Fire chief fired after gay comments in book

[bybee]

Bigotry is not an expression of Christian faith

True! It is a form of extremism.

 

[Eeset]

If you realized that an employee of yours in an important management position lacked a sense of good judgment would you fire them?

 

[PureX]

If you realized that an employee of yours in an important management position lacked a sense of good judgment would you fire them?

It would depend on the job, and on the degree of bad judgment. Normally, I would want to give people leeway for a couple of mistakes, as none of us are perfect. But in the case of a fire chief, good judgment is essential. The ability to reason, follow orders, and interact positively with the public would be crucial requirements. And in this case I'm afraid these virtues are not in evidence.

 

[resodko]

Who?

some fag, prolly :idunno:

Do you follow all the laws of the old testament?

do you follow any of them?

Being a christian is defined by one's relationship to God not by which minorities one chooses to hate.

and yet, you're happy to discriminate against pedophiles :think:

 

[TracerBullet]

and yet, you're happy to discriminate against pedophiles :think:

repeating a false claim doesn't make it any more true

 

[Dialogos]

Yes, the policy is clear. If you're going to do something (e.g., write a book) using your professional title, you must first check with your supervisor to make sure it's OK.

Which is, in itself, a problem. The Gov't should not be able to censor the writing of a book simply because the current administration does not agree ideologically with the contents of the book. But Cochran testifies that he got the verbal ok to write the book, and the Mayor had a copy of the book for 10 months before it became an issue. The reality is clear to those who are not willing to do the mental gymnastics that are necessary to make it about "getting permission," Cochran's suspension was not because he didn't get permission to write a book, Cochran's suspension was about appeasing a political action group that didn't like what Cochran had to say about homosexuality in the book.

And this is clear from the response. Cochran was put on a month long, unpaid suspension and ordered to a re-education program. dollars to donuts, that program had nothing to do with the protocols for procuring permission to write a book and had everything to do with diversity, especially LGBT sensitivity in the workplace.

Everyone knows that if Cochran had written a children's pop-up book about butterflies no one would have said peep.

Mayor Reed is just using this as an excuse because they don't have the guts to stand up and tell the truth. And the truth is clear. Atlanta town hall is afraid of the homosexual PAC which demanded a sacrifice to atone for the attack on what they stand for and Cochran was the lamb led to the slaughter.

Pathetic...

At least the New York Times had the guts to call it like it is, Cochran was fired for what he wrote.

Right. So not only did Cochran violate city policy, after he was informed of his error he didn't show any signs of regret for doing so.

Remorse for what?

Cochran shouldn't have to show remorse for offending others with his deeply held religious opinions on sexual sin. This is precisely the kind of garbage the First Amendment was drafted to protect the citizenry from; gov't intrusion into the religious practices and opinions.

According to reports, Cochran basically went on a mini-tour of local churches specifically to speak about the case.

Good for Cochran.

He has every right to criticize the gov't for its violation of religious liberty.

So this wasn't like he was only speaking privately to his pastor, where the conversation would be legally protected.

Is that all you think the First Amendment was designed to protect?

He doesn't have to restrict his speech to private conversations in quite corners of a pastors office, he has the right to speak publically, in church about social issues and concerns and religious liberty is certainly a social concern.

Instead of honoring the wall of separation between church and state, the city of Atlanta busted through that wall in order condemn Cochran for what was said in church.

Bottom line, if the city of Atlanta can terminate a city employee because they don't like the stance a city employee takes on a social issue in places of worship then the First Amendment means nothing anymore and nothing that anyone says in places of worship will be beyond the reach of the government's ability to censor and punish.

:sozo:Welcome back to the same situation that we left to start this country in the first place!

No, he saw an opportunity to make himself a martyr and ran with it.

Societies that value religious liberty have no martyrs...

:think:

 

[Dialogos]

It's pretty common for those who hate to hide behind religion.

