Reply With Quote
Look at most of the world's wars (past and present) and tell me religion is not a hot topic.
Why is causing a stir a bad thing?
Look at most of the world's wars (past and present) and tell me religion is not a hot topic.
It is not. Being misguided or being ineffective in sending a message is a bad thing. Many people tried to stop slavery. But it took the right person(s) at the right time and the right place to get it done.
So then it's a good thing when someone comes out and says he doesn't believe an idea that's been used to kill infidels since the beginning of time.
Ok grammatical errors aside, should he lie instead, or just dodge the question? Maybe he is just being honest with his fans. Do you want atheists that become admired to never say that they are atheists?
My mistake. Served.
The premise of having a forum such as his is to let his opinions be heard/read, whether they disagree with yours or not.
Are you seriously equating "I am not a believer" with the Israeli-Palestine conflict (which probably has as much to do with land, water rights, and supposed historic ethnic hatred as it does with religion). Or the Bosnian crisis (which had alot to do with with the fall of the Soviet Union and ethnic hostilities). Or the 100 years war for that matter? Just because both center on religion doesn't mean Texas is going to attack North Dakota because Manu is an atheist.
Typo...
matter = manner.
Still doesn't change the idiocy of what you said. You're taking Ginobili's answer of a simple question and now suggesting that he "use his power to get his message across"Ginobili isn't some preacher or politician. He's not trying to send a message lol. He answered a question on his forum without a hint of malice or disdain. You're the only one making an issue of this.
Is there a difference between saying things in a palatable way and lying? I think so. I do not want him to lie.
Everyone on here (no matter which side you stand on) is making an issue.Typo...
matter = manner.
Still doesn't change the idiocy of what you said. You're taking Ginobili's answer of a simple question and now suggesting that he "use his power to get his message across"
Okay then, here's a scenario: You are an atheist. Someone has just asked you about your religious beliefs. How exactly would you answer in a "palatable way"?
What? The point is that religion is a hot topic that can create a backlash if not handled properly no matter what you believe.
I don't think Manu was trying to promote atheist-awareness. I think he was just answering a question.
As to slavery, it took a president in the midst of a civil war to issue a cons utionally questionable proclamation. But to say that those who were "misguided" were "ineffective" is, again, ignorant. Are you saying that abolitionists like Frederick Douglas who was pivotal in amassing northern support was ineffective? Should he, and others, have been silent in the face of the ins ution of slavery because they were incapable of ending it? Should individual's like Martin Luther King, Malcom X, or others keep quiet because they don't have their hands on the levers of power?
What is wa? If someone asked me (and I am not a public figure) I would respond in a matter in which did not discredit their beliefs. If I was a public figure, I would only answer questions that pertain to fans and not my personal belief systems. If I was asked by a friend or family member I would tell them that I do not believe but understand how they might considering all the wonderful things that happen on a daily basis.
No, they all had their place in time. They all struck blows to the rock of human injustice and masterfully and proudly served the rights of all peoples. Manu is not doing anything of the sort (nor did I say he was trying to), he is just speaking on a subject that he personally believes in what I believe to be an inappropriate manner. There is no good that can come from this. All the people that you listed inspired good.
You're right - but there's a difference of degree. Manu saying he's not a believer seems to have incurred only your wrath. Equating that with religious conflict is - for lack of a better word - stupid.
But that's not your point - your point was that Manu should be responsible in not airing controversial viewpoints because he's in a position of public visibility?
And, on top of it all, you're view that this supposed "backlash" has been treated by the Supreme Court and declared illegal.
-- R.A.V. v. St. Paul: the court struck down a law prohibiting the burning of crosses on minorities lawns because it silenced a particular (racist) viewpoint.
-- Texas v. Johnson: the court indicated that a law prohibiting flag-burning would be uncons utional--although some people would take offense at such an act, it was protected "pure speech."
-- U.S. v. Cohen: wearing a jacket saying " the Draft" to a courthouse was consitutionally protected -- even though it might incur the backlash of other people because it touched on a 'hot topic' -- the Vietnam War then taking place.
Your position is, essentially, untenable if not downright re ed.
What did Manu say that discredited anyone's beliefs?
So if they asked, you would avoid it? You should be in politics.
lmao
This guy is putting in a lot of work just so he won't have to admit he is wrong for criticizing Manu's comments.
Just because religion is a "hot" topic, it doesn't mean it's an inflammatory topic. NOt the same thing. Most grown adults can have a civilized and cordial discussion about religion even if they have different beliefs. You yourself said Manu's comments didn't bother you, so why not assume that most people are like you and can respect a man's personal beliefs?
Also, why do you keep going back to "America" and American standards and American values when the questions and answers were in Spanish and most likely targeted to his Argentine fans?
All of the examples you use don't apply to Manu or his comments.
An internet website specifically about Manu is actually one of the more appropriate places for Manu to express a comment like this. He's speaking directly to his fans, and it's not a political or religious forum. If Manu was invited by a friend to attend a mass at a Christian church and was asked to give the homily, and he expressed his opinion there, then he would need a more palatable way to express his opinion. If he were at a Catholic grade school with young impressionable 5-8 year old kids and he was giving a speech on values and he expressed his non-belief of God there, that would probably be inappropriate. On a website devoted to him and in Spanish, I think that's a pretty good place for him to express an opinion like this where it wouldn't cause much of a problem at all, except for a person who is obsessed over self-righteous indignation on what is a right or wrong place to express a personal opinion on the internet.
Please show me where I said it is illegal. You must of gone full re . Religious conflict is not stupid, but I believe that people should think about what they say and when. My point is not that he should not "air" his opinions. My point is that he needs to do it in an effective manner and in a palatable way.
So, either you believe Manu's actions are inspiring "bad," and that makes you anti-atheist.
Or, you believe Manu's actions are inconsequential. In which case, you are ruffling feathers over nothing.
What? Since when does making a simple statement about your own beliefs discredit someone else's beliefs? He didn't say, "I don't believe in God and if you do, you are an idiot."
You are making much ado about nothing and this crazy conversation doesn't really belong in the Spurs forum.
Manu's beliefs do not bother me. It is his timing and where he chose to express those beliefs that bother me. It is not an American thing. I already said in my earlier post that he is directing a comment that assumes he believes in God towards people that widely believe in God.
Timing? What about the timing of his comments? And, what's wrong with it being on a Manu Ginobili fan website?
When you said that Manu should keep his mouth shut. Those three cases (which are much more extreme, or to use your word, inflamatory, than "I'm not a believer") resulted in protecting speech even though it would provoke a backlash. Why would the court do such a thing? because the "bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that the expression of an idea should not be prohibited because society finds it offensive or disagreeable." If what he says provokes a backlash -- our law says good because that response to "unpopular views" will result in a debate -- like what's going on here.
That's the point that I think you're missing -- that the "intolerable" view that promotes a "backlash" is really an invitation to a public dialogue - i.e. a good thing. What's bad is when a subject gets silenced completely.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions