Michael Flynn - US must have only one religion

[Albion]

"The first amendment protects it" is about the lamest defense of speech content ever.

Yes, of course the first amendment allows you to express that the first amendment should be repealed.

And it allows you to misrepresent what Flynn said, right? I should think that you're verifying the importance of the First Amendment in so doing, not the opposite.

 

[public hermit]

Because posters put words and ideas into Flynn's mouth, presumably because these posters are called to battle by any mention of someone associated with the Trump administration

This is my point. Are other posters putting words in his mouth? I have seen the video and have read this thread. They are using his own words, just as I have. I think the issue is his intention.

Does Flynn intend what he said? I watched the video a number of times. It's hard to tell just from the clip. I could easily see him thinking to himself, "Oh my, why did I say that?" That being said, if it was a mistake, he should really address it.

Personally, I find the very implication of our country having one religion, unless it be by the free exercise of all involved, repulsive. If I had said what Flynn said, and it was a mistake or led to a misunderstanding of my intention, I wouldn't hesitate to offer a correction. I would be thrilled to correct myself. I think it will be interesting to see if he does that. It will be disheartening if this becomes a thing among conservatives, i.e. promoting this idea of one religion-Christianity. I take it from your responses you don't thinks it's a good idea, or I hope you don't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"The first amendment protects it" is about the lamest defense of speech content ever.

Yes, of course the first amendment allows you to express that the first amendment should be repealed.

It's a useful retreat from the responsibility of taking a moral stance...

 

[wing2000]

This is my point. Are other posters putting words in his mouth? I have seen the video and have read this thread. They are using his own words, just as I have. I think the issue is his intention.

Does Flynn intend what he said? I watched the video a number of times. It's hard to tell just from the clip. I could easily see him thinking to himself, "Oh my, why did I say that?" That being said, if it was a mistake, he should really address it.

Personally, I find the very implication of our country having one religion, unless it be by the free exercise of all involved, repulsive. If I had said what Flynn said, and it was a mistake or led to a misunderstanding of my intention, I wouldn't hesitate to offer a correction. I would be thrilled to correct myself. I think it will be interesting to see if he does that. It will be disheartening if this becomes a thing among conservatives, i.e. promoting this idea of one religion-Christianity. I take it from your responses you don't thinks it's a good idea, or I hope you don't.

Flynn has had several days to correct or clarify what he meant by "one religion." AFAIK, he has not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

At my most charitable, I can say Flynn was calling for an American religious monoculture of us, to be distinguished from all of them.

One Volk, One Faith, One...

 

[TLK Valentine]

At my most charitable, I can say Flynn was calling for an American religious monoculture of us, to be distinguished from all of them.

One Volk, One Faith, One...

Seems likely -- America would be the Religion...

 

[Aldebaran]

"The first amendment protects it" is about the lamest defense of speech content ever.

Yes, of course the first amendment allows you to express that the first amendment should be repealed.

Right. And?

 

[durangodawood]

Right. And?

And so I dont ever ever want to hear again "shes just expressing her first amendment right!" as if that any kind of defense of what shes actually saying.

 

[Aldebaran]

And so I dont ever ever want to hear again "shes just expressing her first amendment right!" as if that any kind of defense of what shes actually saying.

If it's a right, then it's not wrong.

 

[Albion]

Flynn has had several days to correct or clarify what he meant by "one religion." AFAIK, he has not.

I seem to remember that he already has, but it is ludicrous to think that Flynn gets misrepresented in spades, but HE is supposed to be the one who is should justify his words while all those people who deliberately smeared him get to play the role of judge, referee, and victim. Think again!

 

[TLK Valentine]

If it's a right, then it's not wrong.

Abortion.

 

[durangodawood]

If it's a right, then it's not wrong.

Ok. Then I'm right in everything I say legally. Brilliant.

 

[Bradskii]

Because posters put words and ideas into Flynn's mouth, presumably because these posters are called to battle by any mention of someone associated with the Trump administration.

His connection with Trump is why he was there. It's why he was making a speech. It was a political rally. Frankly I could care less what he would likely say because I have no interest in the man. But people everywhere are disparaging him not for being a Trump cheer leader or for whipping up some right wing gathering with a few stirrin' statements. He is being pilloried for what he said.

I'll repeat that. He is being taken to task for what he said.

 

[Aldebaran]

His connection with Trump is why he was there. It's why he was making a speech. It was a political rally. Frankly I could care less what he would likely say because I have no interest in the man. But people everywhere are disparaging him not for being a Trump cheer leader or for whipping up some right wing gathering with a few stirrin' statements. He is being pilloried for what he said.

I'll repeat that. He is being taken to task for what he said.

Then pillory the people on your own side for what they say as well....

 

[Bradskii]

Then pillory the people on your own side for what they say as well....

You mean Democrats? You'll never guess what party Flyn belongs to. Although he's probably a DINO (which could be, but isn't, shorthand for DINOsaur).

 

[Aldebaran]

You mean Democrats? You'll never guess what party Flyn belongs to. Although he's probably a DINO (which could be, but isn't, shorthand for DINOsaur).

No, not democrats. The individuals seen using violent rhetoric in that video. Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, Harris, etc. The fact that they're democrats is a side issue. The fact that all of their violent rhetoric has been accepted in the political arena when such rhetoric is directed at Republicans and conservatives, while any such rhetoric against a democrat is condemned is very similar to how racism against whites is seen as acceptable while racism against blacks is condemned. A total double standard.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, not democrats. The individuals seen using violent rhetoric in that video. Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, Harris, etc. The fact that they're democrats is a side issue. The fact that all of their violent rhetoric has been accepted in the political arena when such rhetoric is directed at Republicans and conservatives, while any such rhetoric against a democrat is condemned is very similar to how racism against whites is seen as acceptable while racism against blacks is condemned. A total double standard.

If you don't mean Democrats, then what did you mean by "your side"?

 

[Bradskii]

No, not democrats. The individuals seen using violent rhetoric in that video. Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, Harris, etc. The fact that they're democrats is a side issue. The fact that all of their violent rhetoric has been accepted in the political arena when such rhetoric is directed at Republicans and conservatives, while any such rhetoric against a democrat is condemned is very similar to how racism against whites is seen as acceptable while racism against blacks is condemned. A total double standard.

Hey, you got crt in there as well.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hey, you got crt in there as well.

At least you recognize CRT when you see it. Most people who support it spend all their time trying to get others to define it, all the while denying it exists so they don't have to defend it.
Good job!

 

[Bradskii]

At least you recognize CRT when you see it. Most people who support it spend all their time trying to get others to define it, all the while denying it exists so they don't have to defend it.
Good job!

Well, to be honest I was just reading about white privilege in Harvard so your comment was like a Pavlovian crt bell. Not to take the thread off topic, but here's a link if you'd be interested:

'Researchers estimate that roughly three-quarters of white legacy students would have been rejected if they had been treated the same as their non-white peers'. This is how white privilege plays out in the Harvard admissions process