It's also pretty common for cowards to hide behind accusations of "hate" rather than address the real issues.

Your attempt to try and equate Cochran's writing a book about the power of forgiveness to the KKK just shows how far you have to reach.

Pathetic...

holding up a bible doesn't make the bigotry good or just or moral

Calling something bigotry doesn't make it so.

The reality is that Cochran doesn't hate homosexuals, in fact, he is showing them a greater kindness than you are.

Cochran is telling them the truth.

You are content to lie to their face.

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend, profuse are the kisses of an enemy." (Prov 27:6)

Its clear from both Old and New Testaments that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God, and that no one who practices such things will enter into the kingdom of God, but you would rather curry their favor here and watch them march in their gay pride parades all the way to hell.

and likewise the Curse of Ham, parts of the Song of Solomon, verses in Deuteronomy and Numbers have all been used by racists to justify their hate.


Does that make God a racist?

Your argument couldn't be less valid.

The fact that some have misused the bible to justify racism does not prove that the bible supports homosexuality.

The facts are that the bible clearly does not support racism and it clearly condemns homosexuality.

But I predict that you will run away, like a scared little mouse, from any discussion about the specifics of biblical verses because you know you don't have the facts back you up.

so your answer is "no" you don't follow all the laws.

Of course not! Have you even read the bible?
There are some things that the New Covenant made obsolete. Ergo, God is fine with us wearing poly-cotton blends while eating a ham sandwiches with a non-Jewish wife.

There are some things the New Covenant retained. Which is why God still condemns you slapping your mother, killing your brother, lying to your dad and sleeping with your best friend's wife on the night before you knock of a liquor store on the way to marrying your own sister.
:duh:

Being a christian is defined by one's relationship to God not by which minorities one chooses to hate.

If you had a relationship with God, you would not disregard His word (see Mark 8:38).

 

[TracerBullet]

It's also pretty common for cowards to hide behind accusations of "hate" rather than address the real issues.

Your attempt to try and equate Cochran's writing a book about the power of forgiveness to the KKK just shows how far you have to reach.

Pathetic...

You ignore what was actually posted and put up your own straw man. Dishonest AND pathetic.

Calling something bigotry doesn't make it so.

Justifying bigotry with the bible doesn't make it good or moral or just

The reality is that Cochran doesn't hate homosexuals, in fact, he is showing them a greater kindness than you are.

by associating them with child abusers and promoting discrimination.

Cochran is telling them the truth.

just like these tell black people the truth

Its clear from both Old and New Testaments that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God, and that no one who practices such things will enter into the kingdom of God, but you would rather curry their favor here and watch them march in their gay pride parades all the way to hell.

and racists say the same thing about racial equality....so what?

Your argument couldn't be less valid.

The fact that some have misused the bible to justify racism does not prove that the bible supports homosexuality.

The facts are that the bible clearly does not support racism and it clearly condemns homosexuality.

those who hate misuse the bible to justify racism and anti-Semitism and sexism and homophobia.

But I predict that you will run away, like a scared little mouse, from any discussion about the specifics of biblical verses because you know you don't have the facts back you up.

I am more than willing to have that discussion.

Of course not! Have you even read the bible?
There are some things that the New Covenant made obsolete. Ergo, God is fine with us wearing poly-cotton blends while eating a ham sandwiches with a non-Jewish wife.

There are some things the New Covenant retained. Which is why God still condemns you slapping your mother, killing your brother, lying to your dad and sleeping with your best friend's wife on the night before you knock of a liquor store on the way to marrying your own sister.
:duh:

And if you had ever bothered to actually read the bible you would know that the new covenant replaced the OT law in it's entirety.

If you had a relationship with God, you would not disregard His word (see Mark 8:38).

If you had a relationship with God you wouldn't be using him as an justification for your own personal prejudices

 

[Dialogos]

Justifying bigotry with the bible doesn't make it good or moral or just.

