ESPN fired commentator Curt Schilling because he posted a meme to his Facebook page that was critical of transgender people using the bathroom of their choice. A short statement was issued by ESPN that read in part: “ESPN is an inclusive company. Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated.”
ESPN says they are an “inclusive company.” Hogwash. They are an exclusive company using word manipulation to make people think they are something they are not. An inclusive company is one that hires those who affirm the normality of transgenderism and those who don’t. An exclusive company is one that fires any of their employees who do not share the company’s view on transgenderism.
ESPN, and companies like them who fire employees for things they say or do on their own private time, believe that people who disagree with their leadership’s moral values should not have a job. Shameful. It would be different if Schilling worked for an organization whose mission was to further LGBT rights, but he works for a sports news network for heaven’s sake! His Facebook post had nothing to do with the business of his employer. Does anyone really think that every person who works for a company whose leadership supports LGBT rights personally supports LGBT rights too? Of course not. This sort of corporate behavior is not just an example of intolerance and hypocrisy, but an example of corporate bullying as well. Absolutely shameful.
Are pro-LGBT people going to be upset that a public face like Schilling doesn’t agree with their views? Of course. But they need to grow up and extend tolerance, not put pressure on his employer to fire him. And ESPN should have the backbone to say to those who do not like Schillings views, “You know what, we don’t agree with him either, but his views on transgender people’s use of bathrooms is unrelated to his job and our mission, and we support his right to free speech, so he will remain an employee of ESNP. If you don’t like that, grow up!” Of course, this is why I am not in corporate communications!
Thinking to Believe 
April 26, 2016 at 8:15 am
Jason, have you ever heard of such a thing as GAAAP? These are former UPC ministers who DECIDED to be homosexual and are “married” to another “ministers” and then attempt to preach the Gospel message. Talk about reprobate and seducing spirits…this is horrible. Otherwise, you have a great day!Elaine
Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals – Wikipedia, the free e… | |
|
|
From: Theo-sophical Ruminations To: elaine926@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:28 AM Subject: [New post] ESPN commentator fired for FB post about transgenders #yiv2418662464 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv2418662464 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv2418662464 a.yiv2418662464primaryactionlink:link, #yiv2418662464 a.yiv2418662464primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv2418662464 a.yiv2418662464primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv2418662464 a.yiv2418662464primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv2418662464 WordPress.com | Theosophical Ruminator posted: “ESPN fired commentator Curt Schilling because he posted a meme to his Facebook page that was critical of transgender people using the bathroom of their choice. A short statement was issued by ESPN that read in part: “ESPN is an inclusive company. Curt Sc” | |
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 11:09 am
I think the organization you mentioned Elaine Hodge has been disbanded. I’m not sure, but there is a reply asking what happened to them on the YouTube site. Turning the truth of God into a lie, professing that they know God but in works deny him. It’s difficult to see how someone who has tasted the Spirit of Truth can turn from it in such a manner. It doesn’t make sense that a person who comes into truth by way of Acts 2:38 and so forth, can live with their conscience every day. I still have thing’s in my conscience that trouble me even after many years of living a repented life over some of those carnal ways. I never turned gay (so-called). But, carnality is carnality. Thank God for a conscience. The greatest gift God gave man. We would never understand our need of God, otherwise.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 11:59 am
“It doesn’t make sense that a person who comes into truth by way of Acts 2:38 and so forth, can live with their conscience every day. I still have thing’s in my conscience that trouble me even after many years of living a repented life over some of those carnal ways. I never turned gay (so-called). But, carnality is carnality. ”
Lloyd, just want to comment on your comment.
Surely it is shameful for those that are in Christ to practice such things. Keep in mind though that God had given Christians a new spirit, a new heart and sin will never fit the child of God. That doesn’t automatically change their behavior though. Sometimes that takes the renewing of the mind over a lifetime to change or overcome tendencies or habits that are deeply embedded in us. You are not forgiven of your sins because you stopped sinning, you are forgiven of your sins because of your faith in Christ. This is the unconditional Grace of God that has taken away your sins permanently. You are a totally forgiven person and when the enemy wants to tempt you of your former behavior to trouble you, you need to hold up this truth in the enemy’s face and say “it is finished” (not literally but you know what I mean). Your standing with God is not based on your performance or how well you have “repented” of your sins. If this is the approach you have been taught, this is a formula for disaster and for all kinds of unrest in your life.
As for these former UPC ministers, if they are truly born again, don’t think for a moment that they are not in spiritual turmoil but where sin abounds, grace abounds even more. Don’t condemn them, pray for them.
Peace to you.
