|
Strong by Rick Perry (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Terrence Parker
|
Brilliant :stongue: |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Terrence Parker
|
:stongue: |
|
|
| Kylle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
YES is he is speaking against homosexual rights.
He says that it's bad that kids can't celebrate Christmas. Okay that does sound bad. But then he says at the same time it's okay for gays to serve openly in the military as if this separate idea is magically linked to hindering Christmas celebrations. This correlation is entirely illusory as it presupposes that gays shouldn't get "special rights" (to be treated equal) while Christians should get special rights.
You can replace "gays serve openly in the military" with any other outdated or illegal (but used to be legal) phrase and it still sounds blatantly wrong because again the correlation is illusory. Examples:
"...there's something wrong in this country when Blacks aren't slaves anymore but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas..."
"...there's something wrong in this country when women can vote but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas..."
"...there's something wrong in this country when people can get interracially married but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas..." |
Your comparisons doesn't hold.
He is talking about exhibiting something private, which is ok in relation to sexuality but not okay in relation to. religion. Thats what the comparison is.
It should be viewed in light of the fact that the U.S. (different from state to state, of course) wants all public matters to be neutral, that is one must not exibit any affiliation, so that nobody can feel inferior. This has resulted in people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" so that you don't offend any non-Christians. One can not have Christmas trees, Hanukkah candelabra, Buddha figurines, Easter bunnies, etc. in the public sector at all. The same with political convictions etc.
One must hide away personal preferences, attitudes, desires, etc.
There is no doubt that Perry is a very conservative Christian, and one can easily imagine that he believes homosexuality is a sin and very wrong and that Christianity should reign everywhere. That's just not what he says. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kylle
comparisons doesn't |
Stopped reading right there. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kylle
He is talking about exhibiting something private, which is ok in relation to sexuality but not okay in relation to. religion. Thats what the comparison is. |
But the previous standard was that only gays were compelled to keep their sexuality "private" in the military. A good analogy would be if only Christians were forbidden from celebrating their holidays under government auspices. Certainly that would be something in need of correction. But that is not happening, and so there is no ground for complaint. There is no "war on religion" in the U.S. |
|
|
| Kylle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Stopped reading right there. |
That's just because you want to be cool like Jake Benson :) |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kylle
Your comparisons doesn't hold.
He is talking about exhibiting something private, which is ok in relation to sexuality but not okay in relation to. religion. Thats what the comparison is.
It should be viewed in light of the fact that the U.S. (different from state to state, of course) wants all public matters to be neutral, that is one must not exibit any affiliation, so that nobody can feel inferior. This has resulted in people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" so that you don't offend any non-Christians. One can not have Christmas trees, Hanukkah candelabra, Buddha figurines, Easter bunnies, etc. in the public sector at all. The same with political convictions etc.
One must hide away personal preferences, attitudes, desires, etc.
There is no doubt that Perry is a very conservative Christian, and one can easily imagine that he believes homosexuality is a sin and very wrong and that Christianity should reign everywhere. That's just not what he says. |
Oh that ing hullabaloo is in full tilt, now. If that's the extent of your thinking, you clearly do not understand American culture. There is no doubt that it is dominated by religious and secular "conflict". As "conflict" goes, however, it is of relatively low intensity when compared to more prominent and consequential tension between secular and religious communities, elsewhere in the world. The "War" on Christmas is a red herring issue, though.
It is raised to claim victimization, somewhat sociopathically, in order to appeal to the cross-section of conservative Christians who, in their own right, are an inherently paranoid group of people. To your credit, you've recognized that Perry is invoking the concept of hypocrisy but he's also pointing out that he does not agree with the changes regarding gay rights in our country. He is still appealing to that homophobic sentiment. His rhetorical appeal of victimization is two-pronged, in this regard. Not only, according to that mothering witless -kicker, are the rights of Christians to "express" their Christianity being trampled by people trying to enforce the separation between church and state, but the status quo of homosexuals having restricted rights has also been upturned.