Your just begging your own question. If the bible condemns homosexual behavior then pointing to that fact is not bigotry anymore than saying that God disapproves of theft is bigotry.

I am sure the "thief community" doesn't like it, but "let God be true though every man be a liar."

by associating them with child abusers and promoting discrimination.

The bible associates homosexuality with bestiality, does that mean that God is a bigot (See Leviticus 20:10-17)?

Now, let me anticipate your non-answer?

We aren't under the Old Testament, right?

So what then is your explanation? That God was a bigot but now he isn't?

That the Creator of the Universe saw the light and came around to your better way of thinking about homosexuality?

:nono:

Ridiculous!

Your argument begins to unravel even more when one realizes that the NT condemns homosexuality just as vocally as the OT.

How do you explain this?

Oh, that's right. You don't, you just keep appealing to false analogies like equating sexual behavior to race like you did here.

just like these tell black people the truth

:nono:

You can't even see that your argument is based on fallacious thinking can you?

Anyone can argue from analogy.

The "pederast community" could also argue from analogy.

"The bible has been used to promote racism and condemn equal rights for African Americans therefore using the bible to promote hate and prejudice against men who prefer sex with underage boys is wrong."

See the problem yet?

This kind of non-sequitur is lazy and stupid and it runs all the way through your argument.

Just because the bible has been errantly used to promote racism doesn't mean that the bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality.

and racists say the same thing about racial equality....so what?

So...

The bible actually doesn't support racism and it actually does condemn homosexual behavior.

And if you had read the bible you would know that.

those who hate misuse the bible to justify racism and anti-Semitism and sexism and homophobia.

Just more intellectually lazy argumentation.

1. Telling the truth isn't hate. I don't hate or fear the "thief community." My pointing out that the bible commands against stealing is not an act of hate, it is a proclamation of truth.

2. It does not logically follow that the misuse of the bible in justifying racism means that homosexual behavior is biblically permissible.

Its actually pretty easy to show that the bible doesn't promote sexism, racism or anti-semitism. Its equally easy to show that the bible considers homosexuality a sinful, detestable rebellion against God's standards of sexual morality.

And if you had ever bothered to actually read the bible you would know that the new covenant replaced the OT law in it's entirety.

Which means what?

That we are all now free to have sex with our mothers, sisters, brothers, and pets?

Or are there still standards of sexual morality in the New Covenant?

:duh:

If you had a relationship with God you wouldn't be using him as an justification for your own personal prejudices

My own personal prejudices have nothing to do with it.

Selfishly, I don't give a hoot what two perverts do behind closed doors. If they want to have perverted sex until Christ comes and throws them into hell for it then its no skin off of my back.

But folks like Cochran and others actually care about people and want them to come to repentance so that they will escape judgment.

You're the one who really hates the homosexuals. You are the enemy that multiplies kisses and you lie to them saying "peace, peace, when there is no peace."

 

[Jose Fly]

Which is, in itself, a problem. The Gov't should not be able to censor the writing of a book simply because the current administration does not agree ideologically with the contents of the book.

Hi, I'm Jose Fly the Chief of Police for New York City, and I'm here to tell you that all white people are spawns of Satan and are responsible for all the evils throughout history.

According to your thinking, the City of New York cannot do anything about that.

But Cochran testifies that he got the verbal ok to write the book

From someone who wasn't authorized to give the OK. The City has a clear policy on how to get an OK (get approval from a board) and Cochran violated that policy.

Cochran's suspension was not because he didn't get permission to write a book, Cochran's suspension was about appeasing a political action group that didn't like what Cochran had to say about homosexuality in the book.

Maybe, but by violating a pretty clear city policy and then violating the terms of his suspension, he handed them an excuse on a sliver platter.

Everyone knows that if Cochran had written a children's pop-up book about butterflies no one would have said peep.

Probably not.

