In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[Foxfyre]

Once more I would respectfully ask my friends and my foes to please observe the request for civility in this thread. Please take the personal insults elsewhere. Do me the kindness of not responding to them when some insist on putting them out there.

The thread topic is not what we think about each other. The thread topic is not about free speech or what we consider acceptable or what we do not consider acceptable or what is legal or what is constitutional. This thread is not about our choices to do or not do business with or patronize those with whom we disagree.

The thread topic is quite focused and quite simple.

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

GLAAD almost certainly sees Phil Robertson's faith as wrong, hateful, fanatical, delusional, etc. But they are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to live as he chooses, say what he thinks, or be who he is. Instead they demand that he be punished, hurt, destroyed for no other reason than he expressed an opinion that they didn't like.

It is one thing to say that another person is wrong, out of line, hateful, disrespectful. It is quite another to try to physically or materially harm another person because you don't like them or respect them or agree with them.

You request that people be respectful and civil? Was Phil Robertson 'respectful' or 'civil'? Comparing someone's lifestyle to bestiality is respectful and civil?

BUT, All GLAAD has to do is be SILENT.

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

 

[BDBoop]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...d-e-dealing-with-death-threats-brilliant.html

You did not answer my post quite a ways back, I shall attempt to dig it up.

 

[BDBoop]

Very interesting thread. I said up front and immediately that I believe A&E erred with the hiatus decision.

As I asked elsewhere earlier today, paraphrasing "Are you saying that I have to tolerate racism, sexism, bigotry and prejudice, lest I be perceived as 'intolerant?'"

On a more immediate note, I'm sure the entire board knows my sister is gay, and her son is married to a biracial woman. I have always struggled with being expected to turn a blind eye when people on this board, whom I genuinely care about, speak ugliness about my loved ones.

Thank you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Once more I would respectfully ask my friends and my foes to please observe the request for civility in this thread. Please take the personal insults elsewhere. Do me the kindness of not responding to them when some insist on putting them out there.

The thread topic is not what we think about each other. The thread topic is not about free speech or what we consider acceptable or what we do not consider acceptable or what is legal or what is constitutional. This thread is not about our choices to do or not do business with or patronize those with whom we disagree.

The thread topic is quite focused and quite simple.

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

GLAAD almost certainly sees Phil Robertson's faith as wrong, hateful, fanatical, delusional, etc. But they are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to live as he chooses, say what he thinks, or be who he is. Instead they demand that he be punished, hurt, destroyed for no other reason than he expressed an opinion that they didn't like.

It is one thing to say that another person is wrong, out of line, hateful, disrespectful. It is quite another to try to physically or materially harm another person because you don't like them or respect them or agree with them.

You request that people be respectful and civil? Was Phil Robertson 'respectful' or 'civil'? Comparing someone's lifestyle to bestiality is respectful and civil?

BUT, All GLAAD has to do is be SILENT.

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

So, all gays had to do after being denigrated and compared to animals is remain SILENT. Or exercise the 1st amendment rights so no one can hear them.

People like Phil Robertson add legitimacy and sanction to people who perpetrate THIS.

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

 

[The T]

You request that people be respectful and civil? Was Phil Robertson 'respectful' or 'civil'? Comparing someone's lifestyle to bestiality is respectful and civil?

BUT, All GLAAD has to do is be SILENT.

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

So, all gays had to do after being denigrated and compared to animals is remain SILENT. Or exercise the 1st amendment rights so no one can hear them.

People like Phil Robertson add legitimacy and sanction to people who perpetrate THIS.

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ? What did Foxy write? And what is she met with?

 

[Kosh]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...d-e-dealing-with-death-threats-brilliant.html

You did not answer my post quite a ways back, I shall attempt to dig it up.

Just goes to show the far left is not tolerant at all.

 

[Politico]

"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher

In the case of the Ducks guy (I don't watch the show) he absolutely got a raw deal. But then, as a Fox News person said last night (and I said in other posts about this issue previously) he signed a contract to get the show. If he then did or said something that borke the contract, then whatever punishment was instituted in the contract was appropriate.