What you don't understand is that the granting of rights to gay people has been something which is highly upsetting to conservative Christians. They perceive it as an attack on their values. Perry is appealing to that. Not only is Christmas under attack but the values consisting the moral fabric of society have already been eroded. Perry doesn't give a rat's ass about "Christian" values. It is part of his constituency that he is trying to rally into action. If you look at his record in office, he has done some rather unsavory things. And most Republicans have. They have also cultivated a disturbingly totalitarian interpretation of Holy Scripture, practically repurposing it in such a way that erroneously frames their agenda as consistent with Biblical teachings.
To believe in this consistent line of bull is to believe that the GOP have been the pacifists, all along. They invoke these persecutory delusions, like "Class Warfare", while making certain they've set the stage for it. Religion is a propagandistic tool with which to rally sympathy and motivation from the throbbing mass of fundamentally dead-behind-the-eyes failures who's only redemption can be found in end-times prophecy. A vote for Perry is a vote for Israel and Jesus and the Christian value of letting companies consumers out of tens of billions of dollars. If the pacifist is the first one to throw the punch, that first punch was thrown, long ago. The fact that you've apparently bought into this, quite literally, makes you a Biblical fool. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Oh that ing hullabaloo is in full tilt, now. If that's the extent of your thinking, you clearly do not understand American culture. There is no doubt that it is dominated by religious and secular "conflict". As "conflict" goes, however, it is of relatively low intensity when compared to more prominent and consequential tension between secular and religious communities, elsewhere in the world. The "War" on Christmas is a red herring issue, though.
It is raised to claim victimization, somewhat sociopathically, in order to appeal to the cross-section of conservative Christians who, in their own right, are an inherently paranoid group of people. To your credit, you've recognized that Perry is invoking the concept of hypocrisy but he's also pointing out that he does not agree with the changes regarding gay rights in our country. He is still appealing to that homophobic sentiment. His rhetorical appeal of victimization is two-pronged, in this regard. Not only, according to that mothering witless -kicker, are the rights of Christians to "express" their Christianity being trampled by people trying to enforce the separation between church and state, but the status quo of homosexuals having restricted rights has also been upturned.
What you don't understand is that the granting of rights to gay people has been something which is highly upsetting to conservative Christians. They perceive it as an attack on their values. Perry is appealing to that. Not only is Christmas under attack but the values consisting the moral fabric of society have already been eroded. Perry doesn't give a rat's ass about "Christian" values. It is part of his constituency that he is trying to rally into action. If you look at his record in office, he has done some rather unsavory things. And most Republicans have. They have also cultivated a disturbingly totalitarian interpretation of Holy Scripture, practically repurposing it in such a way that erroneously frames their agenda as consistent with Biblical teachings.
To believe in this consistent line of bull is to believe that the GOP have been the pacifists, all along. They invoke these persecutory delusions, like "Class Warfare", while making certain they've set the stage for it. Religion is a propagandistic tool with which to rally sympathy and motivation from the throbbing mass of fundamentally dead-behind-the-eyes failures who's only redemption can be found in end-times prophecy. A vote for Perry is a vote for Israel and Jesus and the Christian value of letting companies consumers out of tens of billions of dollars. If the pacifist is the first one to throw the punch, that first punch was thrown, long ago. The fact that you've apparently bought into this, quite literally, makes you a Biblical fool. |
*APPLAUDS* :) |
|
|
| Kylle |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Oh that ing hullabaloo is in full tilt, now. If that's the extent of your thinking, you clearly do not understand American culture. There is no doubt that it is dominated by religious and secular "conflict". As "conflict" goes, however, it is of relatively low intensity when compared to more prominent and consequential tension between secular and religious communities, elsewhere in the world. The "War" on Christmas is a red herring issue, though.