But by the same token, I'm pretty sure had Cochran written a book under his title saying Christianity is nonsense and anyone who believes it is a moron, you'd be on the opposite side of this argument. But because he spoke out against gays, he's on your team, so you're going to support him no matter how stupid it makes you look.

Remorse for what?

For violating City policy.

Cochran shouldn't have to show remorse for offending others with his deeply held religious opinions on sexual sin.

And he shouldn't be free from consequences either.

This is precisely the kind of garbage the First Amendment was drafted to protect the citizenry from; gov't intrusion into the religious practices and opinions.

Nope, you don't have the same free speech rights when you're at work. That's why you can be fired for things you say at work. We've been over this.

He has every right to criticize the gov't for its violation of religious liberty.

The City has every right to protect what sort of speech is promoted in its name too.

Hi, I'm Jose Fly the Chief of the New York City Water Department, and I'm here to tell you how I believe the Bible teaches that white people are the spawn of Satan and are responsible for all the evils in the world.

According to you I should be completely free from any consequences for what I said in the City's name, and the City cannot do anything at all to restrict what anyone says in its name.

Is that all you think the First Amendment was designed to protect?

I know what it's designed to protect; unfortunately you don't, which is why the courts have consistently agreed with me and disagreed with you.

He doesn't have to restrict his speech to private conversations in quite corners of a pastors office, he has the right to speak publically, in church about social issues and concerns and religious liberty is certainly a social concern.

And he also has to expect that there will be consequences for violating the terms of his suspension.

Again you apparently think religious liberty is absolute and as long as someone says "religion", they're free to break whatever laws and rules they want, with absolutely no consequences.

Instead of honoring the wall of separation between church and state, the city of Atlanta busted through that wall in order condemn Cochran for what was said in church.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The churches are all open to the public and Cochran isn't a pastor, which means his little mini-martyr tour was public speech, in direct violation of his suspension.

Bottom line, if the city of Atlanta can terminate a city employee because they don't like the stance a city employee takes on a social issue in places of worship then the First Amendment means nothing anymore and nothing that anyone says in places of worship will be beyond the reach of the government's ability to censor and punish.

I'm sure that's what you believe. But then as this thread testifies, you believe all sorts of bizarre things.

Societies that value religious liberty have no martyrs...

Right....because religious liberty is absolute.

Thanks for making my point for me.

 

[Dialogos]

Hi, I'm Jose Fly the Chief of Police for New York City, and I'm here to tell you that all white people are spawns of Satan and are responsible for all the evils throughout history.


According to your thinking, the City of New York cannot do anything about that.

Not enough information.

First, I am pretty sure the City of New York has better sense than to hire you as its Chief of Police.
Second, in what context is the Chief saying this? During a school assembly that is supposed to be about highway safety?
In a private meeting in his own home?
In church?
In a book he has written on his own private time?

From someone who wasn't authorized to give the OK.

I'm waiting for more information on this but lets assume that you are right.

Whose fault is that?

If you contact the HR dept. of your company and they give you permission to do something they don't have the authority to give, that's on them, not on you.

Maybe, but by violating a pretty clear city policy and then violating the terms of his suspension, he handed them an excuse on a sliver platter.

Which is a pretty poor excuse for violating someone's religious freedom, don't you think?

Is that where we are as a society now, we can fire people for expressing their religious freedom as long as we can trump up some pretext for it?

Pathetic...

:nono:

But by the same token, I'm pretty sure had Cochran written a book under his title saying Christianity is nonsense and anyone who believes it is a moron, you'd be on the opposite side of this argument.

Nope. And, in fact, idiots like Bill Maher say that kind of thing all the time and no one expects the network(s) he is on to censor him in the least, certainly no one is bullying HBO to fire him, are they?

And I would be totally against that censorship anyway. Bill should be allowed to express his opinions on matters of religion. Those of us who disagree with him should be able to make our rebuttals cogently.

Christianity is at its best when Christians are forced to have an answer for the hope that lies within us.

