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

[hunarcy]

*yawn* You'd have to ask him as it's not clear to me...perhaps it related to something he and the author of the article were talking about earlier that wasn't included in the article. You'd have to ask Robertson or the reporter.

It is true that the Bible says no one sin is greater than any other. But, personally, I would have found it much more disagreeable for some woman and my husband to have committed adultery than I would find the shoplifting by a stranger of a small item from a department store. While God may hold all sins to be equal, except for that part about forgiving 70 x 7, I don't think He would be particularly put out if I were to be much more hurt by the first sin than the latter sin in my example. The first would have caused a great deal of travail and chaos in my own life whereas the second would not. Moreover in our human endeavor to mete out justice fitting of the crime, we do not hold all violations to the same punishment. Now having said that, nowhere in the Bible, nor in any other ancient writing I have dug up, have I read any description of human punishment in the afterlife that remotely resembles the various different levels of hell in Durante (Dante) Alighieri's The Inferno. That is a pure fabrication. The Egyptian version of trials of the afterlife were not permanent but were tests the human had to pass to make it to a better place. And I also don't recall any Biblical account of purgatory. Not saying it isn't there somewhere, but I suspect that is more an invention of men, other than Jesus, to give some explanation of what happens to innocents who have not had the opportunity to repent of their original sin.

We react to sins as humans. God reacts to sins as God. That is the basic difference.

I don't think God finds all sins to be equal. I don't even think that the same sin committed by different people will be considered equal as the circumstances and motives and remorse can be quite different.

There are venial sins and there are mortal sins.
The latter ones also differ in the degree of responsibility. If one has abusive parents who throw him/her away after 18 and never are interested in their offspring, I do not think that if he/she refuses to help his parents eventually will be judged in the same way a s somebody whom his/her parents loved, cherished, spend their life for and the one became a jerk who just ditched his/her parents and never looked back.

It is not that black and white as it seems.

It's ok if you think that. In fact, I'm cool with you thinking all sorts of things. I was just talking about what PR probably thinks based on my understanding of his religious beliefs.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Motherwolf here. Are you people for real? You are talking about trivial crap when you have DHS vehicles placed in your states, chemtrails poisoning you, GMO's sterilizing you, Military personel ready to fire on you for no reason, and this is all you can talk about. You deserve what you will get in the next two years. Just look MRAPS in you state, chemtrails data, LITMUS test, loss of social security, Medicare, Medicade, food stamps, Veterans care, retirements, increase of millions of illegal aliens given amnesty and welfare. Get you faces out of the propaganda on the Television and newspapers. There are no terrorists acts that are not backed up by our government in order to establish NATIONAL EVERGENCY to suspend the Constitution.

Oh, shut it. All you need to do is change to rainbow font, and the entire board will have you on ignore in a heartbeat.

Welcome to USMB.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why must this be a left/right, conservative/liberal thing?

Can't we just take the opinions of individual posters as exactly that?

Good question.

Just ask those who keep calling Phil Robertson a bigot and a racist that question.

No. I am directing that to anyone who is making this a left/right issue. Whether someone thinks what Robertson says was bigoted and racist has nothing to do with left/right.

I would not assume to know a person's political leanings based on whether they think Robertson sounded like a bigot in his comments.

No one is ‘making’ this a left/right issue.

But the partisan nature of the issue concerns the fiction of ‘political correctness,’ as contrived by the right, and the incorrect position held by most conservatives that liberals are ‘intolerant,’ and as a consequence of that ‘intolerance’ seek to ‘silence’ the opposition by ‘threatening’ someone’s livelihood.

Needless to say the notion is utterly ridiculous, as liberals seek to ‘silence’ no one, and those who are allegedly ‘threatened’ continue to express their opinions and indeed flourish.

What most conservatives fail or refuse to understand is that private citizens are at liberty to express their opinions concerning the controversies of the day, just as they are at liberty to call for boycotts and petition sponsors on their behalf. Likewise private citizens are at liberty to ignore calls for boycotts, and sponsors are at liberty to continue their support of those some might perceive to be controversial.

And this is the essence of a free and democratic society, where private citizens determine what is or is not appropriate speech and behavior, free from interference by the state – this process should be encouraged and celebrated, not feared and reviled.

 

[hunarcy]

oh, shut it. All you need to do is change to rainbow font, and the entire board will have you on ignore in a heartbeat.

Welcome to usmb.

lmao!

 

[G.T.]

This is a stupid assed question to entertain.

 

[BDBoop]

This is a stupid assed question to entertain.

And yet it's provided over 1200 posts of entertainment.

 

[hunarcy]

This is a stupid assed question to entertain.

Then why comment? Perhaps it's not the topic that is stupid.

 

[Vox]

This is a stupid assed question to entertain.

Then why comment? Perhaps it's not the topic that is stupid.

this

 

[G.T.]

Its definitely the topic that is stupid. Most most definitely. Are you physically abusive if you physically defend yourself against physical abuse? Are you a killer if you kill someone imminently attempting to kill you? Are you a bigot if you have a distaste for bigots?

Its a circle jerk of useless dunce logic. Useless being the key point.

