Hate speech is hate speech

[daniel49]

It seems to me the democratic party has a double standard on which groups you can offend and which ones you can't?
respond objectively and discuss please.
Trolls need not apply.

WASHINGTON D.C. ? Former Senator John Edwards released an official statement Thursday announcing that he would not dismiss his blogmaster, Amanda Marcotte, despite pressure from Fidelis and other groups who revealed that Marcotte has a history of posting comments on her personal blog laden with profanity and anti-Catholicism.
Fidelis President Joseph Cella commented: ?We are shocked and appalled that John Edwards would stand by a campaign staff member who has viciously attacked Catholics and all Christians publicly on her personal blog. If any staffer had written similarly about gays, blacks, or Jews, there is no question Edwards would fire them immediately. Sadly, it appears that former Senator Edwards applies a different standard to attacks on Catholics.?

The Edwards campaign has issued apologies on behalf of the two staffers in question. The statements argued that the anti-Catholic posts were made on personal blogs unaffiliated with the campaign. Edwards was quoted as saying he believes in giving everyone a ?fair shake.?

Earlier this week Fidelis learned the Edwards campaign had hired Marcotte, whose personal blog Pandagon has included reprehensible references to the Holy Spirit impregnating the Virgin Mary, Pope Benedict described as a ?dictator,? and attacks on Christians as ?Christofacists?.

?Lately we have been hearing a lot about the push to outlaw ?hate speech,? particularly speech critical of homosexuality, and yet John Edwards has refused to seriously address offensive and hate-filled speech in his own campaign. Any person associated with comments such as this does belong anywhere near a serious presidential candidate,? continued Cella.

---
Fidelis is a Catholic-based organization working with people of faith across the country to defend and promote the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and the right to religious liberty by electing pro-life, pro-family and pro-religious liberty candidates, supporting the confirmation of judges, and promoting and defending laws faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

Text

 

[OrByte]

Its certainly appropriate for the Catholic leagues to be pissed.

But they are wrong.

?Lately we have been hearing a lot about the push to outlaw ?hate speech,? particularly speech critical of homosexuality, and yet John Edwards has refused to seriously address offensive and hate-filled speech in his own campaign. Any person associated with comments such as this does belong anywhere near a serious presidential candidate,? continued Cella.

The above underlined is false. Gonna have to come up with a better reason than that.


The second part of the quote is a more valid point. And Edwards shouldn't let this issue fester. He obviously has good reason to keep these people on board, maybe he should elaborate on that so the outraged Christians can take a chill pill.

 

[Arcex]

Putting aside the free speech issue, it's not like she did it at Edwards' website, it was her personal blog, right?

So is she not allowed to voice her opinion because she works for a politician, or is her boss supposed to fire her for voicing an opinion others don't like? I mean, people on this website say things I don't like all the time, I don't go around calling their bosses and telling them their employees should be fired.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

All actions have consequences.

When you join a national campaign, actually any campaign, you must learn that your actions will reflect on that campaign. So while I defend these blogger's rights to say what they want, bigoted as it was, they don't belong on his campaign. Hell, they don't belong in civilized society. Bigotry is just wrong, regardless if bashing religion, sexual orientation, or race.

Some will say it was okay because it was her personal blog, thats not entirely true. When she joined Edward's campaign the standards she is held to are raised. Its no different than if she were out getting plastered and acting unruly in public. Those actions would reflect back to the campaign simply because that is who she is working for.

Don't take a public position if your neck isn't the only one on the line. They not only offended Catholics but others working on the campaign. Their selfishness damaged something they are part of.

 

[Schadenfroh]

His campaign hired an intolerant person it appears, happens a good deal, does not make it right.

 

[Arcex]

Yes, as a member of his campaign she should have thought about how her words would affect Edwards, but that's between her and Edwards. If Edwards has a problem with how her blog makes him appear then he should fire her for those reasons, but if he thinks she is entitled to her opinion, and feels that it won't have a major effect on his campaign then that's all there is to it.

If he doesn't think it deserves firing then who are we to tell him differently? If you disagree with his course of action then don't vote for him if he runs for public office.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the free speech issue, it's not like she did it at Edwards' website, it was her personal blog, right?

