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

[koshergrl]

"The Supreme Court embraces the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence".

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), 505 U.S. 377

You just proved my point. It doesn't have to lead to violence to called hate speech.

I never claimed it was impermissible. I claimed it was hate speech. It is.

Hate speech is your created and defined term in this context.

You could have called it poopy speech.

Hate speech has to lead to violence for it to be defined with weight as such under law.

Anything you say negative about someone would be hate speech otherwise.

Progressives and the homo bloc have been trying to years to get church sermons and the bible itself labeled as "hate speech". It's the only way, short of establishing martial law and resurrecting some sort of SS, that they can shut the churches down and stop people from reading/paying attention to the bible.

They know that their values are anethama to everything any decent society desires for itself and its people...and right now *decent society* in this country just happens to be *Christian* society, because Christians are the only people who dare to speak out against their fascism, depravity, and insidious evil.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Phil Robertson said this:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 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."

But he doesn't just 'say' that, he preaches that belief. And no conservative on this board will acknowledge that the above is quite simply, hate speech, by the most basic measure of what hate speech is.

And just for clarity of what PR is saying in the above, let me accentuate what he is saying by a precise paraphrase that only replaces some pronouns with who they refer to:


Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Gays are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred.

Gays are insolent, arrogant God haters.

Gays are heartless.

Gays are faithless.

Gays are senseless.

Gays are ruthless.

Gays invent ways of doing evil.

...so there. That is what Phil Robertson believes and preaches. Not one conservative on this forum calls that hate speech.

That is what is wrong with Phil Robertson and that is what is wrong with modern day American conservatism.

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

You are a LYING POS, you quoted him completely out of context.

Really? Then put what he said into the context that proves he didn't say and mean what the above says and means.

Whatever the 'context' it's still not sanctioned Christian dogma, consequently it's not mere religious expression but hate and ignorance appropriately subject to condemnation by private society.

 

[hunarcy]

GLAAD is NOT our government. Need I say more?

No, you've made your support for blacklists that support your political agenda perfectly clear.

You tried to compare this to a case of serious government action taken against citizens for political purpose. That is where "blacklist" came from.

The rules for what citizens can do and what our government can do are NOT the same - and, for VERY good reason.

Hide behind whatever you want. The Government didn't blacklist the Hollywood 10. The Hollywood studios did. And the truth is that you seem to support blacklisting people who you don't agree with and in that, you are more McCarthyite than I expected.

 

[koshergrl]

You are a LYING POS, you quoted him completely out of context.

Really? Then put what he said into the context that proves he didn't say and mean what the above says and means.

Whatever the 'context' it's still not sanctioned Christian dogma, consequently it's not mere religious expression but hate and ignorance appropriately subject to condemnation by private society.

What utter balderdash. He spoke Scripture word for word. And it is THAT, not his other comments, that loons like YOU take exception to.

You take exception to religious expression, and you in PARTICULAR think that the BIBLE is offensive and the open discussion of it should be penalized.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The Supreme Court embraces the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence".

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), 505 U.S. 377

You just proved my point. It doesn't have to lead to violence to called hate speech.

I never claimed it was impermissible. I claimed it was hate speech. It is.

Hate speech is your created and defined term in this context.

You could have called it poopy speech.

Hate speech has to lead to violence for it to be defined with weight as such under law.

Anything you say negative about someone would be hate speech otherwise.

We get it. You don't see anything hateful in what Robertson said, so you don't call it hate speech.

I repeat, that was my point about conservatives. None of you will call that hateful.

 

[RKMBrown]

Gays are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred.

Gays are insolent, arrogant God haters.

Gays are heartless.

Gays are faithless.

Gays are senseless.

Gays are ruthless.

Gays invent ways of doing evil.

Wow what a jerk you are. Gays are none of those things you retard.

They are according to the preachings of 'devout Christian' 'Bible believing' Phil Robertson.

Take it up with him. I'm the messenger.

Messenger my ass. You are nothing but a lying POS.

 

[koshergrl]

Quit pretending it's something Robertson said, NYC. You aren't offended by what he said, you're offended that he dared to quote scripture, which quite adamantly states that homosexuality is a sin. What you are saying is that you find the bible offensive, and think that people who quote it are using Hate Speech.

It's been the battle cry of fascists who want to close the churches since the advent of fascist atheist regimes of the 20th century.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are a LYING POS, you quoted him completely out of context.

Really? Then put what he said into the context that proves he didn't say and mean what the above says and means.

Whatever the 'context' it's still not sanctioned Christian dogma, consequently it's not mere religious expression but hate and ignorance appropriately subject to condemnation by private society.