Absent a contract, he would have been free to say whatever he likes. Of course, no one would then know who he is. So the matter's not a straight foward 1st Amendment issue. It's a contract law issue if anything.

But do WE know every nuance of that contract?

No one knows what the contract says which is why every should shut their clueless asses up.

 

[Bfgrn]

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

So, all gays had to do after being denigrated and compared to animals is remain SILENT. Or exercise the 1st amendment rights so no one can hear them.

People like Phil Robertson add legitimacy and sanction to people who perpetrate THIS.

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ? What did Foxy write? And what is she met with?

She wrote naive blather. We live in a REAL world, not in her sheltered world.

 

[candycorn]

Phil Robertson wouldn't have embarrassed his employer either if he had released his insulting remarks on an online site under an assumed name where hate speech can be fun and safe.
Now can the Henny Youngman one liners and make me some damn pancakes!

As I've always said about the GOP:


To women..."Make me some Pie."
To minorities..."Serve my pie."
To the poor..."Get your own pie"
To the non-christians..."IF you were a "real" American, you'd agree our pie is best.

I guess all crazy stereotypes have some truth to them.

Of course as we all know that liberals don't make pies. They steal the pies from the bakers and give them to their political supporters.
You can have my pie when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

The only problem with you guys is that all of those groups up there are voters... You guys have run out of people to alienate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As I've always said about the GOP:


To women..."Make me some Pie."
To minorities..."Serve my pie."
To the poor..."Get your own pie"
To the non-christians..."IF you were a "real" American, you'd agree our pie is best.

I guess all crazy stereotypes have some truth to them.

Of course as we all know that liberals don't make pies. They steal the pies from the bakers and give them to their political supporters.
You can have my pie when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

The only problem with you guys is that all of those groups up there are voters... You guys have run out of people to alienate.

Not quite, but they are working really hard on alienating moderate Republicans.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Once more I would respectfully ask my friends and my foes to please observe the request for civility in this thread. Please take the personal insults elsewhere. Do me the kindness of not responding to them when some insist on putting them out there.

The thread topic is not what we think about each other. The thread topic is not about free speech or what we consider acceptable or what we do not consider acceptable or what is legal or what is constitutional. This thread is not about our choices to do or not do business with or patronize those with whom we disagree.

The thread topic is quite focused and quite simple.

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

GLAAD almost certainly sees Phil Robertson's faith as wrong, hateful, fanatical, delusional, etc. But they are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to live as he chooses, say what he thinks, or be who he is. Instead they demand that he be punished, hurt, destroyed for no other reason than he expressed an opinion that they didn't like.

It is one thing to say that another person is wrong, out of line, hateful, disrespectful. It is quite another to try to physically or materially harm another person because you don't like them or respect them or agree with them.

You request that people be respectful and civil? Was Phil Robertson 'respectful' or 'civil'? Comparing someone's lifestyle to bestiality is respectful and civil?

BUT, All GLAAD has to do is be SILENT.

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:



17:50 :

If you want to go home and have your wife boss you around and lord over you, I’ll tolerate you doing that. But that’s not the way it’s going to be in my house, because I’m actually a real man who actually is in charge in my home, and I’m not an effeminate man who lets my wife boss me around and tell me what to do, like most men are becoming today, unfortunately.

39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)

Well, the Bible clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that, actually, it is wrong for a wife to refuse sex to her husband, but it also teaches… the opposite, that it’s wrong for a husband to refuse to have sex with his wife. So that’s actually a two-way street… so when it comes to the bedroom, the Bible teaches that it’s not right for either party to deny the other…

51:00:

Well, the Bible actually teaches that gays should be executed… now, I’m not saying that I would ever kill anyone, because I never would, but I believe that the government should use the death penalty on murderers, rapists, homosexuals, and… that’s what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

 

[deltex1]

In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?


>>>>>>>>

No one is intolerant of intolerance.

It depends on what you are intolerant about. Some things need to not be tolerated. Grandma used to say to us boys, "I won't tolerate any back talk". She was correct in that intolerance.

 

[candycorn]

You request that people be respectful and civil? Was Phil Robertson 'respectful' or 'civil'? Comparing someone's lifestyle to bestiality is respectful and civil?