Naz
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 12:25 pm
Actually Naz, you are forgiven of your sin’s because you repented and stopped sinning. Otherwise, you didn’t repent. That means, you stopped sinning. One is not ‘In’ Christ just by repeating a sinners prayer. You get ‘in’ Christ by being baptized ‘in’ Jesus name. And, that subsequently remits our sins through the faith we have in his name. Scriptural.Grace is indeed conditional upon the response of our obedience to the faith. The Faith being obeying the Gospel Peter preached at Pentecost. Too many people on this site trying to teach Spiritual lessons without understanding what being scripturally Spiritual is. I didn’t respond to this article because I needed a lesson from someone who thinks their qualified to teach me something. My standing with God depends on my continual life of walking in His Spirit. We are a people who walk and live a life of repentance. And, we won’t ever stop having to work on ourselves daily. My standing with God helps me to know that if I am living a life that is pleasing to him, when he see’s me, he is seeing Christ in me, the hope of glory. That is my desire.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 12:26 pm
The first three comments have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and shame on you, Naz, because you know better.
Jason, this item exemplifies the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to free speech. That’s not merely a frequent observation of the Right, but liberals such as Kirsten Powers (The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech) see the growing intolerance for dissent as dangerous.
Pendulums tend to swing both ways. If the Left is successful in persuading people that quashing dissent is noble, it may find its views similarly eliminated.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm
Actually, I thought my comments are indeed in line with the subject topic. I replied to Elaine Hodges, no other. And, the Topic was the subject. Naz decided to butt in to a conversation without regard for my responding to someone he had no business interfering in the conversation.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Lloyd, the topic of this thread is Jason Dulle’s lead post. It’s about the firing of ESPN’s Curt Schilling because he made disparaging comments about the policy of allowing transgendered persons access to the restroom of their choice (or identity). It has nothing to do with gay ex-UPC ministers or soteriology.
You appear to be new here, so your off-topic comments may be excused. Naz is a regular and knows that Jason wants our comments to be on-topic. He’s an ex-Apostolic and does what he can to inject his false once-saved-always-saved doctrine at every opportunity.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 1:19 pm
I am fairly new here. And, I will try to make sure I stay on topic. Just to make a point; The topic includes the ungodly life-style of transgenders using bathroom’s. What makes my comments off topic? Could I just as well say that because your mention of the Left’s Kirsten Powers and quashing dissent is off topic? What does that have to do with Jason’s topic? Nothing. Nothing less than what my comment entails. If no one is not allowed to deviate to subjects that have to do with thing’s that pertain to the Spiritual life, what is the point of this website? The subject is a man who worked for ESPN who got canned because of his views. So, why is my response offensive to you? My response dealt with an ungodly lifestyle. So, evidently no one should ever veer over into a realm of biblical truth if the topic is not explicitly truth.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 1:40 pm
Whoa !!!!!
Everybody calm down now……sorry for “butting in” and “interfering”. If you read my post to Lloyd I was actually trying to help his troubled conscience for his battle with homosexuality. Yes it was off topic, but Lloyd was off topic to start. My intention was pure and I was trying to encourage.
How is your treatment of me different than ESPN’s treatment of Curt Schilling? Don’t I have the freedom to believe what I want and state my opinion even if it conflicts with the UPC doctrine ? Doesn’t this site uphold free speech ? Surely it does…..
By the way Lloyd, your understanding of repentance is wrong. You will burn out like all other Apostolics as you seek to establish your own righteousness. It’s just a matter of time.
Scalia, once again you swoop in just in the nick of time to save the post 🙂 Do you wear a cape ? Of course you don’t, Superman is actually nice to people.
Good day gentlemen.
Jason, my apologies.
Naz
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 1:55 pm
Naz, you are absolutely an imbecile. I am not nor have I ever had any homosexual inclinations. Battle with homosexuality. You are an idiot to get that from my post. My understanding of repentance is completely right. And, your chief reason for being on this site is to show your evident rebellious attitude toward truth. You’re an instigator.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 1:56 pm
Lloyd, if you detect an acidic tone in my remarks, it is surely not directed at you. I’m upset at Naz because we’ve discussed this before, but he marches on nonetheless.
Schilling was fired because he expressed his opinion about an issue (on his own Facebook page) that ESPN could not abide. The Left would be outraged if Schilling were terminated because he expressed support for gender-neutral restrooms/locker rooms, etc. Thus, books like Powers’ are definitely in line with the topic of Jason’s post which is the Left’s chilling effect on free speech.
Gay ministers or what it takes to be saved are not the topics of this thread. If you’ll look to the right of Jason’s homepage, you’ll see myraid topics listed. If you or Naz want to comment on those topics, there are plenty of threads in Jason’s blog along those lines. I just don’t think one can rationally squeeze that in here. In fact, Naz and I have battled before with respect to Jesus’ name baptism (Jason’s thread entitled Is the Singular “Name” of Matthew 28:19 Theologically Important?).
