Imus... - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 03:16 PM

Popping in and out for a minute:
Don Imus is racist, but not more so than many, many, many other figures and programs in the media. He was singled out by activists, who were more disrespectful to the young women of Rutgers by using them as tools. If Imus must be off the air, then so also must go South Park, Family Guy, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and the rest of white, racist television and radio. I doubt these people would be okay with that. Not only that, but I've never seen Al Sharpton speak against racist black people. I find him to be a televangalist figurehead.

Sho Nuff · 04-20-2007, 12:08 PM

I have no problem with anyone using the word ho. It doesnt carry a racial connotation in and of itself. But I assure you I would be just as mad at Snoop as I am at Imus for an unprovoked attack on the Rutgers womens team.

Vitalsigns2000 · 04-21-2007, 06:10 PM

"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."

Martin Luther King Jr.

I would suggest the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Hip Hop artist, Imus and all of us take a lesson from the late Martin Lurther King Jr., The Reverend and true civil rights activist for all humanity, not just one part.

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 06:12 PM

Imus Won't Go Quietly

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN MONEY

...Imus has hired one of the nation's premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to one person who has read the contract.

The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of - making off-color jokes. The source described it as a "dog has one- bite clause." A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.... click to show

We had an interesting discussion about this - but this article really brings it home for me. It's ALL about the money. Want to know why Imus was on the air? Because we consume and demand such entertainment. CBS knew it when they hired him, and implied it when they wrote his contract.

I predict this will settle out of court for a stack of cash. I predict (again) that Imus WILL find someone to broadcast him. He has been too much of a money earner for corporations to let "values" interfere for long.

pan6467 · 05-09-2007, 10:28 PM

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Is Al Sharpton going to lose his.... wait, does he even have a true job?????

What did he say about "it's easy for those you haven't offended to forgive you but you need to appologize to the ones you offended" and something along the lines of.... people stereotyping and calling people out of name and making prejudicial hurtful statements towards others..... Oh yeah and politicians need to totally debunk and debase and tar and feather Imus for what he said.........

Just wondering why it's ok for him to say.......

Quote:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that. That's a temporary situation."

Quote:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Civil rights activist Al Sharpton, who led the charge to have radio host Don Imus fired for making racially insensitive remarks, is now under fire for a comment about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

During a debate on religion and politics at the New York Public Library with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, Sharpton said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that. That's a temporary situation."

Oh wait....... Gov. Romney takes the high road and shows class (and I don't even like Romney's politics much.... but this was fuckin' class)

Quote:

"I don't know Rev. Sharpton. I doubt he is personally such a thing. But the comment was a comment which could be described as a bigoted comment.

"Perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but the way it came out was inappropriate and wrong."

Quote:

On the campaign trail in Iowa Wednesday, Romney fired back, calling Sharpton's comment "terribly misguided." (Watch Romney call Sharpton's words 'bigoted' )

"It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners," Romney said. "I thought it was a most unfortunate comment to make."

Asked if he thought Sharpton is a bigot, the former Massachusetts governor said, "I don't know Rev. Sharpton. I doubt he is personally such a thing. But the comment was a comment which could be described as a bigoted comment.

"Perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but the way it came out was inappropriate and wrong."

Meanwhile how does Sharpton reply to a class rebuttal?????????
But first Sharpton has to cover his ass with his black followers and make it .................. yes that right ..............RACIAL...................................... Now we can accept what Sharpton said .... it's all about those Mormons being racists......

Quote:

Sharpton said his remarks were being taken out of context and that he was responding to an attack by Hitchens, who, he said, had charged that the Mormon Church supported segregation until the 1960s.

But just in case let's give this..... the nice

Quote:

"they believe in God but....."

and the ever popular

Quote:

"I was misquoted"

... now we can make sure those who want to argue everything Sharpton does is racist and divisive to the country as a whole are proven wrong.

Quote:

He also accused Romney's campaign of engaging in "a blatant effort to fabricate a controversy to help their lagging campaign."

Sharpton told The Associated Press that "[Mormons] don't believe in God the way I do, but, by definition, they believe in God."

Quote:

Sharpton said his remarks were being taken out of context and that he was responding to an attack by Hitchens, who, he said, had charged that the Mormon Church supported segregation until the 1960s.

"In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons," Sharpton said in a written statement.

He also accused Romney's campaign of engaging in "a blatant effort to fabricate a controversy to help their lagging campaign."

Sharpton told The Associated Press that "[Mormons] don't believe in God the way I do, but, by definition, they believe in God."

Sharpton was licensed as a minister in the Church of God in Christ, a predominantly black Pentecostal denomination, at the age of 9, according to a biography on the Web site of his National Action Network. He became a Baptist in the 1980s.

