Tim Cook Nominated for TIME's 2014 Person of the Year

[bradl]

I don't respect any religions since I'm an atheist. But I do recognize that others have different views on the matter. I think the need for people to have the memorial free of Islamic calls to prayer outweighed the need for a mosque to be built in the area. The majority agreed with me.

Not believing in religions does not equate to not having respect for religions. You can not believe in religions by nature of being an atheist; that is your right. However, it is also the right of others to have their own religion, and believe in that religion and that religion's deity. If you support the other person's right to believe in their religion, that is tolerance.

The 'need' for people to have a memorial free of calls to prayer smacks of intolerance to their religion. But let me ask you this: If I were to go to the memorial and issue a call to prayer and ritual paying homage to Tezcatlipoca, would you respect my right to call for such a ritual?

Yes, or no?

BL.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Not believing in religions does not equate to not having respect for religions.

Given that “respect” means to have "a positive feeling of esteem or deference” toward religions, I disagree. As Robert Heinlein said “One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh".

You can not believe in religions by nature of being an atheist; that is your right. However, it is also the right of others to have their own religion, and believe in that religion and that religion's deity. If you support the other person's right to believe in their religion, that is tolerance.

At no point in this discussion have I said Muslims don’t have a right to believe in their religion, so by your definition, I’m tolerant. Where’s the problem?

The 'need' for people to have a memorial free of calls to prayer smacks of intolerance to their religion.

Maybe, but the “need” for Muslims to broadcast their calls to prayer over a memorial site that was created by their co-religioinists smacks of intolerance and disrespect.

But let me ask you this: If I were to go to the memorial and issue a call to prayer and ritual paying homage to Tezcatlipoca, would you respect my right to call for such a ritual?

I have no idea what that ritual is. Does it involve human sacrifice?

 

[bradl]

Given that “respect” means to have "a positive feeling of esteem or deference” toward religions, I disagree. As Robert Heinlein said “One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh".



At no point in this discussion have I said Muslims don’t have a right to believe in their religion, so by your definition, I’m tolerant. Where’s the problem?



Maybe, but the “need” for Muslims to broadcast their calls to prayer over a memorial site that was created by their co-religioinists smacks of intolerance and disrespect.

And to combat their need saying that it doesn't deserve to be there also smacks of intolerance and disrepect. Or does it not matter that Muslims also died at the WTC on 9/11/01?

In short, having people pray for non-Muslims who lost their lives while denying Muslims to do the same for Muslims who lost their lives there smacks of intolerance and bigotry. Per our 1st Amendment, by not having an established religion, we are all inclusive.

I have no idea what that ritual is. Does it involve human sacrifice?

It involves fasting, meditation, singing, dancing, feasting, hedonism, and debauchery. Regardless of what it entails, it is part of someone's religion. Would you respect and/or tolerate that?

BL.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Regardless of what it entails, it is part of someone's religion. Would you respect and/or tolerate that?

Let's get a baseline first: would you tolerate it?

 

[bradl]

Let's get a baseline first: would you tolerate it?

Ahh.. so now we are down to avoiding the question. I'll play along. Yes, I would tolerate it. If it represents the true meaning/form of their religion, I would tolerate it.

Would you?

BL.

 

[Eraserhead]

Let's get a baseline first: would you tolerate it?

I would

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Ahh.. so now we are down to avoiding the question. I'll play along. Yes, I would tolerate it. If it represents the true meaning/form of their religion, I would tolerate it.

I'm astonished. So you don't have a problem with the Ten Commandments in courthouses and such?

Would you?

Nope. I'd expect people to respect the solemn nature of the memorial. I wouldn't tolerate people playing brass bands just because it was their religious practice in Arlington National Cemetery for the same reason.

 

[bradl]

I'm astonished. So you don't have a problem with the Ten Commandments in courthouses and such?