Again, please take no offense at my observation because it was not primarily intended for you.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Naz writes,
How is your treatment of me different than ESPN’s treatment of Curt Schilling? Don’t I have the freedom to believe what I want and state my opinion even if it conflicts with the UPC doctrine ? Doesn’t this site uphold free speech ? Surely it does…..
Uh, when I recommend that you should be fired from your job for expressing your opinion here, you might have a complaint. Or, if I recommend that Jason banish you from this blog because you make on-topic comments are in accord with your soteriological vierws, you might have a complaint. I have done neither, so your comment is again irrelevant.
Jason is the site administrator and he has politely asked us to keep our comments on topic. If you walk into his house and he asks you to remove your shoes, you should take them off.
As to my manners, I was polite the first couple of times, and you acknowledged that you should comply with Jason’s request, so don’t play the victim now.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 2:26 pm
Scalia, your tone is not polite and frequently is not. This whole thing is blown totally out of proportion.
Lloyd, sorry for calling you gay.
Let’s lighten up a little here. The unbelievers will have a hay day with this discourse with people that are supposed to be Christians. Look, we even have Lloyd call me names now….please let’s stop this. This is truly shameful.
Naz
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 2:45 pm
Naz, I never said I was being polite this time. I said I was initially polite (on other threads). Stop playing the victim.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 2:58 pm
Scalia, I’m not playing the victim, I am the victim here, of verbal assaults from you and Lloyd. My beliefs have been belittled and I have been called all sorts of ungodly names. All because I posted off topic. What a horrible crime I committed.
The rudeness and harshness exhibited by you and Lloyd is not becoming of a children of God. You both need to repent of this sin, and hurry because you’re in big trouble with Dad.
Naz
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 3:41 pm
ESPN is owned by Disney, so it’s no wonder why they took the stance they did, or someone at Disney would have had heads rolling among the higher ups at ESPN.
Notwithstanding, some companies have their employees sign waivers indicating what type of social media presence is and is not allowed by the parent company. Any social media posts therefore that are contrary to policy or to the culture of the parent company can lead to termination.
We probably won’t ever know, but Mr. Schilling may have agreed in writing to a particular policy regarding social media use, which, if broken, could and perhaps in this case, did, lead to his termination. He should have at least realized the storm he was going to face prior to making his post.
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Man alive. All I said was shame on you because you know better (all correct) and you flip out. That’s so typical of those who criticize us for being “holier-than-thou” and for our harshness. They adopt a mantle of love and compassion—until you cross them. It’s okay for you to tell me to repent because God’s gonna get me, but I say shame on you for not abiding by the rules you’ve agreed to (never bringing God’s judgment into the matter) and you throw a conniption.
You say I’m belittling your views of OSAS because I call it false, but you knew good and well from Lloyd’s first post that he’s Apostolic and as such, considers OSAS to be false doctrine. You don’t consider how offended Apostolics might be when you attempt to use something you know we don’t believe to “help” us, but you’re the victim when we say that the tool you’re using is false teaching. Take the beam out…
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Hi, Aaron. If there is a written agreement, then Schilling most certainly has no legal issue with ESPN. That is, however, distinct from whether or not a company should have such a policy in this instance. If a man is hired to talk baseball (a topic he is eminently qualified to discuss), his views on the advisability sex-neutral restrooms shouldn’t be something for which he should lose his job.
Do you believe a person should lose h/er job for expressing political dissent?
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Scalia, I beamed out long ago….and I don’t know how the grace of God could be a wrong tool ??
Anyway, its water under the bridge. Back to the topic at hand.
As Aaron suggested, Curt Schilling probably signed something when he started at ESPN but i doubt that the policy had all the particulars of what was allowed and what was not. Although his job is to talk about baseball, they do represent the company and they need to be respectable to how they represent themselves and ESPN in public.
I somehow doubt the policy included sections on transgenders using bathrooms. So in this type of scenario, I think the company can basically read into their policy of inclusion as they see fit which in this case it looks like they did. I don’t agree with it in anyway but what is inclusive will continue to expand to all sorts of things as we go forward and ESPN is not the only one on this bandwagon. All professional sports in general are headed in this direction. For example, a certain hockey player was fined $5000 and missed a game because he used a derogatory word for homosexual during a hockey game. All other swear words are acceptable in hockey including some of the most vulgar words in the human language and never are a cause for fines or suspensions, but this particular word is. That’s alarming to me as a hockey fan but more importantly as a human being as to what’s going on in society. I feel for Curt Schilling, he’s a hall of famer that has been given a bad name for this rubbish. I predict this will continue to happen more and more and corporations like ESPN are just laying the foundation and setting precedent.
Naz
LikeLike
April 26, 2016 at 11:05 pm
Discrimination and hate speech against a section of society based solely freedom of speech is bad enough when done by a private person representing nobody but oneself.
