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

[JoeB131]

.

Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street. It's about speech you don't like, not the speech you do like.

Unfortunately, our culture is now polluted with those who are all too willing to see people destroyed because they dared to speak their minds. Perhaps if these people were more confident in their OWN opinions, they would be more willing to engage with people with whom they disagree, rather than punish them.

It's sad to see.

.

Or perhaps, just maybe, some behaviors and beliefs are just intolerable.

Now, yeah, you can take the ACLU position that the Nazis have the right to march in Skokie. They absolutely do. But what they advocate is repugnant.

In the case of th Duck Dynasty guy, the leg he is trying to stand on is that, Gosh Darn, his intolerance of gay people is totally supported by the bible. Therefore, when you criticize his rather repulsive positions on gays (and ignore the equally silly things he says about women and blacks) you are attacking his freedom to practice his religion.

In short, religion has become a "fig leaf" (pun intended) to defend a position that frankly, is repulsive.

I just don't buy it, and not just because I'm an atheist.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes ma'am!

Oh, is this now the spanking thread?

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street. It's about speech you don't like, not the speech you do like.

Unfortunately, our culture is now polluted with those who are all too willing to see people destroyed because they dared to speak their minds. Perhaps if these people were more confident in their OWN opinions, they would be more willing to engage with people with whom they disagree, rather than punish them.

It's sad to see.

.

Or perhaps, just maybe, some behaviors and beliefs are just intolerable.

Now, yeah, you can take the ACLU position that the Nazis have the right to march in Skokie. They absolutely do. But what they advocate is repugnant.

In the case of th Duck Dynasty guy, the leg he is trying to stand on is that, Gosh Darn, his intolerance of gay people is totally supported by the bible. Therefore, when you criticize his rather repulsive positions on gays (and ignore the equally silly things he says about women and blacks) you are attacking his freedom to practice his religion.

In short, religion has become a "fig leaf" (pun intended) to defend a position that frankly, is repulsive.

I just don't buy it, and not just because I'm an atheist.

Correction: some people who abuse their religion like this. But not all.

 

[JoeB131]

I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.

To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.

That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

The government never had any say in this issue.

This is a disagreement between A&E and Robertson. GLAAD didn't do anything but ask A&E if they stand behind A&E's statement.

Now A&E could have mealy-mouthed it and said "Well, we support Phil's right to his religious beliefs", but that would have been stupid, because who know what else this guy is going to get caught saying. You know, like advocating marrying a 15 year old so she'll pluck your ducks without complaint. (Not sure if that was a euphamism or not.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives like Foxfyre are simply practicing the new conservative political correctness;

they are trying to expand the right to be bigoted into the right not to be criticized for being bigoted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To the bolded - I didn't say it did. I said I do not want to be friends with someone who agrees with the things Phil said.

Of course it goes without saying that TK had been in a manic episode for many hours by that point, and undiagnosed, untreated people have a tendency to trigger me.

You are not qualified to diagnose anything.

You are not qualified to decide whether anyone else on this board is qualified to diagnose anything. It's not your fucking job. Tsk, tsk, tsk, hubris just kind of oozes out of your pores, what?

If I wanted to be psychoanalyzed by 55 year old with issues, I'd ask. She has no place spreading lies about me. "Manic episode"? Wow, she was the one having the conniptions when I told her to shove off. She went nutso and questioned my manhood. She lacks any integrity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

Hardly.

Romans I:26 - 32 says this:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Robertson was not reading from a Bible, no other version btw either.

If you acknowledge you were wrong and apologize to me for your assholedness, I'll tell you why it matter.

You are correct, I was mistaken, he was paraphrasing Romans I:26 - 32. As I acknowledge in a following post, I didn't know for sure what he was doing and neither did you. It turns out that it was a speech given at a "Wild Game Supper" at Berean Bible Church in Pennsylvania in Feb. 2010. He sprinkled in religious content, hunting stories and the story of his life into the speech.

As far as apologizing to you, I have nothing to apologize for as you have spent two days behaving as if you're the MR wing of the far Left.