His debate Monday with Hitchens -- who is on a tour promoting a new book that rejects God -- revolved around religion and politics. Minutes before Sharpton's controversial comment was made, the discussion turned toward the idea of a Mormon running for president, then moved to a conversation about the role of faith in politics.

Romney is a member of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known informally as the Mormon Church. If elected, he would be the first Mormon to serve in the White House.

His religion has come up as an issue in the 2008 campaign because many conservative and evangelical Protestants, who make up an important constituency in the GOP base, do not consider Mormons to be Christians, because of their unique beliefs.

The LDS Church was founded in the 1830s by Joseph Smith -- revered by members as a prophet of God -- who taught that a new book of scripture, the Book of Mormon, had been revealed to him by an angel. Adherents eventually relocated to Utah in 1847, after Smith was killed by a mob in Illinois.

Some church leaders practiced plural marriage in the 19th century, but the church officially ended the practice in 1890 and has since excommunicated polygamists from its ranks.

The church has about 5 million adherents in the United States.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll last year found that 34 percent of Americans considered the LDS Church to be Christian, 35 percent did not and 31 percent were unsure. In a Gallup/USA Today poll in February, 72 percent of Americans said they would be comfortable voting for a Mormon for president, but 24 percent said they would not.

"I think it's sad, honestly," Republican strategist Ralph Reed said of the Sharpton controversy on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." "I don't think there's any place in politics for religious intolerance in any of its ugly forms.

"And I think if Gov. Romney took it that way, then whatever Al Sharpton meant, then I think the best thing to do and the most healing thing to do, so that we can have an uplifting dialogue about faith in the political and civic process, is for Rev. Sharpton to apologize."

Democratic strategist James Carville told Cooper he believes Sharpton when he says he didn't mean to disparage the Mormon faith.

"The main point here is that Mormons have served this country honorably and with integrity for a long, long time, and ... it would be a very big mistake not to vote for someone based on their faith -- Mormon faith or any other faith," Carville said.

Romney said Wednesday that he hears little concern about his religion from voters on the campaign trail.

"Overwhelmingly, the people I talk to believe that we elect a person to lead the nation not based on what church they go to, but based on their values and their vision," he said. "I received very little comment of the nature coming from Rev. Sharpton."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...ion=cnn_latest

Now then..... where is the uproar of people demanding Sharpton appologize?????

Where is the uproar that Sharpton should lose whatever job he has??????

Where are the politicians pulling away from Sharpton and demanding he appologize????? Hilary, Obama, (my man) Edwards, I think even Romney himself.... every candidate except McCain said Imus had to at least appologize, most called for him to lose his job or be punished in some way......

Yet NOT ONE (Romney excluded for obvious reasons) so far has demanded that Sharpton appologize.

OOOOOO wait Imus said it about fresh faced innocent college girls..... and well Romney is a politician and can handle it better......

WTF..... Sharpton put down a whole fucking denomination.... what there aren't fresh faced innocent Mormon college girls?????

He just put down the fucking Osmonds also, who is more fresh faced than Donny and Marie fucking Osmond???????

So those of you who wanted to bash Imus sooooooo badly..... where are your Sharpton bashes??????

host · 05-09-2007, 11:49 PM

pan....isn't the difference the fact that Imus directed his slurs at college students who were simply playing competitive collegiate basketball.....not an activity that would make them "fair game", like being a prominent US presidential candidate would make one....."target wise"?

From Pat Robertson's CBN:

Quote:

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/CBN.../FAQ_cult.aspx
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
How Do I Recognize a Cult?
By CBN.com

.....Mormonism teaches that God is not the only deity and that we all have the potential of becoming gods. (Ibid., p. 576.) (Remember that Satan's fall came about because he wanted to be like God.) God, according to Mormons, is not just Spirit but has "a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man's." (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22.) They teach, "As we are, he was. As he is, we shall become." (Joseph Smith, "The King Follett Discourse," p. 9.) There has been constant revision of Mormon doctrine over the years, as church leaders have changed their minds on a number of subjects including polygamy, which was once sanctioned by the church.

In summary, the Mormon church is a prosperous, growing organization that has produced many people of exemplary character. But when it comes to spiritual matters, the Mormons are far from the truth......

I am not supporting Sharpton's attack on Romney's religious beliefs. I Just don't think Romney was "victimized" by Sharpton's rhetoric.... the CBN example indicates that what Sharpton said is "mainstream" in fundamentalist christian "circles"....but what Imus said about the college girls....they weren't running for POTUS in a political party that is hugely supported and influenced by conservative christians.....but simply became well known enough to be coherently targeted by Imus on his presumption that much of his audience would be familiar enough with them to comprehend his publicly broadcast moral and racial denigration of them, was justification for his employer's negative reaction, and the reaction of many of the public.

