Is the Dallas Mayor out of line

[Shad]

I would not say moderate... left wing... politically correct .. maybe

Liberal instead of moderate perhaps? Liberal and moderate fall under left wing far more than right wing.

There are varying views of what PC means so I will need your definition.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Liberal instead of moderate perhaps? Liberal and moderate fall under left wing far more than right wing.

There are varying views of what PC means so I will need your definition.

The red flag is that the mayor criticized the churches view but says they shouldn't criticize his ... its makes for a lopsided discussion but often the case in PC discussions

Should be more of a two way street. Then again I recall a bunch of Democratic Mayors bum rushing Chic Fi-A some years ago... not terribly balanced a discussion Then the red flag was Rahm Emmanual same day teaming up with Lius Farakahn as a partner with Chicago safety... very very inconsistent and not a two way thing at all

 

[HonestJoe]

The red flag is that the mayor criticized the churches view but says they shouldn't criticize his ...

Where did the mayor say that? I've not seen any of his quotes coming close to it.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Where did the mayor say that? I've not seen any of his quotes coming close to it.

quote
However, the Dallas Morning News and Mayor Rawlings blasted the pastor’s sermon title suggesting it was hateful and divisive.

“That is not the Christ I follow,” the mayor told the newspaper. “It’s not the Dallas I want to be – to say things that do not unite us but divide us. I never heard those words – that voice come out of Christ. Just the opposite. I was brought up to believe: Be proud of yours, but do not diminish mine.”
unquote

Calling their views hateful and divisive and then saying not to diminish his is odd but typical for PC

 

[Shad]

The red flag is that the mayor criticized the churches view but says they shouldn't criticize his ... its makes for a lopsided discussion but often the case in PC discussions

I lack the context of the quote. Context as in the sermon and the fact I have not read it from the provided source (security issues with one of the links). The article does not provide anything about the use of Jesus, anything Jesus said or whatever the "voice" of Jesus is. It says nothing from the sermon only the billboard. This shifts the point, by the mayor, away from if American is a Christian nation to the typical Christian dispute of interpretation and application. Be it omission or on purpose by the reporter or the mayor. So I would need to see something from the sermon the mayor has addressed. Otherwise I will reference my earlier view. A politician is making typical statements about religion aimed at the public rather than the topic at hand. IE Pandering.

Yes the mayor blundered by not following his own standard.

Should be more of a two way street. Then again I recall a bunch of Democratic Mayors bum rushing Chic Fi-A some years ago... not terribly balanced a discussion Then the red flag was Rahm Emmanual same day teaming up with Lius Farakahn as a partner with Chicago safety... very very inconsistent and not a two way thing at all

Standard politics meshed with religion. Few will point out blunders from "their team"

 

[whirlingmerc]

I lack the context of the quote. Context as in the sermon and the fact I have not read it from the provided source (security issues with one of the links). The article does not provide anything about the use of Jesus, anything Jesus said or whatever the "voice" of Jesus is. It says nothing from the sermon only the billboard. This shifts the point, by the mayor, away from if American is a Christian nation to the typical Christian dispute of interpretation and application. Be it omission or on purpose by the reporter or the mayor. So I would need to see something from the sermon the mayor has addressed. Otherwise I will reference my earlier view. A politician is making typical statements about religion aimed at the public rather than the topic at hand. IE Pandering.

Yes the mayor blundered by not following his own standard.



Standard politics meshed with religion. Few will point out blunders from "their team"

The mayor was responding only to the billboard but ... politicians are trying to get votes from a target audience

Blundered as did Rahm Emmanuel in his Chic-Fil-A fiasco when the same day he had his infamous Chic Fil-A does not represent Chicago values press conference he had Chicago teamed up with Lous Faarakahn Most of Chicago did not agree with either

 

[Shad]

Where did the mayor say that? I've not seen any of his quotes coming close to it.

"I was brought up to believe: Be proud of yours, but do not diminish mine.”

Do as I say not as I do. Even if unintentionally by speaking out against one view, placing his view as morally superior without context and by use of his office (media access, community leader, etc, etc) he is doing to others what he declares they can not do to his views.

Most likely he just said what was on his mind without deep thought about what he was saying. He is not actually countering a specific argument about America as a Christian nation but about interpretation. The argument has shifted to a petty religious dispute typical to Christianity.

 

[Shad]

as did Rahm Emmanuel in his Chic-Fil-A fiasco when the same day he had his infamous Chic Fil-A press conference he had Chicago teamed up with Lous Faarakahn

Worse if you look up some of the beliefs from the NOI and it's practices.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Worse if you look up some of the beliefs from the NOI and it's practices.

yep

https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-halper/rahm-stiffs-chick-fil-a-welcomes-louis-farrakhan

 

[Subduction Zone]

"the Dallas-based megachurch offered to recast the verbiage on the signs into a question: “Is America a Christian Nation?” But the advertising company was not interested in keeping the signs up."

You can't even ask the question?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...lboards-come-down-in-dallas-after-complaints/


The sermon title was inspired by a comments made by Supreme Court Justices John Jay and David Josiah Brewer – both of whom described America as a Christian nation. However, the Dallas Morning News and Mayor Rawlings blasted the pastor’s sermon title suggesting it was hateful and divisive.

https://www.toddstarnes.com/faith/law-firm-faces-charges-for-defending-christian-womens-shelter/

It's a bit reductionistic to call John Jay or David Josiah Brewer haters.

Please, a little honesty. No one called John Jay or Brewer haters. They were simply grossly mistaken. Cognitive dissonance can even strike the brightest of people at times.


If a Supreme Court justice claimed that 2 + 2 = 5 would that justify basing a sermon on that claim? Or would it be wiser to ignore it and concentrate on his good work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The red flag is that the mayor criticized the churches view but says they shouldn't criticize his ... its makes for a lopsided discussion but often the case in PC discussions

Should be more of a two way street. Then again I recall a bunch of Democratic Mayors bum rushing Chic Fi-A some years ago... not terribly balanced a discussion Then the red flag was Rahm Emmanual same day teaming up with Lius Farakahn as a partner with Chicago safety... very very inconsistent and not a two way thing at all

And when did that happen? The mayor may have criticized them if they claim that he ordered the sign to be taken down. He would be right in that because it would have been a lie. He merely pointed out two facts. That the sign was in error, the U.S. is not a "Christian nation" and that it was divisive.

 

[HonestJoe]

Calling their views hateful and divisive and then saying not to diminish his is odd but typical for PC

He expressed his opinion but he never said the church (or anyone else) shouldn't criticise him, which was the accusation you made.

 

[Shad]

He expressed his opinion but he never said the church (or anyone else) shouldn't criticise him, which was the accusation you made.

"proud of yours but do not diminish mine."

He expressed more than disagreement. He set the moral stage in which his view, for no reason provided, is better than a different view he sees as divisive, again no reason provided. Maybe an opinion but he still double-talked