Yes, I would have a problem with that. This country fought a war for independence and was founded on the principle of a separation between church and state. If you don't remember your history, the Monarch of England is also the head of the Anglican Church. That was one of the reasons protestants were being persecuted and came to this land; to escape such persecution.

Are you saying that you do not believe in one of the principles Thomas Jefferson put his life on the line for that freedom you enjoy?

Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do with any form of government. this has to do with people expressing their freedom of religion and to be able to practice their religion without having intolerance and/or bigotry visibly thrown their way.

Oh wait; you're Atheist. You shouldn't care about the Ten Commandments being on a courthouse, let alone anywhere. In fact, it should be a violation of your freedom to not believe in any religion. That would mean that those who put the Ten Commandments on a courthouse would be intolerant of your (lack of) religion.

Nope.

Thank you for proving point mentioned about intolerance and bigotry. If you can't accept what is good for the goose (Muslims), you can't accept what is good for the gander (Christianity). By your own logic, that means that NO-ONE should have anything religion-based at the WTC/memorial. Do you agree?

BL.

 

[Peace]

knock it off with the religion crap.

The Ebola fighters won.

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-ebola-fighters-choice/

 

[decafjava]

A moment of sanity and good sense indeed. All those medical personnel deserve the recognition much more than the others.

 

[prowlmedia]

Phew the right people got it...

Tim would have be ok... but Taylor Swift and Putin? WTF?!

 

[giantfan1224]

Phew the right people got it...

Tim would have be ok... but Taylor Swift and Putin? WTF?!

You make it sound like a near calamity was avoided. Who cares! What Time has to say with their person of the year is nothing but self-aggrandizement. Bunch of media fluff, not sure why we need them to tell us what's important.

 

[Dionte]

Why so much criticism for Taylor Swift? She's acheived more than the Iraqi Kurd and NFL guy...

I listen to some of her songs but i don't see how being a singer / song writer gets someone nominated for person of the year. Even an artist I am the biggest Stan for I would be like, huh?

 

[Eraserhead]

I listen to some of her songs but i don't see how being a singer / song writer gets someone nominated for person of the year. Even an artist I am the biggest Stan for I would be like, huh?

Eh, I kinda agree, no musician or artist (other than for Live 8) has won before.

 

[Solomani]

Many posters here are clueless and ignorant about what the designation of (Time's) Person of the Year means.

First, it does NOT mean the "Nicest Human Being" of the year. In decades past, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini had been designated as Time's Man of the Year. It simply meant that during those times, they were men/women whose actions greatly affected or changed the world, for better or for worse.

So Vladimir Putin very much is a strong candidate, because he has done so much to influence and meddle and affect many nations during 2016-2017. From Syria, to China, to North Korea, to the American Presidential Elections, Putin had a strong presence and was a game changer.

 

[samcraig]

Many posters here are clueless and ignorant about what the designation of (Time's) Person of the Year means.

First, it does NOT mean the "Nicest Human Being" of the year. In decades past, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini had been designated as Time's Man of the Year. It simply meant that during those times, they were men/women whose actions greatly affected or changed the world, for better or for worse.

So Vladimir Putin very much is a strong candidate, because he has done so much to influence and meddle and affect many nations during 2016-2017. From Syria, to China, to North Korea, to the American Presidential Elections, Putin had a strong presence and was a game changer.

Hillary Clinton could just as easily win this year. Or Comey. Or Mueller....

 

[Solomani]

Hillary Clinton could just as easily win this year. Or Comey. Or Mueller....

But do you think either of those really did much to "change the world" (for better or worse) or drastically affect the world in 2017 any more than Vladimir Putin?

Keep in mind that TIME does not automatically favor Americans when it comes to POTY candidates. Many who make the cover are foreigners…. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, several past Popes, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, etc.

And if anything…. TIME has started including abstract "groups of people" as candidates rather than individuals. So that means "The Twitterverse" could potentially win, since Twitter has essentially influenced world history and world politics and been a bedrock of social movements in 2017.