I see your comparison as similar to an attempt to compare apples to oranges.
I believe I know what you're trying to do, but I see no inconsistency in Sharpton condemning what Imus did....at least in NY & in NJ, Sharpton is a recognized (by the media and public perception....) long time spokesman for the "black community", and he wears another "hat" as a mnister of the christian faith, and as a former (maybe even a current) presidential candidate in the opposing political party vs. Romney's..... and then later slurring Romney's candidacy via the differences between mainstream christian religious beliefs, vs. those of Romney's "cult".....

If, in 2004, a black member of Swiftboat Veteran's for Truth, had condemned a radio jock for making slurs similar to those that Imus was fired for making, and then later attaced John Kerry's patriotism and credibility by accusing him of putting himself in for unearned medals to shorten his combat tour or to pump up an undeserved reputation for "valor and heroism" in combat, I don't see a difference between that progression and what Sharpton has done in the two instances.....

Romney knew that running for POTUS in a political party that includes and actually listens and responds to the dogma and demands of the likes of a Pat Robertson, would bring attacks on Romney's relgious beliefs. If Sharpton was not a member of christian clergy, there might be a weak case for your example, but that is not the circumstance here......

mixedmedia · 05-10-2007, 01:54 AM

I agree. I really don't see any basis for comparison at all. Perhaps if he called Romney a honky white cracker or something. Otherwise, Romney is a Mormon and Sharpton is not. The religions are not two offshoots of the same doctrine in the way of, for example, Baptists and Methodists...Mormonism has its own religious text and distinct beliefs. And in the context of a discussion about religion with a Christian I think it's totally in line with the expected.

loquitur · 05-10-2007, 05:23 AM

Back in another thread there was a photo (which made me laugh) of Al Sharpton and Ann Coulter together. To my mind they are equally respectable, i.e., charlatans who should not be accorded a stage or recognition. I'm not the slightest bit surprised that Sharpton dissed someone else's religion, because he has a history of making bigoted comments such as the reference to "white interlopers" who owned a store in Harlem that some thugs later burned. Why don't the papers go to someone respectable, who has actually accomplished things other than rhetorical bomb-throwing, when they want a black spokesman? Vernon Jordan, for example off the top of my head? Or any of the dozens or hundreds of serious people who are leaders in the black community. I just don't get it. Or maybe I get it too well: being outrageous sells ads.

The_Jazz · 05-10-2007, 06:01 AM

At the risk of igniting another fire storm - Pan, I don't get it. Sharpton is a radio talk show host. That's his job. It's legitimate. He gets paid for it.

Second, the man's an ordained minister. Actually, he's been ordained twice, once as a Pentacostal and once as a Babtist. Clearly he has a religious background. The proper salutation for him, as seen in the stories you posted, is "Reverend". He's clearly qualified to speak about religion. I don't like what he allegedly said any more than you do, but I also acknowledge that he's qualified to say those things, especially about a branch of Christianity that's never gotten along particularly well with the rest.

Finally, check this out:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...n-romney_N.htm

It's obviously spin doctoring, but I think it's interesting that he's agreeing that Romney believes in God and that it's a personal relationship. Honestly, I don't think anyone should be surprised that a Babtist would be disagreeable with the LDS church since there's a whole lot of friction between Protestants and Mormons, especially in the last couple of years as the Mormons try to agressively convert folks both alive and dead.

pig · 05-10-2007, 06:16 AM

i'm bored a bit this am...i thought i'd let this imus shit fall away, but here i am.

by the same token, one could argue that imus has been a radio personality for years, and that he's got enough background to appropriately label people as "nappy headed", and as "hos". i don't really dig the mormon faith much, as it does sound a bit crazy as shit to me. then again, the other flavors do as well. however, i don't think the fact that the rev is an ordained minister makes his comments more qualified or less derogatory. i mean, if i'm a grandwizard in the kkk, well versed in all my 19th century writings on the inferiority of other races, can i now call someone a "nigger" or a "spic" and then say, 'ahhha! i have qualified myself to make these comments." or can i speak in public about how other races are just a little more ape-like, perhaps not quite as dexterious with their opposable thumbs, how slavery and the like are the great benefit of other races to be in proximity to our Divine awesomeness...and not have those comments come off as perhaps mildly racist?

so i think this is a case of pot calling kettle black, and kettle calling pot black with crazy-ass hair.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 06:24 AM

As much as this surprises and pains me, I don't see what the big deal is regarding Sharpton's comments. Pan, maybe you could elaborate (beyond the giant red text).