It is raised to claim victimization, somewhat sociopathically, in order to appeal to the cross-section of conservative Christians who, in their own right, are an inherently paranoid group of people. To your credit, you've recognized that Perry is invoking the concept of hypocrisy but he's also pointing out that he does not agree with the changes regarding gay rights in our country. He is still appealing to that homophobic sentiment. His rhetorical appeal of victimization is two-pronged, in this regard. Not only, according to that mothering witless -kicker, are the rights of Christians to "express" their Christianity being trampled by people trying to enforce the separation between church and state, but the status quo of homosexuals having restricted rights has also been upturned.
What you don't understand is that the granting of rights to gay people has been something which is highly upsetting to conservative Christians. They perceive it as an attack on their values. Perry is appealing to that. Not only is Christmas under attack but the values consisting the moral fabric of society have already been eroded. Perry doesn't give a rat's ass about "Christian" values. It is part of his constituency that he is trying to rally into action. If you look at his record in office, he has done some rather unsavory things. And most Republicans have. They have also cultivated a disturbingly totalitarian interpretation of Holy Scripture, practically repurposing it in such a way that erroneously frames their agenda as consistent with Biblical teachings.
To believe in this consistent line of bull is to believe that the GOP have been the pacifists, all along. They invoke these persecutory delusions, like "Class Warfare", while making certain they've set the stage for it. Religion is a propagandistic tool with which to rally sympathy and motivation from the throbbing mass of fundamentally dead-behind-the-eyes failures who's only redemption can be found in end-times prophecy. A vote for Perry is a vote for Israel and Jesus and the Christian value of letting companies consumers out of tens of billions of dollars. If the pacifist is the first one to throw the punch, that first punch was thrown, long ago. The fact that you've apparently bought into this, quite literally, makes you a Biblical fool. |
Did you even read?
I'm not a fan of Perry, I'm just pointing out.
"But actually he is not speaking against homosexual rights but for the right to be open about his religion in the public domain. He implicitly refers to the fact that many places in the United States you'r not allowed to hang up Christmas decorations because it signals a preference for one religion over others, etc."
As I wrote in my first response.
That fact that you interpret it, as I have no understanding of how society is put together, am a supporter of Perry, besides being a biblical fool :happy2: is up to you. I would however suggest that you read my post again - maybe you'll get a better understanding :) |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kylle
Did you even read?
I'm not a fan of Perry, I'm just pointing out.
"But actually he is not speaking against homosexual rights but for the right to be open about his religion in the public domain. He implicitly refers to the fact that many places in the United States you'r not allowed to hang up Christmas decorations because it signals a preference for one religion over others, etc."
As I wrote in my first response.
That fact that you interpret it, as I have no understanding of how society is put together, am a supporter of Perry, besides being a biblical fool :happy2: is up to you. I would however suggest that you read my post again - maybe you'll get a better understanding :) |
Why you chose to speak for Perry, essentially claiming that he's talking about "things people do in private", when you clearly don't know what he's really talking about, must have thrown me off. I then explained, precisely what he was talking about, why he was talking about it, and why you were wrong. You can blame this on a misunderstanding on my part, all you want, but you clearly don't know what the you're talking about. |
|
|
| Kylle |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Why you chose to speak for Perry, essentially claiming that he's talking about "things people do in private", when you clearly don't know what he's really talking about, must have thrown me off. I then explained, precisely what he was talking about, why he was talking about it, and why you were wrong. You can blame this on a misunderstanding on my part, all you want, but you clearly don't know what the you're talking about. |
Can you show me exactly where I speak "for" Perry? I've never done that, but I am eager to see your quoted examples :) I'm just pointing out that he did not say what you and others are claiming he says.
It may well be that he believes, as you and others claim, but it's still isn't what he says. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kylle
Can you show me exactly where I speak "for" Perry? I've never done that, but I am eager to see your quoted examples :) I'm just pointing out that he did not say what you and others are claiming he says.
It may well be that he believes, as you and others claim, but it's still isn't what he says. |
As I tried to explain to you, there is a cultural context for what he's saying. When you divorce his words from that context, implying that they are less caustic than what they actually are, you are ing well speaking for him. |
|
|
|
|
