Quote
Originally posted by: jillyf
It's actually not in the same category as Martin Bashir (or whatever his name is). Saying that a person should defecate in another person's mouth is not the same as the abstract threats contained in all religious dogma.
The religious person is suggesting that his invisible friend will deal harshly with the ne'er do wells. It takes a larger leap to categorize this as hate speech. That's why it's OK in our society to have these bizarre beliefs; it's intentionally unrealistic. I.e. "there are no gays in heaven."
The comment about Palin was a REALISTIC affront to her character and dignity, which could EASILY be interpreted as "It would be fun to..." If the comment about Palin was a sort of abstract misogynistic rant, then we'd be comparing apples and apples.
Originally posted by: jillyf
It's actually not in the same category as Martin Bashir (or whatever his name is). Saying that a person should defecate in another person's mouth is not the same as the abstract threats contained in all religious dogma.
The religious person is suggesting that his invisible friend will deal harshly with the ne'er do wells. It takes a larger leap to categorize this as hate speech. That's why it's OK in our society to have these bizarre beliefs; it's intentionally unrealistic. I.e. "there are no gays in heaven."
The comment about Palin was a REALISTIC affront to her character and dignity, which could EASILY be interpreted as "It would be fun to..." If the comment about Palin was a sort of abstract misogynistic rant, then we'd be comparing apples and apples.
How enlightening. So if Martin Bashir said someone should defecate in the mouths of evangelicals (instead of singling out one) then it would have been a no-Big-deal type of thing.
Somehow I doubt that premise. I seem to recall a certain president making an abstract comment about people gravitating towards religion and guns during hard times .... and the "religion and guns" crowd cried about it for 2 years.