So he implied that Mormons don't really believe in God... Well, they don't, at least in the terms that a Baptist, Pentecostal, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, etc. minister would define. There is very very little doctrinal overlap between the Mormon Church and other faiths. The familiarity that they (Mormon leaders) cultivate is just a veneer. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Also, it is 100% true that the Mormon Church supported segregation and condoned racism - up until 1978. At this point, after being completely drubbed in the media, the president of the church received a revelation letting him know that it was ok to incorporate all people into the priesthood, regardless of skin color.

Call me cynical, but that seems a little convenient.

None of that, of course, means that Mitt Romney, an individual, is even slightly racist. But this particular Sharpton episode isn't much to get excited about.

pan6467 · 05-10-2007, 08:09 AM

I see so because:

he's a Mormon, and Pat ("I have God's stamp of approval on my Ass") Robertson talked about how evil and non christian Mormons are,

a presidential candidate,

and Sharpton is THE Rev. Al Sharpton and being ordained twice means he knows far more about religion than anyone else...... this was ok.

I truly see something now, I always wanted not to believe, people will jump on the bandwagon and do the popular thing, spew the "popular" viewpoint and not care about what is wrong or right.

Obviously some of you didn't even read the whole post, because you started with "well Imus said it about fresh faced college girls..... did ya see where I made the rebuttal to that in my post? Yet, ya didn't say anything about it. I guess the fresh faced college girls at BYU and the wholesome Osmond family deserve to be told they don't believe in God the right way.

I truly wonder if he had said this (or some other prejudicial, divisive, bigotorial statement) about Obama or Hilary or any Democrat, if some of you defending and saying it is ok for Sharpton to say this.....would say that then or would be calling for Sharpton's head.

Personally, from day 1 this argument has never been about Imus or now Sharpton, it has been about labels.

If you knock one person for labelling someone, then you damned best knock everyone who labels. If you want to argue that "it's fresh faced college girls" as opposed to a politician and his whole denomination.... that argument means squat, because you then state the value of one person's feelings are worth more than another's...... and that is bullshit and prejudicial and biased right there, not to mention hypocritical because in the end as this thread and arguments here and in other threads show and in all life aspects...... people in the end care only about their own feelings.

If the press had played this up (as they did with Imus) and Hilary or Obama came out and separated themselves from Sharpton and demanded he appologize...... would any of you then reverse what you say? It's easy to say you wouldn't when knowing that will never happen so you will not be called on it.

This would be funny if it weren't so ridiculously scary.

So I just want to make sure I understand the limitations on my freedom of speech........ after all I do give lectures now and am becoming somewhat a known figure in my profession.....

I can tear a presidential candidate's religion apart (I don't mention his views, his platform... what I disagree with etc). I just say "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that. That's a temporary situation." and make sure it is a GOP candidate and all is ok.

So I can tell people now that those who do not believe in GOD the way I do will never find recovery, right?

LABELS ARE WRONG AND IF ONE PERSON NEEDS CENSORED FOR HIS LABELLING OF OTHERS EVERYONE NEEDS CENSORED WHEN THEY LABEL... DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS HURT, WHO WAS LABELLED.

THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR A PERSON WHO BITCHED ABOUT ANOTHER LABELING TO ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE TO LABEL OR TO LABEL OTHERS THEMSELVES.

The knife cuts both ways and you can not have it one way but allow it another. Either you censor everyone and demand retribution, job, etc from ALL who label, or you don't.

To pick and choose who can label, who can say prejudicial, biased, hatefilled divisive public statements and who can't is wrong, morally, ethically and in every possible way.

You want to take one person's free speech away for labelling someone and make excuses why it's ok, and then within weeks talk about how it is ok for another to speak hate on a WHOLE DENOMINATION OF RELIGIOUS peoples..... it sounds not only hypocritical but fucking nuts.

As an aside........ did Sharpton and Jackson ever appologize for the things they said about the Duke players (that have been vindicated)???????

Oh yeah, Sharpton and Jackson were allowed to get away with that because it was the right racist hatespeak.... it was against rich white kids and not vice versa...... how evil I am for thinking they should appologize.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 08:24 AM

Pan:

Are you referring to these two remarks, or did I miss something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Sharpton

As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that. That's a temporary situation...

and

[Mormons] don't believe in God the way I do, but, by definition, they believe in God.

