.
Feedback

Burns: 'Al Sharpton Is A Pompous Ass'

County delegate disagrees with Sharpton's position on same-sex marriage.

Del. Emmett Burns and the Rev. Al Sharpton don't agree on the issue of same-sex marriage—and that's putting it mildly.

The five-term Democrat who represents Randallstown and Woodlawn, had some unkind words for Sharpton during an interview Thursday with Kenneth Burns, a State House reporter for WNAV in Annapolis.

"Al Sharpton is a pompous ass," said Del. Burns, adding that Sharpton "doesn't speak for anybody but himself most of the time."

Sharpton, a Baptist minister, recently released a video in which he supported the passing of a same-sex marriage law in Maryland.

Del. Burns, a pastor at Rising Sun Baptist Church, and in the past has sought to pass an amendment to the Maryland Constitution defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Burns went on in the interview to criticize Sharpton's preaching credentials.

"What kind of a Baptist preacher is he?" Del. Burns said. "He has never pastored a church. He's never had a congregation. All he does it run around the country and suck up to big movie stars so he can preach at their funerals when they die."

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Pikesville Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Chuck Burton February 10, 2012 at 02:58 pm
And if Sharpton agreed with Burns he would be brilliant, wouldn't he?
Jackie February 10, 2012 at 04:07 pm
@Chuck_Barton You are missing the point. Which is simply let go of the past and see what they are saying now. Sharpton has matured, Burns has not.
Chuck Burton February 10, 2012 at 06:05 pm
Isn't that essentially what I said? Burns wouldn't have insulted Sharpton if they agreed. Sharpton knows which way the wind blows, and adapts to reality. Social mores change over time, and smart politicians change with them.
Jackie February 10, 2012 at 06:06 pm
Is is. My apologies. Read too fast.
Danny Daniels February 10, 2012 at 07:09 pm
Did you mommy or daddy tell you about it? You sound about 12 with your mis-calling of the girls name!
Danny Daniels February 10, 2012 at 07:11 pm
Yup just the words I want to hear from a man who says he is about the lords work!
But I don't expect much from those who feel that THEIR Religion should be the basis of law. All it is is Sharia law under a Christian name!
Danny Daniels February 10, 2012 at 07:12 pm
Yes and the point is that he showed he is no different than the Imams of the Taliban!
Danny Daniels February 10, 2012 at 07:14 pm
Actually Imaam Burns is the disgrace to religion with his avocation of a Christian Sharia Law herein the US
Marv February 10, 2012 at 08:52 pm
Sharpton a smart 'politician'? Huh? I thought he was a hack Baptist minister who was hired by PMSNBC to do..ahem..commentary along with all the other liberal jackasses there.
he is nothing more than a first class race baiter..THAT he's good at!
Chuck Burton February 10, 2012 at 09:17 pm
Minister, priest, politician - what's the difference? Look at all the preaching going on in Washington and Annapolis and other capitals. And all the politicking in the pulpits.
Jonathan B February 10, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Marv you are right on. The other one.. what's his name, ah The allegedly reverend Jessie Jackson has been another one to race to the scene whenever there was a quick buck to be made with charges of racism. He has been quiet lately though.
Paul Amirault February 10, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Frank, you are better than that I thought.
Jackie February 10, 2012 at 10:51 pm
@Frank, @Marv, you guys are operating on old information. Just as you have matured so has the Rev Al. Like it or not, in current time, his message is on point. Rev Jesse has been superseded by people who can think for themselves. You don't see any body running to him for much these days.
Jonathan B February 11, 2012 at 12:23 am
@Paul, While I will agree that Big Al has toned down his message some are you denying that Sharpton was involved in that scam involving Tswana Brawley a few years ago? I haven't seen a whole lot to make me change my opinion of Big Al.
Paul Amirault February 11, 2012 at 12:32 am
Frank, it's the rhetoric, that's all. Sharpton has issues, Bush has issues, Reagan has issues, Clinton has issues, just simply stop. Argue policies please.
Jackie February 11, 2012 at 12:40 am
Rev Al has always been astute. He got taken in by Tawana Brawley and instead of walking away, he doubled down. He learned something from all that sensationalism. Whatever he was in the past, he is on fire right now and running with his new found celebrity. And yes, Paul, don't they all have issues? It's what keeps us typing inside all these comment boxes, LOL.
Paul Amirault February 11, 2012 at 12:47 am
<[:-)))
Jonathan B February 11, 2012 at 02:23 am
Yes they all have issues. We should be discussing policies. Unfortunately some of these people with these issues let their issues determine how they handle policies, if that makes sense to you. For example, someone with some serious issues cannot or will not let common sense help determine how to solve problems that they face because they can't or won't separate their personal issues from the policies they may need to formulate for the good of the people. They need to be able to be objective when discussing policies which determine what is best for the country. For example, Obama's health care which he and the Senate rammed down the US people's throats. He knew that the majority of the US population was against his version of health care reform. He could care less. He basically took the role of dictator and with the help of the Democratic controlled Senate forced the population to accept it. Like it or not. Of course he, the Senator, Congress and a few administration friendly businesses were exempt from having to accept his health care reform. The businesses were given a "temporary" reprieve from having to participate in the new health care reform. From what I understand, the full impact of the increased cost of this health care reform won't kick in until 2014 I believe. This will be past the Presidential election so he doesn't have to worry about repercussions of the wrath of the "dumbed down" American electorate.
