Kirk Cameron | Does he love all people?

[Trey of Diamonds]

Kirk Cameron to ABC News: 'I should be able to express moral views on social issues'

It is a strange world indeed when I find myself agreeing with Kirk Cameron.

“I should be able to express moral views on social issues,” he said, “especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.”

I didn't really like Kirk when he was a kid on TV and I find him a minor annoyance now that hes an adult. But he's right that if asked a question he has a right to answer it honestly. While I disagree with his viewpoint I don't think he should be bullyed into silence.

Thoughts.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think he needs to learn more about the history of western civilization over the last 2000 years.


Other than that, he seems upset that while he can voice his opinion, others can too.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think he needs to learn more about the history of western civilization over the last 2000 years.

No doubt about it.

Other than that, he seems upset that while he can voice his opinion, others can too.

I think he's upset at the hatred directed towards him and I think its pretty sad too. I pity Kirk more than hate him. He isn't a threat and while out spoken I haven't really seen much evidence of society taking him seriously so why hate him? Those that do are only justifying his viewpoint.

 

[connermt]

Kirk Cameron to ABC News: 'I should be able to express moral views on social issues'

It is a strange world indeed when I find myself agreeing with Kirk Cameron.



I didn't really like Kirk when he was a kid on TV and I find him a minor annoyance now that hes an adult. But he's right that if asked a question he has a right to answer it honestly. While I disagree with his viewpoint I don't think he should be bullyed into silence.

Thoughts.

Holy freakin' god - it's Kirk Cameron afterall! The only people who really care what he thinks are likely his friends, family and himself.
But yeah, he can say what he wants (basically) in the US. Although, that doesn't mean he isn't responsible for what's said. He needs to be willing to accept any backlash his words provide (and he may well be). Though, some of his words show that he is, for all intents and purposes, an idiot...
But overall, he can say what he wants, really. And I can choose not to listen to it (as likely, most other people as well).

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Just for fun.

[youtube]2z-OLG0KyR4[/youtube]
Kirk Cameron And Bananas - YouTube

 

[fallingblood]

No doubt about it.



I think he's upset at the hatred directed towards him and I think its pretty sad too. I pity Kirk more than hate him. He isn't a threat and while out spoken I haven't really seen much evidence of society taking him seriously so why hate him? Those that do are only justifying his viewpoint.

I think a lot of people have blown everything that Cameron does out of the water. With that said, I think what he said was dumb, and hardly thought out in a rational manner.

I think what Cameron said needs to be addressed. He voiced an opinion that simply has caused a lot of hardship in the past, and will continue to do just that. However, I don't think it was out of hate. I think it was out of ignorance, and a blind faith.

All that the attacking him is going to do though is strengthen his faith in what he is preaching though. So it is definitely the wrong method in order to address the issue. Personally, I'm writing an article addressing the misconceptions in what he has said, and I'm working hard on making it non-judgemental, or accusatory.

 

[ChristineES]

Everyone's entitled to his or her opinion and everyone is entitled to disagree with it.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think the more important question here is where Tina Yothers stands on the intact dilation and extraction procedure issue.

 

[McBell]

Kirk Cameron to ABC News: 'I should be able to express moral views on social issues'

It is a strange world indeed when I find myself agreeing with Kirk Cameron.



I didn't really like Kirk when he was a kid on TV and I find him a minor annoyance now that hes an adult. But he's right that if asked a question he has a right to answer it honestly. While I disagree with his viewpoint I don't think he should be bullyed into silence.

Thoughts.

Um...
So basically he is saying that he should be able to say whatever he wants but no one else should be allowed to say they want if it hurts his feelings?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Um...
So basically he is saying that he should be able to say whatever he wants but no one else should be allowed to say they want if it hurts his feelings?

He might think that, I don't know. But I noticed that GLAAD said this.

Obviously, Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points, just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America.”

Now they are correct to tell him his views are harmful and that they disagree with him but when it gets to the "no place in modern America" part it sounds an awful lot like censorship. I understand the desire to stamp out prejudice but not at the expense of free speech.

 

[Draka]

It sounds like he's saying he has the right to say what he wants but that others shouldn't have the right to criticize what he says or say he's wrong. Speaking as a mom, sounds like a whiny temper-tantrum to me. I mean, sure, he can say whatever inane garbage he likes, but he shouldn't expect not to hear any backlash from it. You put yourself out in the public eye and open your mouth you have to expect that you're going to have criticism. If you don't like it, then shut up and back out of the light.

 

[McBell]

It sounds like he's saying he has the right to say what he wants but that others shouldn't have the right to criticize what he says or say he's wrong. Speaking as a mom, sounds like a whiny temper-tantrum to me. I mean, sure, he can say whatever inane garbage he likes, but he shouldn't expect not to hear any backlash from it. You put yourself out in the public eye and open your mouth you have to expect that you're going to have criticism. If you don't like it, then shut up and back out of the light.

:clap

 

[connermt]

It sounds like he's saying he has the right to say what he wants but that others shouldn't have the right to criticize what he says or say he's wrong. Speaking as a mom, sounds like a whiny temper-tantrum to me. I mean, sure, he can say whatever inane garbage he likes, but he shouldn't expect not to hear any backlash from it. You put yourself out in the public eye and open your mouth you have to expect that you're going to have criticism. If you don't like it, then shut up and back out of the light.

