• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jon Huntsman standing up against extremeists

What exactly is wrong with what Robert Jeffress said. What is there to denounce? All the intolerance I see is in wanting to shut him up. All he is is a religious bigot telling other bigots to vote their bigotry. He has every right to do that. If you don't like it gather your own bigots to preach to or don't vote for somebody he would support. I have watched this guy answer tough questions and he is totally rational in his defense of his bigotry. It is the bigotry that is irrational, things he believes on faith. That is his right. When you want to silence a bigot with anything other than counter speech, you become the one who is dangerous. You like he then become fanatically convinced of your truth. You have taken on certain belief.
 
Moonbeam said:
What exactly is wrong with what Robert Jeffress said. What is there to denounce? All the intolerance I see is in wanting to shut him up. All he is is a religious bigot telling other bigots to vote their bigotry. He has every right to do that. If you don't like it gather your own bigots to preach to or don't vote for somebody he would support. I have watched this guy answer tough questions and he is totally rational in his defense of his bigotry. It is the bigotry that is irrational, things he believes on faith. That is his right. When you want to silence a bigot with anything other than counter speech, you become the one who is dangerous. You like he then become fanatically convinced of your truth. You have taken on certain belief.
Click to expand...

Who said they want his speech banned? The OP is championing Huntsman having called Jeffries a "moron." That is the very definition of counter-speech.
 
I don't see the courage here. Huntsman is defending his own religion from being labeled as a nonchristian cult. Huntsman is at the near bottom of the pack-he's hoping this speech will break him loose like Cain did in Florida. He's never going to get the evangelical vote and stands little to lose by criticizing them.
 
Well in fairness Mormons are NOT Christians, and in some ways the LDS church is very cult like. The pastor in question is still an asshat though.
 
ichy said:
Well in fairness Mormons are NOT Christians, and in some ways the LDS church is very cult like. The pastor in question is still an asshat though.
Click to expand...

Well to sane people all religions are cults. I see little difference in all the various sects of zombie worshipers. Sure the Mormon cult is easier to trace back to man-made roots due to the amount of time and paper trail, but it is not that hard for any religion which existed with written word.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Who said they want his speech banned? The OP is championing Huntsman having called Jeffries a "moron." That is the very definition of counter-speech.
Click to expand...

That's just name calling. The guy isn't a moron at all. The conclusions and opinions he formulates from his principles are totally logical and totally air tight. He is a true to his principles true believer and absolutely consistent. And his intellectual honesty is impeccable. It's moronic to call him a moron in my opinion.
 
Moonbeam said:
That's just name calling. The guy isn't a moron at all. The conclusions and opinions he formulates from his principles are totally logical and totally air tight. He is a true to his principles true believer and absolutely consistent. And his intellectual honesty is impeccable. It's moronic to call him a moron in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Totally logical? <Tapping my sarcasm meter hopefully>

The man also labels as cults Roman Catholicism, totally ignoring (or ignorant of) the progression from Jesus' Jewish ministry to the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of England to the Lutheran Church to the Baptist Church to the Southern Baptist Church. It's as if he thinks the Southern Baptist Church sprang straight from the lips of Jesus - much in the manner of the Congressman who famously said "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ then it ought to be good enough for us." He may be a man of G-d, but if so he's a moronic man of G-d.
 
Moonbeam said:
That's just name calling. The guy isn't a moron at all. The conclusions and opinions he formulates from his principles are totally logical and totally air tight. He is a true to his principles true believer and absolutely consistent. And his intellectual honesty is impeccable. It's moronic to call him a moron in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Name calling or no, Huntsman's remark was counter-speech. No one has called for anyone's speech to be banned.
 
Todd33 said:
Well to sane people all religions are cults. I see little difference in all the various sects of zombie worshipers. Sure the Mormon cult is easier to trace back to man-made roots due to the amount of time and paper trail, but it is not that hard for any religion which existed with written word.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear I am an atheist and I don't think that mainstream Christianity is any more valid or true than Mormonism. The LDS church is generally a lot more controlling of its members lives than typical Christian churches are though. Let's face it, the average American "Christian" is religious for about an hour on Sunday morning if that. The same can't be said about LDS members.
 
werepossum said:
Totally logical? <Tapping my sarcasm meter hopefully>

The man also labels as cults Roman Catholicism, totally ignoring (or ignorant of) the progression from Jesus' Jewish ministry to the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of England to the Lutheran Church to the Baptist Church to the Southern Baptist Church. It's as if he thinks the Southern Baptist Church sprang straight from the lips of Jesus - much in the manner of the Congressman who famously said "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ then it ought to be good enough for us." He may be a man of G-d, but if so he's a moronic man of G-d.
Click to expand...