So is she not allowed to voice her opinion because she works for a politician, or is her boss supposed to fire her for voicing an opinion others don't like? I mean, people on this website say things I don't like all the time, I don't go around calling their bosses and telling them their employees should be fired.

Well, that's sure how it's worked in politics for a long time. It's never been contained to any one party either.

As for me, I think people are just too sensitive these days. The whole thing will no have no bearing as to whether I would vote for Edwards or not.

Fern

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the free speech issue, it's not like she did it at Edwards' website, it was her personal blog, right?

So is she not allowed to voice her opinion because she works for a politician, or is her boss supposed to fire her for voicing an opinion others don't like? I mean, people on this website say things I don't like all the time, I don't go around calling their bosses and telling them their employees should be fired.

Well, that's sure how it's worked in politics for a long time. It's never been contained to any one party either.

As for me, I think people are just too sensitive these days. The whole thing will no have no bearing as to whether I would vote for Edwards or not.

Fern

Agreed, I understand that in politics anything you say can and will be held against you (snicker), but only Edwards can decide if she should be fired.

If anything this would make me more likely to vote for Edwards, because instead of a knee jerk reaction (him firing her outright) he decided to show some backbone and stand up for her right to say something and not have to worry about how someone else will choose to use it against Edwards.

 

[daniel49]

.

As for me, I think people are just too sensitive these days. The whole thing will no have no bearing as to whether I would vote for Edwards or not. [/B

I would agree. Even though as a Christian, I find the comments offensive.
My point is that whichever tact is correct, it should be correct for Moslems,Jews, Blacks,Gays,people with red hats , and Christians.

For Instance if the bloggers had said the pope was a macaca, or had offended Muhammed would they still be on Edwards campaign?

 

[marincounty]

I agree that the comments the blogger made were unfair, they should've just referred to the Catholic Church as the biggest collection of child molesters in the world.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Earlier this week Fidelis learned the Edwards campaign had hired Marcotte, whose personal blog Pandagon has included reprehensible references to the Holy Spirit impregnating the Virgin Mary, Pope Benedict described as a ?dictator,? and attacks on Christians as ?Christofacists?.

That sounds more or less the degree of vitriol you'd experience listening to Hannity or Limbaugh. Can we fire them too?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I agree that the comments the blogger made were unfair, they should've just referred to the Catholic Church as the biggest collection of child molesters in the world.

Yeah, that would be more accurate.

 

[judasmachine]

awww, the poor poor oppressed christians.....

now where is my pet lion?

 

[dahunan]

Exactly.. maybe they should steal his campaign signs (like they did to Kerry) and burn them or start trashing on homosexuals like Jesus wants them to??

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: marincounty
I agree that the comments the blogger made were unfair, they should've just referred to the Catholic Church as the biggest collection of child molesters in the world.

Yeah, that would be more accurate.

:laugh:

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I agree that the comments the blogger made were unfair, they should've just referred to the Catholic Church as the biggest collection of child molesters in the world.

Imagine if someone posted this same comment, except put "homosexuals" instead of "Catholic Church." People would be up in arms and that person would probably get banned. Somehow it is ok for someone to post this about the Catholic Church, but it isn't ok to post it about another group.

 

[shadow9d9]

Her own blog-her own opinion is allowed. As long as it isn't done as representation of Edwards.

 

[shadow9d9]

Oh, and "reprehensible references to the Holy Spirit impregnating the Virgin Mary, Pope Benedict described as a ?dictator,? and attacks on Christians as ?Christofacists?. " is not hate speech. It falls under freedom of speech. It is no different than Rush or even president bush calling people islamofascists, or papers posting comics with muhammad and a bomb, etc.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: marincounty
I agree that the comments the blogger made were unfair, they should've just referred to the Catholic Church as the biggest collection of child molesters in the world.

Imagine if someone posted this same comment, except put "homosexuals" instead of "Catholic Church." People would be up in arms and that person would probably get banned. Somehow it is ok for someone to post this about the Catholic Church, but it isn't ok to post it about another group.

I am still trying to understand this hypocrisy as well.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I agree that the comments the blogger made were unfair, they should've just referred to the Catholic Church as the biggest collection of child molesters in the world.

Typical hypocracy I have come to expect from many on the left.
If its a group you like its hate speech if Its a group you disagree with its freedom of speech.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: marincounty
I agree that the comments the blogger made were unfair, they should've just referred to the Catholic Church as the biggest collection of child molesters in the world.

