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

[NYcarbineer]

So this action by the American Family Association should have been illegal?

In the face of plummeting car sales, Ford Motor Company has taken steps to reduce its aggressive, pro-homosexual policies, prompting a family-rights group to call off its boycott of the carmaker.

The American Family Association says it’s suspending its two-year boycott of Ford, noting the auto giant has met the conditions of the original agreement between AFA and Ford from 2005.

Flinch! Ford finally bends, homosexual boycott over

 

[NYcarbineer]

...instead of screaming at each other, the world would be a better place.

And, who do you perceive is screaming?

GLAAD said it is researching other companies who sponsor the Christian patriarch of the popular program. Do you see that as benign and tolerant?

Should we allow a vendetta against Robertson merely because he expressed his beliefs? Or, should we point out that it is inappropriate to behave that way?

Someone who advocates against the defamation of homosexuality can hardly be tolerant of the defamation of homosexuality.

 

[MeBelle]

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol

BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

How can someone renounce anything that is written and published unless you are asking people to denounce the Bible.

Just because I recite the Dictionary (from Websters, Oxford, etc,) does NOT mean I own the words.

You blew right past this post:

So conservatives now wish to tell me that I am out of line to find this:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

spoken by Phil Robertson a few years ago,

objectionable.

Yes, I'm the villain if I don't quietly and obediently tolerate that sort of hate speech.

Words written many years before Robertson spoke them.

Romans Chapter 1.

You continue to harp...
never mind, read it yourself.


Romans 1 Parallel Chapters

I'm done with this.

Merry Christmas!!!

Advance apologies to [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

 

[Statistikhengst]

...instead of screaming at each other, the world would be a better place.

And, who do you perceive is screaming?

GLAAD said it is researching other companies who sponsor the Christian patriarch of the popular program. Do you see that as benign and tolerant?

Should we allow a vendetta against Robertson merely because he expressed his beliefs? Or, should we point out that it is inappropriate to behave that way?

Just as FRC (Family Research Council) researches other companies who promote, as they call it, a "pro-homosexual" atmosphere?

It is not against the law to research anything. It is neither benign nor malignant. It is neither tolerant nor intolerant.

How the research can be used, however, is another story.

I already made it clear that I am not for threats, so a vendetta is not my thing. I would go for the second bolded.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, four or five times I queried [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] about a very specific point (which, gee, I thought that is what debate is about) and four or five times I was ignored. Guess the idea was not worthy of thought. Ok, we are done here. Merry Christmas to all.

 

[Foxfyre]

[My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

Is there any chance you could describe, in detail, and linked, what GLAAD did that you would wish to make illegal?

I have already done that as have several others in this thread. Both voluntarily and at the request of others. And since you haven't yet characterized me or my point of view accurately, I am not inclined to acquiesce to your request to do so again. Thanking your in advance for understanding.

But you still are missing the point I think. The issue is not JUST GLAAD and Phil Robertson. Had you read the thread you would know that I used that example only because it is currently in the news. My point from the beginning, starting with the OP, is my personal protest against the whole culture of organized effort to hurt somebody physically or materially for no other reason than he/she expressed an opinon somebody didn't like. In my opinion that is dangerous and should be condoned by nobody who recognizes and respects unalienable rights and values liberty.

 

[MeBelle]

And therefore it would follow that One Million Moms was wrong to go after Ellen's contract with JCPenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Thats different. Watch.

They cant explain how it just is

DeGeneres, a spokeswoman for the department store, is featured in a holiday ad in which she asks a group of Santa's elves to make more toys for a giveaway contest but winds up making a bunch of clumsy "small" jokes in the process.

Since April, JC Penney's has not aired Ellen DeGeneres in one of their commercials until now. A new JCP ad features Ellen and three elves. JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again. Christians must now vote with their wallets. We have contacted JC Penney's several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen. They have decided to ignore our complaints so we will avoid them at all costs.