According to you I should be completely free from any consequences for what I said in the City's name, and the City cannot do anything at all to restrict what anyone says in its name.

Nice straw man.

Cochran wasn't speaking on behalf of the city, he was speaking on behalf of himself. The fact that he identifies himself as the fire chief is just background to the author. Cochran isn't speaking in the name of the city by putting his title in the "about the author" section of his book anymore than Dan Brown is speaking on behalf of Amherst College by identifying himself as a graduate and English prof. at Amherst College in the "about the author" sections of his books.

Again you apparently think religious liberty is absolute and as long as someone says "religion", they're free to break whatever laws and rules they want, with absolutely no consequences.

No, I think that rules and laws that violate religious liberty are immoral and unconstitutional. The first amendment should not be overridden by lesser laws and rules.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The churches are all open to the public...

Which means what?

Hmmm?

That because churches are open to the public the government can tell us what can and cannot be said in church and who can and cannot say it?

:nono:

Thanks for making my point for me.

This is exactly the kind of government control over the church that the First Amendment was designed to protect american citizens from!

Churches in this country have always been to the public!

Why now is that a justification for censorship?

...and Cochran isn't a pastor,

Cochran is a deacon in his church.

How does that make a difference?

Here's your answer:
:sozo: None of your stinkin' business! You and the city of Atlanta should keep your fat noses the heck out of what is said in church and who gets to say it!

 

[zoo22]

But Cochran testifies that he got the verbal ok to write the book,

From someone who wasn't authorized to give the OK.

I'm waiting for more information on this

What are you waiting for?

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
Atlanta Fire Rescue Department – Chief Cochran Book Publication
City of Atlanta Law Department January 9, 2015

I. Was Publication of the Book Authorized? The Standards of Conduct provide a clear directive to “commissioners, deputy commissioners [and] department heads” to seek approval of the Board of Ethics before the department head “may engage in private employment or render services for private interests.” No such approval was sought or rendered in the publication of the book that is available on Amazon.com for purchase. At the outset of the investigation, Chief Cochran admitted that he did not inform Mayor Reed that he was publishing the book and did not have the Mayor’s permission. The only indication there was any mention of the book to anyone in the Mayor’s Office is the Chief Operating Officer at the time of publication remembering that Chief Cochran had talked about writing a book on leadership. Chief Cochran insists Ethics Officer Hickson authorized both the publication of the book and the reference in the book to his position as AFRD Chief. His recollection is that he first contacted Ms. Hickson to determine if it was permissible to publish the book and that he later asked if it was appropriate to identify himself in the book as AFRD Chief. Ms. Hickson indicated that she did not approve publication of the book and had no authority to grant such approval. She said she told him that he would need to get the Mayor’s permission as well as a formal opinion from the Board of Ethics. Contemporaneous notes from Ms. Hickson’s log read as follows: 31 Oct 2012...T/C 10:34 a.m.....Advise regarding non-city-related book he is authoring...will check back w/ me in about 6 mos. 2:22 p.m.....9 July 2013...T/C Fire Chief Cochran...mentioning in book...advice-> Leadership Association...assoc...MLM...get a percentage of profit...told him to clear with Mayor...then get authority from Board of Ethics.​

Whose fault is that?

If you contact the HR dept. of your company and they give you permission to do something they don't have the authority to give, that's on them, not on you.

Oh, I see what you're waiting for... You want a report that doesn't contradict you, like the actual report does.

 

[TracerBullet]

Your just begging your own question. If the bible condemns homosexual behavior then pointing to that fact is not bigotry anymore than saying that God disapproves of theft is bigotry.

I am sure the "thief community" doesn't like it, but "let God be true though every man be a liar."

As noted racists believe the bible condemns racial equality as well. And most racists are very devout Christians but i don't think many would find it acceptable these days to use the bible as an excuse to spread their prejudice

The bible associates homosexuality with bestiality, does that mean that God is a bigot (See Leviticus 20:10-17)?