Imagine if someone posted this same comment, except put "homosexuals" instead of "Catholic Church." People would be up in arms and that person would probably get banned. Somehow it is ok for someone to post this about the Catholic Church, but it isn't ok to post it about another group.

I am still trying to understand this hypocrisy as well.

What hypocrisy? You can't handle the truth. I could say this about homosexuals, but it wouldn't be true, because they aren't organized into a world-wide organization that controls its own country. Show me that this isn't true.

 

[spittledip]

I am not Catholic and I don't care much about what someone says about the Catholic Church.

You are obviously missing the point on purpose to avoid the truth of the statement. Being part of an organization has nothing to do with being a part of a group. Again, that is completely irrelevant. The point is that you can say horrible things about some groups but not others. There is the hypocrisy.

This is so ironic b/c in a thread about hate speech needing to be a concept that encompasses all groups, people are using hate-speech against the very groups that need to be encompassed by the definition.

I also find it irritating that on this forum so many people jump right into insulting and attacking other posters or making inflammatory remarks. This is a very hostile place.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I am not Catholic and I don't care much about what someone says about the Catholic Church.

You are obviously missing the point on purpose to avoid the truth of the statement. Being part of an organization has nothing to do with being a part of a group. Again, that is completely irrelevant. The point is that you can say horrible things about some groups but not others. There is the hypocrisy.

This is so ironic b/c in a thread about hate speech needing to be a concept that encompasses all groups, people are using hate-speech against the very groups that need to be encompassed by the definition.

I also find it irritating that on this forum so many people jump right into insulting and attacking other posters or making inflammatory remarks. This is a very hostile place.

The only hypocrisy is the Catholic Church claiming to be morally good, and at the same time molesting lots of young boys. And moving accused priests to other locations without warning churchgoers of the persons tendencies, ensuring more children are abused.
I don't even want to get into the history of the Catholic church, its much worse.
How about these hypocrites getting off of their high horse, and STFU.
You are right about one thing though, this is a hostile place. If you post something really stupid, you will get called on it. If you can't deal with it, go back to your tv.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: spittledip
I am not Catholic and I don't care much about what someone says about the Catholic Church.

You are obviously missing the point on purpose to avoid the truth of the statement. Being part of an organization has nothing to do with being a part of a group. Again, that is completely irrelevant. The point is that you can say horrible things about some groups but not others. There is the hypocrisy.

This is so ironic b/c in a thread about hate speech needing to be a concept that encompasses all groups, people are using hate-speech against the very groups that need to be encompassed by the definition.

I also find it irritating that on this forum so many people jump right into insulting and attacking other posters or making inflammatory remarks. This is a very hostile place.

The only hypocrisy is the Catholic Church claiming to be morally good, and at the same time molesting lots of young boys. And moving accused priests to other locations without warning churchgoers of the persons tendencies, ensuring more children are abused.
I don't even want to get into the history of the Catholic church, its much worse.
How about these hypocrites getting off of their high horse, and STFU.
You are right about one thing though, this is a hostile place. If you post something really stupid, you will get called on it. If you can't deal with it, go back to your tv.

No one is arguing about what the Catholic Church did and that it was wrong. However, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We are talking about hate-speech and how people can't pick and choose which groups to apply the "rules" to. Either all groups should not be spoken about hatefully, or, if not, the same people who cry "Hater!" are being hypocritical.

 

[Arcex]

You can't have it both ways, do you want to stop anyone who offends anyone else from being allowed to speak, or do you want freedom of speech?

And in regards to the "calling the Catholic Church child molesters" thing, if I call Congress a collection of cheats and liars would you disagree with me? I mean, it's well known that politicians tell people what they want to hear and are mostly just interested in grabbing power for themselves and making money at the same time. Sure not all politicians are like this, but I'd say a good chunk of them are.

So lets apply that to the Catholic Church, historically there is a large amount of child molesters in that organization due to repressed urges due in no small amount to the priests not being allowed to marry (except in Africa, nice bit of hipocrisy there). So are you telling me its unfair to call them child molesters?

How about this, if the priests stop molesting children, I'll stop calling them child molesters. And if the politicians stop lying and cheating, I'll stop calling them politicians.