Could it be any different than being called delusional, superstitious, and narrow-minded by a bunch of people?
People have a right to say that. He does have a right to say it, and he also has to take the backlash of what he says. We all do.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Kirk Cameron | Does he love all people?
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
Could it be any different than being called delusional, superstitious, and narrow-minded by a bunch of people?
People have a right to say that. He does have a right to say it, and he also has to take the backlash of what he says. We all do.
waitasec
Veteran Member
Could it be any different than being called delusional, superstitious, and narrow-minded by a bunch of people?
He does have a right to say it, and he also has to take the backlash of what he says. We all do.
yes we do...
help me out here
lets write a script generalizing the tension between
a theist and an atheist... if you're game.
i'll get this rolling and you fix what you think needs fixing
joe..."do you believe in god steve?"
steve..."no"
joe..."you know you're gonna burn in hell for that"
steve..."i don't believe there's such a place"
joe..."well that place is for loosers"
steve..."are you calling me a looser?"
joe..."no, not me my god is"
It goes both ways-
Steve: You are stupid or you just don't use your reasoning abilities. You believe in fairy tales and the flying spaghetti monster. I could prove a pink unicorn before you could prove God.
Insults are insults, no matter who is talking to whom. They both have a right to state what they will, and both has to take the heat for it from the other side.
waitasec
Veteran Member
It goes both ways-
Steve: You are stupid or you just don't use your reasoning abilities. You believe in fairy tales and the flying spaghetti monster. I could prove a pink unicorn before you could prove God.
Insults are insults, no matter who is talking to whom. They both have a right to state what they will, and both has to take the heat for it from the other side.
ok, why would joe tell steve that he's being unreasonable in the 1st place?
would it not come from an earlier discourse where joe told steve that god is real and not only is god real but god wants him to live a particular way, and the particular way may come off as saying; the way you are living now is substandard to steve's way of living.
it wouldn't make sense to just walk up to someone whom you know nothing about and assume they are being unreasonable without ever saying anything at all...
I think I know what you are trying to say.
My therapist once told me when someone insults me to think "consider the source". What would you expect Kirk Cameron to say? I've watched his show once before and that was enough for me. Going up to people he never met and telling them they weren't good people. Even as a Christian, I find that kind of thing appalling and definitely not the way to witness- the way I see it. So what he said about homosexuality wouldn't be any surprise to me. We all need to step back and say "Is this guy so important to my life that his opinion means anything to me?" or "Is this guy's opinion worth me getting my getting all upset over?" Do you even know the guy. He is just some former child actor.
waitasec
Veteran Member
thats interesting you would say that...i never even saw his show
but i do think you understand what i mean...
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I don't think there's one person who's posted to this thread who thinks that a person's free speech should be banned simply because they don't agree with it or find it absurd. I also don't think that there's one person here who thinks that a person should be attacked for expressing their right to free speech, regardless of if we agree with that person or not. I don't think that anyone here is saying that Cameron should just shut up, whether they agree with him or not. I think there's something else going on here, that no one else has pointed out yet. Let's take another look at that quote:
First, the bolded part. He makes the assumption that his views have the been the "moral underpinnings" of western civilization for two thousand years. But morality in the west has not been monolithic over the last two thousand years, actually, ever. He's assuming he's right from the get-go. He's already presupposing that his view is the only correct one. Now, for the part in red. We've basically come to the point where speech against gays can be considered hate speech. But, has Cameron slandered gay people? Another quote from the article:
This sounds like hate speech to me. It's the same things that many people against gay marriages say. And, of course, none of it has any foundation. First of all, is it natural? We already know that there are many species in nature that practice homosexuality. So it can't be unnatural. Second, who is it detrimental to? Nobody. And third, it's "destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." I find this last one funny. It's not destructive to anyone or anything. And, if you've actually studied history, our civilization comes from the ideas of the Greeks and Romans, where homosexuality was commonplace. Hope that clears some things up.
Kirk Cameron said:
First, the bolded part. He makes the assumption that his views have the been the "moral underpinnings" of western civilization for two thousand years. But morality in the west has not been monolithic over the last two thousand years, actually, ever. He's assuming he's right from the get-go. He's already presupposing that his view is the only correct one. Now, for the part in red. We've basically come to the point where speech against gays can be considered hate speech. But, has Cameron slandered gay people? Another quote from the article:
Kirk Cameron said:
This sounds like hate speech to me. It's the same things that many people against gay marriages say. And, of course, none of it has any foundation. First of all, is it natural? We already know that there are many species in nature that practice homosexuality. So it can't be unnatural. Second, who is it detrimental to? Nobody. And third, it's "destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization." I find this last one funny. It's not destructive to anyone or anything. And, if you've actually studied history, our civilization comes from the ideas of the Greeks and Romans, where homosexuality was commonplace. Hope that clears some things up.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Possibly, if so he is wrong.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Now now, you are making assumptions that have no basis in reality. Just because I say that Cameron has the right to speak his mind and not be told to keep silent is not the same as condoning his viewpoint. Talk about a stretch.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Karma's a *****.
He's free to express himself in whatever sanctimonious and ignorant way he wants. And everyone else is free to think him a twit and a moron and express those opinions accordingly. He should stop whining and grow up.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
That doesn't mean two wrongs make a right.
Sorry, but with a setup like that I just had to say it. 
McBell
Unbound
Try multiplying two negative numbers....That doesn't mean two wrongs make a right.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
I agree with what you're saying. My comments have been exclusivly pertaining to the portion of the quote I have colored blue.
Cameron has certainly spoken out against homosexuality but I'm not sure he's spoken out against any homosexuals specifically. My interpretation has been that he separates homosexuallity from the person and so, in his mind at least, he isn't speaking of people but rather a sexual act. He is one of those Hate the sin not the sinner idiots. I'm not sure you can call that slander though.
It might sound like it but it isn't, at least not legally. The Wiki splits it into two definitions.
Personally I think the "outside the law" definitions is a useless interpretations that allows you to call anything hate speech. So I suppose you could call what Cameron said as hate speech but what isn't hate speech by this definition. By the legal definition it isn't.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Trey of Diamonds said:
With that, I agree.
waitasec
Veteran Member
That doesn't mean two wrongs make a right.
of course you had to say something...
but the point is the 1st offense committed in the history of history was of the religious infringing on believers of another faith and then they started to pick on the one who didn't have one...
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Really? Can you offer an example? Religion was pretty tolerant over all until the Abrahamic God introduced the concept of a Jealous God. Prior to that it was a pretty much live and let live atmosphere amongst all the pagan religions, well, on the topic of religion anyway.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
"Homosexuals should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of cultural or religious intolerance, and told from those who preach ‘religion’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to*their*moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” - just playin' around with a quote.
How in the world did Kirk Cameron saying something beyond ignorant become, on multiple forums, a debate over his right to say something so stupid when no one was infringing his said right to be stupid.
Just because a small number of people might call another person out and tell them it would probably be better if they kept their mouths shut isn't infringing upon anything. It could be good advice.
How in the world did Kirk Cameron saying something beyond ignorant become, on multiple forums, a debate over his right to say something so stupid when no one was infringing his said right to be stupid.
Just because a small number of people might call another person out and tell them it would probably be better if they kept their mouths shut isn't infringing upon anything. It could be good advice.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Yep. Of course there were some isolated cases but on the whole, pagan religions got along with other religions just fine. Only Yahweh was so arrogant as to demand the rejection of all other Gods. Shame really, I prefer diversity.
Still, this is a pretty recent event and hardly worthy of your "history of history" remark. That makes it sound like the beginning of time or something.