BUT, All GLAAD has to do is be SILENT.

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:



17:50 :



39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)

Well, the Bible clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that, actually, it is wrong for a wife to refuse sex to her husband, but it also teaches… the opposite, that it’s wrong for a husband to refuse to have sex with his wife. So that’s actually a two-way street… so when it comes to the bedroom, the Bible teaches that it’s not right for either party to deny the other…

51:00:

Well, the Bible actually teaches that gays should be executed… now, I’m not saying that I would ever kill anyone, because I never would, but I believe that the government should use the death penalty on murderers, rapists, homosexuals, and… that’s what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

 

[candycorn]

Of course as we all know that liberals don't make pies. They steal the pies from the bakers and give them to their political supporters.
You can have my pie when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

The only problem with you guys is that all of those groups up there are voters... You guys have run out of people to alienate.

Not quite, but they are working really hard on alienating moderate Republicans.

Day and night it seems. A lot of those groups up there were potentially moderate republicans.

 

[candycorn]

A decision the corporate executive would never have made had it not been the pressure applied by GLAAD.

The topic is tolerance. GLAAD wants tolerance for its members--tolerance that allows gays and lesbians be who and what they are and not be punished for that. It was GLAAD who would not extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson and allow Robertson to be who and what he is.

How do you know that.

Because I've read what the reporters have written, noted the comments of those who have researched this, and I trust those to tell it like it happened. I also noted the entire GQ interview as it was published--the full context gives a much different picture than the sound bites some have pulled out of it--and believe what the Robertsons say was left out of it. A&E was not about to dump its most popular show and largest cash cow unless they had been pressured by somebody to do so. And GLAAD was the only organized group that applied pressure to them.

Please quote where they said they did it just because of GLAAD.

As for your statement about they were "not about to dump it's most popular show", you have no idea if that is the case. For one thing, they suspended one "actor" on there; not even fired if I recall. Secondly, that doesn't "dump the show". Thirdly, they buy the show from a producer more often than not (some shows are self-produced but most are purchased which is why a series can hop from network to network) so it wouldn't be dumping anything--new episodes are airing next month. As for the "logic" you're trying to apply, Two and a Half Men dumped it's most popular star, Charlie Sheen, arguably at or near the height of it's popularity. As a result, the viewers (according to Wiki) are down 3 million from their high with Sheen. Viewers equals dollars.

 

[Kosh]

The far left can only post in talking points and propaganda, imagine that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You request that people be respectful and civil? Was Phil Robertson 'respectful' or 'civil'? Comparing someone's lifestyle to bestiality is respectful and civil?

BUT, All GLAAD has to do is be SILENT.

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:



17:50 :



39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)

Well, the Bible clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that, actually, it is wrong for a wife to refuse sex to her husband, but it also teaches… the opposite, that it’s wrong for a husband to refuse to have sex with his wife. So that’s actually a two-way street… so when it comes to the bedroom, the Bible teaches that it’s not right for either party to deny the other…

51:00:

Well, the Bible actually teaches that gays should be executed… now, I’m not saying that I would ever kill anyone, because I never would, but I believe that the government should use the death penalty on murderers, rapists, homosexuals, and… that’s what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

Stat, as much as we're good buddies and all, is there much tolerance in you trying to label Christians based off of one Christian pastor? What tolerance is there in religious stereotypes?

 

[TemplarKormac]

@TemplarKormac...please respond to underlined request above.

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]...Gladly. Watch and learn.

I love how all you can do is quote Exodus or Leviticus, the Old Law or the Old Testament to show how Christians supposedly are intolerant or barbaric. Too bad you only read half of the Bible and get only half of the message.

It has been repeatedly drilled into that thick skull of yours that the Old Law isn't applicable to us as it was to the Israelites. We do not suggest that people be put to death for anything today, almost 2,000 years later. Jesus paid for that very death penalty mentioned in those verses cited in that video by dying on the cross. Let me quote you one verse that you neglect to recite, let me show you just how feeble your argument is. Romans Chapter 6, verse 23:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

You know what that gift is, candycorn? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt of all mankind.