But take a public figure catering to an all inclusive public audience as demanded under government controlled license to broadcast is intolerable.
Discrimination under color of religion is typical of religious people
and is a particularly abhorrent hypocrisy, though not unusual from the so called “born again” Christian ilk proclaiming their holier-than-thou bravado, compared to regular sinners and to which ilk, born again Curt Schilling belongs.
Schilling can find a common mindset church to preach his hateful and hurtful discrimination to, without bringing a degraded sense of esteem, by employment association, to a public broadcasting station. Perhaps Schilling could start attending the church that Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis haunts.
LikeLike
April 27, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Naz, you wonder how the grace of God could be a wrong tool? Since nobody said that, your question is hanging irrelevantly in midair. We see OSAS as an offense to the grace of God and a perversion of the Scriptures. It’s fine if you disagree, but at least get the argument right. Well, enough about that.
I agree that an employment pact nullifies any legal complaint Schilling might have. I also agree that it is doubtful his employment contract specified sex-neutral restrooms and locker rooms. It’s probably some generic don’t-embarrass-the-company clause which, if true, is rather too generic and can open an unpleasant legal door for ESPN.
The Left is typically setting this up as some sort of persecution against transgendered persons; it isn’t. Separate restrooms/locker rooms were created to protect the privacy of the sexes. Men shouldn’t be allowed to waltz into a locker room and undress in front of women, nor should they be allowed to sit there while women are undressing. Now, all a man has to do is merely claim that he’s a woman. He doesn’t have to dress like a woman or even look like a woman. The mere claim is sufficient to grant him access. If a woman is adjusting her bra in a restroom or changing clothes and a man walks in, she’s got to scramble to cover herself or just do everything in a stall. But if men have access to stalls, we all know how messy men make them. She’ll have to clean up or make certain she dodges the urine that men tend to leave everywhere in public restrooms. Why should women be subject to that?
For those who contend that this concern is overblown, consider the Seattle man who did just that. He twice in one day violated women’s & girls’ privacy but was not arrested. Why are we pitting the privacy rights of women against this sort of potential and real abuse? Why should the preferences of an extreme minority trump the legitimate privacy concerns and preferences of women? If a man truly looks and dresses like a woman, he’d probably not be noticed, so a truly trans-girl won’t have an issue. It’s this no-standard-come-one-come-all approach that’s a threat to privacy, and it is irresponsible to implement such a myopic policy.
The following video classically illustrates the point. The Target employee allows a man who says he’s merely uncomfortable using the men’s restroom to use the women’s restroom and says that women who complain can talk to management. Just insane…
LikeLike
April 27, 2016 at 10:03 pm
scalialito wrote:
“Hi, Aaron. If there is a written agreement, then Schilling most certainly has no legal issue with ESPN. That is, however, distinct from whether or not a company should have such a policy in this instance. If a man is hired to talk baseball (a topic he is eminently qualified to discuss), his views on the advisability sex-neutral restrooms shouldn’t be something for which he should lose his job.
Do you believe a person should lose h/er job for expressing political dissent?”
If the conditions of the job required that a person not express political dissent and an applicant for employment agreed to those terms, he or she should lose his or her job if they break with the agreed upon policy.
If there is no policy in place, or if an applicant was hired on without being required to agree to a policy disallowing the expression of political dissent, they that applicant has every right to express political dissent without worry that he or she would experience repercussions from his or her job.
Whether or not such a policy should ever exist, at least in this nation, is another question all together.
LikeLike
April 27, 2016 at 10:23 pm
For some reason, the person who uploaded the Target video has taken it down. I hope participants here were able to view it.
LikeLike
April 27, 2016 at 10:53 pm
A person should lose s/he’s employment regardless of a signed contract; this is like marriage or cohabitation. In the case of marriage this is called Common Law; it is the legal equivalent of religious marriage.
In the case of discrimination against an entire section of peace abiding, non-violent humanity, this is called the Common (Sense) Law, the legal equivalent of Anti Discriminatory Law on the basis of Human rights of race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation. I may disagree with the lifestyle of billions of believers in the religious belief of supernaturalism and superstition but I do not discriminate against such. I do try to defog their windshield mindset from false indoctrination; sometimes, this requires verbal shock therapy using poignant word-smithing, a tool designed to ram common sense down the throats of fools.
These human rights include the right to be protected from discrimination under the following categories (called “grounds”):
Marital status;
Ancestry;
Family status;
Physical disability;
Place of origin;
Color;
Gender (this includes sexual harassment and maternity);
Mental disability;
Age (18 years or older);
Source of income;
Race;
Religious beliefs; and
Sexual orientation
Discrimination is defined as an unjust practice or behavior, whether intentional or not, based on any of the enumerated grounds. This means that, Charter rights are not absolute. A right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter can b e suspended if it can be shown that it is justified in doing so in a free and democratic society. For example, if it reasonably may have, a negative effect on any individual or group. While freedom of speech is protected under the Charter, there are laws that limit people’s freedom to express themselves such as laws that prohibit hate speech. Even though these laws limit an individual’s freedom of expression, such limitations are considered reasonable and justified and are therefore allowed.