I personally haven't a clue what the One Million Moms were offended by.

 

[Foxfyre]

And therefore it would follow that One Million Moms was wrong to go after Ellen's contract with JCPenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Thats different. Watch.

They cant explain how it just is

DeGeneres, a spokeswoman for the department store, is featured in a holiday ad in which she asks a group of Santa's elves to make more toys for a giveaway contest but winds up making a bunch of clumsy "small" jokes in the process.

Since April, JC Penney's has not aired Ellen DeGeneres in one of their commercials until now. A new JCP ad features Ellen and three elves. JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again. Christians must now vote with their wallets. We have contacted JC Penney's several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen. They have decided to ignore our complaints so we will avoid them at all costs.

I personally haven't a clue what the One Million Moms were offended by.

Okay I was unaware of that one, but I just read up on One Million Moms and the Ellen Degeneres flap. As I understand it, and as Huffington Post and other non-conservative publications reported it, One Million Moms protested J C Penney because it featured Ellen Degeneres in its advertising. I haven't seen the ad, but if their only objection was that Ellen is gay, then in my opinion One Million Moms was out of line protesting the ad. They were NOT demanding Ellen be fired, however, just expressing their objection to J C Penney promoting 'alternate lifestyles.'

Is that the same thing as demanding somebody be fired for no other reason than expressing an opinion somebody didn't like?

Is that the same thing as some objecting to the K-mart "Jingle Bells" ad this holiday season?

I don't know. This seems to be a gray area that is sort of the same thing but not exactly the same thing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thats different. Watch.

They cant explain how it just is

Since April, JC Penney's has not aired Ellen DeGeneres in one of their commercials until now. A new JCP ad features Ellen and three elves. JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again. Christians must now vote with their wallets. We have contacted JC Penney's several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen. They have decided to ignore our complaints so we will avoid them at all costs.

I personally haven't a clue what the One Million Moms were offended by.

Okay I was unaware of that one, but I just read up on One Million Moms and the Ellen Degeneres flap. As I understand it, and as Huffington Post and other non-conservative publications reported it, One Million Moms protested J C Penney because it featured Ellen Degeneres in its advertising. I haven't seen the ad, but if their only objection was that Ellen is gay, then in my opinion One Million Moms was out of line protesting the ad. They were NOT demanding Ellen be fired, however, just expressing their objection to J C Penney promoting 'alternate lifestyles.'

Is that the same thing as demanding somebody be fired for no other reason than expressing an opinion somebody didn't like?

Is that the same thing as some objecting to the K-mart "Jingle Bells" ad this holiday season?

I don't know. This seems to be a gray area that is sort of the same thing but not exactly the same thing?

Digging for those microscopic differences lol

 

[Foxfyre]

So, four or five times I queried [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] about a very specific point (which, gee, I thought that is what debate is about) and four or five times I was ignored. Guess the idea was not worthy of thought. Ok, we are done here. Merry Christmas to all.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] - I'm sorry Stat. I have not intended to slight anybody. I have been dodging a lot of posts that were off topic and I no doubt skipped over some that were pertinent in the process. And unless somebody directs a question specifically to me, I sometimes don't see any reason to add on when somebody else answers adequately. I try to stay with it, but it is a very busy time at our house and the thread is moving very fast and I almost certainly have not seen every single post and of course have not responded to every single post. And certainly the legitimate post amidst the occasional off topic food fights can be lost when I scroll over those food fights. So if I inadvertenty slighted you I apologize.

Was there a specific question or point you wanted addressed? I think I have read most of your comments, but could you kindly repost the gist of your point that I should address?

 

[NYcarbineer]

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol

BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

How can someone renounce anything that is written and published unless you are asking people to denounce the Bible.

Just because I recite the Dictionary (from Websters, Oxford, etc,) does NOT mean I own the words.

You blew right past this post:

So conservatives now wish to tell me that I am out of line to find this:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

spoken by Phil Robertson a few years ago,

objectionable.