The_Jazz · 05-10-2007, 08:43 AM

Pan, I think you missed my point. Among other things, Sharpton is a religious leader. He's certainly a civil rights leader and he's possibily a political leader. I'm viewing his comments almost strictly in his religious role. He's a conservative Babtist religiously (not politically conservative, etc. - those are separate). If you look at this as a statement by a religious leader in the context of Mormonism in the US historically I don't see where it's devisive or labelling or whatever you want to call it. It's no more than saying "Babtists won't vote for a Mormon" or "Pentacostals won't vote for a Jew" by a preacher in those faiths. Maybe they're right. I don't know. I see this as a throw-away line acknowledging that some voters won't vote for people of differing faiths. Is that somehow new? The "faithful" aren't going to vote a certain way? Haven't we heard that before, and hasn't it sometimes been true?

Labels are impossible to remove from our culture or any other culture. We're all unique, but we all fall into groups like employed, white, black, tall, short, assholes (I forget the rest of it). Labels are groups. Groups are labels. People in groups share common things. Labels are misused by ascribing things that aren't true to groups - like Jews being cheap or Auburn fans being bug-eaters. Sometimes labels are wrong. Not always.

pan6467 · 05-10-2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Pan:

Are you referring to these two remarks, or did I miss something?

Yep.......

I can even live with the latter. But the original statement, is hateful, prejudicial, and divisive.

My whole argument (and this is similar very much so to my own experience that I argued from day one).... you cannot pick and choose who can label, say hateful and divisive things.

Either everyone who does it is wrong and should face the same consequences... (people demanding jobs be lost, retribution paid, public appologies etc.) or you allow people to say those things and let people make up their own minds about it.

It's one thing to say "Imus said something very wrong, I don't like it I'll turn the radio station and tell my friends to boycott his show."

It's another to punish him, demand he lose his job, threaten to boycott his sponsors and so on. And then go out there less than a month later and spew hate and prejudice.

I'm simply calling BULLSHIT where BULLSHIT hypocrasy is. If Imus deserved the scorn and hate of a nation for his labelling of others.... Sharpton should also (moreso because he led the attack against Imus.)

If Sharpton is going to be this pillar who plays speech police then he better be held to the same standards..... and yet as the posts show, and as the press kind of just whitewashes this and it fades..... we allow hatespeak, divisiveness, prejudice to be said.... but it comes from a black, democrat against a white republican.

As a Democrat and one who believes in what's right and what's wrong regardless of party affiliation..... I am ashamed that the vast majority in my party make excuses for this being ok.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Pan, I think you missed my point. Among other things, Sharpton is a religious leader. He's certainly a civil rights leader and he's possibily a political leader. I'm viewing his comments almost strictly in his religious role. He's a conservative Babtist religiously (not politically conservative, etc. - those are separate). If you look at this as a statement by a religious leader in the context of Mormonism in the US historically I don't see where it's devisive or labelling or whatever you want to call it. It's no more than saying "Babtists won't vote for a Mormon" or "Pentacostals won't vote for a Jew" by a preacher in those faiths. Maybe they're right. I don't know. I see this as a throw-away line acknowledging that some voters won't vote for people of differing faiths. Is that somehow new? The "faithful" aren't going to vote a certain way? Haven't we heard that before, and hasn't it sometimes been true?

Labels are impossible to remove from our culture or any other culture. We're all unique, but we all fall into groups like employed, white, black, tall, short, assholes (I forget the rest of it). Labels are groups. Groups are labels. People in groups share common things. Labels are misused by ascribing things that aren't true to groups - like Jews being cheap or Auburn fans being bug-eaters. Sometimes labels are wrong. Not always.

Ok let's look at it this way:

Quote:

Sharpton is a religious leader. He's certainly a civil rights leader and he's possibily a political leader.

I didn't know civil rights were just for blacks.... I thought it encompassed making sure EVERYONE got the same rights regardless of race, RELIGION, ethnicity, etc..... so if you are a LEADER of the civil rights movement, you more than anyone should be held accountable for prejudicial talk.

It is one thing to be in your church and say that as a minister, it is another to say that not as a minister but as a political authority, a civil rights leader and someone who is supposed to fight for the rights of ALL against prejudice.

Pat Robertson can say what he likes because he uses the guise of religion and everyone knows he's supposedly using religion to guide him.

Al Sharpton is foremost recognized as a Civil Rights leader.... NOT as a religious leader.

Do you think MLK Jr. would have spoken these words??????

As for labels, yes, we all label someone as soon as we see them or meet them. My argument is that if I start yelling at someone for labelling and pointing out their prejudices.... then when mine come to surface, I should be judged as I judged. Privately, we have those prejudices, biases and so on.... and as private citizens we can speak them. But if you are a public figure and you are going to burn someone for what they say.... you best not say anything your own damned self. Or don't get all huffy and start shit when someone says something or puts labels out, you don't like.

If Sharpton and people want to burn Imus.... then those same people need to pull away from Sharpton and demand the same penalties they did for Imus.