LikeLike
April 27, 2016 at 11:02 pm
scaliaalito:
Only the owner of the word press blog, Jason in this case, has the ability to send to trash or spam or edit video, text and comments or to upload take downs again as they cannot be deleted wholly as they are archived property of WordPress. This is my understanding. Posts can be re-uploaded by the original uploader however.
LikeLike
April 27, 2016 at 11:17 pm
I found another copy:
LikeLike
April 27, 2016 at 11:55 pm
You people are all in a dither over nothing. if the men’s bathroom is occupied and the woman’s bathroom is not then of course the man can use the woman’s bathroom, not while the woman is using it but when it is unoccupied and the men’s room is occupied for too long a time and you need to go. I’ve done that before so it becomes open to the public if unoccupied in the same way that if a store has one bathroom either men or women use it when it is unoccupied. Christ you posters must be perverted to think it means using the bathroom while someone else is using it. WOW! that’s so lolable and so blown out of proportion….OMFG!
Youtube Posters are either crazy as hell or religious maniacs without an ounce of common sense. There should only be public washrooms in stores anyway and anybody can use them when they are not occupied by somebody else. What a bunch of silly willys.
That’s what happens when people operate only on belief without a wit of knowledge what they’re talking about because you were duped by a suggestion of a “new” Target Policy and the term “non transgender” and woman’s “bathroom” A title referring to non transgender man using the women’s washroom and you imagination goes wild on a religious tangent. It really is too perfect an example of the stupidity of some people especially low intelligent believers that prompted this prank to show how the world reacts because of the transgender controversy currently in the news.
I can hardly believe that somebody sporting a user name like SCALIAALITO would not be able to figure out this obvious prank and fall into the trap. hahahahahahaha, showing one’s true colors.
Scalia is gone and Alito is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier without him.
LikeLike
April 28, 2016 at 10:31 am
Aaron writes,
Whether or not such a policy should ever exist, at least in this nation, is another question all together.
Yes, that’s understood. What do you think the policy should be? Would you prohibit your employees from expressing their political opinions on their own time?
LikeLike
April 28, 2016 at 11:36 pm
scalialito wrote:
“Yes, that’s understood. What do you think the policy should be? Would you prohibit your employees from expressing their political opinions on their own time?”
Any form of speech that is constitutionally protected, that an employee undertakes to make, as long as it is off of company time, and does not damage the company, is protected in my book, thus making them free from any culpability or obligation.
So if I had a company I would not expect any employee of mine to sign or agree to any policy that infringed upon their rights to freedom of speech
However, I would have a policy in place protecting me and my company and assets, in the event any employee of mine attempted to act and/or speak as an agent of the company outside of their work responsibilities, or etc. Libel and slander against me or my company or its employees, would be inexcusable, for example.
LikeLike
April 29, 2016 at 7:10 am
Thanks, Aaron.That’s exactly how it should be.
LikeLike
April 29, 2016 at 8:26 am
“…….and does not damage the company,……”
But that’s the whole point here because of the high profile status of the company and Schilling’s high profile position within that company, it cannot but reflect badly on the company. Even if he were a taxi driver the cab company could possibly be boycotted because of the group, the pride, he disparaged.
Goodbye Schilling and keep your religious insanity in your own brain for even a fool appears bright until he speaks.
Proverbs 17:28 Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.
LikeLike
April 29, 2016 at 12:30 pm
Aaron wrote,
However, I would have a policy in place protecting me and my company and assets, in the event any employee of mine attempted to act and/or speak as an agent of the company outside of their work responsibilities, or etc. Libel and slander against me or my company or its employees, would be inexcusable, for example.
I’m also glad you tried to define the parameters of damage to the company by limiting it to something direct like libel. Without a clear definition, any employee could be fired for any political statement s/he makes on the pretext that said statement “damaged” the company. For example, if an employee on h/er Facebook page expressed support for Bernie Sanders, h/er company could terminate h/er because of the fear that many clients wouldn’t want to shop where a socialist works (thus, damaging the company’s profit margin). If all companies adopted such a posture, that would effectively squelch one’s ability to say anything that might be deemed out of alignment with a company’s managers. Kudos to you for recognizing that.
LikeLike
April 30, 2016 at 10:09 pm
Thanks, scalialito!
Inquisitor,
You have all the right in the world to severely dislike Curt Schilling and his views. You have the right to express them freely.
