.   Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)

 

60.   Trimming your beard (19:27)

 

61.   Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)

 

62.   Getting tattoos (19:28)

 

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)

 

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)

 

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)

 

66.   Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”  (19:33-34)

 

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)

 

68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)

 

69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)

 

70.   Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)

 

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)

 

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)

 

73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)

 

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)

 

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)

 

76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)

 

To give Robertson some mixed credit: he has certainly obeyed #60, while violating #10  (!)

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #23 of 33
Not just gays, sex in general. Note how all of the sins he listed are to do with sex, nary a mention of murder or theft or lying, or any of the other juicy commandments. Just morph it out... because all sins start with the gays.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Not just gays, sex in general. Note how all of the sins he listed are to do with sex, nary a mention of murder or theft or lying, or any of the other juicy commandments. Just morph it out... because all sins start with the gays.

 

Preconceptions lead to prejudice. Did you read the article?

 

Quote:
 Phil calls himself a Bible-thumper, and holy shit, he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength. If you watch Duck Dynasty, you can hear plenty of it in the nondenominational supper-table prayer the family recites at the end of every episode, and in the show’s no-cussing, no-blaspheming tone. But there are more things Phil would like to say—“controversial” things, as he puts it to me—that don’t make the cut.

 

It's not that he "starts with the gays" it is that in this day and age "the gays" are part of the what you aren't allowed to talk about and thus it has been censored.

 

Quote:
 What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.)

 

This is mentioned in the article. The Ten Commandments doesn't involved "the gays" either.

 

Quote:
 “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

 

He mentions much more than sex. That said the author chooses what goes in and out of the article but notes that Phil talks almost continually about religion and clearly doesn't spend all his time on "the gays".

 

But don't worry, I'm certain you can ignore these points too.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 33
Ok, fair enough, I wrote hastily and didn't go back and reread the article before paraphrasing something I'd read somewhere else. My apologies.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #26 of 33
Though, for the record, he has now doubled down and claimed that in terms of sin "sexual immorality is number one on the list"

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #27 of 33
"A sandwich shop owner endured eight hours of questioning by police and had his computer seized for three weeks – after making tasteless Nelson Mandela jokes on the internet.
Neil Phillips, who runs Crumbs in Rugeley, Staffordshire, says he was also finger-printed and DNA-swabbed after officers received complaints about what he insists were harmless gags.

In one online post, the 44-year-old wrote: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
'My PC takes so long to shut down I’ve decided to call it Nelson Mandela.
'
Mandela, the former South African leader, and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, died on Thursday, aged 95.
Mr Phillips was arrested at his home on September 10 and was taken to a police station where he was quizzed about the postings on the Rugeley Soap Box website.
He said: 'It was an awful experience. I was fingerprinted, they took DNA and my computer.
'It was a couple of jokes, Bernard Manning type.
'There was no hatred.
'You can question the taste, but they’re not hateful. I told the police they got plenty of "likes". What happened to freedom of speech?
'I think they over-reacted massively. Those jokes are "out there", anyway.
'When they took my computer, I thought, "what the hell are they looking for?" To be questioned would have been over the top, never mind arrested.'
'They are jokes that I cut-and-pasted,' insisted Mr Phillips. 'I didn’t make them up and I didn’t put them on a public site.
'You have to sign-up and join. It’s turning into the thought police – you can’t do this, you can’t do that."
~ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520662/Neil-Phillips-quizzed-8-HOURS-police-Nelson-Mandela-Twitter-jokes.html













"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #28 of 33
What's with all the photos?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

What's with all the photos?

Photos can aid a post.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



Edited by Hands Sandon - 12/27/13 at 8:18am
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #30 of 33
Posts need aid?

Have no idea what you're trying to do.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #31 of 33
Yes. You should try it sometime.

Pictures can liberate the mind to identify with something, especially when carefully arranged. They can also help you to remember something later on. Newspapers do it all the time. If you don't take away anything from them, I'm sorry, but others will, sometimes anyway.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #32 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yes. You should try it sometime.

Pictures can liberate the mind to identify with something, especially when carefully arranged. They can also help you to remember something later on. Newspapers do it all the time. If you don't take away anything from them, I'm sorry, but others will, sometimes anyway.

 

Not necessarily.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 

 

Not necessarily.

Yes I'd seen that. As a photographer I'm sure there's a lot of truth to it. Personally I like to capture something that's unforgettable, but I'm just plugging myself there. ;) 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Saying Homosexuality is a Sin? You're Fired!