|
Tom Hanks weighed in on the discussion on Prop. 8 in California by calling Mormons "un-American." Now, I don't want to get into it about Prop. 8, but does anyone think that calling a group of people Un-American simply for taking the opposite side of an issue from you is what the founders would have wanted? I can't think of anything less in line with the spirit of America then to call someone un-American for expressing an opinion. Liberals like Hanks didn't like it when they felt it was being done to them over the war in Iraq, so one would think that they would choose their words more carefully. More importantly, why single out Mormons if your issue is really discrimination? Mormons were only one small cog in the machine that passed Prop. 8. Why not call the rest un-American as well?
|
|
Him saying it was pointless (I loathe celebrities using their fame as a platform to pander their political philosophy), but I can't imagine much more 'un-American' than attempting to undermine 'all men are created equal' and create subclasses within this country of people who do not get the same rights as others.
So, IMO, he's right to have that opinion, and totally within his First Amendment rights to blab about it around friends and family and co-workers, but shouldn't exploit his celebrity to rabble-rouse about it.
|
|
I agree that he has a right to say what he wants. However, I also think that calling someone else un-American for exercising the same right borders on hypocrasy. Personally, I wonder if Hanks just hates Mormons, since he has spent the last several years producing a show that gives a very skewed view of what we believe and presenting a group of apostates as mainstream Mormons.
Whatever else one thinks of Mormons, any cursory study of them will reveal that they are very American, indeed. The movement is inexplicable except in terms of its American context.
|
Hmmm. I think Prop 8 is a crock of doodoo (seriously, don't we have better things to worry about?), but it passed by a pretty large number, which means a lot of people who voted for the "tolerant" party voted for Prop 8. National polls usually trend between 65% to 70% opposition to gay marriage.
That's a lot of Americans who are "unamerican".
People have to decide if we want to live in a "democracy" (majority rule) or something else. If we leave issues up to a vote, you know, democratically, then people should learn to live with the results, or learn to more skillfully persuade people to take their side. If we want to live in some other form of government (you know, like a representative republic...), we should allow THAT process to do what it does.
People only seem to want "democracy" when it goes their way, and cry for something else (judicial "activism", "rights" legislation) when it doesn't.
|
|
I agree that he has a right to say what he wants. However, I also think that calling someone else un-American for exercising the same right borders on hypocrasy. Personally, I wonder if Hanks just hates Mormons, since he has spent the last several years producing a show that gives a very skewed view of what we believe and presenting a group of apostates as mainstream Mormons.Is calling them apostate any worse than calling them un-American? I'm sure they'd take issue with either title.
Considering the definition of apostate, "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause," it is apropriate. By practicing polygamy, which the LDS Church abandoned in the late 1800s, they fit the definition of an apostate.
There are more Roman Catholics outside of Rome, too. But in both cases, there are elements that are essential to a group's identity that are derived from their original context.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
David,
I'll take Tom Hanks more seriously when he condems the blacks, hispanics, and muslims who voted in high numbers for Prop 8. Until then, he's a coward looking for cheep political points.
Set,
I'll have to disagree with you here. The Government recognition of marriage contracts is a privledge, not a right. A gay person has the same ability to enter into a marriage contract with any one person of the opposite sex, the same as any straight person.
Ironically, I prefer the creation of a seperate institution for same sex couples, created through the legislation or referrundum process, while allowing that sodomy is a sin in Jedei-Christian teaching.
|
|
Considering the definition of apostate, "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause," it is apropriate. By practicing polygamy, which the LDS Church abandoned in the late 1800s, they fit the definition of an apostate.They're a splinter group of the Mormon church, just like any of the thousands of Christian splinter groups. Just because their practices don't synch with the rest of the church, doesn't make those practices any less valid. Just as Lutherans, and Christian scientists, and Baptists, and Catholics can all call themselves Christian, those people have every right to call themselves Mormons.
Mormons are Christians. What these people are doing would be akin to a Baptist trying to call themselves Catholic.
I would point out: The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. The differences are subtle but very important.
|
|
I would point out: The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. The differences are subtle but very important.
Yet we also have two process which depend on democratic rule. First is the refferendum process and the other is the ammendment process. Both provide ways for the "unwashed masses" to overide the Republic and decide things in a democratic fashion. That is waht happened in California. The peple took their fate into their own hands.
|
|
Irony:
In the Simpsons Movie, when they are plotting to blow up Springfield, the government makes a public service spot announcing the "new" Grand Canyon where "nothing ever was".
The spokesman for the spot is Tom Hanks.
He introduces it by noting that the government has no credibility so they are borrowing some of his.
I agree that he has a right to say what he wants. However, I also think that calling someone else un-American for exercising the same right borders on hypocrasy. Personally, I wonder if Hanks just hates Mormons, since he has spent the last several years producing a show that gives a very skewed view of what we believe and presenting a group of apostates as mainstream Mormons.