Keep in mind, we're talking to the same sort of people who fought against the building of the so-called ground zero mosque.

 

[Intense]

Phil Robertson said this:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 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."

But he doesn't just 'say' that, he preaches that belief. And no conservative on this board will acknowledge that the above is quite simply, hate speech, by the most basic measure of what hate speech is.

And just for clarity of what PR is saying in the above, let me accentuate what he is saying by a precise paraphrase that only replaces some pronouns with who they refer to:


Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Gays are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred.

Gays are insolent, arrogant God haters.

Gays are heartless.

Gays are faithless.

Gays are senseless.

Gays are ruthless.

Gays invent ways of doing evil.

...so there. That is what Phil Robertson believes and preaches. Not one conservative on this forum calls that hate speech.

That is what is wrong with Phil Robertson and that is what is wrong with modern day American conservatism.

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Defenders Notes >>

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The Holy Bible

NYcarbineer, So what other parts of the Bible would you choose to edit, rewrite, or delete?

In your quotes, if the word Human was substituted for Gays, it would sort of remind me of the description that led up to either Noah's Flood, or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Man's state outside of God's Grace is a fallen state, you get that, right.
Whether the cross one bears is deceit, unfaithfulness, kleptomania, dependance, addiction, envy, hate, slothfulness, lust, straight or gay, or whatever, it is still a corruption of Spirit. If Christ came to save the perfect, no one would qualify, you get that, too, I hope.
Hey, we each have our cross to bear, it is for us to choose, sooner or later. Christ never said it was a cake walk.
I would not expect anyone to justify my personal wrong actions. I would hope to loved in spite of them. There is a distinction here. I might even suggest that Salvation hangs in the balance. Get it? Good.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You just proved my point. It doesn't have to lead to violence to called hate speech.

I never claimed it was impermissible. I claimed it was hate speech. It is.

Hate speech is your created and defined term in this context.

You could have called it poopy speech.

Hate speech has to lead to violence for it to be defined with weight as such under law.

Anything you say negative about someone would be hate speech otherwise.

We get it. You don't see anything hateful in what Robertson said, so you don't call it hate speech.

I repeat, that was my point about conservatives. None of you will call that hateful.

And Liberals will call "heartless" hate speech.

 

[hunarcy]

Whatever the 'context' it's still not sanctioned Christian dogma, consequently it's not mere religious expression but hate and ignorance appropriately subject to condemnation by private society.

What utter balderdash. He spoke Scripture word for word. And it is THAT, not his other comments, that loons like YOU take exception to.

You take exception to religious expression, and you in PARTICULAR think that the BIBLE is offensive and the open discussion of it should be penalized.

C_Clayton is another whose "arguments" are easily dismissed as they have no foundation for them except their own particular hate.

 

[Intense]

Reminder. This is a Zone 2 Forum. Each Post requires on topic content, besides the Flame. It does not hurt to try some civility.

 

[koshergrl]

Really? Then put what he said into the context that proves he didn't say and mean what the above says and means.

Whatever the 'context' it's still not sanctioned Christian dogma, consequently it's not mere religious expression but hate and ignorance appropriately subject to condemnation by private society.

Keep in mind, we're talking to the same sort of people who fought against the building of the so-called ground zero mosque.

That's right, keep that in mind.

And we're talking about the sort of people that think there should be a tribute to Islam at the very spot where jihad claimed the lives of THOUSANDS of innocents.

You're disgusting. It would be a privilege to kill pukes like you in battle, if you ever had the nerve to attempt to inflict upon us your progressive policies.

Though of course, someone like you would never be in battle. You would be cowering in a corner somewhere, wetting yourself.

 

[WillReadmore]

No, you've made your support for blacklists that support your political agenda perfectly clear.

You tried to compare this to a case of serious government action taken against citizens for political purpose. That is where "blacklist" came from.

The rules for what citizens can do and what our government can do are NOT the same - and, for VERY good reason.

Hide behind whatever you want. The Government didn't blacklist the Hollywood 10. The Hollywood studios did. And the truth is that you seem to support blacklisting people who you don't agree with and in that, you are more McCarthyite than I expected.

The blacklist was the direct effect of HUAC, as it was actively tracking down those who would associate with the Hollywood 10 and others it hauled before the House. The Hollywood 10 were the same 10 cited for contempt of congress by the HUAC for refusing to testify concerning their political beliefs and their friends. Our government is not involved in the Robertson case in any way other than in guaranteeing his right to speak - as it should.

The blacklist was NOT the same as what GLAAD is doing in another important respect. The MPAA owned the Hollywood jobs. So, they were in a position to deny jobs to the 10. It was an entire industry coming together to deny employment. GLAAD is only in a position of an advocacy group, expressing its political opinion.