Yes, I'm the villain if I don't quietly and obediently tolerate that sort of hate speech.

Words written many years before Robertson spoke them.

Romans Chapter 1.

You continue to harp...
never mind, read it yourself.


Romans 1 Parallel Chapters

I'm done with this.

Merry Christmas!!!

Advance apologies to [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

They were his own words. They were a distorted paraphrase of the passage in Romans.

It's so funny that you seem to think there's an important difference.

 

[Montrovant]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

I missed nothing. I was speaking specifically to Foxfyre's comments about making something illegal.

That has been said many times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

Is there any chance you could describe, in detail, and linked, what GLAAD did that you would wish to make illegal?

I have already done that as have several others in this thread. Both voluntarily and at the request of others. And since you haven't yet characterized me or my point of view accurately, I am not inclined to acquiesce to your request to do so again. Thanking your in advance for understanding.

But you still are missing the point I think. The issue is not JUST GLAAD and Phil Robertson. Had you read the thread you would know that I used that example only because it is currently in the news. My point from the beginning, starting with the OP, is my personal protest against the whole culture of organized effort to hurt somebody physically or materially for no other reason than he/she expressed an opinon somebody didn't like. In my opinion that is dangerous and should be condoned by nobody who recognizes and respects unalienable rights and values liberty.

Your incivility is noted.

 

[Foxfyre]

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol

BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

How can someone renounce anything that is written and published unless you are asking people to denounce the Bible.

Just because I recite the Dictionary (from Websters, Oxford, etc,) does NOT mean I own the words.

You blew right past this post:

Words written many years before Robertson spoke them.

Romans Chapter 1.

You continue to harp...
never mind, read it yourself.


Romans 1 Parallel Chapters

I'm done with this.

Merry Christmas!!!

Advance apologies to [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

They were his own words. They were a distorted paraphrase of the passage in Romans.

It's so funny that you seem to think there's an important difference.

The important thing is that it doesn't matter diddly squat WHAT he paraphrased. Or whether he made it all up. He expressed an opinion.

But GLAAD was not willing to settle for disagreeing with or criticizing that opinion. They wanted a pound of flesh. They wanted to hurt him physically and materially for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And no matter WHO does that, GLAAD, the MILLION MOMS, or whomever, it is wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So this action by the American Family Association should have been illegal?

In the face of plummeting car sales, Ford Motor Company has taken steps to reduce its aggressive, pro-homosexual policies, prompting a family-rights group to call off its boycott of the carmaker.

The American Family Association says it’s suspending its two-year boycott of Ford, noting the auto giant has met the conditions of the original agreement between AFA and Ford from 2005.

Flinch! Ford finally bends, homosexual boycott over

And of course, no objection to this from the conservatives.

 

[The T]

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

How can someone renounce anything that is written and published unless you are asking people to denounce the Bible.

Just because I recite the Dictionary (from Websters, Oxford, etc,) does NOT mean I own the words.

You blew right past this post:




You continue to harp...
never mind, read it yourself.


Romans 1 Parallel Chapters

I'm done with this.

Merry Christmas!!!

Advance apologies to @Foxfyre

They were his own words. They were a distorted paraphrase of the passage in Romans.

It's so funny that you seem to think there's an important difference.

The important thing is that it doesn't matter diddly squat WHAT he paraphrased. Or whether he made it all up. He expressed an opinion.

But GLAAD was not willing to settle for disagreeing with or criticizing that opinion. They wanted a pound of flesh. They wanted to hurt him physically and materially for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And no matter WHO does that, GLAAD, the MILLION MOMS, or whomever, it is wrong.

Astounding the many times you have had to repeat yourself. YOU have the patience of JOB. Well Done. Merry Christmas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think it's all tactics. If you're involved with politics, even as some kind of advocacy group like GLAAD, when these kinds of things happen you have to say something in rebuttal. If you don't you loose followers and thus political clout. So it's just a game ultimately. One side says something and those on that side flock in support of it, the other side rebutts. As with Palin (if she quit do we really still refer to her as 'Governor?') and others on Fox supporting him, and others on the other side supporting GLAAD and A&E.

