Man, Chuck Norris is a jerk!

[Killer Meteor]

http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59697/

[The Dragon]

http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59697/

And you're just now realizing this?!

Anybody who waits until a contemporary is dead and gone to begin talking about how he wasn't a real fighter, or how easily he could take said contemporary, or not acknowledge the benefit of having befriended same contemporary... needs a rawhide, steel toed, combat-cowboy-roundhoused, boot in his fake, grinning, ass!

Ya heard me, partner?

FCUK Chuck Norris.

[Killer Meteor]

And you're just now realizing this?!

Not really, but it should make for an interesting discussion.

[TibetanWhiteCrane]

Chuck Norris is religious nutjob, a rightwing piece of shit, and just an all around douche!

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

Chuck Norris may be able to bench press the world, but Bruce Lee can bench press Chuck Norris.

[Killer Meteor]

Chuck Norris is religious nutjob, a rightwing piece of shit, and just an all around douche!

He's Bruce Lee's punching douche bag.

I'll get my coat.

[The Dragon]

Chuck Norris may be able to bench press the world, but Bruce Lee can bench press Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris in his place.

[TibetanWhiteCrane]

Most def, Dragon. He really needs to stop breathing.

I can't even watch his cheesy 80's classics anymore, without a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Reel Power Stunts]

As a kid who grew up in the 80's training in Karate and watching Chuck's films, I really want to believe these articles are the work of a ghost writer. But regardless of who actually writes such drivel, only an intolerant bigot would be happy to put their name to it. Shame.

[TibetanWhiteCrane]

Whether it's actually written by chuck or not is really imaterial, these are still his views and beliefs.... This is well known.

And you're right, it's a shame.

[The Silver Fox]

So it's a shame that somebody has an actual belief system and is willing to back it up even if that view isn't politically correct?

[HyperDrive]

I agree with the man about the preservation of states' rights. But it is odd that such a proclaimed christian would play a forest wizard in Forest Warrior. Not to mention some of the stuff on Walker: Texas Ranger. There's an episode with the theme of Buddhist reincarnation where he stops a lama from being killed. Another episode has him staring down a wolf straight into its soul or something to that extent.

[Guest Markgway]

I don't have to agree with a person's political or religious views to enjoy their movies (see also Mel Gibson). Hollywood has snorted half of Colombia up its collective nose but we don't judge on that basis do we? No one has boycotted Roman Polanski have they? And what he did was criminal. Seems we pick and chose who to condemn based on our own prejudices.

For the record... I strongly disagree with much of what Chuck Norris thinks. But let's take a look at what he wrote in more detail.

"Is someone joking? Could 27 words be any clearer?! “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”"

As a matter of fact I believe there is an ambiguity in the use of the term 'the people' - which can refer to an individual (as Chuck believes) or a group or a state. My interpretation would be the latter. But this brings to question whether or not the Constitution should be amended (or clarified) for future generations. A document written by men centuries before cannot ever prove infallible (see also The Bible and any other religious text).

"How abhorring it is when the freedom of the press is abused to demean the biblical God and the most sacred couple in Christendom, especially right before Easter. If the cartoon depicted Allah or Muhammad, there undoubtedly would have been a national decry of bigotry. Yet it seems in vogue to disgrace Christianity, and so it was brushed under the rug of contempt and barely highlighted by any news agency."

I have no problem with that joke; it's actually quite amusing if you're not a Christian. Should a cartoon be banned merely because it causes offense to one group? If one's faith is so fragile that a cartoon can cause upset what does that say about the depth of one's faith? But the real issue, as noted, is that such a pisstake could only, in this day and age, be made against Christianity. We all saw the outrageous and disgraceful reaction to those Islamic cartoons produced in Denmark. Has Christianity become a comparitively 'safe' target? It's an issue worthy of discussion.

"Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that on Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing a “Day of Silence,” or DOS, which is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. (DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group – the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.)"

I'm afraid I know little of this concept and our American friends may have to enlighten me... but taking at face value what Chuck has written, it seems farcical that "DOS" has been implemented in any school anywhere. A sponsored mutism to highlight GLBT issues? I'm reasonably liberal when it comes to sexual matters - I say to each their own. What you do and with whom is your business not mine. But to bring this into schools is incredibly provocative. I dismiss Chuck's reference to the foul words of 'our forefathers' but I do understand the (Surely not just Christian?) consternation. People are gay, etc... Fact of life. But at what point have we as a society normalised this situation to where it's become observed in schools? (I say 'we' because the UK is no different). If you raise any objection on any ground you're labelled a bigot or some form of 'ism'. Emotional blackmail is in full force so if you question GLBT education or rights you're deemed 'a hater' or 'religious nutjob'. I'm none of those... but neither am I in favour of measures implemented to put GLBT's legal status on a par with heterosexuality. Let me be clear: Abuse and intolerence of GLBT is wrong. But in saying that it doesn't mean I (or anyone else) has to subscribe to the PC view that all sex (not people) is created equal.

[Killer Meteor]

Thing is, I think it's perfectly reasonable to teach children that homosexuality is normal, if in just romantic terms. Kids play Ken and Barbie without thinking of sex, we could learn the same from Ken and Ken (or Batman and Robin ) It can do a lot to help reduce homophobia and make things better for children who may well be gay, or have gay family members. I'm sure they're not making them watch Cruising, after all.

My problem with Chuck is not that he says the garbage, so much as he tries to get his own way on matters that really do not help the lives of others.

[KyFi]

Although I'm further to the right than Markgway, I take his post as the reasonable, rational attitude toward's Chuck's politics.

I can appreciate that people might not agree with Chuck, but are folks really that full of hatred and spite that he has to be 'a rightwing piece of shit", and that you want him to be dead?

[massa_yoda]

A document written by men centuries before cannot ever prove infallible (see also The Bible and any other religious text).

uh huh...

Has Christianity become a comparitively 'safe' target?

Of course it has. There's no question. There's a South Park episode that highlights this brilliantly, where they show Jesus pooping on the American flag, but they had to blur a picture of Mohammed simply waving at the camera. At least I think that's what happened, feel free to correct me if this is wrong.

It's all about respect, that's why Norris (or whoever it is) didn't like the cartoon. This particular faith gets disrespected all the time by people. Yet you need to respect a person's right to be disrespectful...otherwise you're called 'fragile'.

What about all the atheist groups (like Freedom From Religion) out there that demand displays of the Ten Commandments be taken down from schools, parks and military bases? Would you label their beliefs as weak or fragile that they cannot take a bunch of words? Point is, everyone feels justified speaking out against things that are contrary to their belief system. And again, it's all about respect.

And we should be respecting one another regardless of beliefs.

[Guest Yi-Long]

uh huh...

Of course it has. There's no question. There's a South Park episode that highlights this brilliantly, where they show Jesus pooping on the American flag, but they had to blur a picture of Mohammed simply waving at the camera. At least I think that's what happened, feel free to correct me if this is wrong.

It's all about respect, that's why Norris (or whoever it is) didn't like the cartoon. This particular faith gets disrespected all the time by people. Yet you need to respect a person's right to be disrespectful...otherwise you're called 'fragile'.

What about all the atheist groups (like Freedom From Religion) out there that demand displays of the Ten Commandments be taken down from schools, parks and military bases? Would you label their beliefs as weak or fragile that they cannot take a bunch of words? Point is, everyone feels justified speaking out against things that are contrary to their belief system. And again, it's all about respect.

And we should be respecting one another regardless of beliefs.

...but should we disrespect eachother and deny others equal rights and liberties when it comes to alternative sexuality!?

I'm all for religious freedom, but not when it imposes limitations on those who choose an alternative way to live their life.

You CHOOSE which fake God you want to worship. That's a choice!

Sexuality isn't. You're born the way you are born, meaning you fall in love with those you fall in love with. In my case that's a sickening and compulsive obsession with asian women, and someone else might find love or attraction with someone of the same sex.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as it means you're happy.

[massa_yoda]

And we should be respecting one another regardless of beliefs.

You CHOOSE which fake God you want to worship.

sigh...

[Guest Markgway]

Thing is, I think it's perfectly reasonable to teach children that homosexuality is normal, if in just romantic terms.

Is homosexuality normal though? I don't think it is. Neither concept nor act bother me (why would they?) and I have no problem with anyone practicing any form of consensual adult sex. But pretending homosexuality to be normal is part of the problem. I don't believe most people are against gays - only a small minority of bigots - but the idea that homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality isn't biologically or societally sound. I wouldn't treat a homosexual any different than I would a heterosexual, but does that equate to homosexuals deserving the very same legal "rights" and status? To me it doesn't. Marriage is a religious concept; it decrees that a man and a woman be joined together in the eyes of God, etc... Should society (and more to the point religious institutions) give in to emotional blackmail simply because homosexuals want these same privileges? My first sentence alone would see me branded by some as a 'hater' which simply isn't true. I would defend the right of anyone to be gay and not suffer persecution or bullying. But that doesn't mean I support certain controversial political viewpoints, such as the teaching of homosexual rights and norms in school to children more interested in playing with dolls than each other.

[Killer Meteor]

Is homosexuality normal though? I don't think it is. Neither concept nor act bother me (why would they?) and I have no problem with anyone practicing any form of consensual adult sex. But pretending homosexuality to be normal is part of the problem. I don't believe most people are against gays - only a small minority of bigots - but the idea that homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality isn't biologically or societally sound. I wouldn't treat a homosexual any different than I would a heterosexual, but does that equate to homosexuals deserving the very same legal "rights" and status? To me it doesn't. Marriage is a religious concept; it decrees that a man and a woman be joined together in the eyes of God, etc... Should society (and more to the point religious institutions) give in to emotional blackmail simply because homosexuals want these same privileges? My first sentence alone would see me branded by some as a 'hater' which simply isn't true. I would defend the right of anyone to be gay and not suffer persecution or bullying. But that doesn't mean I support certain controversial political viewpoints, such as the teaching of homosexual rights and norms in school to children more interested in playing with dolls than each other.

If marriage is religous, then why do athiests get married?

[Guest Yi-Long]

Is homosexuality normal though? I don't think it is. Neither concept nor act bother me (why would they?) and I have no problem with anyone practicing any form of consensual adult sex. But pretending homosexuality to be normal is part of the problem. I don't believe most people are against gays - only a small minority of bigots - but the idea that homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality isn't biologically or societally sound. I wouldn't treat a homosexual any different than I would a heterosexual, but does that equate to homosexuals deserving the very same legal "rights" and status? To me it doesn't. Marriage is a religious concept; it decrees that a man and a woman be joined together in the eyes of God, etc... Should society (and more to the point religious institutions) give in to emotional blackmail simply because homosexuals want these same privileges? My first sentence alone would see me branded by some as a 'hater' which simply isn't true. I would defend the right of anyone to be gay and not suffer persecution or bullying. But that doesn't mean I support certain controversial political viewpoints, such as the teaching of homosexual rights and norms in school to children more interested in playing with dolls than each other.

Why the hell would marriage be a religious concept!? And why would some benefit more rights from it than others!?

Marriage for law should be equal to everyone, regardless of sex, religion, color, whatever.

And yeah, it IS normal. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many people being born gay. They fall in love with someone from their own sex, and there's nothing unnatural about it.

Just because it's a minority, doesn't mean it isn't 'normal'. It's genetic. You are what you are.

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

@Yi-Long, you speak the truth my brotha...

[Killer Meteor]

Why the hell would marriage be a religious concept!? And why would some benefit more rights from it than others!?

Marriage for law should be equal to everyone, regardless of sex, religion, color, whatever.

And yeah, it IS normal. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many people being born gay. They fall in love with someone from their own sex, and there's nothing unnatural about it.

Just because it's a minority, doesn't mean it isn't 'normal'. It's genetic. You are what you are.

Besides, to quote the doctor on Black Adder "Never mind, plenty of ducky for us real men"

[TibetanWhiteCrane]

I could say alot more on this subject, but im not gonna... these threads never end well, and I should have known better than to chime in with my opinion. I stand by what I wrote, but im gonna stop here. There's no point.

[Reel Power Stunts]

I can see this thread going way off topic, and as folks can understandably get quite passionate discussing these issues, I'm gonna drop in my last two cents and be done with it. I doubt I'll change anyone's thinking, but it's healthy and good to listen to and question different opinions including our own.

So it's a shame that somebody has an actual belief system and is willing to back it up even if that view isn't politically correct?