Now, let me anticipate your non-answer?

We aren't under the Old Testament, right?

So what then is your explanation? That God was a bigot but now he isn't?

That the Creator of the Universe saw the light and came around to your better way of thinking about homosexuality?

:nono:

Ridiculous!

Your argument begins to unravel even more when one realizes that the NT condemns homosexuality just as vocally as the OT.

How do you explain this?

Oh, that's right. You don't, you just keep appealing to false analogies like equating sexual behavior to race like you did here.

God isn't the one here using the bible to justify hate.

:nono:

You can't even see that your argument is based on fallacious thinking can you?

Anyone can argue from analogy.

The "pederast community" could also argue from analogy.

Racists also have a long history of trying to associate African Americans with sexual crimes as a means of somehow making bigotry OK.

Recycling is a good thing but not when what's being recycled is hate

"The bible has been used to promote racism and condemn equal rights for African Americans therefore using the bible to promote hate and prejudice against men who prefer sex with underage boys is wrong."

See the problem yet?

Yes, people misusing the bible to justify their hate and petty prejudices.

This kind of non-sequitur is lazy and stupid and it runs all the way through your argument.

Just because the bible has been errantly used to promote racism doesn't mean that the bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality.

What you are saying is that racists are wrong to misuse the bible to promote hated but when i do the same thing it's perfectly fine.

So...

The bible actually doesn't support racism and it actually does condemn homosexual behavior.

And if you had read the bible you would know that.

Racists certainly say the bible does support them. And they has been a long history of preachers, theologians and biblical scholars supporting that view.

Just more intellectually lazy argumentation.

1. Telling the truth isn't hate. I don't hate or fear the "thief community." My pointing out that the bible commands against stealing is not an act of hate, it is a proclamation of truth.

Speaking of intellectually lazy arguments.

It is really sad that the only way you seem to be able to justify your own prejudice is to try to associate an entire minority with criminals.

The truth is this tactic of yours is grossly dishonest and disgusting.

2. It does not logically follow that the misuse of the bible in justifying racism means that homosexual behavior is biblically permissible.

Big straw man there. Try focusing on what was said rather than what you want to have been said.

Misusing the bible to justify hatred of one minority is no better than misusing the bible to justify hatred of another

Its actually pretty easy to show that the bible doesn't promote sexism, racism or anti-semitism. Its equally easy to show that the bible considers homosexuality a sinful, detestable rebellion against God's standards of sexual morality.

Apparently you've never read the bible.

Which means what?

That we are all now free to have sex with our mothers, sisters, brothers, and pets?

Or are there still standards of sexual morality in the New Covenant?

:duh:

And apparently you don't have a clue what the new covenant is.

(I'm not suprised)

My own personal prejudices have nothing to do with it.

nonsense, your prejudices are what you are working to defend and even glorify here.

Selfishly, I don't give a hoot what two perverts do behind closed doors. If they want to have perverted sex until Christ comes and throws them into hell for it then its no skin off of my back.

Like you racists often try to dehumanize the people they are prejudiced against by attaching sick and hateful labels to them like "perverts"

But folks like Cochran and others actually care about people and want them to come to repentance so that they will escape judgment.

just like these good people

You're the one who really hates the homosexuals. You are the enemy that multiplies kisses and you lie to them saying "peace, peace, when there is no peace."

another racist tactic. accuse others of being the ones who hate. You should really be ashamed of yourself

 

[Jose Fly]

Second, in what context is the Chief saying this? During a school assembly that is supposed to be about highway safety?
In a private meeting in his own home?
In church?
In a book he has written on his own private time?

What does it matter? According to you, the City has no authority to control what is said in its name, correct?

I'm waiting for more information on this but lets assume that you are right.

Whose fault is that?

If you contact the HR dept. of your company and they give you permission to do something they don't have the authority to give, that's on them, not on you.

