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

[koshergrl]

I don't equate them with each other. The fact of the matter is, progressivism is a BAD ideology. It mainstreams and even lauds negative, destructive, depraved, and de-humanizing behavior, it forces conformity upon those who do not agree..that is the STRUCTURE of progressivism.

Christianity does not have that basic foul structure...nor does so-called "conservatism" (which in this case just means anyone who isn't a progressive). Yes there are foul people everywhere...but the very premise of progressivism is foul, and thus anyone who adheres to that ideology is likewise foul.

Whereas the basic premise of the right wing is positive, and good...individual liberty, a government that serves the people, rather than the other way around...the uplifting of positive and healthy social norms and the discouragement of those behaviors proven to lead to criminality, human rights violations, societal demise....the basic premise of progressivism is that humans are expendable, stupid, and that any crime is okay if it's done in the name of the "greater good"...including murder, theft and the removal of basic unalienable rights, by force if need be.

 

[WillReadmore]

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....

Well, it could irk those who believe in the Bible but don't agree with Robertson's interpretation.

For me, I'll just note that the Bible angel is totally irrelevant to the central theme of speech rights and whether there can be ramifications to what you say.

In fact, the Bible only got brought up as an excuse for Robertson to be free of responsibility for what he said - and, I'm sure you agree that is nonsense.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

No. The bible is irrelevant. I only dived into that to demonstrate that there is not agreement on what the bible says.

Robertson doesn't get more or less protection based on whether he quotes the bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

[
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.

If you had quoted my post in which I had expressed that opinion, you might have a point. I keep forgetting that you have a cognitive reading problem and keep treating you like everybody else. Sorry. My bad.

It is already illegal to physically strike somebody rather than just telling them off.

It should be equally illegal to organize to physically and/or materially harm somebody for nothing else than expressing an opinion rather than just telling them off. I don't know how that could be done without opening a whole other ugly can of worms, but I'm sure some sharp legal minds could figure it out.

I honestly don't think you will ever get that. But some here will.

 

[koshergrl]

The bible isn't irrelevant at all. The reason the progressives have their panties in a bunch is that he dared to quote it.

Death to bible thumpers! Take their jobs! Burn their houses! They lie! They lie! Hate speech! Keep your religion at home! Don't answer questions about your faith truthfully or suffer the wrath of homo leftists everywhere!

Thank goodness there aren't as many of you as you apparently believed there were....

 

[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!

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.

The laws recognizing same sex marriages, and only those, have been on the books for hundreds of years. Sure, there's some DOMA stuff, but the basic state regulation of marriages has been around since the 18th century. The current political climate is to alter the definition of marriage to satisfy a minority. I think it's all good, but it is altering a law to benefit a minority.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

I haven't seen anyone object to referencing the Bible.

You must really have thin skin. All I pointed out is that a number of denominations do not interpret the Bible as Robertson does - and for good reason. Check out Episcopals.

Sorry if that offends you. You can target me and/or the whole of what you call "left" if you want to.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

Who on this board doesn't believe the Bible?

And, how did you detect that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.

To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.

That is the very heart of why this particular issue is so important. If one group can physically and materially hurt somebody purely because it doesn't like what that somebody said, then there are no unalienable rights. We have dissolved into anarchy in which the best financed and most politcially powerful can deny anybody the right to express his/her opinion about anything.

It is a dangerous thing if an organization like GLAAD or any other group, left or right, can dictate to people what they are or are not allowed to think, speak, believe, or express. It means that anybody they dissaprove of has no liberties at all.

GLAAD can't 'dictate' anything.

If A&E had simply told GLAAD to take a hike, what would GLAAD's ability to dictate, as you insist GLAAD has, have amounted to?

Be specific.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No. The bible is irrelevant. I only dived into that to demonstrate that there is not agreement on what the bible says.

Robertson doesn't get more or less protection based on whether he quotes the bible.

Do you want the right to express what you think the Bible says without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target you to physically and/or materially harm you?

Should GLAAD be able to lobby for equal rights and fair play for homosexuals, including declaring passages of he Bible to be hateful, without fear that some mob, group, organization will target their members with physical and/or material harm?

