Don Imus crucified...

[OutHouse]

OP got a new title for your thread.

"Infamous Shakedown Artist Goes After Whitey Mormon"

 

[Sinsear]

Al Sharpton will be debating Imus' producer tomorrow night on Hannity & Colmes

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Don Imus crucified...

I didn's see anything in the article about anyone being crucified. Imus was a mean spirited putz on the air. Sharpton's remark that "those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways" was really stupid and espcially hypocritical for a man whose supposed mission is racial equality.

If crucifixion is appropriate for either of their offenses, we're going to need far more timbers and nails. Sounds like a good time to open a lumber and hardware store. 😎

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Why do you call it "reverse" racism?

thats the term they use.

its kinda like Bush talking about terrorism, or Bill O'riely sayin Rosie needs to shutup... pretty much all the same thing 😉

 

[Drift3r]

I'll be honest here. I very much dislike and loath Al Sharpton. Yet from reading the article and reading his remarks in response to Romney's previous remarks I don't see how this is a big deal. Mind you I thought the whole Don Imus crap was complete BS. Yet I don't see a connection here. Considering that Al was responding to the assertions made in a debate that those in the civil rights movement were not religious and had no religious leanings in their motivations with their work within the civil rights movement. If anything it seems like a sarcastic response to guy's like Romney and others within the GOP who seem to wrap themselves up as being "the true Christian leadership" in this nation.


P.S. I'll also be honest again here and say that I view Mormonism no different then I view Scientology so maybe I am also biased against Romney just as much as I am against Al.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
I'll be honest here. I very much dislike and loath Al Sharpton. Yet from reading the article and reading his remarks in response to Romney's previous remarks I don't see how this is a big deal. Mind you I thought the whole Don Imus crap was complete BS. Yet I don't see a connection here. Considering that Al was responding to the assertions made in a debate that those in the civil rights movement were not religious and had no religious leanings in their motivations with their work with the civil rights movement. If anything seems like a sarcastic response to guy's like Romney and others within the GOP who seem to wrap themselves up as being "the true Christian leadership" in this nation.


P.S. I'll also be honest again here and say that I view Mormonism no different then I view Scientology so maybe I am also biased against Romney just as much as I am against Al.

I don't like Romney and I don't like Mormonism, but that doesn't mean that this isn't further proof that Sharpton is just as bigoted and racist as those he attacks.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
I'll be honest here. I very much dislike and loath Al Sharpton. Yet from reading the article and reading his remarks in response to Romney's previous remarks I don't see how this is a big deal. Mind you I thought the whole Don Imus crap was complete BS. Yet I don't see a connection here. Considering that Al was responding to the assertions made in a debate that those in the civil rights movement were not religious and had no religious leanings in their motivations with their work within the civil rights movement. If anything it seems like a sarcastic response to guy's like Romney and others within the GOP who seem to wrap themselves up as being "the true Christian leadership" in this nation.


P.S. I'll also be honest again here and say that I view Mormonism no different then I view Scientology so maybe I am also biased against Romney just as much as I am against Al.

Totally agree. Much as I dislike Sharpton, I think those hopping on him now are those who just needed an excuse to vent their spleen against Sharpton. Pointing out that a religious cultist has a slim chance at the White House is not offensive except to those with extremely thin skin.

 

[judasmachine]

if only i remembered the number to the whaaambulance.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
P.S. I'll also be honest again here and say that I view Mormonism no different then I view Scientology so maybe I am also biased against Romney just as much as I am against Al.

My god's a bigger badass than your god. Neener, neener, neener! :music: 😛 :music:

Until the fundy nuts of one stripe or another seize complete power and finish destroying our Constitution, the good news is, we all enjoy the right to believe in the fantasy deity of our choice... or none at all. That right stops at the point where one group tries to impose it's unique religious views on anyone else by force of law.

I believe religion is a bad excuse for philosophy. Like philosophy, religion attempts to answer questions about the unknown. The biggest difference is, at least in philosophy, "I don't know." is an acceptable answer.

In many ways, organized religions are political power structures based on dogma that, by their own definitions, cannot be challenged by newer information. They maintain their power through fear and ignorance of the unknown. When the teachings of a religion are challenged by new facts, rather than embrace it, many religions resort to denying such truths simply because they contradict their traditional dogma, and they label the sources of such new knowledge as "heritics."

A current example in western society is the "debate" about evolution vs. creationism/creation "theory." That's the same kind of thinking that branded Galileo Galilei as a heritic for daring to challenge the pope by announcing his discovery that the Earth actually revolved around the sun. :shocked:

The Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy, is often considered a defining moment in the history of the relationship between religion and science.

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed major difficulties with the understanding of the heavens that had been held since antiquity, and raised new interest in radical teachings such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. In reaction, many maintained that the motion of the Earth and immobility of the Sun were heretical, as they contradicted some accounts given in the Bible as understood at that time. Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy and philosophy culminated in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy.
.
.
(continues)

Many of those who are so willing to impose their particular brand of Judeo-Christian dogma on others, here, are often the most vocal opponents of the more onerous teachings of radical Islamic groups.

The point is not whether one accepts or rejects the beliefs and teachings of one's own religion. It's whether, in a political discussion among and about candidates for secular public office, and under our Constitution and system of laws, advocating the superiority of one group's deity or dogma is superior to any other is appropriate in any way.

IT IS NOT!

Imus is an ass just because he's an ass. Sharpton has said and done many things that have caused others to see him as racist and homophobic. His current statements just reinforce that image.