What's your reaction to the possibility Fox News might sue ex-'gay' activist Stephen Bennett?
TOTAL VOTES: 5177 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| View previous Polls | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| << Return to Page 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted on 01/03/2003 1:52:52 AM PST by JohnHuang2
"Beliefs" AREN'T facts.
Aravosis -- the slimebag who gave us StopDrLaura.com -- is lying again. What both Bennett and Sandy Rios said was that it's ridiculous that O'Reilly calls himself a Catholic when he says he thinks the Old Testament was mostly allegorical.
They weren't "questioning his faith" -- they were pointing out that his faith is based on a non-Biblical foundation.
Well said. Here are some links on the health hazards you mentioned:
Theology isn't Bill's strong suit.LOL! : ) The sentence in the article at the top of this thread that caught my attention was the following:
After numerous exchanges in which O'Reilly tried to press Bennett on whether he thought practicing homosexuals would go to hell, O'Reilly said, according to a transcript, "We live in a secular society. You're a religious fanatic, with all due respect."It sounds to me as though O'Reilly was trying to set Bennett up by asking a religious question and then criticizing him for not giving a secular response. Doesn't strike me as an interview based on good faith.
The threat to protect corporate interests is one thing, but if they pursue a lawsuit, Fox should be ostricized publicly.
The only approach I've found successful when discussing the issue of homosexual "civil rights" with the average liberal is to make the analogy with incest, which also has a movement for liberalization.
I simply ask if incest between consenting adults should be protected as a "lifestyle choice" or "genetically induced behavior" the same as heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Be prepared to discuss the genetic and social aspects of incest.
I ask whether the possible heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual relationships permissible among (Divorced) Father/Daughter, Mother/Son, Brother/Sister, etc., etc. should be protected "civil unions" with all the attached medical, tax, adoption, blah, blah, blah, rights?
If they think there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, "anything goes," I walk away.
If incest is not an acceptable sexual "union" between consenting adults (ranges from 16 to 18 years of age depending on the state) in our secular society, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, then we have already agreed that "consenting adults" is red herring standard - and society can have a social interest in restricting sexual behaviour between consenting adults.
The only conclusion can be that heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality then are equal orientations. Once here it is much easier to present the arguments against homosexuality that others have provided.
A 1999 snapshot of where this country is in the debate is available at Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Their mission is "to assure that all people - including adolescents, the disabled, sexual minorities, and the elderly - have the right to affirm that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of their lives."
I really doubt that he sees the contradiction. On some issues like religion, religion and public policy, and homosexuality, his positions are ignorant and/or just plain stupid.
|
I just wonder how this critical information can get conveyed to the public to counteract the fantasies the media have concocted presenting the "gays" and their lifestyles as harmless,poignant and/or desireable. Any ideas? |
scripter is presently working on a way to disseminate this info on F.R.
Scripter got bit by some flu bug and is down for awhile. :-( I was able to get the database about halfway populated, though.
By O'Reilly's angry response at the supposition, you would think he was gay.?
Well put - and true in my opinion.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -Proverbs 18:13
That means you are a fool.
Legally speaking, you are so incorrect it is funny. Any lawyer would win this easy case.
I know Stephen personally, and he was far from a nobody before this, and was not even intending to go on the program when he wrote to O'Reilly. He wanted only a writrten response to his question.
O'Reilly is a disgusting, lying, anti-christian phoney who personally set up Steve via "previously providing the Qs to be asked ahead of time to make it smooth", then not asking even one of them, then refusing to allow Stephen to even answer his verbal assaults. Stephen Bennett was deliberately sandbagged. The phoney hypocrite O'Reilly conveniently quoted the Bible to his own destruction (out of context, of course), then refused to let Steve do the same. He misrepresented himself inviting Steve on. I used to listen to O'Reilly faithfully...I have no respect for the man.
Stephen wants no publicity, and does not even want to go into full time ministry, what with this sort of attack on him and his family and all. He is called of God.....but people like you and O'Reilly strain a family and marriage.
You only know one side, not two. Steve broke no laws, and his lawyers will win. This sort of suit has never flown in favor of the plaintiffs anyways, so nothing to worry about-unless a judge or jury hates Christians like O'Reilly does.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked:...."
-Galatians 6:7
>>Bennett is committing copyright infringement and his defense arguments aren't going to fly with a court. His attorneys are either seriously incompetent, ignorant of copyright law, or trying to win the court of public opinion. He is not worried, nor are his lawyers. Simple scare tactics, plus God is on his side.<<< >>First of all, he's clearly a blatant self-promoter.
More ignorance. You are clearly ignorant of the man, as I know him personally and you do not.
Ignorance is bliss, you are having a bliss-ard.
"Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,"
-2 Timothy 3:3
>>Who ever heard of this guy before he was on O'Reilly? Now he's trying to appropriate O'Reilly's fame to further his own career, to the point of using O'Reilly's name on his audio tape.<<<
Who cares if anyone heard of him? This is not about publicity. It is about a false representation of Stephen by O'Reilly on the show. Stephen is not bringing the suit, the Fox News people are. A person seeking fame would be the plaintiff, not the accused.
Exactly the opposite. He simply wishes the truth about homosexuality to be out there. He did not want even to go on that program as of the night before.
>>>He's charging money for this tape, which instantly nullifies any 'Fair Use' argument.
It is his tape and he has a right. It is his ministry. Anyone who uses clips and charges has a right and it is daily done.
>>>He's also using nearly all of the segment in question, probably only editing out a few seconds in order to make his specious 'Fair Use' claim. While the tape may foster discussion, fair use is limited to short excerpts, not "nearly all" of a selected work. The courts will see this for what it is, an attempt to ride O'Reilly's coattails to fame. Fox is correct to stop this.<<<
God will see fit in time to remove O'Reilly's ratings over time. Stephen Bennett needs to ride no one's coattails. Another false accusation. God is his reward, not fame. The courts will see this for what it is-frivolity.
"¶ The wicked worketh a deceitful work: but to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward."
-Proverbs 11:18
"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
-Matthew 6:2
His,
Bob Z.
TOTAL VOTES: 5177 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| View previous Polls | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| << Return to Page 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