Politics is all a game. To wield power you need followers. To get followers you have to be vocal and in the news every day more than your opposition. Whoever controls the message controls the world.

That may indeed be a reason. But it does not address whether intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance.

Intolerance in any form that is not acted out but is expressed purely as a belief or conviction--was that not intended to be one of our unalienable rights? How can we say we hate intolerance if we are intolerant of an unpopular or un-PC opinion held by another?

Intolerance that is acted out in a material way is something quite different from what I am focused on here.

Just for the record, Phil Robertson is 'acting out' on his anti-homosexual beliefs when he proselytizes on behalf of his version of the Christian religion.

 

[hunarcy]

...instead of screaming at each other, the world would be a better place.

And, who do you perceive is screaming?

GLAAD said it is researching other companies who sponsor the Christian patriarch of the popular program. Do you see that as benign and tolerant?

Should we allow a vendetta against Robertson merely because he expressed his beliefs? Or, should we point out that it is inappropriate to behave that way?

Just as FRC (Family Research Council) researches other companies who promote, as they call it, a "pro-homosexual" atmosphere?

It is not against the law to research anything. It is neither benign nor malignant. It is neither tolerant nor intolerant.

How the research can be used, however, is another story.

I already made it clear that I am not for threats, so a vendetta is not my thing. I would go for the second bolded.

Then you FF and I have no debate and are in agreement.

 

[hunarcy]

Thats different. Watch.

They cant explain how it just is

Since April, JC Penney's has not aired Ellen DeGeneres in one of their commercials until now. A new JCP ad features Ellen and three elves. JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again. Christians must now vote with their wallets. We have contacted JC Penney's several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen. They have decided to ignore our complaints so we will avoid them at all costs.

I personally haven't a clue what the One Million Moms were offended by.

Okay I was unaware of that one, but I just read up on One Million Moms and the Ellen Degeneres flap. As I understand it, and as Huffington Post and other non-conservative publications reported it, One Million Moms protested J C Penney because it featured Ellen Degeneres in its advertising. I haven't seen the ad, but if their only objection was that Ellen is gay, then in my opinion One Million Moms was out of line protesting the ad. They were NOT demanding Ellen be fired, however, just expressing their objection to J C Penney promoting 'alternate lifestyles.'

Is that the same thing as demanding somebody be fired for no other reason than expressing an opinion somebody didn't like?

Is that the same thing as some objecting to the K-mart "Jingle Bells" ad this holiday season?

I don't know. This seems to be a gray area that is sort of the same thing but not exactly the same thing?

I would tend to believe it is the same thing GLAAD is doing with Robertson and do not support their actions.

 

[MeBelle]

I think it's all tactics. If you're involved with politics, even as some kind of advocacy group like GLAAD, when these kinds of things happen you have to say something in rebuttal. If you don't you loose followers and thus political clout. So it's just a game ultimately. One side says something and those on that side flock in support of it, the other side rebutts. As with Palin (if she quit do we really still refer to her as 'Governor?') and others on Fox supporting him, and others on the other side supporting GLAAD and A&E.

Politics is all a game. To wield power you need followers. To get followers you have to be vocal and in the news every day more than your opposition. Whoever controls the message controls the world.

That may indeed be a reason. But it does not address whether intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance.

Intolerance in any form that is not acted out but is expressed purely as a belief or conviction--was that not intended to be one of our unalienable rights? How can we say we hate intolerance if we are intolerant of an unpopular or un-PC opinion held by another?

Intolerance that is acted out in a material way is something quite different from what I am focused on here.

Just for the record, Phil Robertson is 'acting out' on his anti-homosexual beliefs when he proselytizes on behalf of his version of the Christian religion.

​