Otherwise, people who make excuses why Sharpton's hatespeak was ok and Imus deserved what he got.... lose all credibility and respect I have for them in this area.

If the presidential candidates who spoke out against Imus refuse to speak out against Sharpton..... I will have no respect for them.

Now, if you or they said, "I see nothing wrong with what Imus said, he has his opinion and is aloowed to speak it." and then you or they say the same about Sharpton..... then you or they have not shown any bias, hypocrasy or bullshit.

If you attacked Imus and you attack Sharpton equally, then you show no bias, hypocrasy or bullshit.

If you didn't attack Imus but attack Sharpton, you are showing bias hypocrasy and bullshit.

NEITHER one said a nice thing, BOTH said very vile, hateful, prejudicial things... so either you punish both equally or let both go .... but if you take sides... you are as wrong as they are.

The_Jazz · 05-10-2007, 09:34 AM

Let me state for the record one last time, just for consistency's sake, that my problem with what Imus said has nothing to do with the racial overtones. This is at least the 4th time I've stated that my problem with Imus arose because he was critisizing amatuer athletes for their appearance after they'd come up just short. I find that incredibly cruel and demeaning. The color of their skin and texture of their hair is irrelevant, IMO.

That said, I still don't see why this qualifies as hate speech. I agree with Sharpton that Romney's camp is making a mountain out of a molehill. He's not calling for Christians not to vote for a Mormon - he's just saying that Christians won't vote for a Mormon. Given that there's never been a Mormon that's run for President before (at least as a major candidate), he could be right on the money. It's an entirely different thing if he said that all Christians, Catholic and Protestants alike, need to stand together to defeat the evil Mormon empire, but he presented it as something that's going to happen with or without his help. How is that hateful when all he's done is predict what others are going to do in the election?

Is it hateful if I say that David Duke won't get elected to the Presidency because he's a proud KKK member? No, it's pretty much an accurate prediction. How about if I say that Al Sharpton couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Will County, IL because of the huge white Republican precence there? Nope, still pretty much accurate. Nothing in the line in question disparaged the LDS Church or Mormonism. How can you have hate speach without any hate?

Interestingly enough, only 48% or so of TFP (nonscientifically) would vote for a Mormon. Check it out:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ht=poll+mormon

I expect that has more to do with the conservative agenda that a Mormon almost always brings to the table rather than over half of TFP being anti-Mormon. So Pan are the TFP members who voted "no" biased or hateful?

pan6467 · 05-10-2007, 10:50 AM

Let's look at what you ARE saying then:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Let me state for the record one last time, just for consistency's sake, that my problem with what Imus said has nothing to do with the racial overtones. This is at least the 4th time I've stated that my problem with Imus arose because he was critisizing amatuer athletes for their appearance after they'd come up just short. I find that incredibly cruel and demeaning. The color of their skin and texture of their hair is irrelevant, IMO.

So Imus needed to lose his job because he said something incredibly cruel and demenaing in YOUR opinion.

Quote:

That said, I still don't see why this qualifies as hate speech. I agree with Sharpton that Romney's camp is making a mountain out of a molehill. He's not calling for Christians not to vote for a Mormon - he's just saying that Christians won't vote for a Mormon. Given that there's never been a Mormon that's run for President before (at least as a major candidate), he could be right on the money. It's an entirely different thing if he said that all Christians, Catholic and Protestants alike, need to stand together to defeat the evil Mormon empire, but he presented it as something that's going to happen with or without his help. How is that hateful when all he's done is predict what others are going to do in the election?

No, he is NOT just saying Christians will not vote for Romney.... He originally said those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway,

insinuating that
1) Mormons do not believe in God
2) that because of 1 he doesn't deserve to be elected..... NOT one mention of what Romney's platform is or that he his platform is wrong.... just his religion.... That is prejudicial and hateful, especially coming from a supposed CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER.... now, again, if Pat Robertson said that or a RELIGIOUS LEADER said that, it could be seen perhaps differently....

BUT again.... Al Sharpton is a self appointed CIVIL RIGHTS leader who supposedly by the sheer title means he is supposed to expect equal rights for ALL.

(I also believe had this been someone stating something negative about Obama or Hilary's religious beliefs and how they wouldn't be elected because of them.... the Left would be demanding appologies.)

Quote:

Is it hateful if I say that David Duke won't get elected to the Presidency because he's a proud KKK member? No, it's pretty much an accurate prediction. How about if I say that Al Sharpton couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Will County, IL because of the huge white Republican precence there? Nope, still pretty much accurate. Nothing in the line in question disparaged the LDS Church or Mormonism. How can you have hate speach without any hate?

