Talk:Jody Hice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Islam

The issue of Islam keeps appearing. The book by Jody Hice states Muslims who are not jihadist or radicals should be allowed to worship freely. I know Jody Hice has some stances reported that have angered a lot of people in the media, but that is no excuse to let bias influence the material allowed on the page. Things that have been misconstrued from their original origin must be quoted in their entirety, not from a secondhand source.

--CranberryCash (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources show that Hice has said this about all Islam, making no distinction about radicals or jihadism. From this source:

“ “This is not a tolerant, peaceful religion even though some Muslims are peaceful. Radical Muslims believe that Sharia is required by God and must be imposed worldwide. It’s a movement to take over the world by force. A global caliphate is the objective,” said Hice.

“That’s why Islam would not qualify for First Amendment protection since it’s a geopolitical system,” Hice continued. “This is a huge thing to realize and I hope you do. This will impact our lives if we don’t get a handle on it.”

”

While he does use the term "radical" to discuss sharia law, he also says "this is not a tolerant, peaceful religion" in saying why it shouldn't have first amendment protections. That's quite the opposite of your claim that he says "Muslims who are not jihadist or radicals should be allowed to worship freely".

According to MSNBC.com:

“ In a 2012 book, “It’s Now or Never: A Call to Reclaim America”, Hice argued that Islam is “a complete geo-political structure, and as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection.” ”

That's unambiguous. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, I think any reasonable person would agree that simply saying "Hice thinks no muslims should have first amendment protection" is a bit misrepresentative of his actual stance on the issue. If someone would like to present his views in depth on the page that's perfectly fine, but taking a simple facet of an entire chapter of a book and narrowing it down to one statement is in no way a neutral point of view.

I also fail to see any other politician's page who even has a "political views" section on his/her wikipedia page so I'm not exactly positive why this even exists to begin with. --CranberryCash (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Why are right wingers invariably dishonest? -- Jibal (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Fake Founding Fathers Quotes

This seems a little minor to have an entire section devoted to it, in my opinion.

However, though the article from Buzzfeed is titled "Nearly Every Founding Fathers’ Quote Shared By A Likely Future Congressman Is Fake" if you read the article it seems that the majority of the quotes are simply often misattributed. So, it seems whoever made the quotes/images didn't do their research, doesn't seem like Hice made these up himself and was intentionally ?misinforming? people who like his facebook page. Could we label it something less inflammatory such as "Hice Uses Misattributed Quotes from the Founding Fathers in a Social Media campaign"? CranberryCash (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I looked into the CS Monitor sourcing for that closer, and it was not good. It barely mentions Hice, and only in the context of the hit piece from Buzzfeed you mentioned. As such, I've removed the factoid from the article. Thanks for bringing this up. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

-- (removed portion) Hice received national media attention for his social media pages' misattribution of quotes, with the pages claiming that certain quotes posted were from the Founding Fathers, when in fact they were from other sources, such as Dolly Parton or Thoreau. This misattribution received attention in the Flagpole newspaper in Georgia's Tenth District district, on the national program "The Colbert Report," and on MSNBC.

Please see discussion above. The main source is Buzzfeed, which Wikipedia does not recognize are a reliable source. Both MSNBC (normally reliable) and Colbert (reliable source?? I don't think so, willing to hear an argument for it) failed to do their own research and just cited buzzfeed. If someone can find an article from a legitimate source that investigated this further (outside of Buzzfeed) I think it can stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.136.158 (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

New "Criticism" section

I renamed this section as criticisms since it did not accurately portray all political views from Jody Hice. As of such, the endorsements from this section have been removed and I attempted to more accurately display the criticisms in a more neutral tone.

That being said, the comments about gays he made on his radio show is not actually being reported on by the MSNBC article that is cited. They simply cite Right Wing Watch's article here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/7-outrageous-rants-gop-house-candidate-jody-hice-blood-moons-sandy-hook-women-and-judicial-t. Previous material from RWW had been removed so I didn't know if this needs to be addressed. CranberryCash (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

One quick question: Where exactly in the Constitution does it approve of gay marriage? Isn't it true that, whenever the Supreme Court likes a certain social policy, it just finds approval for that policy -- mirabile dictu -- in the due process/equal protection lingo of the Constitution? In other words, regardless of whether a person likes or hates gay marriage, it simply isn't honest to pretend the Constitution weighs in on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is not a blog. Your question is irrelevant. (But FWIW, the 14th Amendment does weigh in on it ... there is overwhelming evidence that gender restrictions on marriage partners is incompatible with equal protection under the law.) -- Jibal (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jody Hice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621013904/http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/06/18/congressman-jody-hice-christians-tricked-into-believing-separation-of-church-and-state/ to http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/06/18/congressman-jody-hice-christians-tricked-into-believing-separation-of-church-and-state/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

October 2018 mid term election campaign

I've edited this section for clarity; Hice decried Obama's legacy in office as "socialist," and not his 2018 mid term campaigning. Critical Chris