The whole English was good enough for Jesus thing is an apocryphal story.
 
What I don't get is that the religious right is not going to vote for a democrat so why doesn't the republicans offer up a financial conservative to draw in the moderate votes? Do the religious outnumber the financial conservatives within the party?
 
HomerJS said:
More people in the GOP need to take this stance denouncing extremeists and bad behavior. Evangelical wackos have contributed in driving out more independants.
-snip-
Click to expand...

Extremist?

I don't think so. I see nothing nothing extremist about his remark. I think it important to understand his remark. He claims there are two definitions of the word "cult". He is not referring to 'Jim Jones' stuff. Instead in his area of 'profession' - theology - there is another definition of cult; a religion that elevates a human figure to a god-like status (or something similar). Personally I don't claim to know enough about Mormonism but is it plausible it meets that particular definition if Joseph Smith is indeed elevated to such a level (again, I don't claim to know).

I'd point out that from the Jewish religion's perspective Christianity is also a "cult" under Jeffress's definition.

So who fuggin cares?

Is Jefress an idiot indulging in "bad behavior"? Well, I think he's an attention whore at the least. I can see him attending that 'religious' rally and giving his views. Religious people have a right, like any other, to express political views like endorsing a candidate as long as it's not from a pulpit in church. He's a citizen and has his 1st amendment right and that forum was likely appropriate for such a (religious) view.

But running around appearing on news shows strikes me as poor judgement and attention whoring etc even though it's perfectly legal. And it's quite likely he will end up hurting his candidate of choice (Perry).

And seems to me all the Repub candidates are denouncing his view etc, just they have refrained from name calling (e.g., moron), and wisely so.

Fern
 
JTsyo said:
-snip-
Do the religious outnumber the financial conservatives within the party?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think the RR have always been made out to be more than they are. Further, most peoples' concern involve financial/economic matters given this economy.

When the economy is going great we can all argue about abortion or something 'social', right now being a 'fiscal' conservative is clearly the most important thing.

Fern
 
Fern said:
I don't think so. I think the RR have always been made out to be more than they are. Further, most peoples' concern involve financial/economic matters given this economy.

When the economy is going great we can all argue about abortion or something 'social', right now being a 'fiscal' conservative is clearly the most important thing.

Fern
Click to expand...

So you believe a pro choice candidate who is a strong fiscal conservative could actually win in the GOP primary? If so, you're delusional.
 
werepossum said:
Totally logical? <Tapping my sarcasm meter hopefully>

The man also labels as cults Roman Catholicism, totally ignoring (or ignorant of) the progression from Jesus' Jewish ministry to the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of England to the Lutheran Church to the Baptist Church to the Southern Baptist Church. It's as if he thinks the Southern Baptist Church sprang straight from the lips of Jesus - much in the manner of the Congressman who famously said "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ then it ought to be good enough for us." He may be a man of G-d, but if so he's a moronic man of G-d.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Catholics are cult members and the Baptist church did spring from the lips of God. And as I said and described, the guy is not a moron.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Name calling or no, Huntsman's remark was counter-speech. No one has called for anyone's speech to be banned.
Click to expand...

Do you listen to morons? Do you pay any attention to what they say? To characterize fix and stereotype somebody as a moron is to silence them. And I wasn't referring to Huntsman but the anti religious fruit loops on the left.
 
Moonbeam said:
Do you listen to morons? Do you pay any attention to what they say? To characterize fix and stereotype somebody as a moron is to silence them. And I wasn't referring to Huntsman but the anti religious fruit loops on the left.
Click to expand...

OK I better understand your point. However, I think name calling is a very weak method of shutting someone up. It tends to only "work" for people already on the side of the name caller, anyway.

