Al Sharpton
Sharpton is today quoted as questioning presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s faith as a Mormon, by saying “Romney does not believe in God as I believe in God".
Maybe I missed something, but isn’t dismissing a view that differs from your own the essence if not the very definition of intolerance? I am not a Mormon, but I respect Romney’s right to believe whatsoever he chooses.
I am deeply offended, and I demand that Al Sharpton retire from public life immediately, and be henceforth silenced from making any media statements whatsoever. Tolerance demands it.
This letter has not been edited.
53% of Evangelical Christians said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, so I guess the intolerance of over half of Evangelicals offend Atkinson as well. But thyen maybe not, maybe Mr. Atkinson just doesn't like Sharpton.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 04:26 PMAl is black so the left wing loons will try and get him a pass so as to feel self-righteous, fairness be damned.
Posted by MLK on May 15, 2007 07:01 PMHow sad for the right. Those "northest liberals" will vote for a Mormon, but NOT the redstate south!
Posted by rick on May 15, 2007 07:28 PMPoverty Pimp Sharpton and his ilk do more harm to the black Americans they claim to champion than to help them become self reliant individuals. Sharpton teaches them that being professional victims is a good thing.
Besides, Sharpton and crew go through withdrawal if they haven't been in the media spotlight, and will say or do anything to get their fix.
On a positive note...Jerry Falwell croaked today and will be taking his long overdue dirt bath.
Posted by QBT on May 15, 2007 11:36 PMthe only free speech the far extreme socalist liberal left likes is what they say and all others should be silenced
Posted by fish on May 16, 2007 05:44 AMHey QBT, did Jerry Falwell do something to you personally? Does his death make life better for you? Does it make you a better person by saying what you said?
Posted by Pat on May 16, 2007 07:41 AMHey QBT, did Jerry Falwell do something to you personally? Does his death make life better for you? Does it make you a better person by saying what you said?
Posted by Pat on May 16, 2007 08:13 AMWhite Guilt is what keeps us from not standing up to and demanding the removal of Sharpton, who is clearly a rascist, bigot and hypocrit, along with being a criminal (drug mule for James Brown, Tax Evader).
Once we lose the inane belief, we will have the courage to stand up to this clown.
Posted by David DiBello on May 16, 2007 09:01 AMPat:
I'll say the same thing when Sharpton, Jackson, Bush and others check out too.
Posted by QBT on May 16, 2007 09:40 AMQBT,
That's one that totally transcends any and all "party " labels or identifications.
I am tempted - oh well, I'll go ahead and "yield to temptation", and let others tell me how "sinful" that is - to offer, re. Falwell: Good riddance. Rest his soul in peace.
Oh yes. The cartoon in this morning's Rocky is priceless!
David,
I've often wondered what there was, or is, about being "white" that makes the "white" person the arbiter of what is good, or even "best", for every OTHER culture, color, or even creed. But, I guess that's something that will go unanswered more or less forever.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 10:58 AMDear Old Grouch,
I said "white" is good. I have to review my notes.
Good and Bad should be determined on an individual basis.
Historically as a society, whites have fought for independence, where enjoined with blacks in the fight for social justice (Civil War), and marched alongside Doctor King (a Hero of Mine) again for social justice.
There of course is a heinous time when we, along with the African slave traders (Africans) who agreed to sell balck people into slavery, succumbed to the most feebile injustice.
That is society as a whole, but there is a beleif that the injustices of the past should become part of our psyche today, which is why we come up with such dilluvian phrases like "reverse discrimination," viewing discrimination as the injustices of white people towards black people only.
We have to walk on tip toes if we say an African American seems articulate, and if they share a view ewhich isn't militant, they are called "uncle tom's."
This is a frustration shared by a majority of white and black people. Only when we can talk openly and honestly with one another, and confront one another on equal ground will we have true equality.
Eartha Kitt said that it is about time to end this belief that black people can only exist with the help of government i.e. welfare subsistence. She said it is a crutch and demoralizes black people.
That was her way of saying, hey, we're equal, get over it.
So far Don Imus has been fired. If that is what society wants, thats fine, let's all clean up our act, and speak positively and constructively.