I wasn't saying that, and I doubt TWC feels that way either. For me the shame is that someone i looked up to as a kid holds some political and "moral" views which I find divisive and intolerant. Notice I didn't say I disagree with every point Chuck made or opinion he expressed. I think Markgway very wisely and calmly broke down and examined each of CN's pojnts, and it could be argued that there's a lot in there which could be thought of as sensible. If anything it's the slightly intangible tone of the piece which makes me uncomfortable, as it makes me think of a particular right-wing evangelical political stance I find worrying.

I am no fan of political correctness, and do think at times it does "go mad" and should be challenged. I'm not actually concerned that Chuck thinks a Day of Silence for gays is not something for schools. I have a problem with the fact that he describes homosexuality as "such aberrant sexual behavior" which should not be condoned.

The Taliban "has an actual belief system and is willing to back it up even if that view isn't politically correct?" that is shameful too, and I'm sure Chuck would oppose that.

As for Markgway's questioning "is homosexuality norma?"l - I think it's a good question to ask, and we should not be afraid to ask it. However, I don't think it's a yes/no black/white issue like Chuck seems to. On a superficial level, heterosexual coupling would seem the natural order of things - it leads to reproduction. I like to think life is more complicated and interesting than that. I imagine most of us don't just have intimacy with the purpose of reproduction, and many of the things heterosexual couples enjoy aren't about reproduction (I'm trying to not be explicit here to avoid offending) . Some would call them "unnatural". I think it's also worth noting that homosexual behaviour has been observed in the animal kingdom, and not just sexual acts but coupling. So I'm wary of anyone who states what's natural or not. I used to be a Christian, very sure of my views, and opinionated. I found as (I hope) I've grown up, it's very liberating to say "I don't know". I certainly echo the sentiments of Mark and others that what consenting adults do with one another is really not something which bothers me.

Marriage is a religious concept; it decrees that a man and a woman be joined together in the eyes of God, etc... Should society (and more to the point religious institutions) give in to emotional blackmail simply because homosexuals want these same privileges?

If marriage is religous, then why do athiests get married?

My wife and I are agnostic and were married in a non-religious ceremony. We felt it important to make that public, legal, and moral commitment to each other. Not only religious people want to marry.

I think there's two points to be made here:

1) Only some Christians are against homosexuality and gay marriage. The Bible condemns a lot of behaviour, including eating shellfish or wearing clothing made from more than one kind of material! Many Christains interpret the Bible differently than Chuck and co. Some Christians are against gays. Some aren't. Some "pick and choose" which sins or laws to recognise. Chuck admitted in one of his autobiographies that he is an adulterer. He broke one of the Ten Commandments - laws most Christians agree on. So I think perhaps Chuck shouldn't make pronouncements about others' sexual behaviour.

2) Some gays want the same righrs set in secular law as married (hetero) couples. This is a current issue in the UK. I don't think it's simply a religious issue or about emotional blackmail.

I'm a white British man, my wife is Hong Kong Chinese. Not too long ago, in the UK we would not have been offered the same rights as a non-mixed-race couple. Foreign spouses had to observe curfews, and the British spouse had to relinquish their citizenship. Many people ostracised and criticised mixed marriages. Some said they were "unnatural". Some folks still do think mixed marriages are unnatural.

I'm only sharing my personal circumstances because it makes me sympathetic to those who are judged on account of who they want to love. It also makes me mindful that behaviour like segregation and apartheid were quite recently readily accepted. Not so long ago women weren't considered worthy of the right to vote. Hopefully we can now see how wrong those ideas are/were. Hopefully in the future, we will have a more tolerant, accepting world where people are not so quickly judged or dismissed as "aberrant" or inferior.

Regarding the cartoon issue. I think it's great that America is a place where cartoons (offensive to some) are tolerated. Freedom of speech and expression comes with the maturity that we can take some things we don't want to hear or see. There are laws in place to forbid publication of incitement to violence or discrimination. To ask for laws to forbid taking the mickey out of "imaginary friends" as I see them) strikes me as backward and reminds me of dictatorships. I'm confident that many believers cherish the right of others to ridicule their God or religious figures. The more sensible Christian would cherish freedom of speech, "free will", and let God do the business of judging.

Peace