John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders

[prisonchaplain]

He sounds an awful lot like your average american.

But much like the children of Lake Wabegon, we posters at LDS.net are all above average.

[Matthew0059]

But much like the children of Lake Wabegon, we posters at LDS.net are all above average.

Quoted for truth.

[Matthew0059]

So, what? Is that the criteria for expression--people who say ridiculous things should just shut up? If so, all we'd hear is crickets chirping from shore to shore, for everyone says ridiculous things at one time or another...

To be fair, I think you're taking bytor's words to an extreme he never meant to imply, Elphaba. I doubt bytor meant that Cusack should never again say anything about anything he wants, or that Cusack shouldn't have any say about politics whatsoever.

Does it never annoy you when someone on the other side of the political or religious fence (or any 'fence' you desire) is plain rude, caustic, and uncaring of the pain they may cause to others with their words? Do you really wish that the Westboro Baptists continue their anti-homosexuality crusade? Of course we should shutter at the very thought of forcibly denying their right to free will- but the desire that the rude and hateful will find a more agreeable way to express themselves is a healthy desire, methinks. There really are hateful things being said all the time that does absolutely no one any good.

I think ideally we should all strive to express ourselves in more articulate, tactful ways that inspire good cheer. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

[MarginOfError]

But much like the children of Lake Wabegon, we posters at LDS.net are all above average.

I wish to quote myself....

Haeh?

[prisonchaplain]

Just because he is an actor doesn't mean he has to lose his opinion!

Maybe he should, though? After all, I frequently hear that people of faith ought to stick to sermons, and stay out of politics, because of "separation of church and state." So, why do Christians have to be quiet, but performers get handed the latest sound equipment to air their keen political insights? (do note my tongue is at least slightly protruding from my cheek) :)

[NeuroTypical]

Um, guys? He's not faux-advocating a satanic death for people at FOX, he's faux-advocating someone building a satanic death cult center at FOX.

See, it's an attempt at a witty comeback based on the 9/11 mosque reaction. It's not a faux-death threat. And nobody ever believed it was an actual death threat.

It's hard to cram wit into the twitter 140 character maximum. So I don't even knock the guy for failing at it.

[HoosierGuy]

Maybe he should, though? After all, I frequently hear that people of faith ought to stick to sermons, and stay out of politics, because of "separation of church and state." So, why do Christians have to be quiet, but performers get handed the latest sound equipment to air their keen political insights? (do note my tongue is at least slightly protruding from my cheek) :)

Christians can get involved in politics. Preachers can endorse politicians. They can even tell their congregation "God wants you to vote for so and so." Just give up your tax exempt status. Id be all for that - go make your religious clubs. You can call them "churches" but they will be clubs. Invite who you want. Keep out who you want. But no tax except status.

[Wingnut]

Again... IT'S A TWIT ON TWITTER!

Actually, it's a tweet on Twitter, you big twit!

Christians can get involved in politics. Preachers can endorse politicians. They can even tell their congregation "God wants you to vote for so and so." Just give up your tax exempt status. Id be all for that - go make your religious clubs. You can call them "churches" but they will be clubs. Invite who you want. Keep out who you want. But no tax except status.

To quote MOE,

Haeh?

[prisonchaplain]

Christians can get involved in politics. Preachers can endorse politicians. They can even tell their congregation "God wants you to vote for so and so." Just give up your tax exempt status. Id be all for that - go make your religious clubs. You can call them "churches" but they will be clubs. Invite who you want. Keep out who you want. But no tax except status.

Churches are not unique in getting tax exemption. Non-profits of most kinds do. The power to tax is the power to control. Do we really want government controlling churches???

[PrinceofLight2000]

Haeh?

Haeh?

lolwut?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Christians can get involved in politics. Preachers can endorse politicians. They can even tell their congregation "God wants you to vote for so and so." Just give up your tax exempt status. Id be all for that - go make your religious clubs. You can call them "churches" but they will be clubs. Invite who you want. Keep out who you want. But no tax except status.

Religious individuals' clout in political campaigns/platforms/ideology (however immoral it may be in your given example) =/= religion's clout in state function.

Additionally, how does political, non-governmental behavior in a private religious organization warrant taxation? If you were to do this, you'd be unconstitutionally punishing their right to free speech. Non-profit status doesn't gag churches when it comes to political dialogue, and with good reason.

Way to completely and unnecessarily extrapolate and distort Jefferson's ideas.

Back to the whole immorality deal, though. Churches should be speaking out against immoral policies, not supporting particular candidates.

Edited September 1, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Elphaba]

To be fair, I think you're taking bytor's words to an extreme he never meant to imply, Elphaba. I doubt bytor meant that Cusack should never again say anything about anything he wants, or that Cusack shouldn't have any say about politics whatsoever.

You're probably right. I do agree that "pipe down," is not quite "shut up," which is what I said. So, I'll amend my previous post.

Does it never annoy you when someone on the other side of the political or religious fence (or any 'fence' you desire) is plain rude, caustic, and uncaring of the pain they may cause to others with their words?

Like Sara Palin? You betcha!

Do you really wish that the Westboro Baptists continue their anti-homosexuality crusade? Of course we should shutter at the very thought of forcibly denying their right to free will- but the desire that the rude and hateful will find a more agreeable way to express themselves is a healthy desire, methinks. There really are hateful things being said all the time that does absolutely no one any good.

I completely agree.