Apologize for calling me a liar without bothering to take 1 minute to confirm whether or not your accusation had any merit.
btw, YOU cited the verse in Romans as proof I was lying, which must mean you never even read it.

But that aside, do you know the significance of why the verse was sampled, if you will, as opposed to simply being quoted by Phil Robertson, or possibly by whoever composed what he actually said?

Because Phil's rendition distorts the passage into a direct and specific attack on homosexuals, and that is in no way what those verses really are.

That implies intent. Intent to specifically disparage homosexuals.

 

[Sunshine]

Having a show cancelled is traditionally done on the basis of RATINGS which are rendered by ratings companies like Neilson. Not by some organization demanding that an individual on a show be fired.

It's definitely not all about ratings. Ratings just get used to convince advertisers to pay more for ad time.

Advertisers can lose interest in buying ad time regardless of ratings. They may not want to become associated with some element of the show, for example. In fact, major brands are unlikely to want their names associated with anything controversial - regardless of how "right" or "popular" it is. They don't need the grief and have no interest in taking chances with their brand.

And now you are an advertising expert. LOL.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.

I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.

BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

 

[Sunshine]

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

OMG! That made me spit coffee on my cat!

 

[Sunshine]

And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.

I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.

BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

I had never heard of One Million Moms until now. I have reviewed their website and all I see is an attempt to get the public airwaves to be decent enough for our children. I don't see any correlation between that, MADD, etc. to what GLAAD did to Robertson. Someone is always willing to stand up for those who promote destructive vices to our young people, but very few are willing to stand up for a principle of decency. People in this country have the right to screw anyone they want. Not staying up in our faces about it is little enough for the rest of us to ask. I know plenty of people who are gay and I have even worked for one gay activist. He was an honorable man who believed that we all have the right to believe as we choose and he would never have sought to destroy someone because the person disagreed with him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

See, this the problem. As I pointed out 500 posts ago, GLAAD is an advocacy group with a mission to stop the dispargement and defamation of gays in the media.

They are exercising their right to criticize. No one is exempt from having their opinions criticized.

Nor is anyone totally exempt from having their material wellbeing adversely affected because of opinions they might express.

Glenn Beck was (in reality) fired by Foxnews. Does anyone think it was for any other reason that his opinions, and their consequences, to the network?

Randi Rhodes got fired from Air America for disparaging off-air comments she made about Geraldine Ferraro. Did Rhodes have some sort of 'right' not to be materially harmed for expressing an opinion?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

Did you really just say that out loud?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

OMG! That made me spit coffee on my cat!

Despite a disclaimer of sorts in the first line of the first post in this thread, this thread was not meant to be about tolerance/intolerance in general,

it was meant to be about liberals not tolerating Phil Robertson.

I am the only one who made any effort to make it non-partisan because I am the only one who introduced one comparable example after another of conservative 'intolerance' of liberals,

examples that no conservative, INCLUDING THE AUTHOR OF THIS THREAD, were ever going to bring up.

I was the one who attempted to make this thread about BOTH liberal and conservative 'intolerance'.

And, as a consequence, I flushed out the true partisan hacks in the thread, who were, and are, the conservatives here who fought to disparage, deny, discredit, and deflect from every single example I brought up,

and of course, to accuse me of being the partisan for wanting to include conservative examples in the discussion.

 

[Mac1958]

Conservatives like Foxfyre are simply practicing the new conservative political correctness;

they are trying to expand the right to be bigoted into the right not to be criticized for being bigoted.

And then, just a few posts later:

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

You can't make this shit up.

This place is a HOOT.

.

 

[Sunshine]

Conservatives like Foxfyre are simply practicing the new conservative political correctness;

they are trying to expand the right to be bigoted into the right not to be criticized for being bigoted.

And then, just a few posts later:

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

You can't make this shit up.

This place is a HOOT.

.

There is no hope for those who lack self awareness.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION]

Someone should siggy that.

"I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined."

 

[The T]

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

Did you really just say that out loud?

Good grief!

 

[The T]

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined.

Son? You need a check-up from the neck up. Seriously. Seek help.

 

[The T]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

*