As you saw from the report, the HR person says she never gave any authorization.

Which is a pretty poor excuse for violating someone's religious freedom, don't you think?

No, because his religious freedom wasn't violated.

Cochran wasn't speaking on behalf of the city, he was speaking on behalf of himself.

Nope. As soon as he introduces himself in the book as the City of Atlanta Fire Chief, he is representing the City of Atlanta. Legal precedent is extremely clear on this. That you refuse to accept it is irrelevant.

Cochran isn't speaking in the name of the city by putting his title in the "about the author" section of his book anymore than Dan Brown is speaking on behalf of Amherst College by identifying himself as a graduate and English prof. at Amherst College in the "about the author" sections of his books.

The fact that you cannot differentiate between "I graduated from X college" and "I am the current City of Atlanta Fire Chief" is further indication of your inability to think rationally.

No, I think that rules and laws that violate religious liberty are immoral and unconstitutional. The first amendment should not be overridden by lesser laws and rules.

So when do you think it is acceptable to restrict someone's religious liberties?

Which means what?

It means Cochran violated the terms of his suspension by speaking publicly about the case while the investigation was ongoing. So they fired him....perfectly legal.

That because churches are open to the public the government can tell us what can and cannot be said in church and who can and cannot say it?

The City of Atlanta is free to tell its employees not to speak publicly about a case while the investigation is ongoing. Do you dispute that?

This is exactly the kind of government control over the church that the First Amendment was designed to protect american citizens from!

Churches in this country have always been to the public!

Why now is that a justification for censorship?

Oh geez....you fundamentalists really look for every opportunity to make martyrs of yourselves. Can you be any more of a drama queen?

Sure, Cochran can speak publicly about the case and thereby violate the terms of his suspension, but are you seriously arguing that he should be 100% exempt from any consequences?

Cochran is a deacon in his church.

How does that make a difference?

It makes his mini-church-tour public speech, in direct violation of the terms of his suspension.

Here's your answer:
:sozo: None of your stinkin' business! You and the city of Atlanta should keep your fat noses the heck out of what is said in church and who gets to say it!

So according to you, I could go on a speaking tour of all the local churches and give out my company's trade secrets, and my company is 100% powerless to do anything about it? I can tell everyone in those churches every company secret, and the company can't do anything to me?

 

[resodko]

Hi, I'm Jose Fly the Chief of Police for New York City, and I'm here to tell you that all white people are spawns of Satan and are responsible for all the evils throughout history.

whitey am de debbil


ah taut evybuddy done knowd dat :idunno:

 

[Dialogos]

Oh, I see what you're waiting for... You want a report that doesn't contradict you, like the actual report does.

Cochran said he got permission, the city (ya know, the nonobjective source who fired Cochran) said that he didn't.

I'm waiting for an objective source.

Cochran said that the Mayor was given a copy of the book in January of 2014, why didn't this all come up then?

But all that is really just window dressing. More time was spend talking about how Cochran's religious beliefs offended retired gay firefighters than was spent discussing the protocol for publishing a book.

What does that tell you?

Hmmm?

 

[Dialogos]

As noted racists believe the bible condemns racial equality as well.

The fact that there are people who can misuse the bible doesn't actually prove anything and the fact that you keep pointing out what racists believe, as if that has any relevance to this discussion, only shows just how intellectually ill equipped you are to discuss this in any serious way.

And most racists are very devout Christians

How do you know this, do you know most racists?

God isn't the one here using the bible to justify hate.

Non-responsive. This is just restating your position.

Racists also have a long history of trying to associate African Americans with sexual crimes as a means of somehow making bigotry OK.

Irrelevant.

Recycling is a good thing but not when what's being recycled is hate

Irrelevant and a failed attempt at whit.

Yes, people misusing the bible to justify their hate and petty prejudices.

Uh huh.