It would be a very different case if the TV entertainment industry had a single committee that refused to give jobs to anyone GLAAD doesn't like - but that is obviously NOT what is going on.


With all the total idiocy going on, I don't know exactly what GLAAD plans to do, but I would fully expect them to oppose those who have a public voice and who use that voice to proclaim discriminatory and bigoted statements concerning the LGBT community.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow what a jerk you are. Gays are none of those things you retard.

They are according to the preachings of 'devout Christian' 'Bible believing' Phil Robertson.

Take it up with him. I'm the messenger.

Messenger my ass. You are nothing but a lying POS.

And yet you offer zero evidence to support your claim that anything I've said isn't true.

 

[koshergrl]

They are according to the preachings of 'devout Christian' 'Bible believing' Phil Robertson.

Take it up with him. I'm the messenger.

Messenger my ass. You are nothing but a lying POS.

And yet you offer zero evidence to support your claim that anything I've said isn't true.

You lie every time you pretend that it's ROBERTSON'S words, and not the Bible, that you object to.

 

[hunarcy]

The blacklist was the direct effect of HUAC, as it was actively tracking down those who would associate with the Hollywood 10 and others it hauled before the House. Our government is not involved in the Robertson case in any way other than in guaranteeing his right to speak - as it should.

The blacklist was NOT the same as what GLAAD is doing in another important respect. The MPAA owned the Hollywood jobs. So, they were in a position to deny jobs to the 10. GLAAD is only in a position of an advocacy group, expressing its political opinion.

It would be a very different case if the TV entertainment industry had a single committee that refused to give jobs to anyone on GLAAD's list - but that is obviously NOT what is going on.

With all the total idiocy going on, I don't know exactly what GLAAD plans to do, but I would fully expect them to oppose those who have a public voice and who use that voice to proclaim discriminatory and bigoted statements concerning the LGBT community.

Basically, you still agree with blacklists as long as they conform with your beliefs. So, after all that typing, nothing has changed. Your intolerance is confirmed.

 

[koshergrl]

The blacklist was the direct effect of HUAC, as it was actively tracking down those who would associate with the Hollywood 10 and others it hauled before the House. Our government is not involved in the Robertson case in any way other than in guaranteeing his right to speak - as it should.

The blacklist was NOT the same as what GLAAD is doing in another important respect. The MPAA owned the Hollywood jobs. So, they were in a position to deny jobs to the 10. GLAAD is only in a position of an advocacy group, expressing its political opinion.

It would be a very different case if the TV entertainment industry had a single committee that refused to give jobs to anyone on GLAAD's list - but that is obviously NOT what is going on.

With all the total idiocy going on, I don't know exactly what GLAAD plans to do, but I would fully expect them to oppose those who have a public voice and who use that voice to proclaim discriminatory and bigoted statements concerning the LGBT community.

Basically, you still agree with blacklists as long as they conform with your beliefs. So, after all that typing, nothing has changed. Your intolerance is confirmed.

Wow I don't know how you came to that conclusion, lol...evidence again that you guys think it's intolerant to be intolerance of intolerance..

And quite neatly sidesteps your own culpability in free speech/freedom of religion infringements.

 

[RKMBrown]

They are according to the preachings of 'devout Christian' 'Bible believing' Phil Robertson.

Take it up with him. I'm the messenger.

Messenger my ass. You are nothing but a lying POS.

And yet you offer zero evidence to support your claim that anything I've said isn't true.

Where's your evidence? A so called citation from one of the anti-christian lobbies? How many times do you have to be told the "they" that was being discussed in the out of context statement was sinners, more particularly sinners in America? How many times?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The funny thing of course is that if Duck Dynasty dad were a muslim then we wouldn't have to hear from the permanently aggrieved left wing class about the evils of the Koran and how important it is to limit free speech. This is why political correctness is corrosive. Political correctness allows religious bigotry as long as the religion is christianity. Just as political correctness allows free speech as long as it's the right kind of speech.

Islam is probably even more intolerant of homosexuality that Christianity. In the scenario you postulate they would both be on the same side against GLAAD.

Islam is PROBABLY more intolerant of homosexuality that Christians? PROBABLY? Has the pope encouraged killing infidels? PROBABLY? Did you really say PROBABLY?
Yes, of course both religions disagree with what GLAAD says. Both religions consider homosexuality a sin. The point I was making though was about political correctness. I think if Robertson were a muslim and said the same thing, the left would not be feigning outrage. What I hate about political correctness is the built in double standard. That was my only point.