So telling a whole denomination that they don't believe in God... that's not hateful..... ok then.

Plus there is a difference between you and Al Sharpton..... Al sharpton is a self proclaimed and has made his fame and fortune NOT as a minister to God but as a CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER.

Quote:

Interestingly enough, only 48% or so of TFP (nonscientifically) would vote for a Mormon. Check it out:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ht=poll+mormon

So because a poll on a forum states that 52% won't vote for a Mormon it's ok to trash his religious beliefs and insinuate he doesn't believe in God?????

Quote:

So Pan are the TFP members who voted "no" biased or hateful?

I can't judge whether they are biased or not, it's not my job.... if someone wants to discriminate and not vote for someone simply because of religion that is their right.... just as it is their right to say they won't.... However, if you are a CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER who expects to be taken seriously and who starts demanding people lose their jobs because you deem what they say as being hateful.... then if you say something hateful about someone, you should face the same consequences and judgement.

As for having to do with a "conservative agenda"..... that is laughable... I am more liberal than most on this board. I am one of the few who proudly state I am a democrat, I am also maybe the only one here (only one I know of at least) who is forthright and has stated I plan to vote for Edwards and I support his campaign 100%. Sooooo how do i fit into this "conservative agenda"??????

Quote:

I expect that has more to do with the conservative agenda that a Mormon almost always brings to the table rather than over half of TFP being anti-Mormon.

Exactly what is Romney's platform? What is he conservative about, what is he liberal about? Where does the Mormon church stand on issues?????

And while that statement may or may not be true.... that is far from saying those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway,

And again, my whole argument is not about what either Imus or Sharpton said.... it is about the right to say it and if 1 person is not allowed to say something because someone deemed it "cruel and demeaning" then the person censoring and yelling about it, best not say anything themself that someone can deem "cruel and demeaning" because I expect and I believe that if you lambaste and destroy the first, you need to lambaste and destroy the second or you were full of shit and had your own agenda or jumped on a bandwagon or whatever.... and you have no true sincerity in protecting people's feelings.... you are just pushing forth an agenda whether you realize it or not.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with what Imus said or with what Sharpton said... and I feel they both had the right to say whatever they want... I don't have to agree with it or listen to it. However, I firmly believe if you go after one you need to go after both or you have no credibility in my eyes. But then again that's just in my eyes.... what others want to believe is up to them.

I have a feeling more people will see Sharpton for what he is because of this and I believe he will feel some heat and rightfully so.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 11:13 AM

This is borderline nonsensical.

I can't think of why Baptists in general and Baptist ministers in specific would think that Mormons believe in their God. The two religions have really different doctrines, histories, and values. Further, since Baptists regard themselves as monotheistic, if the Mormons aren't worshiping the Baptist God, then they're not worshiping God period.

If my values were strongly religious, I'd probably make a point of voting for people who shared my faith. I would probably avoid voting for someone of another faith which explicitly believes that it will play a role in saving and shaping the moral and religious character of my nation.

Frankly, I don't see anything out of line about this, though it isn't the position I'm in.

I'll probably think twice before voting for anyone of a faith that believes in and looks forward to an imminent Armageddon. These things are part of the context of a candidate.

I can't see how this equates to Imus' racially insensitive (though maybe not racist?) remarks. Besides, here on TFP hardly anyone thought Imus should be fired. Most of us thought that it was completely understandable that his advertisers would flee, leaving CBS with little choice but to treat the guy as the liability he was.

Sharpton's supporters are unlikely to desert him over these remarks. Most of them likely agree with him.

pig · 05-10-2007, 11:44 AM

how would y'all feel if the candidate were muslim or jewish, and sharpton had said that they were unlikely to be elected because people who really believe in god won't vote for them? i don't think pan's argument stems from any critique of sharpton's view on mormonism from the context of a religious leader, but rather from sharpton's implication that mormonism is a fake religion from the perspective of a religious civil right's advocate. it does seem a little hypocritical to me.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 11:47 AM

I'd probably be saying the same thing.

Or do you think Sharpton the religious leader thinks that Muslims and Jews are going to heaven?

Isn't the implication that most religious people think that those of other religions either don't believe in the right god, or that they believe in the right god the wrong way? Sharpton's mistake here was simply in enumerating what was patently obvious anyway.

pig · 05-10-2007, 12:24 PM

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.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 12:32 PM

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.

pan6467 · 05-10-2007, 01:16 PM

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.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 01:34 PM

Pan:

1) What do you mean by allow? Even in free speech cases, which this is not, prior restraint is not acceptable.

