Carrie Prejean Drops Million Dollar Lawsuit (Warning! Not for "Sensitive" Readers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#61
jences said:
She could have been graceful and simply said that she did not believe in same sex marriage as her personal choice. But instead she pleaded the "biblically correct" position, which lured in all the religious based support for her claim. Last time I checked, premarital sex was not "biblically correct" either. Neither is fornication or sexual perversions, which is masturbation.
What's ringing in my head right about now is the age old saying...thos who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

The part in bold makes no sense. She DID say to the effect that it was her personal choice, BASED ON HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.


The bitterness in this thread is palpable. Amazing how angry people get when someone expresses their religious beliefs. Then suddenly people go out of their way to "expose" the person as a "hypocrite" and sit back and heckle about it.
 
#62
we aren't angry she's "religious," we're laughing at the fact that she's a moron.

if they're going to put this girl on television, PLEASE get her a media coach. it's painful, really.
 
Last edited:
#63
nathansgirl1908 said:
The difference is that saying marriage should be between a white man and woman is not supported in the Bible...
Click to expand...
That's your belief, but during the years of apartheid in the US - and those that followed, the practice was frequently defended by people who believed that not only marriage between different ethnic groups, but even using the same public facilities such as restaurants and restrooms was prohibited, according to their interpretation of what they believed to be a divinely inspired sacred text.

And I can assure you that people who have those beliefs are still present, whether you see them on TV or not.

Now it's against the rules to discuss religion, and I am not trying to incite such a discussion, but to point out that you can't argue with a belief, because beliefs are not about reason, or logic, or facts - they're beliefs! :smile:

That's one of the reasons that even a Free Speech Extremist like me has no problem with the rule against discussing topics that are inextricably tied to beliefs - and I will presume to guess that is also why such rules are so popular in forums that focus on a different area - because facts and logic and reason don't apply, and people have very strong feelings about their beliefs, those discussions can "go south" very quickly, and the bad feelings can permeate the whole place like the smell of burnt cabbage!

nathansgirl1908 said:
Refusing to respect someone's religious belief can also be considered a bigoted viewpoint......
Click to expand...
I would probably use the term "impolite."

But, even though you respect the belief, for example, of someone who is opposed to your learning to read on religious grounds, because you are a woman, you might make a distinction between respecting that belief and their right to have it and express it - as long as their expression does not include preventing you from enrolling in school, or buying books, or having a library card.

It's a subtle difference, I know, and not one that everybody from every cultural background is going to have inculcated in them since birth, but it's like applying eyeliner - once you get the hang of it, you can do it on auto-pilot. :smile:

One trick that helps make it a more accessible concept for some is the old saying about "your freedom to extend your fist ends at the point right before my nose begins."

:back2topic: I see that the Amazon rank for Carrie's book has gone from 830 yesterday before the Larry King show to 614 the last I heard.

I will leave it to those with more knowledge of these things than I whether that is a normal increase for a recently-dropped book.

She is getting offers, though:
...Vivid Entertainment has re-extended its $1 million offer to ex-Miss California USA Carrie Prejean to star in an adult film...Link
Click to expand...
:graucho:
 
#64
nathansgirl1908 said:
The bitterness in this thread is palpable. Amazing how angry people get when someone expresses their religious beliefs. Then suddenly people go out of their way to "expose" the person as a "hypocrite" and sit back and heckle about it.
Click to expand...

She brought this upon herself, no one else did. She painted a picture of herself as Ms. Morals and then the public found out that she was a big fat hypocrite with a sex tape. Her hypocrisy and immature behavior are what has made this into such a large issue. There's a reason once a politician is exposed for having an affair their career is over. They portray themselves as religious and moral citizens, and it's the hypocrisy that gets the public in such a long lasting uproar. Then you have someone like David Letterman, who never claimed to be a man of moral substance. The hoopla surrounding his affair was short lived and had pretty much no effect on his career. If Carrie Prejean had never portrayed herself to be Ms. Morals and wrote a book claiming "her faith, courage, and conviction have made her a role model", this whole thing would not be the big deal that it is now.
 
#66
nathansgirl1908 said:
Refusing to respect someone's religious belief can also be considered a bigoted viewpoint.