But it's not exercising the same right. Hanks is criticizing a group with the use of free speech. The Mormons, and other proponents of Prop 8, actively stood in the way of equal rights by voting to change the constitution of California. That's not just exercising free speech rights. That's taking an action to deny equal rights.
|
|
I agree that he has a right to say what he wants. However, I also think that calling someone else un-American for exercising the same right borders on hypocrasy. Personally, I wonder if Hanks just hates Mormons, since he has spent the last several years producing a show that gives a very skewed view of what we believe and presenting a group of apostates as mainstream Mormons.But it's not exercising the same right. Hanks is criticizing a group with the use of free speech. The Mormons, and other proponents of Prop 8, actively stood in the way of equal rights by voting to change the constitution of California. That's not just exercising free speech rights. That's taking an action to deny equal rights.
However, once again, the discussion is not about Prop. 8. The question before us is whether or not it is appropriate to call someone "un-American" just because you disagree with them politically? And as Matthew pointed out, there is no actual right to marry defined in any law. In fact we have many laws which do ban certain people, like close relatives, from marriage. If a law which prevents homosexuals from marrying is denying equal rights, does that mean we should also lift bans on marriage by siblings, cousins, and other close relatives? Polygamous marriages are illegal in the United States, shouldn't we give them equal rights as well? As you can see that once we go down the road of demanding "equal rights' in marriage, it's going to affect more than just the popel affected by Prop. 8.
|
Yeah, broke the cardinal rule. Never talk about religion or politics, and never ever talk about them together.
Man 1. "You got your politics in my religion".
Man 2. "No, you got your religion in my politics".Man 1. *Throws rock*
Man 2. *Shoots rock thrower*
Man 3. (Brother of man 1) *launches a rocket at man 2's house*
Man 2. *Launches air strike at Man 3's neighborhood*
Escalating etcetera.
Why single out Mormons? Many African-American voters who were voting for Obama also voted in large numbers for Prop 8 (some exit polls put their percentage as high as 75%). Are they un-American as well?
More to the point, why does anyone actually care what some overpaid Hollywood actor has to say about politics? This bizzare correlation that someone who is a good actor is automatically a font of political wisdom has always puzzled me.
EDIT: BTW, I personally think Prop 8 is a load of horsesh*t, but I think playing the "Unamerican" card is equally a load of horsesh*t
|
|
More to the point, why does anyone actually care what some overpaid Hollywood actor has to say about politics? This bizzare correlation that someone who is a good actor is automatically a font of political wisdom has always puzzled me.
Sure. Everyone has their own idea of what it is to be American. People have been called un-American for a host of reasons, by a host of people; hell, there was a "Department of un-American Activities" during the Red Scare, whose sole purpose was to blacklist citizens for their opinions and beliefs. (Thank goodness nothing like *that* will ever happen again...)
However, once again, the discussion is not about Prop. 8. The question before us is whether or not it is appropriate to call someone "un-American" just because you disagree with them politically?
I guess for me, it has to do with the way that we are redefining tolerance in this country. More and more it seems that intolerance is being defined as agreeing with someone one hundred percent on every issue and if you deviate then you become "intolerant" and can be discriminated against. It's like one of my polisci professors once said, people have become so obsessed with diversity based on ethnicity, gender, orientation, etc. that they have lost sight of the fact that the only diversity that matters is diversity of thought and ideas.
... It's like aone of my polisci professors once said, people have become so obsessed with diversity based on ethnicity, gender, orientation, etc. that they have lost sight of the fact that the only diversity that matters is diversity of thought and ideas.
As one of my favorite satires once said:
Velcome to tolerance camp. You are here because you would not accept people's differences. Because you refuse to accept the life choices of your fellow man. Well those days are now over. Here you vill verk, every hour of every day until you submit to being tolerant of everybody. Here, intolerance... Vill not be tolerated.
Much like others have said previously, I'm not sure why Hanks is singling out the Mormons. They only number around 500,000 in California, nowhere near the amount of African-Americans (around 2.2 mil) and Latinos (around 12 mil), who also were represented heavily on the vote. In any case, I don't believe it's fair to call someone "un-American" just because they're exercising their right to vote.
|
|
Much like others have said previously, I'm not sure why Hanks is singling out the Mormons. They only number around 500,000 in California, nowhere near the amount of African-Americans (around 2.2 mil) and Latinos (around 12 mil), who also were represented heavily on the vote. In any case, I don't believe it's fair to call someone "un-American" just because they're exercising their right to vote.
But it's ok to call someone abomination because your religion doesn't like what they do? I'd say un-American wasn't that bad, but then I'm not American so I'm automatically un-American. And there's no equivalent un-British.
And David, stop being so intolerant. ;-)
That said , I don't care what Tom Hanks thinks or says any more than I care what any other actor says. They're actors. They're not employed for their knowledge of politics or ability to understand complex issues. Now, I agree with him on the issue, but insulting your opponent weakens your case in my eyes.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I can't think of anything less in line with the spirit of America then to call someone un-American for expressing an opinion.
Quoted for truth. Calling someone 'Unamerican' is nonsense when it is used to condemn someone for criticizing the president, protesting the war, and expressing an opinion against gay marriage.