Now will everyone else follow suit? Why isn't Mr Sharpton removed for saying I beleieve in the real God, not Mitt Romney's God, along with all the other heinous commets that he said, or actions he has taken, that attempts to isolate people as opposed to bringing them together?
Yep..the return of the proverty pimps and their enablers..Sharpton and Jackson.
Posted by on May 16, 2007 05:49 PMDavid,
I'm a bit surprised at your characterization of of Sharpton's remarks about God causing him to deserve being "removed". Removed from what? His pulpit? His particular faith, or belief structure? His church?
Have we arrived at the point at which an individual's expression of his concept of God is, somehow, less "valid", or less "admissable", or less "correct" than a concept in which "all Gods are more or less equal", so to speak?
Am I making an heinous comment when I say that as a Christian I hold the Mormon God to be a false God; and that Mormon teachings are not even remotely Christian?
If so, when did I lose the guaranteed rights of both freedom of speech and religion, in favor of a demand for apostasy from my Faith, to some kind of "bringing people together" amalgamation of "religion from a Waring blender"?
Equality, before the law in a secular State, is one thing. And it is part of the foundation upon which this nation's government rests. On the other hand, "equality" of religion is something else again - except as that equality is also before the law in a secular State.
Or are you paraphrasing Orwell: All religions are equal; but some religions are more equal than others?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 08:46 PMOld grouch,
My friend is Greek and has some very serious reservations about Islam, namely that Muhammed is the devil.
It is alright for Sharpton to say I believe in a certain God, but not alright to say someone else is wrong, or they believe in the wrong God. It was said degradingly to a round of applause from his "ilk."
In short, I wouldn't say someone else is doing wrong.
In the sharpton case, they weren't even talking about religion, he was just "taking at shot," at Mitt.
He can be removed from his radiow show www.sharptontalk.com, show@sharptontalk.net for info/e-mail.
There is also a history on the east coast of hearing him call Jewish people interlopers, rallying behind Tawana Brawley accusing Steve Bigones of horrioble crimes as if they were factual when it was all a made up story by a sick child, and again it occured in the Duke rape case where they jump on the band wagon in the hopes it matches their propaganda.
Never an apology from the former James Brown Drug mule, Tax Evader.
Jesse Jackson called NYC "Hymietown," sans apology. He admitted his anger caused him to spit in white peoples food when he was younger and said it as a statement with no remorse (I could understand his anger at the time and would easily have forgiven).
It is all so hypocritical that it is comical, if it weren't so sad.
Now maybe you can help me. Who said regarding pornography, "I can't define it; but I know what it is when I see it."
I bring it up because the same criteria might apply to "hate" speech.
Posted by David DiBello on May 17, 2007 10:25 AMOld grouch,
My friend is Greek and has some very serious reservations about Islam, namely that Muhammed is the devil.
It is alright for Sharpton to say I believe in a certain God, but not alright to say someone else is wrong, or they believe in the wrong God. It was said degradingly to a round of applause from his "ilk."
In short, I wouldn't say someone else is doing wrong.
In the sharpton case, they weren't even talking about religion, he was just "taking at shot," at Mitt.
He can be removed from his radiow show www.sharptontalk.com, show@sharptontalk.net for info/e-mail.
There is also a history on the east coast of hearing him call Jewish people interlopers, rallying behind Tawana Brawley accusing Steve Bigones of horrioble crimes as if they were factual when it was all a made up story by a sick child, and again it occured in the Duke rape case where they jump on the band wagon in the hopes it matches their propaganda.
Never an apology from the former James Brown Drug mule, Tax Evader.
Jesse Jackson called NYC "Hymietown," sans apology. He admitted his anger caused him to spit in white peoples food when he was younger and said it as a statement with no remorse (I could understand his anger at the time and would easily have forgiven).
It is all so hypocritical that it is comical, if it weren't so sad.
Now maybe you can help me. Who said regarding pornography, "I can't define it; but I know what it is when I see it."
I bring it up because the same criteria might apply to "hate" speech.
Posted by David DiBello on May 17, 2007 10:25 AMOld grouch,
My friend is Greek and has some very serious reservations about Islam, namely that Muhammed is the devil.