Paul Amirault February 11, 2012 at 02:47 am
Ah Frank, what is it you don't like about health care? Specifically about talking points, do you remember the Iraq war and what was done there? How about the Bush tax cuts? Were Democrats complicit, you bet they were! But it was rammed down our throats. Tax cuts with 2 wars is nuts.
I will argue with you the good/bad of single payer healthcare (Obama had 60/100 votes in Senate) all day long, but civilly. We can disagree about politics all day in a civil manner. But as I have said, when the "have-a-lots" attempt to convince the "haves" that their enemy is the "have nots", our country has serious problems. That is where we are today. My 23 year old son now has health insurance he would not have otherwise because of "Obamacare", many with "pre-existing conditions" now have care they would not have otherwise. What is bad about that? Helping the human condition I thought was always good? Tell me please otherwise and explain.
Jackie February 11, 2012 at 02:52 am
Sing it, Paul!
Jonathan B February 11, 2012 at 02:55 am
Paul, you misjudge my opinions and intentions. I am not completely against health care reform. This country desperately needed and needs health care reform. I also have a forty-four year old step-son who lives with my wife and I. He does not have health care and is suffering from a fractured skull which happened during a fall last year. He was in a coma for two months . As a result of the fall he seems to have suffered a stroke and pretty much helpless at this time. He still needs health care, medicines and therapy if he is ever to return to being as close to normal as possible.
We are now fighting to get him SSA disability and Medicare. It is an uphill battle. After going with him to the Harford County Social Services I get the distinct impression that some of their employees are being paid to keep people from obtaining help and not to help them get the care they need. We were treated very rudely during our visit there. At least that is my impression. True health care reform could start with allowing or forcing all health insurance companies to participate in all the states in this country. Presently some states only allow just a few health care companies to do business in their regions. There is not enough competition in the states by all of the companies. I could go on and on to name different things to make health care better and cheaper, but I don't want to write a novel on this website.
Jonathan B February 11, 2012 at 03:00 am
As far as the Iraqi war is concerned, yes that was rammed down our throats also. I was against that. Bush had a personal axe to grind in Iraq and took the American people kicking and screaming into that war. That was not a shining part of Bush's administration. The human condition is very important, you and I disagree on how to solve the problems.
Paul Amirault February 11, 2012 at 03:01 am
I have nothing but the most sympathy for your 44 year old step son. In this country we deny health care because of the lack of ability to pay is simply sick. I would wish we were better than that, but sadly, we are not.
Chuck Burton February 11, 2012 at 04:43 pm
Why should government be in the business of setting moral standards? That is rightly a function of spirit and philosophy. There seems more justification for churches to be involved in politics, which is the right and duty of all citizens.
anthrogirl February 11, 2012 at 06:14 pm
Moral standards are a function of the society. Religion's role in society is to provide reasons for these morals that are acceptable by those within the society. Isn't it easier to tell your kids to do something because "I said so", rather than laying out the reasoning behind the request. It's easier to say "don't kill" because God said so than it is to explain the more complex impact killing has on society and its various components.
Chuck Burton February 11, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Do something or don't do something because, "I said so", and I'm strong enough to make it tough on you if you disobey. So you're saying government DOES have the right to legislate morals, because government has all the power to say "I say so". So we don't need philosophical or spiritual reasons to do or not do something - we don't need churches or learning - only big government telling us what's right or wrong. Is that what you're saying? "Big Brother is watching you!".
anthrogirl February 12, 2012 at 04:30 am
Any form of gov't is born out of philosophical beliefs. Religions that operate within the controlling sphere of a particular form of gov't, must support the philosophical beliefs of the gov't. If not, serious destabilizing conflict can ensue & we've seen examples of that. The US could exist without religion. We have laws that secure basic human rights & we have a code of justice. The US could not exist without a government.
Chuck Burton February 12, 2012 at 03:26 pm
Unfortunately, you are right - but the question now is whether the US can continue to exist with the government we the people have allowed to take over just about everything.
Paul Amirault February 12, 2012 at 05:02 pm
I would have you consider who exactly has or is about to take over the country? I would argue the very few with a lot of money.
Marv February 15, 2012 at 05:42 pm
Frank,
Your comments on Feb 10th were absolutely spot on! I could not have said it ay more succinctly. Keep fighting the good fight as I will, too. As for Paul, forgive him for he knows not what he says. Probably bought the CNN, PMSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc etc line of BS real good...oh well.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something