With respect to the second statement in bold, I often wonder why people try and make this argument. This argument is not nearly as effective as people think.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with her religious beliefs but I don't believe that people should be allowed to use their religion when it best suits them. I'm sorry but that is wrong and hypocritical.

Well for the second point please have a look at this: http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html
 
Last edited:
#68
SPOILEDkiwi said:
She brought this upon herself, no one else did. She painted a picture of herself as Ms. Morals and then the public found out that she was a big fat hypocrite with a sex tape. Her hypocrisy and immature behavior are what has made this into such a large issue. There's a reason once a politician is exposed for having an affair their career is over. They portray themselves as religious and moral citizens, and it's the hypocrisy that gets the public in such a long lasting uproar. Then you have someone like David Letterman, who never claimed to be a man of moral substance. The hoopla surrounding his affair was short lived and had pretty much no effect on his career. If Carrie Prejean had never portrayed herself to be Ms. Morals and wrote a book claiming "her faith, courage, and conviction have made her a role model", this whole thing would not be the big deal that it is now.
Click to expand...

I never got the impression that she was painting herself as Ms. Morals. I think people have the wrong idea about Christianity and how Christians are supposed to behave. THAT is the problem. People keep using the word "hypocrisy," but I don't necessarily know if that is really applicable. To really explain much more would be getting too far into a discussion of religions. Suffice it to say, however, it isn't as simple as saying she is a "hypocrite."
 
#69
ShimmaPuff said:
That's your belief, but during the years of apartheid in the US - and those that followed, the practice was frequently defended by people who believed that not only marriage between different ethnic groups, but even using the same public facilities such as restaurants and restrooms was prohibited, according to their interpretation of what they believed to be a divinely inspired sacred text.

And I can assure you that people who have those beliefs are still present, whether you see them on TV or not.

Now it's against the rules to discuss religion, and I am not trying to incite such a discussion, but to point out that you can't argue with a belief, because beliefs are not about reason, or logic, or facts - they're beliefs! :smile:




I would probably use the term "impolite."

But, even though you respect the belief, for example, of someone who is opposed to your learning to read on religious grounds, because you are a woman, you might make a distinction between respecting that belief and their right to have it and express it - as long as their expression does not include preventing you from enrolling in school, or buying books, or having a library card.

It's a subtle difference, I know, and not one that everybody from every cultural background is going to have inculcated in them since birth, but it's like applying eyeliner - once you get the hang of it, you can do it on auto-pilot. :smile:



One trick that helps make it a more accessible concept for some is the old saying about "your freedom to extend your fist ends at the point right before my nose begins."

:back2topic: I see that the Amazon rank for Carrie's book has gone from 830 yesterday before the Larry King show to 614 the last I heard.

I will leave it to those with more knowledge of these things than I whether that is a normal increase for a recently-dropped book.

She is getting offers, though:
:graucho:
Click to expand...

The only problem with your argument is that there is actual text in the Bible speaking out against homosexuality in more than one place in the Bible. There is no such text encouraging or validating something like Apartheid. People need to remember that there is a difference between people who actually have text to back up what they are saying, and people who twist the Bible to fit what THEY want.

[B[/B] With respect to your sarcastic comment, the problem with your argument is that her statement does not prevent anyone from doing anything. At this point all she did was express her belief, and according to what YOU wrote, you and others should respect that.
 
#70
nathansgirl1908 said:
The only problem with your argument is that there is actual text in the Bible speaking out against homosexuality in more than one place in the Bible. There is no such text encouraging or validating something like Apartheid. People need to remember that there is a difference between people who actually have text to back up what they are saying, and people who twist the Bible to fit what THEY want.

[B[/B] With respect to your sarcastic comment, the problem with your argument is that her statement does not prevent anyone from doing anything. At this point all she did was express her belief, and according to what YOU wrote, you and others should respect that.
Click to expand...

Just because something is written down doesn't necessarily mean its fact. The Bible has been edited over and over to suit the political and religious needs of the current powermonger throughout the centuries and cannot be honestly construed as 'fact' under any type of circumstances.

Having said that, I'm going to wager a guess that the discussion of the Bible is dangerously close to violation of forum rules. ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Back