Why comment? Same reason anyone else comments. Anonymous message boarding is attention whoring 101, in all shapes and sizes but its all inclusive.

 

[Vox]

G.T. is defending himself/herself from the abuse of the topic not by ignoring the topic but by commenting in it.

it's called masochism

 

[BDBoop]

Its definitely the topic that is stupid. Most most definitely. Are you physically abusive if you physically defend yourself against physical abuse? Are you a killer if you kill someone imminently attempting to kill you? Are you a bigot if you have a distaste for bigots?

Its a circle jerk of useless dunce logic. Useless being the key point.

Why comment? Same reason anyone else comments. Anonymous message boarding is attention whoring 101, in all shapes and sizes but its all inclusive.

Thank you. This is what I've been needing to see for the past many days. I knew what I thought, but didn't have the thoughts lined up like you did here.

 

[G.T.]

Are you a bully if you kick bullies in the balls?

Its asinine commentary.

 

[hunarcy]

Its definitely the topic that is stupid.

Wrong! The problem is you. NO ONE advocates not defending yourself against physical abuse and that's not the point of the topic. You ARE a killer, if you kill someone, no matter the motivation. All motivation can do is provide justification. And, you are not necessarily a bigot if you oppose bigotry.

However, you are a bigot if you claim something is bigotry when it's just an expression of faith and not a condemnation of a group or individual. You are intolerant when you push your anti-bigotry to the point where you've declared a jihad on someone because they don't agree with you.

Yep, the problem is you.

And, if you are just posting to get attention, please don't be too disappointed when the attention dries up.

 

[hunarcy]

Are you a bully if you kick bullies in the balls?

Its asinine commentary.

It is indeed asinine. Feel free to stop posting it.

 

[Montrovant]

Good question.

Just ask those who keep calling Phil Robertson a bigot and a racist that question.

No. I am directing that to anyone who is making this a left/right issue. Whether someone thinks what Robertson says was bigoted and racist has nothing to do with left/right.

I would not assume to know a person's political leanings based on whether they think Robertson sounded like a bigot in his comments.

No one is ‘making’ this a left/right issue.

But the partisan nature of the issue concerns the fiction of ‘political correctness,’ as contrived by the right, and the incorrect position held by most conservatives that liberals are ‘intolerant,’ and as a consequence of that ‘intolerance’ seek to ‘silence’ the opposition by ‘threatening’ someone’s livelihood.

Needless to say the notion is utterly ridiculous, as liberals seek to ‘silence’ no one, and those who are allegedly ‘threatened’ continue to express their opinions and indeed flourish.

What most conservatives fail or refuse to understand is that private citizens are at liberty to express their opinions concerning the controversies of the day, just as they are at liberty to call for boycotts and petition sponsors on their behalf. Likewise private citizens are at liberty to ignore calls for boycotts, and sponsors are at liberty to continue their support of those some might perceive to be controversial.

And this is the essence of a free and democratic society, where private citizens determine what is or is not appropriate speech and behavior, free from interference by the state – this process should be encouraged and celebrated, not feared and reviled.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of what I am talking about.

 

[G.T.]

Its definitely the topic that is stupid.

Wrong! The problem is you. NO ONE advocates not defending yourself against physical abuse and that's not the point of the topic. You ARE a killer, if you kill someone, no matter the motivation. All motivation can do is provide justification. And, you are not necessarily a bigot if you oppose bigotry.

However, you are a bigot if you claim something is bigotry when it's just an expression of faith and not a condemnation of a group or individual. You are intolerant when you push your anti-bigotry to the point where you've declared a jihad on someone because they don't agree with you.

Yep, the problem is you.

And, if you are just posting to get attention, please don't be too disappointed when the attention dries up.

the questions were rhetorical

 

[hunarcy]

the questions were rhetorical

No, they were the laughable foundation of your argument. You've embarrassed yourself enough. You may now go and I hope you have a nice day.

 

[BDBoop]

Its definitely the topic that is stupid.

Wrong! The problem is you. NO ONE advocates not defending yourself against physical abuse and that's not the point of the topic. You ARE a killer, if you kill someone, no matter the motivation. All motivation can do is provide justification. And, you are not necessarily a bigot if you oppose bigotry.

However, you are a bigot if you claim something is bigotry when it's just an expression of faith and not a condemnation of a group or individual. You are intolerant when you push your anti-bigotry to the point where you've declared a jihad on someone because they don't agree with you.

Yep, the problem is you.

And, if you are just posting to get attention, please don't be too disappointed when the attention dries up.

the questions were rhetorical

Well! If nothing else, we now know George Zimmerman is a killer.

Thanks muchly.

 

[G.T.]

No, they werent the foundation you thought they were otherwise you would have known they were rhetorical. Its over your head bro, no big deal.

For example, the answers you provided to EACH ONE of them i agreed with 100%.

So? Think again.

 

[hunarcy]

Well! If nothing else, we now know George Zimmerman is a killer.

Thanks muchly.

You didn't know that? Then you also didn't know that a jury decided that while he was a killer, his actions were justified through a need for self defense. I'm glad I could help you and will now return to the topic.

Sorry, FF, for letting myself get side tracked.