Should you ever bother to read both testaments of the Bible, you will understand that. You are patently disingenuous. You insult my intelligence, candycorn. You enrage me to no end with your rank dishonesty. You think we want to kill homosexuals or have them killed for being what they are? All it takes is for someone to ask forgiveness for their sin; turn from their sin; not atone for their sin by dying right on the spot. Have you lost your pea pickin' mind? (wait, nevermind)

I am not a "true Christian" by anyone's standards. candycorn, but I'm not one of those you can simply overwhelm with tired recitations about how "homosexuals should be put to death because the Bible says so." You know better than that. You won't get by with trashing my faith or the word of the Almighty God. Don't you dare give me that tired old "you shouldn't eat shellfish, keep slaves, be homosexual, wear clothing of two different threads or touch the skin of a dead animal or be put to death" nonsense. I've debated college students, professors and theology majors with the same mindset as you. It won't fly.

Have a seat. People like you really tick me off.

So you only buy part of the Bible...got it.

BTW...I didn't quote anything; just wondering how you justify only adhering to part of the Bible (coincidentally the only part that fits in with GOP supersition). If it's not convenient, you don't go for it. Save your, "the bible says" BS in the future....you can't cite what you don't believe in and use the parts you do buy and defer to it as some sort of authority.

I buy the whole Bible, not just one Testament, dimwit.

You're the one citing parts of the Old Testament to justify you flawed views of my faith. You indirectly quoted Leviticus and Exodus with your little video. You accuse me of "adhering to a part of the Bible" when you only quote stuff from the Old Testament yourself; the only part you pro-gay liberals stick to. You say "don't cite what you don't believe" then why cite a Bible you don't believe in?

I doubt you're a Christian candycorn, so your statement is riddled, pockmarked with double standards. Save your self from embarrassment in the future, don't lecture me about A) a book you've only partially read, and B) a faith you aren't even apart of. If you really cared what the Bible taught, you'd take the time to read the entire book, not just parts of it that suit your political viewpoints.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:



17:50 :



39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)



51:00:

Well, the Bible actually teaches that gays should be executed… now, I’m not saying that I would ever kill anyone, because I never would, but I believe that the government should use the death penalty on murderers, rapists, homosexuals, and… that’s what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

Stat, as much as we're good buddies and all, is there much tolerance in you trying to label Christians based off of one Christian pastor? What tolerance is there in religious stereotypes?

Excuse me, TK, but did I even once lump all of Christianity into what I mentioned about both of those pastors? NO, I did not.

And I see no need to always have to post disclaimers here about that kind of stuff. We are all adults here and should be able to deal with critique without thinking that an entire group of people is being defamed. If anything, by using quotations around the word "Christian", I am calling into question whether those so-called pastors are actually Christians, based on some of the crazy stuff they say.

I do not believe that either of those two loons stand for Christianity. BTW, there are some totally mental Rabbis who say this garbage, and I don't have much love for them, either.

 

[ShawnChris13]

As far as the bible goes, Jesus taught that he did not come to change the Law or the Prophets. So it is easy to assume that Old Law, as people say, still applies. However, the only way to heaven is through the Truth and the Light (Jesus). Every sin is equal in that it brings is from God, and every sin has unequal punishment. It is not our place, however, to judge. Remove the plank from your own eye. Love your neighbor and your enemy. All that is in the bible, allowing us to live together in peace and love. That is the bible.

Back to OP, the redundancy of redundancy is redundant. Where should the line be drawn of in tolerating intolerance? Well, if you ask the Dixie Chicks or Obama's former pastor I'm sure you'll receive two very different answers. As citizens the only thing we SHOULD be worried about is our rights. If anybody can use their first amendment rights and have nothing stolen from them or their lives affected due to the exercise of their free speech; then that is what I support. The Bill of Rights is the law of the land. 'Hate speech' (made up term) and 'hate crimes' (made up term) are the most vague and over utilized accusations this country has ever known. There is free speech, and that's it. Any attempt to paint a picture of someone's words is cowardice and an attempt to subjugate that person to crowd rule. Speak your mind, be different, and enjoy your freedoms.