Paglia on Duck Dynasty

I believe that you can practice your "faith" WITHOUT imposing upon others.....I believe that
there is a way to construct your thought/sentence WITHOUT the hyberbole/hysteria that creates
backlash/negativity.

MY posting are NOT in an echo chamber....I have witnessed up front and CLOSE what pain/
despair/despondency/anguish is present because of biased/bigoted/backward attitude towards
homosexuality.

One of my relatives, who came out late in life,who was a DEVOTE Christian, had an extremely
difficult time coming to terms with who he was.....so much so, he got married (no children) to
PROVE his existence and opted to RETURN to Bosnia, time and time again.....(during that time
frame of unspeakable atrocities in war) just so he would NOT have to face his "false" life here in
the United States.......THIS is personal for me, THIS hate/ignorance is painful and unnecessary.

You must walk a mile in someone's moccasins BEFORE you condemn them PUBLICLY. JMO

homeagain wrote: I believe that you can practice your "faith" WITHOUT imposing upon others.....I believe that
there is a way to construct your thought/sentence WITHOUT the hyberbole/hysteria that creates
backlash/negativity.

MY posting are NOT in an echo chamber....I have witnessed up front and CLOSE what pain/
despair/despondency/anguish is present because of biased/bigoted/backward attitude towards
homosexuality.

One of my relatives, who came out late in life,who was a DEVOTE Christian, had an extremely
difficult time coming to terms with who he was.....so much so, he got married (no children) to
PROVE his existence and opted to RETURN to Bosnia, time and time again.....(during that time
frame of unspeakable atrocities in war) just so he would NOT have to face his "false" life here in
the United States.......THIS is personal for me, THIS hate/ignorance is painful and unnecessary.

You must walk a mile in someone's moccasins BEFORE you condemn them PUBLICLY. JMO

Well first off I never said you post in an echo chamber, that remark was for Lady Jazzer. You post in a can't-we-all-just-get-along-higher-plane-new-age-babble chamber.

There is no way to practice faith without imposing it on another. Period. If you are practicing it at all. Some practice it simply in the way they go about their daily lives. Some preach it from the mountaintops.

What you want someone of faith to do to do is go into the closet and shut up so you don't have to hear it. Sort of the same attitude that you rail against.

Now you are telling people that they need to "construct" their "thought/sentence." What next? Thought police?

Here's how this works, plain and simple. Phil says what he wants about his beliefs and faith. A&E and others can react to that within legal limits. Phil will reap the outcome, positive or negative. And when it's all over, he can keep on saying what he believes.

If people think Phil's statements have merit, then they may choose to support him and agree with him, and they may go forth and express their opinions, unfettered by your imposition of carefully constructed thought and sentence structure.

Granted "this hate/ignorance is painful and unnecessary." But that is part and parcel of the freedoms you, and everyone who doesn't think like you enjoys.

I'll leave you with this quote. "Only the continuous and steady application of the methods for suppressing a doctrine, etc., makes it possible for a plan to succeed." Look it up.

Walter L Newton wrote: There is no way to practice faith without imposing it on another. Some practice it simply in the way they go about their daily lives.

If they practice their "faith" by the way they go about their daily lives, how would you even know? and how is that imposing it on anyone?

Walter, I think you are confusing preaching ones faith with trying to change how others live by insisting that society cater to your beliefs...... The most obvious is banning abortions or some birth control methods because of your religious beliefs. It's OK to preach against abortions, or refuse to have one yourself, it's not OK to impose that ban on others who wish to make that choice. It's ok to preach religion in a church where people choose to listen to you, or on the streets where others can choose to listen or walk away, it's not OK to teach that religion to my child in school or require that your religion be taught instead of science. My opinion, but i think that is where the perceived war on religion is coming from.

You are welcome to your religion, you are not welcome to try and make me live it.

Disclaimer, the use of the word YOU in this post is not directed at Walter.....

Photo-fish wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote: There is no way to practice faith without imposing it on another. Some practice it simply in the way they go about their daily lives.

If they practice their "faith" by the way they go about their daily lives, how would you even know? and how is that imposing it on anyone?

"You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. James 2:18.

Now your turn

Do you agree with this "Now you are telling people that they need to "construct" their "thought/sentence." Should people tread lightly when professing concepts about their beliefs?

archer wrote: Walter, I think you are confusing preaching ones faith with trying to change how others live by insisting that society cater to your beliefs...

Show me where Phil "insisted" anything? I'll wait.

(And I'm an atheist, so none of these remarks about religion bother me in one why or another. I'm insulted by any supposedly intelligent grown adult professing belief about any supernatural topic. But I don't care to shut down that speech or minimize it)

I agree, Phil did not, never said he did...... The conversation has moved on from being just about Phil. My original response was to a statement indicating that many seem to hate religion, and I don't think they do, they just dislike when religious people try to change society. Again, that is not what Phil did.

And just to be clear, I am offended by Phil's comments, but not by the fact he said them.

archer wrote: I agree, Phil did not, never said he did...... The conversation has moved on from being just about Phil. My original response was to a statement indicating that many seem to hate religion, and I don't think they do, they just dislike when religious people try to change society. Again, that is not what Phil did.

Understood.

On on this note, "they just dislike when religious people try to change society" I agree, and I have no problem with them disliking it, I don't even blame them from getting angry. It's when I read statements like "I believe that there is a way to construct your thought/sentence..." that I bristle.

archer wrote: And just to be clear, I am offended by Phil's comments, but not by the fact he said them.

So am I. But not for the religious implications at all. It's just stupid. Just as stupid as new age talk about "other places." But let them talk like that. I'm firmly in the camp that science, intelligence and evolution (micro or macro) will weed them all out in the future.