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

[elektra]

This is a fight that the government and news media has created. Here in California, in the 1st Grade they teach the children that a family is, "any group of people that cares about one another." California Liberal/Democrats define what a family is, Government defines and mandates that its taught in school. Yes, I am intolerant if I do not accept everything the Liberal/Democrat commands.

Family, this is not about just two simple people in love, its about allowing people to use science and government regulation to create familes, test tube babies for two men who "love" one another. California law says any two men can adopt a child and raise it in accordance to their beliefs. So no matter what the relationship is, that is not open for discussion.

So many different people and groups this generation's temporary government must accommodate, from Lesbians, Transexuals, Homosexuals, Pumpers, Fisters, etc., etc..

I am intolerant if I do not allow my Children to be taught a family is anything one man can dream up.

I am intolerant if I question how many Children will be abused, or are actually being abused right now.

 

[koshergrl]

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....

If we called it "hate speech" everytime progressive nuts attached themselves to dead children to lend them political umph, we'd never hear a word from them!

They object to anyone ever referencing biblical or religious beliefs in the public arena. They think bibles should be kept under wraps, sold only on the black market, kept in our homes locked up somewhere....and must never, ever be referred to outside of our homes.

Though they also object to that, even they know that's a bit more of a stretch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay here you go:

Who is the more legitimate, genuine 'moderate'?

1. The person who believes in moderation in all things, or,

2. The person who believes in moderation in all things, except moderation itself?

 

[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!

civil rights legislation requiring minoirty majoirty electoral districts.

That doesn't sound fair....shouldn't it just be a big rectangle that includes the correct number of people without regard to race?

 

[koshergrl]

Okay here you go:

Who is the more legitimate, genuine 'moderate'?

1. The person who believes in moderation in all things, or,

2. The person who believes in moderation in all things, except moderation itself?

 

[bendog]

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.

Over CHRISTMAS. Damn.

 

[Sunshine]

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....

If we called it "hate speech" everytime progressive nuts attached themselves to dead children to lend them political umph, we'd never hear a word from them!

They object to anyone ever referencing biblical or religious beliefs in the public arena. They think bibles should be kept under wraps, sold only on the black market, kept in our homes locked up somewhere....and must never, ever be referred to outside of our homes.

Though they also object to that, even they know that's a bit more of a stretch.

If you notice, people who do not believe in the Bible are always quoting the Bible on here and telling Christians what they believe. I'd say they quote more Bible than anyone else, not to believe anything that is in it.

 

[Kosh]

Okay here you go:

Who is the more legitimate, genuine 'moderate'?

1. The person who believes in moderation in all things, or,

2. The person who believes in moderation in all things, except moderation itself?

Proof that you are far left and do NOT understand what a moderate is.

Now just admit you are far left and we can move on.

 

[bendog]

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.

That doesn't sound fair....shouldn't it just be a big rectangle that includes the correct number of people without regard to race?

That would be preferable to me. I'm not aware of any other law written for the intent of affecting a minority. I mean, few people are murders, but the law prohibits the act of killing for the entire populace.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Which is why I love you Cecile.

Good people are not tolerant of anybody being physically or materially harmed for no reason than somebody doesn't like them or what they say or who they are. And so long as people do not presume to violate or take away our unalienable rights, good people allow people to be who and what they are no matter how agreeable or disagreeable, charitable or hateful, accepting or bigoted, reasonable or prejudiced, likable or unlikable. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them, appreciate them, respect them, or personally associate with them. It only means we leave them in peace as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

An expressed opinion is not the same thing as lobbying or any other form of activism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay here you go:

Who is the more legitimate, genuine 'moderate'?

1. The person who believes in moderation in all things, or,

2. The person who believes in moderation in all things, except moderation itself?

Proof that you are far left and do NOT understand what a moderate is.

Now just admit you are far left and we can move on.

I'm just smarter than you. To a rightwing nut, that quality takes on the appearance of being far left,

because a rightwinger knows that anyone that smart can't possibly be conservative.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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....

Well, take yer pick: are you gonna preach the love and acceptance of Jeshuah, or are you gonna use two verses, one from Deuteronomy, the other from Leviticus, books which Christians barely know or care about, except when it comes to hating on gay people - to preach from.

So, which is it gonna ba.

"anti-Christian marxist lobby"

Love your over-the-top method of total silliness.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Which is why I love you Cecile.

Good people are not tolerant of anybody being physically or materially harmed for no reason than somebody doesn't like them or what they say or who they are. And so long as people do not presume to violate or take away our unalienable rights, good people allow people to be who and what they are no matter how agreeable or disagreeable, charitable or hateful, accepting or bigoted, reasonable or prejudiced, likable or unlikable. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them, appreciate them, respect them, or personally associate with them. It only means we leave them in peace as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

An expressed opinion is not the same thing as lobbying or any other form of activism.

And now you've gone from disturbing with your calls to legislate away people's ability to boycott or otherwise have an affect on the free market based on opinions (at least if they have enough influence to actually have an affect), to calling people who disagree with you on this subject bad people.

Before you reply, no, you didn't specifically say anyone was a bad person. What you did say, on the other hand, is that good people don't tolerate anyone being physically or materially harmed etc. etc., which is pretty clearly saying good people agree with you on this issue. If good people agree, then those who don't agree are not good people.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Which is why I love you Cecile.

Good people are not tolerant of anybody being physically or materially harmed for no reason than somebody doesn't like them or what they say or who they are. And so long as people do not presume to violate or take away our unalienable rights, good people allow people to be who and what they are no matter how agreeable or disagreeable, charitable or hateful, accepting or bigoted, reasonable or prejudiced, likable or unlikable. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them, appreciate them, respect them, or personally associate with them. It only means we leave them in peace as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

An expressed opinion is not the same thing as lobbying or any other form of activism.

And now you've gone from disturbing with your calls to legislate away people's ability to boycott or otherwise have an affect on the free market based on opinions (at least if they have enough influence to actually have an affect), to calling people who disagree with you on this subject bad people.

Before you reply, no, you didn't specifically say anyone was a bad person. What you did say, on the other hand, is that good people don't tolerate anyone being physically or materially harmed etc. etc., which is pretty clearly saying good people agree with you on this issue. If good people agree, then those who don't agree are not good people.

I said absoloutely nothing about legislation. If you only had the capability to actually read and understand OP, it might be possible to have a comprehensive discussion with you. But oh well.

In a sense you are correct with your second part though. I never consider people not to be good people because they disagree with me. If I thought that, I would have no friends at all because everybody disagrees with me about something. I can't imagine a society so stale and stagnant that everybody agreed with everybody about everything. And I think people can find each other so unpleasant and disagreeable that they can chose to stay away from each other and they all are still good people.

But I don't think good people mischaracterize people or intentionally change or misrepresent what they say or intend. I don't think good people condone or would themselves physically and/or materially hurt somebody purely because a person expressed an opinion they don't like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
I said absoloutely nothing about legislation.

Then entertain us with an explanation of how you supposed those actions you said should be made illegal would be made illegal without legislation.

 

[koshergrl]

Which is why I love you Cecile.

Good people are not tolerant of anybody being physically or materially harmed for no reason than somebody doesn't like them or what they say or who they are. And so long as people do not presume to violate or take away our unalienable rights, good people allow people to be who and what they are no matter how agreeable or disagreeable, charitable or hateful, accepting or bigoted, reasonable or prejudiced, likable or unlikable. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them, appreciate them, respect them, or personally associate with them. It only means we leave them in peace as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

An expressed opinion is not the same thing as lobbying or any other form of activism.

And now you've gone from disturbing with your calls to legislate away people's ability to boycott or otherwise have an affect on the free market based on opinions (at least if they have enough influence to actually have an affect), to calling people who disagree with you on this subject bad people.

Before you reply, no, you didn't specifically say anyone was a bad person. What you did say, on the other hand, is that good people don't tolerate anyone being physically or materially harmed etc. etc., which is pretty clearly saying good people agree with you on this issue. If good people agree, then those who don't agree are not good people.

I said absoloutely nothing about legislation. If you only had the capability to actually read and understand OP, it might be possible to have a comprehensive discussion with you. But oh well.

In a sense you are correct with your second part though. I never consider people not to be good people because they disagree with me. If I thought that, I would have no friends at all because everybody disagrees with me about something. I can't imagine a society so stale and stagnant that everybody agreed with everybody about everything. And I think people can find each other so unpleasant and disagreeable that they can chose to stay away from each other and they all are still good people.

But I don't think good people mischaracterize people or intentionally change or misrepresent what they say or intend. I don't think good people condone or would themselves physically and/or materially hurt somebody purely because a person expressed an opinion they don't like.

Nope, good people don't.

Thank goodness progressives have no inclination to be good.

 

[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.

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.

Good. That's my point.

The person to whom I responded thought someone was attacking the bible, just because he interprets the bible differently than many others do (including me).

 

[WillReadmore]

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?

No. What I'm saying is that there are more than one interpretations of the bible, plus not everybody believes the bible in the first place.

So, Robertson isn't shielded just because he quotes the bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

And now you've gone from disturbing with your calls to legislate away people's ability to boycott or otherwise have an affect on the free market based on opinions (at least if they have enough influence to actually have an affect), to calling people who disagree with you on this subject bad people.

Before you reply, no, you didn't specifically say anyone was a bad person. What you did say, on the other hand, is that good people don't tolerate anyone being physically or materially harmed etc. etc., which is pretty clearly saying good people agree with you on this issue. If good people agree, then those who don't agree are not good people.

I said absoloutely nothing about legislation. If you only had the capability to actually read and understand OP, it might be possible to have a comprehensive discussion with you. But oh well.

In a sense you are correct with your second part though. I never consider people not to be good people because they disagree with me. If I thought that, I would have no friends at all because everybody disagrees with me about something. I can't imagine a society so stale and stagnant that everybody agreed with everybody about everything. And I think people can find each other so unpleasant and disagreeable that they can chose to stay away from each other and they all are still good people.

But I don't think good people mischaracterize people or intentionally change or misrepresent what they say or intend. I don't think good people condone or would themselves physically and/or materially hurt somebody purely because a person expressed an opinion they don't like.

Nope, good people don't.

Thank goodness progressives have no inclination to be good.

Some don't. Just as some conservatives don't. But being progressive or conservative doesn't make somebody good or evil and there are good people and evil people in both camps. I get as frustrated with conservatives who can't post without flaming or being hateful just as I get frustrated with progressives who can't post without flaming or being hateful.

And it is extremely frustratimg when you find people so dense or so brainwashed or so trained not to think criticially that they see no difference between lobbying and hurting somebody. Who see no difference between being advocate for a cause and hurting somebody. Who think there is no difference in somebody expressing an opinion and in doing something to physically and/or materially harm somebody.

It is downright scary that we have evolved into a society in which so many seem incapable of drawing distinctions between those things.

 

[WillReadmore]

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!

The primary issue concerns the many states with laws or constitutions that deny marriage to same sex couples.

In fact, these states usually deny that same sex couples are married even if they ARE married by other states - thus breaking their Article IV constitutional duty.