Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
oh, i agree with the basis of what you're saying outside this context. i mean, you've got the people who make the analogy that the three judeo-christian religions are all different paths up the same mountain or whatnot, but i'd guess a fair number of each faith think the other ones are el fuque.
i think a lot of this has to do with which hat you think sharpton was wearing / primarily wears. civil rights 'we shall overcome' or reverend 'fire and brimstone.' since it was a theological debate, i can see the case for baptist minister in the situation; unfortunately, he's also elected to make himself a public symbol of civil rights / all inclusiveness etc. well, not really since a lot of his tactics are demonstrably divisive; however, i guess i would expect that many of the people who identify with so-called liberal thought would be a bit chived at the idea that he's calling mormons fake believers.
|
Exactly.
I see all kinds of excuses and justifications as to why Al Sharpton was allowed to say what he said.... but he didn't say those things as a man of God, he said them as Al Sharpton "Civil Rights Leader, political analyst". Had he just been "Reverand" Al Sharpton leader of a church in NYC, he probably wouldn't have even been in the debate.
And then the debate goes down to:
Now Imus, doesn't portend to be some Civil Rights leader nor anyone other than a shock jock..... yet you want to crucify him for what he said.... "but it isn't about race it's about fresh faced college girls"
But yet no one wants to acknowledge or accept the fact that Sharpton basically stated that Mormons don't believe in God.... thus he is hurting, degrading and damaging the psyche of fresh faced college girls at BYU and the fucking Osmonds (and again who can be more fresh faced than Donny and Marie????).
But it's ok for Sharpton to hurt those people, but not alright for Imus to hurt anyone?????? And who enforces the rules when the enforcer is one of the culprits??? Ohhhh wait, Sharpton said it about a group that is stereotyped as rich, white folk.....
If Pat Robertson had said it about Obama or Hilary, do you think they would accept it and laugh it off???? If Rush Limbaugh had said that about Obama or Hilary's religion would you still be defending the words as vehemently as you do now?????
Where do you draw the line in your hypocritical world? Where do you decide and who are you to decide who is allowed to get hurt and who isn't by someone's words???????
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Pigglet, you and I are close to each other in this.
The only thing you wrote that I think differently about is linking Sharpton's civil rights persona to inclusiveness. In fact, I don't know that I'd even characterize his work as civil rights work, although he rather loudly claims to be operating under that auspice. He's more of a...factional promoter. His interest is in the advancement of one group, good bad, or indifferent to other groups.
I guess should say that personally, I find his comment to be bullheaded and ill-advised, though supportable and consistent with his other stated positions. I wouldn't have said it in so many words, but I'm not surprised he did.
|
Ahhhh but Sharpton CLAIMS to be a Civil Rights leader whether you believe he is or not, people are influenced by what he says. (Obviously or noone would care what he says.)
Imus' comment was ill advised, wrong and bullheaded but consistent with the persona he displays on his show.
So again, why is one ok while the other was demonized and fired. Sharpton did not claim his religious hat then, he claimed his civil rights hat. Now that he states something divisive prejudicial and bigatorial.... it's ok because he is a "reverend" even though he is a civil rights advocate who by his own words states he defends all minorities not just black.... last I checked Mormons were very much a minority.