But it makes me wonder something:
Do you agree or not that Curt Schilling has been penalized through termination for constitutionally protected speech?
If not, how so?
If so, isn’t it demeaning to all when the rights of any are so trampled?
Secondly, where did Mr. Schilling indicate that his expressed views are or were religiously motivated?
LikeLike
May 1, 2016 at 1:30 am
Aaron:
Schilling’s views, while not expressly mentioned as religious views but it is worth noting that Schilling’s biography specifically says that he is a “born again” Christian and there is little wonder what motivated his comments in this case.
And No I do not agree that Schilling’s comments are constitutionally protected for the simple reason that the comments amounted to discriminatory hate speech and that is not protected speech.
And therefore it is not demeaning to Schilling to have been terminated for demeaning a group of society in a hateful and hurtful manner.
LikeLike
May 1, 2016 at 8:09 pm
Inquisitor,
The tweet wasn’t originally his. He re-tweeted someone else’s tweet.
Secondly, I can admit the re-tweet was a bit crude, crass, and low class, and potentially offensive to a portion of the population.
But to call it un-protected hate speech seems overkill.
I mean, by so defining the re-tweet, you pretty much condemn your speech here at Jason’s blog as un-protected hate speech. You routinely condescend and condemn and ridicule and otherwise make offensive, outrageous claims against religious believers, especially Christians.
So what makes you any different or better than Mr. Schilling?
LikeLike
May 1, 2016 at 10:56 pm
Aaron VanDeBogert:
I applaud your attempt to draw parallels between Schillings speech and my own writings that: “…..condemn(s) and ridicule(s )and otherwise make offensive, claims against religious believers……” however, I would not characterize my commentaries as “outrageous”. And your reasoning misses a point that is key. When people speak against groups of people based on their birthright attributes, things and/or conditions like race, ethnicity, color, gender, sexual orientation, disability, disease, genetic abnormalities, and sensory deficiencies, these are not things which were so born from their mother’s womb that one should be hateful toward.
On the other hand when people are indoctrinated by religious superstition, supernaturalism, cultural and religious ritual tradition such as female/male genital mutilation; i.e., circumcision, and the absurdity of miraculous events, that is quite another matter; these are flaws of the ancients passed down to generations from uneducated minds. Schilling and others like him offer only religious justification for so doing which is no reasonable justification at all.
As I have often pointed out before: you know, it use to be that you could get a diagnosis of demonic possession. I mean that was a reasonable thing to believe you had if you were having seizures but now we have the science of neurology and we know about epilepsy so now when your kid has seizures, you know you don’t go to the church to get him diagnosed and treated by exorcism and so that’s a good thing. Demon possessed was code for brain dysfunction and was a natural (religious) diagnosis the consequences of sin; it was a reason to ostracize, put away into groups like animals and treated inhumanely right up into our own time, in insane asylums.
And one need only go back in time a short way to see how it was okay and normal to disregard and deny people by omission who had less abilities than the majority.
Here is a simple illustration of a minot nature you might say:
Laws such as the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and similar state and local laws ensure people with mobility disabilities are able to access goods, services, programs, and housing. The premise behind those laws is that people with disabilities should be able to participate in community life just like everyone else. Wheelchair accessible ramps were only mandated in the last 20 years or so. the ADA requires that business and government buildings built for first occupancy after January 26, 1992 and first occupied after January 26, 1993 be accessible to people with mobility disabilities. That means, in part, that those buildings must have accessible entrances that are either level with the street or reachable by a ramp instead of by climbing stairs. The FHA has similar requirements for the entrances of “covered multifamily dwellings” designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991.
I wrote in Post 24 that: “In the case of discrimination against an entire section of peace abiding, non-violent humanity, this is called the Common (Sense) Law, the legal equivalent of Anti Discriminatory Law on the basis of Human rights of race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation. I may disagree with the lifestyle of billions of believers in the religious belief of supernaturalism and superstition but I do not discriminate against such. I do try to defog their windshield mindset from false indoctrination; sometimes, this requires verbal shock therapy using poignant word-smithing, a tool designed to ram common sense down the throats of fools.”
But if you parallel my writings with Schillings discriminatory remarks about a group of people born that way from the womb by suggesting my words are on the same level of discrimination, that is wrong. Believers are not born that way from the womb, I wouldn’t even say it was a choice necessarily since clergy seizes them as babies fresh out of the womb when their minds are like soft putty, maleable, pliable, compliant, pedobaptism is common and circumcision, if birth takes place in the hospital, can be within 48 hours.
I try in my own way, to help the indoctrinated who become the downtrodden made stupid by the tyranny of religious insanity.
But you may just as well try to parallel Jesus’ indictment of religion and its proponents two thousand years ago which you can read again in the gospel of Matthew who devoted the whole of chapter 23 to the revilement by Jesus against works of the religious world….. works he described as evil.