Now, if Tom Hanks meant that enshrining a religious value in law was unAmerican he'd still be wrong but better able to make an argument.
|
|
Tom Hanks weighed in on the discussion on Prop. 8 in California by calling Mormons "un-American." Now, I don't want to get into it about Prop. 8, but does anyone think that calling a group of people Un-American simply for taking the opposite side of an issue from you is what the founders would have wanted? I can't think of anything less in line with the spirit of America then to call someone un-American for expressing an opinion. Liberals like Hanks didn't like it when they felt it was being done to them over the war in Iraq, so one would think that they would choose their words more carefully. More importantly, why single out Mormons if your issue is really discrimination? Mormons were only one small cog in the machine that passed Prop. 8. Why not call the rest un-American as well?
As I have pointed out in a previous thread, this is the standard practice today. If someone doesn't agree with you then they are the radicals who must be stopped at all costs. Instead of an intelligent discussion on the issue at hand it is time to pull out the attack dogs and go after, not necessarily those who are the biggest supporters but rather the ones who have the most media attention at the time.
|
|
Mormons are Christians.
What these people are doing would be akin to a Baptist trying to call themselves Catholic.
Well that leaves us with the standard, we are right you are wrong debate.
...
I think we all have too much free time on our hands. A good pandemic plague, and people would snap the heck out of it.
I vote for an alien menace instead. The minute we discover extratrerrestrial life is when all our differences won't seem all that huge. Well, compared to some felinoid species with a colonialist agenda that is.
|
|
I vote for an alien menace instead. The minute we discover extratrerrestrial life is when all our differences won't seem all that huge. Well, compared to some felinoid species with a colonialist agenda that is....
I think we all have too much free time on our hands. A good pandemic plague, and people would snap the heck out of it.
I, for one, welcome our new feline overlords. Catnip?
I think we all have too much free time on our hands. A good pandemic plague, and people would snap the heck out of it.
I love you.
|
|
I vote for an alien menace instead. The minute we discover extratrerrestrial life is when all our differences won't seem all that huge. Well, compared to some felinoid species with a colonialist agenda that is....
I think we all have too much free time on our hands. A good pandemic plague, and people would snap the heck out of it.
Nothing like a good Kzinti war to straiten us up.
I love you.To quote one of my favorite movies, "I tell you, buddy... I'd be the luckiest man alive if that did it for me."
Heh.
LOL.
|
|
Nothing like a good Kzinti war to straiten us up.I vote for an alien menace instead. The minute we discover extratrerrestrial life is when all our differences won't seem all that huge. Well, compared to some felinoid species with a colonialist agenda that is....
I think we all have too much free time on our hands. A good pandemic plague, and people would snap the heck out of it.
I prefer bugs myself.
THREADJACK WARNING
The problem is not that George Clooney tells you what he thinks. The problem is that 21st century American culture seems to put so much stock in his answer.
Or seems to at least. When it comes down to it, I hope that most people realize the difference between the evening news and Entertainment Tonight.
THREADJACK OVER
::applause::
::applause::THREADJACK WARNING
The problem is not that George Clooney tells you what he thinks. The problem is that 21st century American culture seems to put so much stock in his answer.
Or seems to at least. When it comes down to it, I hope that most people realize the difference between the evening news and Entertainment Tonight.
THREADJACK OVER
::applause::
|
|
::applause::::applause::THREADJACK WARNING
The problem is not that George Clooney tells you what he thinks. The problem is that 21st century American culture seems to put so much stock in his answer.
Or seems to at least. When it comes down to it, I hope that most people realize the difference between the evening news and Entertainment Tonight.
THREADJACK OVER
:: applause::
:: applause:::: applause::
|
|
There is a slight difference between expressing a political opinion (which is entirely fine) and spending millions of dollars to put a legal barrier in place that denies American citizens their civil rights. Denying people their civil rights seems pretty 'Un-American' to me. As does a church getting directly involved in a political matter.
That said, you got over it in the 60's. So I'm sure you'll all get over this soon enough. :)
Tom Hanks is un-Mormon.
However, once again, the discussion is not about Prop. 8. The question before us is whether or not it is appropriate to call someone "un-American" just because you disagree with them politically? And as Matthew pointed out, there is no actual right to marry defined in any law. In fact we have many laws which do ban certain people, like close relatives, from marriage. If a law which prevents homosexuals from marrying is denying equal rights, does that mean we should also lift bans on marriage by siblings, cousins, and other close relatives? Polygamous marriages are illegal in the United States, shouldn't we give them equal rights as well? As you can see that once we go down the road of demanding "equal rights' in marriage, it's going to affect more than just the popel affected by Prop. 8.
It depends on the nature of the disagreement. Is it un-American to push policies contrary to the principles upon which the US was founded? I think there's a strong argument that it is. That doesn't mean that the people pushing the policies are not "real" Americans. It just means, I believe, that they have fallen away from the highest ideals embodied in the American experiment in expansive liberty. And it's a damn shame that they have done so.