2) Sharpton the "Civil Rights Activist" and Sharpton the Reverend are the same guy. In that guy's eyes, Mormons don't believe in God. I doubt this comes as a surprise to Donny and Marie Osmond, however fresh their faces are. Frankly, I don't see this as any different than if he had been talking about scientologist, bahai, jainist, hindu, or sikh politicians. Just because you think that Mormonism and Baptist are of a kind doesn't make it so, nor does it make Sharpton think so.

3) It's not really OK or not OK for Sharpton OR Imus to "hurt people". However, it is something that happens. Depending on the substance and context of the alleged hurt, society pushes back. Apparently this pseudo-hurt (my words, not yours) rates lower than Imus' comments. In my personal opinion, this is because of the nature of the commercial interests at play. Advertisers will naturally push back harder than factional supporters (who are the types of people who fund Sharpton). It seems that in their view, getting him more attention is mostly a good thing. This is hardly the most hurtful or outrageous thing Al Sharpton has don.

4) I'm not sure if you're calling me (or people who think as I do) hypocritical or Al Sharpton. Since I'm not Al Sharpton, I suspect this means that your brush may be a tad wide.

You know how Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That's kind of what I am getting at here. These guys get to say what they want, and then they get to suffer the consequences when people hear it.

I think equating the two situations at hand is sloppy thinking.

pan6467 · 05-10-2007, 01:55 PM

What I am simply trying to say and have been saying is I find it very hypocritical of ANYONE to say "Imus needed to lose his job" in one breath and in the very next say, "But what Sharpton said was ok because (insert BULLSHIT EXCUSE HERE)....."

Either both need to be punished or neither.... it can't be both ways.

It is not about WHAT was said, it's about the hypocritical bullshit that one can say hateful, hurtful things and be demonized, while another gets away scot free.

It makes it worse and shows the hypocrasy far more when Sharpton who was sooooo offended and sooooo public demanding justification over what Imus said.... says something just as offensive and gets excused for it.

Did Sharpton bring religion in the Imus argument? Did he care about what religion the girls were? Did he even know?

Of course not, he supposedly just cared because Imus was being prejudicial and hurtful and that was wrong.

Soooooo how is it different when Sharpton says something hurtful and prejudicial????

I guarantee 99% of those defending Sharpton would be the first to demand Limbaugh's job, protest the Pope, demand an appology from Bush, etc etc if they had come out and said something similar about Hilary or Obama.

If I were still a betting man I'd lay money on it.

And no, I don't think it's sloppy or stretching, these 2 cases are very similar.

The pain Sharpton brought the Mormons is not as worthy of discussion as the pain Imus supposedly caused??????

Who regulates and determines that?????

And I agree very much with the Voltaire quote. It just seems some people want to be able to pick and choose not what can be said, not how painful it is..... but WHO is allowed to say what. Imus not allowed, he needed to be fired.... Sharpton allowed, we'll make up excuses as to why his words were ok.

We shouldn't punish either, but IF we are to punish one we damned well better punish the other.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 01:58 PM

Upon re-reading the article, I'm even less sure about where you're coming from Pan.

This was a debate between Al Sharpton and an atheist author who is currently promoting a book called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. First off, in this context, SHARPTON is the bigot you're attacking? Secondly, even though I don't buy into the whole "hats" theory, you claim that Sharpton was primarily appearing as a Civil Rights Activist? That doesn't really make sense.

I really hate that I'm having to defend Al Sharpton, who I generally find reprehensible. However, nail him on the right stuff, not the easy stuff.

EDIT: We posted on top of each other.

I'm going to do the numbered list thing again to keep my points clear. I hope that isn't annoying you.

1) There's a difference between saying Imus needed to lose his job and predicting that he would. The people here, who you are talking to, mostly did one and not the other.

2) Imus made a general remark that could, at best, be characterized as a slur. Sharpton made a prediction that was based partially on a supportable view of the differences between his branch of christianity and mormanism, and partly on his knowledge of how his flock will likely discern between the two. Just because this difference is based on religion doesn't make it religionist. This is where I think the comparison is sloppy.

3) The outcry here may reach Imus like levels - it hasn't been that long, and think about how many days it took for CBS to let Imus go. Now, I predict, for many of the reasons enumerated in posts above that this won't happen. Most of all, the perception of wrongness and the ensuing outcry and reactions happen for a lot of reasons. As I said above, there isn't commercial pressure here as there was with Imus. That will substantially mute the furor, no matter what Sharpton says.

My interest in this is more strategic than tactical - I don't really have a dog in the fight. I could very well end up being wrong about the fallout in this incident.

I'm curious to see what shakran's take will be. He typically argues for equality among directions and types of discrimination. I wonder what he'll say about this.

The_Jazz · 05-10-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote: