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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Truthfully, Foxy, I don't worry about it, because I don't consider tolerance the ultimate virtue, nor do I consider intolerance the ultimate sin. In the sense that I just don't give a damn one way or another about people's behavior, so long as it doesn't harm others, I suppose I'm "tolerating" them. In the sense that I feel perfectly free to form, hold, and express opinions people don't like if and when I feel it necessary, I suppose I'm "intolerant", because I certainly never feel required to temper and qualify my opinions with PC garbage once I feel compelled to have one.

And in the sense that I have no intention of letting people rewrite society just to suit their own personal issues and childhood traumas, I'm definitely "intolerant". Oh, well. Life's a bitch . . . and so am I.

 

[WillReadmore]

what i'm saying is the anti-Christian Marxist lefties attacking Robertson is basically the same thing as them attacking the Bible...

Are you aware that there are several Christian denominations who are marrying same sex couples in more than a dozen states in our union?

Our interpretation of these Biblical passages is far from perfect. The Genesis quote undoubtedly came from one of the two versions of the story of Lott. Suggesting that homosexuality is the issue in that story is utter nonsense. First of all, what was being demanded was full on gang rape - criminal violence certainly not related to the love between two individuals. It's also interesting that the story goes on to include the continuation of Lott's line (blessed by God) that was made possible by the drunken union between Lott and his daughters - not behavior the Bible advocates and conducted without Gods pre-approval. What are the lessons in this story? I have never seen anything convincing about that.

To get a better understanding of how Christianity can come to terms with this, one should review how and why the Episcopal church has been moving on this subject. They point out that our understanding of women has changed dramatically since Biblical times - as has our understanding of homosexuality. In both cases, care must be taken in how dogmatically and literally we take each word. Same sex behavior gets presented in cases of total carnal excess as well as violence - not what anyone advocates today and not the same as our understanding of love today.

But, that's not all - too much for a post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Please tell me how many times I have to say this so I'll know when you've gotten it?

The quote from Robertson was sourced. Go back and look at my post. The source further sources it to its origin.

Robertson did not quote the Bible verbatim. He sampled abit from the verses, but ultimately what he comes up with neither says nor means what was said in the Bible.

btw, the original Biblical passage is from Paul the apostle, so it's his opinion, not necessarily that of Jesus,

if anyone wants to go that deeper.

(and btw, if as you claim PR was talking about all sinners, do all sinners hate God???!!! How does that claim make it any better? I thought we were all sinners. Do you hate God? lol)

 

[hunarcy]

According to WHO is this blacklisting?

I already pointed out key elements that are missing.

GLAAD doesn't own the jobs. There is no federal support for squelching Robertson or his friends free speech rights. What GLAAD is doing is lobbying against those who use their position to advocate discrimination and bigotry against the LGBT community. There isn't anything illegal or otherwise wrong about that.

They have very limited powers. Alec Baldwin lost his show. Mel Gibson is down a lot. There can be ramifications, but it's no sure thing and any of these guys can find work - unlike the real case of blacklisting.

Check these out:

GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project | GLAAD

?Gay hate list?: Farah, Perkins, Colson, more

The New Blacklist | National Review Online

'Duck Dynasty' and the New Blacklist

GLAAD seems to have a lot of power. Alec Baldwin lost his show for comments made in anger on the street. Mel Gibson is down a lot for his comments on Jews and Gays.

 

[WillReadmore]

But, researching everyone he's sponsored for so they can ensure he's preventing from working for anyone IS a blacklisting situation, as I'm sure you're aware. And, THAT'S being intolerant.

According to WHO is this blacklisting?

I already pointed out key elements that are missing.

GLAAD doesn't own the jobs. There is no federal support for squelching Robertson or his friends free speech rights. What GLAAD is doing is lobbying against those who use their position to advocate discrimination and bigotry against the LGBT community. There isn't anything illegal or otherwise wrong about that.

They have very limited powers. Alec Baldwin lost his show. Mel Gibson is down a lot. There can be ramifications, but it's no sure thing and any of these guys can find work - unlike the real case of blacklisting.

So the bible is what is being protested as "discrimination and bigotry"?

I believe he is misrepresenting the Bible - using it to further his opinion. I realize there are a lot of people who think the Bible says what he thinks it says, but not all Christians do.

In the end, he doesn't get to hide behind the Bible.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I highly doubt you believe in Leviticus law.

So, why do you think it's persuasive to trot out that stuff?

Or, are you just trying to make and excuse for Robertson?

what i'm saying is the anti-Christian Marxist lefties attacking Robertson is basically the same thing as them attacking the Bible...

I personally have not attacked the Bible, neither yours nor mine. I am questioning a man's abuse of the Bible in order to spread hate. It's his right, he can do it, but I can also call him out for it. You know what that is called? That is called freedom, personal liberty and democracy. You should try it, you might even like it.

"abuse of the Bible"......? you gotta be kidding...

Robertson is just a 'redneck' man who answered a question honestly and put into his own personal words his belief in the Bible teachings....if it isn't up to your 'high' standards then too fucking bad....and don't try to fool me that you believe in 'freedom' either otherwise you guys wouldn't be attacking Robertson this way....

and don't think this is just soley about Robertson.....this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the bellowing of the gay lobby orchestrated by the far left anti-Christian Marxist lobby....in order to clean up a propaganda mistake they made....

 

[hunarcy]

I'm curious. Did his contract actually stipulate that he couldn't make non-PC observations about his religious beliefs?

Who knows? Apparently, he didn't have a contract with A&E. His contract was apparently with some Production company.

 

[hunarcy]

what i'm saying is the anti-Christian Marxist lefties attacking Robertson is basically the same thing as them attacking the Bible...

Are you aware that there are several Christian denominations who are marrying same sex couples in more than a dozen states in our union?

Our interpretation of these Biblical passages is far from perfect. The Genesis quote undoubtedly came from one of the two versions of the story of Lott. Suggesting that homosexuality is the issue in that story is utter nonsense. First of all, what was being demanded was full on gang rape - criminal violence certainly not related to the love between two individuals. It's also interesting that the story goes on to include the continuation of Lott's line (blessed by God) that was made possible by the drunken union between Lott and his daughters - not behavior the Bible advocates and conducted without Gods pre-approval. What are the lessons in this story? I have never seen anything convincing about that.

To get a better understanding of how Christianity can come to terms with this, one should review how and why the Episcopal church has been moving on this subject. They point out that our understanding of women has changed dramatically since Biblical times - as has our understanding of homosexuality. In both cases, care must be taken in how dogmatically and literally we take each word. Same sex behavior gets presented in cases of total carnal excess as well as violence - not what anyone advocates today and not the same as our understanding of love today.

But, that's not all - too much for a post.

are you aware that there are more than one Christian denomination and each of them have their own interpretation of "Christian dogma"? You may tout one of the others (so many people do) but you can't deny the others their beliefs.

 

[bendog]

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.

imo, a fair reading of the entire interview/article shows Phil believes 'sinners' are all of those things. Sinners, in his mind, are people who have turned away from God's moral teachings, and because we have become more secular and accepting of "anything goes," society suffers. Divorce was once very uncommon. It was uncommon for a person to remain single, and have multiple sexual partners over a lifetime. Adultry used to at least carry a badge of shame, and now we laugh at a Potus getting impeached because he lied about getting a bj. There's no denying society has become coarser. Of course, we've also practiced genocide on native americans, and sanctioned legal ownership and sexual abuse of blacks.

Phil's views are black and white in a grey world. He can't see a distinction between two men in a loving relationship and a pimp. But, I don't see where he implies a gay person is more a sinner than a pimp.

 

[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.

But this is not a thread about government blacklists. This is a thread about tolerance. A concept that as long as we are not treading on the rights of others, we should all be able to express a belief about ANYTHING, left, right, up, down, whatever, without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target us to be punished physically and/lor materially. It does not mean that we agree with what others say. It does not mean we are required to associate with people we find unacceptable. It does not mean that we cannot say we don't like what the other person said or that we won't do business with somebody.

It only means that we allow others their opinions and beliefs as we want to be able to express our own opinions and beliefs without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to hurt us for no other reason than they don't like our opinion or stated belief.

Do you believe people should be able to express their beliefs and/or opinions or do you not believe that?

The answer to your actual question is "yes". Very definitely. Robertson should be allowed to say anything he wants, just like the KKK or Gandhi.

However, the rest of your comment is lala land. Unfortunately, we have minorities who actually have laws written against them or have other serious issues. Expecting that they will stand by while people support and justify these inequities just isn't logical.

Robertson used his position to state what happens to be a political position - whether he likes or intends that or not. He should have been WELL aware that there would be ramifications from those who are damaged by those opinions of his.

Do you see anyone crying over Alec Baldwin? Mel Gibson? Any of the other hundreds who were in the public eye when they made racist or sexist remarks? Why is Robertson special?

 

[hunarcy]

I believe he is misrepresenting the Bible - using it to further his opinion. I realize there are a lot of people who think the Bible says what he thinks it says, but not all Christians do.

In the end, he doesn't get to hide behind the Bible.

Ah, so you have now made yourself the arbiter of what the Bible means? Only the interpretation you approve of can be used?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

But this is not a thread about government blacklists. This is a thread about tolerance. A concept that as long as we are not treading on the rights of others, we should all be able to express a belief about ANYTHING, left, right, up, down, whatever, without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target us to be punished physically and/lor materially. It does not mean that we agree with what others say. It does not mean we are required to associate with people we find unacceptable. It does not mean that we cannot say we don't like what the other person said or that we won't do business with somebody.

It only means that we allow others their opinions and beliefs as we want to be able to express our own opinions and beliefs without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to hurt us for no other reason than they don't like our opinion or stated belief.

Do you believe people should be able to express their beliefs and/or opinions or do you not believe that?

If you go back and read the OP, FF is so off the wall here she condemns giving people neg reps if you don't like what they said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm curious. Did his contract actually stipulate that he couldn't make non-PC observations about his religious beliefs?

Who knows? Apparently, he didn't have a contract with A&E. His contract was apparently with some Production company.

Then I guess he should have just told A&E you're not the boss of me and kept working.

 

[koshergrl]

what i'm saying is the anti-Christian Marxist lefties attacking Robertson is basically the same thing as them attacking the Bible...

I personally have not attacked the Bible, neither yours nor mine. I am questioning a man's abuse of the Bible in order to spread hate. It's his right, he can do it, but I can also call him out for it. You know what that is called? That is called freedom, personal liberty and democracy. You should try it, you might even like it.

"abuse of the Bible"......? you gotta be kidding...

Robertson is just a 'redneck' man who answered a question honestly and put into his own personal words his belief in the Bible teachings....if it isn't up to your 'high' standards then too fucking bad....and don't try to fool me that you believe in 'freedom' either otherwise you guys wouldn't be attacking Robertson this way....

and don't think this is just soley about Robertson.....this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the bellowing of the gay lobby orchestrated by the far left anti-Christian Marxist lobby....in order to clean up a propaganda mistake they made....

The comments they claim are *hate speech* are the actual words of the bible. He didn't interpret anything, he quoted Scripture word for word.

 

[hunarcy]

Unfortunately, we have minorities who actually have laws written against them or have other serious issues.

Really? There are laws today that are written strictly to affect a minority?

List them so we can work to get them changed!

 

[bendog]

Unfortunately, we have minorities who actually have laws written against them or have other serious issues.

Really? There are laws today that are written strictly to affect a minority?