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come (and are coming) upon this generation.
LikeLike
May 2, 2016 at 7:32 am
Aaron writes,
But to call it un-protected hate speech seems overkill.
“Seems overkill”?
The Supreme Court, in Snyder v. Phelps ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has a constitutionally protected right to speak the way it does about homosexuals. It is no question in our legal jurisprudence that such speech is constitutionally protected.
What Schilling did was in no way, shape or form remotely close to the WBC. I agree that what he did was crude, and there is no doubt some people took offense, but to make offense the standard for acceptable speech would eviscerate the First Amendment (you’re not saying that, of course).
LikeLike
May 2, 2016 at 8:06 am
I hasten to add that Schilling’s firing is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment restrains government, not private corporations. ESPN has every right to terminate its relationship with Schilling if an employment agreement was violated.
LikeLike
May 2, 2016 at 8:09 am
This week, Schilling reposted an image of an overweight man wearing a long blond wig and revealing women’s clothing. It included the phrase: “Let him in! To the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow minded, judgmental, unloving, racist bigot who needs to die!!!”
Schilling added his own comments, saying: “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves” and “Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”
Schilling was apparently referring to laws in several states that restrict bathroom access to transgender people.
Earlier on Wednesday, Schilling defended the post on his blog, saying that he was expressing his opinion and those criticizing him are frauds.
This isn’t the first time that Schilling has been in hot water with the network for comments he made online.
The former Sunday Night Baseball analyst was pulled by ESPN from a major league game and the network’s coverage of the Little League World Series last fall after he retweeted a post that compared Muslims and Nazi-era Germans.
ESPN said the tweet was “unacceptable” but kept him on board.
At the time, Schilling said he had made a “bad decision”.
Here is the retweeted post of Schilling
http://www.outsports.com/2016/4/19/11461618/curt-schilling-espn-transgender
LikeLike
May 2, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Inquisitor,
So, to sum up, if we are born a certain way, we ought to have the right to a legally protected status, but if we make a choice to be a certain way, we ought not to have any legal status as a protected group?
This effectively limits which choices are and which are not, likely going to be made by any one person in society. If making the choice to be a certain “something” means not having the legal right to be protected, then to go ahead and make a choice to be that “something” is to endanger one’s self.
This leads to nothing but pogroms and witch-hunts and other forms of marginalizations and persecutions against the unprotected out-group.
Three questions:
1.) Is this what you’re advocating?
2.) At what point do we stop someone from claiming “born this way so you can’t touch me”?
Many pedophiles claim to have been born with a psychological predisposition to lusting after children/needing children in order to experience sexual satisfaction.
Some even go so far to say that no one in their right mind would dare choose pedophilia as a lifestyle due to it’s near universal hatred and stigmatization. They then use this as evidence for their claim.
3.) What’s the endgame for you, you’re utopian ideal?
People are not going to willingly end their religious beliefs in God/gods/the supernatural simply because someone on the internet argues vociferously against their convictions.
LikeLike
May 3, 2016 at 12:33 am
Supernaturalism and superstition can be mitigated by education; beliefs will vanish by knowledge as darkness disappears with the dawning of light.
Psychological persuasion is no justification for stealing, injuring or otherwise interfering with another person’s well being so a psychological predisposition while it may be applicable to the person who is so disposed the transference of that predisposition to the injury of another person is a different matter, a criminal matter.
“born this way” has reasonable limitations and the devil made me do it is not an excuse to justify moral deficiency.
“…..”pogroms and witch-hunts and other forms of marginalizations and persecutions” did not start with me; it is what religion is well known for from slaying the infidels, the salem witch hunts to killing gays; it is what discriminatory bigots thrive on such as the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism and egomaniacs who operate like religion that justify wiping out an entire group of people based on their ethnicity or religious persuasion. Religious persuasion is just that, persuasion by someone, somebody, some group exerting an influence when that influence does not deserve to be a standard for universal behavior.
These are conditions that already exist so to suggest that what I say will lead to a world that is already in the throes of social strife is rather far fetched and bizarre and I do not accept any guilt for a world enthralled by religious insanity and egocentricity. So please don’t try to lay a guilt trip on me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Most of the world’s stupidity is the direct result of religious stupidity.
LikeLike
May 4, 2016 at 11:15 am
You’re missing my point, I think, Inquisitor.
My point is this: there are billions of people who will NEVER surrender their religious convictions, and will gladly take them to the gallows, the guillotine, or to a firing squad, no matter how much any attempts to educate, or rather, re-educate them otherwise, are made.
The fact is, experience will always trump any argumentation.