Nothin' but net!

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It sounds like he's saying he has the right to say what he wants but that others shouldn't have the right to criticize what he says or say he's wrong. Speaking as a mom, sounds like a whiny temper-tantrum to me. I mean, sure, he can say whatever inane garbage he likes, but he shouldn't expect not to hear any backlash from it. You put yourself out in the public eye and open your mouth you have to expect that you're going to have criticism. If you don't like it, then shut up and back out of the light.

Really? If that's what he's saying then I agree with you 100%. However, it sounded like he was being told he couldn't voice his opinion and he does have the right to do so, no matter how ignorant that opinion might be. I agree he needs to man up and take the flack that comes from stating your opinion but for those who say he should be silenced, they are just as ignorant as he is.

 

[Draka]

:takeabow: Thank you, thank you.

 

[Draka]

Really? If that's what he's saying then I agree with you 100%. However, it sounded like he was being told he couldn't voice his opinion and he does have the right to do so, no matter how ignorant that opinion might be. I agree he needs to man up and take the flack that comes from stating your opinion but for those who say he should be silenced, they are just as ignorant as he is.

Possibly they are just as ignorant, doesn't change the fact that each side has every right to say what they want to say. Thing is, he was saying that he should have the right to say what he wants to say without the backlash, and that simply isn't so. He has the right to say whatever he wants to, no one can duct tape his mouth shut (no matter how alluring that thought may be), but he doesn't have the right to go unchallenged just because he thinks his words have more weight because of how he views them morally.

 

[McBell]

Really? If that's what he's saying then I agree with you 100%. However, it sounded like he was being told he couldn't voice his opinion and he does have the right to do so, no matter how ignorant that opinion might be. I agree he needs to man up and take the flack that comes from stating your opinion but for those who say he should be silenced, they are just as ignorant as he is.

Huh?
Where was it implied that he should not be allowed to voice his opinion?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Huh?
Where was it implied that he should not be allowed to voice his opinion?

Two places in the original article.

Cameron said

“I should be able to express moral views on social issues,” he said

This implies that he has been told he can't or feels that he can't. I admit that he could be thin skinned though. I honestly know very little about the man.

GLAAD said

Obviously, Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points, just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America.

As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "no place in modern America" seems a bit like censorship to me. Its a weak arguement but without more info on GLAAD's intentions it provides reasonable doubt.

So I repeat my statements, hopefully a little more clearly. Cameron has the right to voice his stupid opinions. Everyone else has the right to point out the stupidity of his opinions. No one has the right to tell him he can't voice his opinions.

It seems to me that many people see someone they don't like or don't agree with and they believe that they deserve any hardship thrown their way. I disagree, basic rights should be fought for no matter who its for. If we allow ourselves to allow abuse to those we disagree with it will lead to abuse against us.

 

[Draka]

Two places in the original article.

Cameron said


This implies that he has been told he can't or feels that he can't. I admit that he could be thin skinned though. I honestly know very little about the man.

GLAAD said


As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "no place in modern America" seems a bit like censorship to me. Its a weak arguement but without more info on GLAAD's intentions it provides reasonable doubt.

So I repeat my statements, hopefully a little more clearly. Cameron has the right to voice his stupid opinions. Everyone else has the right to point out the stupidity of his opinions. No one has the right to tell him he can't voice his opinions.

It seems to me that many people see someone they don't like or don't agree with and they believe that they deserve any hardship thrown their way. I disagree, basic rights should be fought for no matter who its for. If we allow ourselves to allow abuse to those we disagree with it will lead to abuse against us.

You quoted out-of-context. Kirk's full quote was:
"I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to*their*moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.”


He wasn't claiming that he wasn't allowed to express his opinion, he was claiming that he should be allowed to express it without backlash.

And as for:
"Obviously, Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points, just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America.”

That is not advocating censorship, it is saying that other people have the right to say such things about his statements. And they do. It wasn't a call to have him censored, it was just saying that Kirk can say what he wants and that others can say what they want, regardless of how he feels about it.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You quoted out-of-context. Kirk's full quote was:
"I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to*their*moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.”


He wasn't claiming that he wasn't allowed to express his opinion, he was claiming that he should be allowed to express it without backlash.

I agree that he was commenting on the backlash but as you show above, he says that there are those who say he is to be silent. It is only this which I disagree with. Do you really think that in all the backlash that he's getting there aren't those who are telling him to shut up and keep his opinions to himself?

And as for:
"Obviously, Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points, just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America.”

That is not advocating censorship, it is saying that other people have the right to say such things about his statements. And they do. It wasn't a call to have him censored, it was just saying that Kirk can say what he wants and that others can say what they want, regardless of how he feels about it.

We are both interpreting what GLAAD meant. The difference between us is I admitted that I was interpreting. As I said before, we don't actually know what GLAAD meant by that turn of phrase.

If your interpretation of the events is accurate then I agree with you. But do you really feel we have enough information to make a conclusive decision? One of the reasons I thought this would be a good debate is because of the lack of information. We don't know what was said to Cameron past what was quoted by GLAAD so we can't know for sure that he wasn't called to be silent. He says he was as you yourself quoted above. So why not take that at face value, or does your dislike of his viewpoint keep you from seeing him as anything but wrong?