I think religious beliefs are irrational BTW, because supernatural claims aren't supported by evidence. So I'm probably one of the fruit loops you're referring to.
 
woolfe9999 said:
OK I better understand your point. However, I think name calling is a very weak method of shutting someone up. It tends to only "work" for people already on the side of the name caller, anyway.

I think religious beliefs are irrational BTW, because supernatural claims aren't supported by evidence. So I'm probably one of the fruit loops you're referring to.
Click to expand...

I said above that what the guy believes is pure faith and totally irrational, but that all the conclusions and arguments he makes from that faith are totally logical and consistent, and represent high order thinking.

It has been my observation that all opinion are based on unexamined assumptions. He has all kinds of ideas that can't be verified in a scientific way. But I think the human mind is impelled to believe in something. Even I believe in something. I believe I don't believe in anything. And that creates other beliefs for me, like anybody who believes in anything but nothing is totally crazy. They posses, what I call, the danger of certainty. They become obsessed with the belief that everybody should think like them because doubt causes them fear. Well tough shit. Doubt killed me or it did till I realized that when you believe in nothing you know everything for which no proof is required.
 
Moonbeam said:
I said above that what the guy believes is pure faith and totally irrational, but that all the conclusions and arguments he makes from that faith are totally logical and consistent, and represent high order thinking.

It has been my observation that all opinion are based on unexamined assumptions. He has all kinds of ideas that can't be verified in a scientific way. But I think the human mind is impelled to believe in something. Even I believe in something. I believe I don't believe in anything. And that creates other beliefs for me, like anybody who believes in anything but nothing is totally crazy. They posses, what I call, the danger of certainty. They become obsessed with the belief that everybody should think like them because doubt causes them fear. Well tough shit. Doubt killed me or it did till I realized that when you believe in nothing you know everything for which no proof is required.
Click to expand...
Thus the admonition to honor the man who searches for what G-d wants and fear the man who claims to know.
 
Moonbeam said:
I said above that what the guy believes is pure faith and totally irrational, but that all the conclusions and arguments he makes from that faith are totally logical and consistent, and represent high order thinking.

It has been my observation that all opinion are based on unexamined assumptions. He has all kinds of ideas that can't be verified in a scientific way. But I think the human mind is impelled to believe in something. Even I believe in something. I believe I don't believe in anything. And that creates other beliefs for me, like anybody who believes in anything but nothing is totally crazy. They posses, what I call, the danger of certainty. They become obsessed with the belief that everybody should think like them because doubt causes them fear. Well tough shit. Doubt killed me or it did till I realized that when you believe in nothing you know everything for which no proof is required.
Click to expand...

Do you think that truth is an end in and of itself?
 
woolfe9999 said:
Do you think that truth is an end in and of itself?
Click to expand...

This sounds like a question I would be interested in but I don't exactly know what an end in and of itself is? I believe that when you lose everything that can be taken from you in the way of lies including any feeling that life demands meaning and any regret that it does not, there is nothing left for the mind but to be what it is wiped clean, free from assumptions and thought, fully present in the now. I believe that truth isn't words or ideas but a state of being, THE state of Being. I think in that is the being joy of a primate astonishment at self awareness. Life is an amazing trip. It is the to me then not an end in itself but time without beginning or end. To be is to stop time and enter eternity. When consciousness it totally filled with the now nothing else can enter. There is only unity and unity is love.
 
Last edited:
Moonbeam said:
This sounds like a question I would be interested in but I don't exactly know what an end in and of itself is? I believe that when you lose everything that can be taken from you in the way of lies including any feeling that life demands meaning and any regret that it does not, there is nothing left for the mind but to be what it is wiped clean, free from assumptions and thought, fully present in the now. I believe that truth isn't words or ideas but a state of being, THE state of Being. I think in that is the being joy of a primate astonishment at self awareness. Life is an amazing trip. It is the to me then not an end in itself but time without beginning or end. To be is to stop time and enter eternity. When consciousness it totally filled with the now nothing else can enter. There is only unity and unity is love.
Click to expand...

I was off on a different intellectual tangent than that, but that's very Budhist of you.

My meaning is, if religious beliefs are untrue but they make people feel better, should people point that out? Is truth its own end?

Always interesting to read your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top