List them so we can work to get them changed!

civil rights legislation requiring minoirty majoirty electoral districts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Last week on CNN I heard showhost Ashleigh Banfield say that she once had a contract that said they could terminate her if she gained or lost 5 pounds.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

But this is not a thread about government blacklists. This is a thread about tolerance. A concept that as long as we are not treading on the rights of others, we should all be able to express a belief about ANYTHING, left, right, up, down, whatever, without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target us to be punished physically and/lor materially. It does not mean that we agree with what others say. It does not mean we are required to associate with people we find unacceptable. It does not mean that we cannot say we don't like what the other person said or that we won't do business with somebody.

It only means that we allow others their opinions and beliefs as we want to be able to express our own opinions and beliefs without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to hurt us for no other reason than they don't like our opinion or stated belief.

Do you believe people should be able to express their beliefs and/or opinions or do you not believe that?

The answer to your actual question is "yes". Very definitely. Robertson should be allowed to say anything he wants, just like the KKK or Gandhi.

However, the rest of your comment is lala land. Unfortunately, we have minorities who actually have laws written against them or have other serious issues. Expecting that they will stand by while people support and justify these inequities just isn't logical.

Robertson used his position to state what happens to be a political position - whether he likes or intends that or not. He should have been WELL aware that there would be ramifications from those who are damaged by those opinions of his.

Do you see anyone crying over Alec Baldwin? Mel Gibson? Any of the other hundreds who were in the public eye when they made racist or sexist remarks? Why is Robertson special?

bringing what the Bible teaches into a political discussion is what really rubs you guys the wrong way.....real 'tolerant' of you....

 

[Kosh]

According to WHO is this blacklisting?

I already pointed out key elements that are missing.

GLAAD doesn't own the jobs. There is no federal support for squelching Robertson or his friends free speech rights. What GLAAD is doing is lobbying against those who use their position to advocate discrimination and bigotry against the LGBT community. There isn't anything illegal or otherwise wrong about that.

They have very limited powers. Alec Baldwin lost his show. Mel Gibson is down a lot. There can be ramifications, but it's no sure thing and any of these guys can find work - unlike the real case of blacklisting.

So the bible is what is being protested as "discrimination and bigotry"?

I believe he is misrepresenting the Bible - using it to further his opinion. I realize there are a lot of people who think the Bible says what he thinks it says, but not all Christians do.

In the end, he doesn't get to hide behind the Bible.

So yes this is the far left being mad at the bible and using this man for their hatred.

The far left can not ban the bible so they will demonize anyone that believes in it.

 

[Kosh]

But this is not a thread about government blacklists. This is a thread about tolerance. A concept that as long as we are not treading on the rights of others, we should all be able to express a belief about ANYTHING, left, right, up, down, whatever, without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target us to be punished physically and/lor materially. It does not mean that we agree with what others say. It does not mean we are required to associate with people we find unacceptable. It does not mean that we cannot say we don't like what the other person said or that we won't do business with somebody.

It only means that we allow others their opinions and beliefs as we want to be able to express our own opinions and beliefs without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to hurt us for no other reason than they don't like our opinion or stated belief.

Do you believe people should be able to express their beliefs and/or opinions or do you not believe that?

The answer to your actual question is "yes". Very definitely. Robertson should be allowed to say anything he wants, just like the KKK or Gandhi.

However, the rest of your comment is lala land. Unfortunately, we have minorities who actually have laws written against them or have other serious issues. Expecting that they will stand by while people support and justify these inequities just isn't logical.

Robertson used his position to state what happens to be a political position - whether he likes or intends that or not. He should have been WELL aware that there would be ramifications from those who are damaged by those opinions of his.

Do you see anyone crying over Alec Baldwin? Mel Gibson? Any of the other hundreds who were in the public eye when they made racist or sexist remarks? Why is Robertson special?

bringing what the Bible teaches into a political discussion is what really rubs you guys the wrong way.....real 'tolerant' of you....

And thus proves that the far left are the intolerant ones.