I am extremely conflicted about those people. I despise what they do, and even, them. That's unusual for me, as I am pretty tolerant of people's right to say things I don't like. But they cross a line into what is, to me, true obscenity.

I am completely inconsistent when it comes to those people. I think someone should shut them up. However, I truly believe that, ultimately, denying American citizens their Constitutional right to free speech is much more dangerous than what the Westboro thugs are doing.

Should they just pipe down? Yes. Should they continue to speak their minds? Yes. Would I speak against anyone who made those people stop what they're doing? No, I wouldn't.

Yes, I am a hypocrite.

However, what Cusack did is not remotely comparable to what the Westboro's do, and while I did appreciate the question as it gave me a chance to make myself look ridiculous, I don't think it actually applies in this case.

I think ideally we should all strive to express ourselves in more articulate, tactful ways that inspire good cheer. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Yes, it is, and I completely agree with you again. In fact, I'm discouraged to see my fellow progressives, on various boards, resorting to demeaning nicknames and insults when speaking to conservatives. It didn't used to be that way, though there were always some who did it. But there is so much anger now, as liberals are tired of being told they are literally out to ruin the country, that they're stupid, sheep, tools, etc., and the way they're responding is to sink to the same level. In fact, I took a break from all that as I was ill, and came back to find it worst than ever.

It weighs on me. I guess Bytor is right--it doesn't further the dialogue, from either side.

Okay, Bytor, you're right. You owe Matthew.

Elph

[bytor2112]

Like Sara Palin? You betcha!

Funny how Sarah Palin grates on the left. If only she had killed her handicapped baby...Twig is it..... she might be loved by the left. The only plausible explanation is that if an inept and even less qualified community organizer can make it to the White House....then so could Sarah Palin and how dare she not get an abortion. One would think that she might get just a touch of admiration from women and so called compassionate lefties....but no such luck...wrong pedigree.

[Elphaba]

Funny how Sarah Palin grates on the left. If only she had killed her handicapped baby...Twig is it..... she might be loved by the left. The only plausible explanation is that if an inept and even less qualified community organizer can make it to the White House....then so could Sarah Palin and how dare she not get an abortion. One would think that she might get just a touch of admiration from women and so called compassionate lefties....but no such luck...wrong pedigree.

Now that nonsense truly furthers the dialogue!

Elphaba

[bytor2112]

Now that nonsense truly furthers the dialogue!

Elphaba

Oh...it is SO true though and yes it is non sense.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Should they just pipe down? Yes. Should they continue to speak their minds? Yes.

No, they shouldn't in this case. Can they? You bet.

[Elphaba]

No, they shouldn't in this case. Can they? You bet.

Yeah, my point was confusing.

What I meant is they should not be forced to stop expressing themselves, but that if someone did force them to, I would not speak out against it, and yes, that is hypocritical.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

Seems the washed-up actors that can't find a good gig are always the loudest.

Gotta start somewhere. That actor from the old TV program, Death Valley Days, was able to move up to bigger and better things through being outspoken. BTW, he had many deserving of an Oscar script writers helping him all the way.

[mordorbund]

Um, guys? He's not faux-advocating a satanic death for people at FOX, he's faux-advocating someone building a satanic death cult center at FOX.

See, it's an attempt at a witty comeback based on the 9/11 mosque reaction. It's not a faux-death threat. And nobody ever believed it was an actual death threat.

It's hard to cram wit into the twitter 140 character maximum. So I don't even knock the guy for failing at it.

Sorry John, you didn't think that one through. You try to insult a group that thinks that the building of Muslim cultural center is the same as constructing a worshipful Mosque of Jihadist American-haters. And so you state that you'd like to build satanic center. Let's do SAT-style analogies -

Muslim cultural center near ground zero is to worshipful Mosque of Jihadist American-haters on top of the Holy Shrine of the Sacred Blood of the Blessed Americans

as

Satanic death cult center near Fox news is to ???

[RanMan]

So, what are you saying, anatess? John Cusack is a twit?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

:)

[RanMan]

That's unusual for me, as I am pretty tolerant of people's right to say things I don't like. But they cross a line into what is, to me, true obscenity.

If this thread is any example of that, I think it would be interesting to see what you would say when you're not being tolerant of peoples right to say things - such as wishing Cusak would pipe down and go make some more crappy movies.

[talisyn]

I think 5 pages devoted to John Cusak is waaaaaay too much

[PrinceofLight2000]

If this thread is any example of that, I think it would be interesting to see what you would say when you're not being tolerant of peoples right to say things - such as wishing Cusak would pipe down and go make some more crappy movies.

No one here said he doesn't have his rights. The question is whether it's morally appropriate for him to exercise them in this way.

How is that being intolerant of someone's rights? bytor said Cusak should shut up, not that someone else should shut him up.

Edit: I think you didn't mean to have it come off in the sense I pointed out, but I'll leave my point up as just something rhetorical. Did you mean to say not that bytor's statement was intolerant, but that you'd like to see what Elphaba would say when she's not being tolerant of bytor's statement?

Edited September 2, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Matthew0059]

However, what Cusack did is not remotely comparable to what the Westboro's do, and while I did appreciate the question as it gave me a chance to make myself look ridiculous, I don't think it actually applies in this case.

I agree; the comparison was purposefully overblown. I didn't mean to make you "look ridiculous", though, so my apologies for that.

Okay, now everyone group hug!

[HoosierGuy]

I think 5 pages devoted to John Cusak is waaaaaay too much

True. Lets change the subject and devote 10 pages to Applebees BB ribs and cheese sticks!