@robertsrandoms
robert.taylor34@gmail.com

The idea behind Robert's Random is for me to write about whatever I'm thinking about whenever I'm thinking it. I try to write 3-5 times a week, but sometimes real work gets in the way of that. Sometimes I'll share whatever random thought I might have that day but most of the time, I like to write about things going on in the news. I'm a total news junkie, I spend a lot of time online at various news sites. If I find a story where someone does something totally stupid or I wonder "what were they thinking?" I don't mind pointing it out incase others missed it or taking my best guess at what they were thinking. I like to laugh, I like to make others laugh. There's so much serious and wrong stuff going on in the news that when I find an unusual or light story, I like to use it. And while real life news events might be the focus of many of my blogs, I'm just trying to entertain you, make you laugh and maybe even think about something you didn't know before reading. I'm not trying to break any serious news or deliver any hard-hitting coverage. You'll have to read a paper or watch one of the network shows for that.

War on discrimination, not Christianity

Posted Saturday, December 21, 2013, at 8:06 PM

Since A&E suspended Phil Robertson people have claimed that there is a war against Christianity.

There's no war on Christianity. Nobody wants to take your Jesus from you. There is a war on discrimination. People want to end it.

Wrapping your discriminatory views in the cloak of religion does not make them okay.

Treating people as less than equal or restricting their rights because their views are different than yours is discriminatory.

It is not okay to treat people differently because they live life differently than you or to give them fewer rights.

When it comes to same-sex marriage a lot of people oppose it because they believe the Bible tells them to. But same-sex marriage is a lot like divorce in that if you don't believe in the institution of it you can choose not to participate. Giving people the choice to live the life they choose is what in the war on discrimination is about.

Forcing people to live their lives by your religion is discriminatory and any war that exists is focused on ending that part. Nobody wants to tell you how to live your life. They just don't want to live their life by what you believe your religion dictates.

People who claim otherwise not only stand on the wrong side of history but they evoke the word of God as if that somehow strengthens the argument when doing so. This allows them to move the argument from "I believe this" to "God says this. It must be true. God is on my side."

Again, cloaking your discriminatory views in your religion is wrong and people want to end the discriminatory treatment that results in such, not the beliefs themselves.

Bringing Christianity into the discussion of rights and politics is a failed attempt to mask the discriminatory effects of our laws and social policies. Jesus didn't die on the cross for your right to hate people in his name. Nor did our founding fathers revolt against the crown of England so you could legislate your religious beliefs into the lives of every American.

You're free to believe what you want and to live the life you want. You're not free to force others to live their lives in accordance with those beliefs.

Nobody wants to take your Jesus away from you. They just want to get your Jesus away from their own lives. In a country founded on religious freedom, that is not an unreasonable idea.

Comments

View 12 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Thankyou as a black American I CAN APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID.The same tactics were used during the civil rights 1960's.Those same people should read there whole bible not just the parts that suit there fancy.That's another subject.Again Thankyou.

-- Posted by lamont on Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 10:05 PM
Did you read the article? He did none of those things. He was asked a question and responded as to what he thought sin was. There WAS discrimination by the network in punishing him (as they have every right to do). But the man believes what he does because that's what he thinks bearded sky man tells him.

He never once said anything about engaging in discrimination against anyone. I'm not sure why you're labeling this guy as being discriminatory when he's suggested no action. He simply stated that he thought another behavior was wrong -- just as you're doing.

Is there a war on Christianity? You betcha. And, as pretty much an atheist, it really gnaws at me to have to side with people who actually believe in bearded sky man. Don't make me do that.

-- Posted by TheLearnedSergeant on Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 10:37 PM
I don't think he was being discriminatory. His words following the article's release also suggest he doesn't discriminate. You can read my full take on him, the article and his suspension from A&E here .

But since the suspension, a lot of people have been claiming his suspension was part of a larger war on Christianity, that he was targeted because he is Christian and that the entire religion continues to be persecuted against. I disagree with those people.

-- Posted by RTaylor on Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 11:01 PM
Apparently hyperlinks do not work in comments: http://taylorlm.com/2013/12/20/ae-suspends-phil-internet-users-become-constituti...

-- Posted by RTaylor on Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 11:04 PM
I don't watch the show so can you tell me, does he share his anti-gay religious views and his feelings about Jim Crow on his show?

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 11:16 AM
I particularly agree with the tenth paragraph.

It occurred to me the other day that in regard to the Christmas holiday, the "politically correct" are those whose holiday was legislated back in 1870 when U.S. Grant made Christmas a national holiday.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 11:41 AM
Not that I know of MS M.....BUT he hasn't said anything that wasn't espected.His clouded view of what he saw says it all for me.THEY SANG AND ACTED JOYFULL TO CONTAIN A HURT A HURT THAT STILL GETS PERPETRATED TO THIS DAY WITH ATTITUDES SUCH AS HIS.It will only change through time.

I PERSONALLY DONT CARE WHAT HE SAID I hear it all the time his problem is he represents people who have power who dont want there products associated with that kind of rhetoric.When business discovered that the minorities have money they changed there tunes dramatically.So he is entitled to say what he pleases but nothing free......you have a great holiday.......merry xmass........

-- Posted by lamont on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 7:14 PM
Hi lamont. Have a great holiday.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 8:26 PM
Having Homosexuality forced up us is getting real old. I for one do not care what two consulting adults due with each other. I do not agree with it, but I will not past judgement on them. If you believe it it against your bible them let God sort them out when it is their time of reckoning.

-- Posted by Jarhead on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 10:39 AM
SURE YOUR RIGHT JARHEAD........COULDNT AGREE MORE

-- Posted by lamont on Mon, Dec 23, 2013, at 1:25 PM
While I agree with everything posted in the blog, I don't think Peterson should be chastised for expressing his 'opinion' on the issue, no matter how its "cloaked." The First Amendment allows that:

"Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See [***1135] Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas [*5] either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups."

I just submitted this in a brief on a Disturbing the Peace case involving public statements made by my client.

-- Posted by ltngblt on Tue, Dec 24, 2013, at 9:02 AM
I HAVE A QUESTION.......If those statements are made to specifically incite to violence given a known response to the type of statement does this person receive protection???? I ask because I HAVE SEEN WHERE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS WENT TO FAR IN MY OPINION AND ALSO HAS BEEN DENIED TO OTHERS TO QUELL THE SAME VIOLENCE........FOOD FOR THOUGHT

-- Posted by lamont on Tue, Dec 24, 2013, at 11:59 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register