It is alright for Sharpton to say I believe in a certain God, but not alright to say someone else is wrong, or they believe in the wrong God. It was said degradingly to a round of applause from his "ilk."
In short, I wouldn't say someone else is doing wrong.
In the sharpton case, they weren't even talking about religion, he was just "taking at shot," at Mitt.
He can be removed from his radiow show www.sharptontalk.com, show@sharptontalk.net for info/e-mail.
There is also a history on the east coast of hearing him call Jewish people interlopers, rallying behind Tawana Brawley accusing Steve Bigones of horrioble crimes as if they were factual when it was all a made up story by a sick child, and again it occured in the Duke rape case where they jump on the band wagon in the hopes it matches their propaganda.
Never an apology from the former James Brown Drug mule, Tax Evader.
Jesse Jackson called NYC "Hymietown," sans apology. He admitted his anger caused him to spit in white peoples food when he was younger and said it as a statement with no remorse (I could understand his anger at the time and would easily have forgiven).
It is all so hypocritical that it is comical, if it weren't so sad.
Now maybe you can help me. Who said regarding pornography, "I can't define it; but I know what it is when I see it."
I bring it up because the same criteria might apply to "hate" speech.
Posted by David DiBello on May 17, 2007 10:25 AMDavid -
It was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in a 1964 case involving pornography.
Thank you, Philip. I had forgotten the name; and just remembered that it had come from one of the Supreme Court Justices. But I don't remember if it was in one of the Opinions, or in a speech elsewhere. I THINK it came from a Case; but I'm not sure. Most of my reference library is in storage right now.
David,
I must admit I don't hear much radio - if any at all anymore. So I'm really not aware of who has a show, or other radio time. On the point of removal there, I have to disagree.
The saying is attributed to Voltaire: "I disagree with everything you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Allowing for human frailty, I try to hold to that; as much as a perfect expression of the meaning of the First Amendment as for any other reason. Free Speech includes even that which we totally dislike. And it is a sad erosion of Constitutional guarantees that equates, "shouting Fire in a crowded auditorium" with the right to censor, or restrict, speech, press, art, or any other expression of that nature.
We have carried both "political" and "social" "correctness" way too far already.
The Constitution also states that there shall be no religious test for anyone holding office. In and of itself, that's sufficient. However, to say that "religion" should be some kind of "protected topic", or somehow kept out of the political arena, BEFORE election, is, again, something that goes beyond the reality of the First Amendment.
ALL freedom is a two way cutting sword.
And, unfortunately, it is just the kind of "thinking" proposed in the statement about "pornography" that has given us the problem of "hate speech" to begin with. That which incites violence, or keeps violence in action, already breaks Statutes; and is a violation of law in many ways; and there is sufficient basis already for distinguishing such speech from the kind of thing one gets from a couple of the posters here, for instance.
(Further discussion of which can certainly take us far afield.)
It has been a pleasure reading your postings, and debating with you. I have my own caustic approach to some subjects, I know. But you are among those who keep the forum a true evidence of the marketplace of ideas, rather than just a sort of bar-room brawl on the Internet. I do hope you will stay with us.
I'm off to the salt mines. Have a good day
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 01:05 PMJoseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mitt's dad Romney and Mitt himself seek the presidency; if either is elected, a man of faith, like Bush 2, will be disastrous for America as evidenced today by a bush-whacked America. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 19, 2007 03:37 PMWhat separates us from animals is that Humans are thinking beings. Not all evolve equally. Or can interpret outside stimulus correctly.
Od Grouch, I'm not that hell bent on removing anybody either. I heard what Imus said and well sophomoric and stupid, but I dismissed it because I know his utterances did not match his actions. He is a kind generous introvert with a crabby obnoxious exterior that we have coddled because of his celebrity.
But what about those movies where a phone booth blows up, or a perason gets run down. Do you think the inferior human can interpret that correctly. Or will he try to copy those actions?
Free Speech is not as wonderful as it sounds - it comes with good and evil, and we endure this because we don't want true positive thoughts silenced.
Thank you Mr Atkinson for the answer. Great comment from the Justice.
Another great quote from Voltaire, although I doubt he was Jewish and living in Nazi Germany in the 30's when he said this.
Posted by David DiBello on May 21, 2007 11:04 AM