Yes, religious convictions have led to terrible times in human history. Even your latest screen name evokes that fact. But in order to cause change in society, a society devoted to its religious convictions and the right to believe as one wishes, is not going to come through the tip of a pen, or the stroke of a key, but rather, by the edge of a sword, and the end of a gun. You know it’s true.
And your rhetoric here, as embraced by many people, can easily turn into the fomenting of a realized rage, until someone takes the words on the screen and puts them into action. This, too, you know is true.
You’re not advocating a peaceful understanding in which all, even religious people, are allowed to exist as they are in what they believe. You are advocating a toleration of everyone and everything so long as it doesn’t involve religion.
As long as you continue to mock and deride religious people as whack-jobs, you’re fulfilling your part in the suppression of the rights of any to believe as they wish.
Granted, it’s indirect, it’s subtle, and doesn’t cause any overt harm. But to act as if there isn’t coming a major persecution against the religiously devoted, is to be willingly blind to the zeitgeist of the current era.
And when it comes, you’re telling me you won’t be happy about it?
The fact is, we can’t stand for merely the rights of some, while ignoring or stamping out the rights of others. Since I have not seen you one time, through your many iterations here at this blog, advocate any good thing about the religious strata of our society, I am led to conclude, through your words, that a little up-turning of the lips will surely plant itself on your face the moment the pendulum finally swings the other way.
LikeLike
May 4, 2016 at 5:14 pm
Aaron:
Of all the words and sayings attributed to Jesus, have you ever read anything that Jesus said that was good about religion? Yet he spoke about it quite vociferously and some listened and changed their minds while lots others found his words hard to swallow and walked no more with him.
When Jesus spoke about the Day of Kingdom of Heaven he spoke about it this manner:
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days(the days of the Kingdom of Heaven), says the Lord. I will put My laws in their minds, and inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 11 No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.
Until finally as Revelation reveals that Day: 22 I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23And the city has no need for sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp….
But that does not come with observation because it is a slow process when the generations die and the new generations born and that Kingdom is coming, slowly to be sure but the stats are already confirming the change as religious seats are go empty and churches close.
The share of U.S. adults who say they believe in God, while still remarkably high by comparison with other advanced industrial countries, has declined modestly, from approximately 92% to 89%, since Pew Research Center conducted its first Landscape Study in 2007.1 The share of Americans who say they are “absolutely certain” God exists has dropped more sharply, from 71% in 2007 to 63% in 2014. And the percentages who say they pray every day, attend religious services regularly and consider religion to be very important in their lives also have ticked down by small but statistically significant margins.
Jesus himself said that the Kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into three measures of flour, until all of it was leavened. And it is working its way through as the world civilizes, becomes educated and globalized. The leaven is working and the time sand is running as the transition takes place.
All I am doing is heralding that day. It’s like the horse trading and sales and the blacksmith industry making horse shoes all up in arms that they were losing their livelihood because of the automobile; it is like today when people rail against Hillary Clinton because she heralded the day that coal industry and coal miners would lose their livelihood, no they don’t like the change but it is the inevitable consequence of evolution or if you like creation changing.
Look down the corridors of time and see all the changes that have happened, when one generation lost their trade and work and were forced to ply another path or fall by the wayside unwilling to adapt. You are totally off by suggesting that the evolution of religion “is not going to come through the tip of a pen, or the stroke of a key, but rather, by the edge of a sword, and the end of a gun.” This is totally untrue, not because of the pen or stroke of a key but because it is the predestination that visionaries have spoken about down through the centuries.
One generation dies and a piece of that old generation dies with it and when new generations are born they inherit new knowledge and new education, change and progress and the old eventually will be lost from memory. How many thousands of centuries did it take generations for the myological Gods to be sacrificed on the altar of progress and found only now in the ancient archives of legends preserved as a myth, in tarot cards, horoscopes, psychics or Casino slot machines.
This is not coming because I say so, it was the inevitable consequence in growth and life before I was born and will continue after immortality. I am only telling you as it is to be seen.
LikeLike
May 4, 2016 at 5:30 pm
You see the Lord Jesus came magnificently to demonstrate the proposition, the divine logic of which is absolutely imperative to a man’s humanity. And in explaining this to you, I’m simply preaching the gospel. Don’t please imagine that the gospel is simply come to Jesus and have your sins forgiven; that isn’t the gospel. You will only have your sins forgiven if you are prepared to come to the Lord Jesus and accept him into your life for the knowledge he came to give but THAT IS NOT GOSPEL. That simply lets you off the hook; that simply changes your destination; that simply trades hell for heaven but Jesus Christ didn’t come into this world simply to get you and me out of hell and into heaven; he came into this world supremely to get God out of heaven in to you and to me while showing us that, that is where he was living all along, you just didn’t know it through the haze of smoke and mirrors that religion blindfolded by supernatural obfuscation, the whole world with.
When I was a child I did childish things but then I Guru up……..
LikeLike