Nice piece of religious bigotry there, Cher
The singer and left-wing dingbat has deigned to wax snarky over Mitt Romney's "magic underwear."
I would be fascinated to hear her response to some equally ignorant crack about, say, Native American religion. The problem is, I don't think she would even see the parallel.
Bigots are like that. Especially liberal bigots.
HT: Drudge
I would be fascinated to hear her response to some equally ignorant crack about, say, Native American religion. The problem is, I don't think she would even see the parallel.
Bigots are like that. Especially liberal bigots.
HT: Drudge
Comments
1. Mormon beliefs about undergarments seems silly to Robert Waters.
→ This is very postmodern of you. Are Mormon beliefs about undergarments objectively silly or not?
2. Robert Waters strenuously objects to Cher mocking Romney's religious beliefs about undergarments.
→ Cher only said out loud what you were thinking—that Romney's religious beliefs about undergarments is silly.
3. Robert Waters believes there is a right for a person's religious beliefs to be treated with respect and tolerance.
→ There is no such right. It would ordinarily be extremely obnoxious for someone to go out of their way to disrespect other people's religious beliefs, but people have a right to be obnoxious. Presidential candidates are a little different. They get mocked for all kinds of things other people wouldn't get mocked for.
Whether Mormon beliefs about undergarments are "objecively silly" or not, the existence of a free society depends on our treating the beliefs of others- even silly ones- with respect. If we don't, our political discourse quickly degenerates into the very kind of childish ad hominems and pettiness which... hey, that's kind of what has happened to our society, isn't it?!
No, Jeff. Just as your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my chin, your right to be obnoxious- or Cher's- ends at the point where all of us are deprived of substanitive debate on the issues of the day because they have been replaced to a very great degree by snarkiness and ridicule. In the long run, this degenerates to the point where the liberals have already taken it: where ridicule is used as a weapon to intimidate and silence opinions with which we disagree, thereby denying those who hold them the right to express them.
Or do you deny that they have that right?
All of our legs are broken, as Jefferson would say, if substanitive debate on the issues of the day breaks down in ridicule and name calling. A free people cannot govern itself under those conditions. All of our pockets are picked. At that point, any "right to be obnoxious" which you postulate ends.
The right of Mormons to have ridiculous beliefs about underwear (and Cher did more than "say what I am thinking;" she issued a public statement deliberately insulting not a presidential candidate, but an entire religion; is it suddenly OK to insult an entire religion in order to ridicule a presidential candidate who happens to hold it?)is not in dispute by anybody. The right of Cher to further undermine the very currency of self-government by a free people is. Ah, the absurdity of the libertarian mind! In its anxiety to defend the most obtuse and theoretical right of one individual, you are perfectly willing to deprive each and every one of us of the right to effectively govern ourselves, and to live in a free society.
Each of us is affected by whatever effects all of us, Jeff. And if there is not a right to have our religious beliefs treated with respect, there is certainly an obligation which comes with citizenship in a free society to treat the religious beliefs of others with respect. Society cannot function with out it- and once again, we have the point which libertarians can't seem to grasp: that the rights of each of us are denied when the rights of all of us are denied.
Yes, Jeff. There is an obligation to treat the religious beliefs of others with respect. Even the silly ones. And your logically flawed, pseudo-philosophical argument to the contrary doesn't change that.