What you are saying is that racists are wrong to misuse the bible to promote hated but when i do the same thing it's perfectly fine.

Pathetic....

:nono:

How many times have erroneously accused me of making a straw man argument?

And now you are trying to put words in my mouth?

Hypocrite.

:nono:

I'm not promoting hate. I'm honestly exposing what the bible says about homosexual behavior to which you have had nothing to say.

The fact that you have :sozo: ABSOLUTELY NO ANSWERS FOR THE BIBLICAL TEXTS I GAVE TO YOU SHOWS THAT YOU ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THOSE TEXTS SO YOU JUST KEEP PARROTING THE SAME TIRED ACCUSATIONS OF "HATE" AND "PREJUDICE."

You're like a sad little cultural parakeet. You can parrot the cultural rhetoric back to us all but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Racists certainly say the bible does support them.

Yup. And the JW's say that the bible supports them, and the Mormons say the bible supports them and...
And I'll bet you think the bible supports you.

The only way we get to bottom of who is right and who isn't is to engage in a substantive discussion about relevant passages.

So you have anything at all to say about the texts I provided, you know the ones you continue to ignore, then post your comments.

Otherwise, you'll understand why I ignore your tired repetition of empty cultural platitudes that brand bible believers as hateful and prejudiced.

 

[resodko]

As noted racists believe the bible condemns racial equality as well.

name one

And most racists are very devout Christians

name one

Racists certainly say the bible does support them.

name one

And they has been a long history of preachers, theologians and biblical scholars supporting that view.

name one from each of the past 14 decades

 

[TracerBullet]

The fact that there are people who can misuse the bible doesn't actually prove anything and the fact that you keep pointing out what racists believe, as if that has any relevance to this discussion, only shows just how intellectually ill equipped you are to discuss this in any serious way.

and you seem intellectually ill equipped to get the simple notion that there is no difference between the position of racists and your position.

How do you know this, do you know most racists?

Just a simple fact. Hall DL, Matz, DC Wood, W. A Meta-Analytic Review of Religious Racism Personality and Social Psychology Review 2009
Putnam RD & Campbell, DE American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. Am J of Sociology 2012
Sherkat, DE Changing Faith NY Univ Press 2014

Non-responsive. This is just restating your position.

completely responsive the fact remains that God isn't the one using the bible to justify hate.

Irrelevant.

the fact that you use the same methods and tactics as racists do to justify prejudice is incredibly relevant.

Are you ashamed of your Methods?

I'm not promoting hate. I'm honestly exposing what the bible says about homosexual behavior to which you have had nothing to say.

Just like how racists honestly expose what the bible has to say about the the inferiority of black people

You're like a sad little cultural parakeet. You can parrot the cultural rhetoric back to us all but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

It's typical of you to engage in personal attacks when you are confronted with responses you cannot counter.

Typical and sad

Yup. And the JW's say that the bible supports them, and the Mormons say the bible supports them and...
And I'll bet you think the bible supports you.

You are the one making that particular claim along with racists and anti-Semites and the people you mention

The only way we get to bottom of who is right and who isn't is to engage in a substantive discussion about relevant passages.

So you have anything at all to say about the texts I provided, you know the ones you continue to ignore, then post your comments.

Are you capable of having a substantive discussion? I ask because you sure aren't demonstrating that here.

Otherwise, you'll understand why I ignore your tired repetition of empty cultural platitudes that brand bible believers as hateful and prejudiced.

Being a Christian doesn't make anyone hateful or prejudiced. The problem begins when those who hate try to use the bible to justify their bigotries.

You seem to want to disassociate yourself from racism even though you are happy to use their methods, rhetoric and tactics as well as their co-opting of Christianity. It's to bad you don't like the comparison but as long as your blather is indistinguishable from that of a racist the comparison is valid and will remain

 

[TracerBullet]

name one



name one




name one



name one from each of the past 14 decades

I can't tell if you are being inflammatory, stupid or disingenuous