Do you think Phil Robertson should enjoy the unalienable right to express what he thinks the Bible says without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target him to physically and materially harm him purely because he expressed that opinion?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

'hate crimes'?

 

[koshergrl]

Somehow dainty missed all the yammering about how Robertson's quote of Scripture was "hate speech".

 

[bendog]

Phil's got cross bows on his four wheeler. I think he's physically fine. LOL Don't go hunting him in his duck pond.

I really don't have any problem with some group like GLAAD boycotting him or A&E over his religious views. Or any other public figured being boycotted for their religious/political views. In this case, it's gonna really turn into a pain in the ass for A&E and GLAAD, though. And this tickles me pink. (-:

 

[Montrovant]

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.

That is completely untrue.

If I had specified that I was talking only about the OP, and not any subsequent posts, you might have a point.

You have said, on multiple occasions, that in your opinion it should be illegal to materially or physically harm someone just for a stated opinion. To make something illegal requires legislation. Therefore, you have, in fact, said something about legislation.

If you want to be insulting and rude, fine. Understand that you are doing so based on a lie, though. I read and understood your OP. You simply have made other comments in this thread, I have commented upon them, I have explained that I am discussing those comments. Perhaps if YOU could read and understand that, it might be possible to have a comprehensive discussion with you. Oh well.

Do you see how contemptuous that sounds?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Somehow dainty missed all the yammering about how Robertson's quote of Scripture was "hate speech".

hate speech?


you need to step outside the echo chamber

 

[Foxfyre]

To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.

That is the very heart of why this particular issue is so important. If one group can physically and materially hurt somebody purely because it doesn't like what that somebody said, then there are no unalienable rights. We have dissolved into anarchy in which the best financed and most politcially powerful can deny anybody the right to express his/her opinion about anything.

It is a dangerous thing if an organization like GLAAD or any other group, left or right, can dictate to people what they are or are not allowed to think, speak, believe, or express. It means that anybody they dissaprove of has no liberties at all.

GLAAD can't 'dictate' anything.

If A&E had simply told GLAAD to take a hike, what would GLAAD's ability to dictate, as you insist GLAAD has, have amounted to?

Be specific.

But GLAAD can demand or else.....or else lawsuits will be filed....or else we will go after your advertisers......or else we will make your life miserable.

If GLAAD was interested in anti-defamation, why did they go after A&E and not after GQ who edited and published the 'objectionable' article? They weren't concerned about defamation. They were intending to hurt somebody not because he demanded anything of them, not because he harmed them in any way, not because he intended any harm to them, but purely because he expressed an opinon they didn't like.

And that is evil.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

thanks to the web and social media we have imbeciles spouting idiocies on every inanity that gets crowd sourced.


how friggin cool is that?


losers? how cool is that with you?

 

[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.

If you had quoted my post in which I had expressed that opinion, you might have a point. I keep forgetting that you have a cognitive reading problem and keep treating you like everybody else. Sorry. My bad.

It is already illegal to physically strike somebody rather than just telling them off.

It should be equally illegal to organize to physically and/or materially harm somebody for nothing else than expressing an opinion rather than just telling them off. I don't know how that could be done without opening a whole other ugly can of worms, but I'm sure some sharp legal minds could figure it out.

I honestly don't think you will ever get that. But some here will.

You just confirmed that you did what I said you did, while first denying you did it.

I think you have a mental problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is the very heart of why this particular issue is so important. If one group can physically and materially hurt somebody purely because it doesn't like what that somebody said, then there are no unalienable rights. We have dissolved into anarchy in which the best financed and most politcially powerful can deny anybody the right to express his/her opinion about anything.

It is a dangerous thing if an organization like GLAAD or any other group, left or right, can dictate to people what they are or are not allowed to think, speak, believe, or express. It means that anybody they dissaprove of has no liberties at all.

GLAAD can't 'dictate' anything.

If A&E had simply told GLAAD to take a hike, what would GLAAD's ability to dictate, as you insist GLAAD has, have amounted to?

Be specific.

But GLAAD can demand or else.....or else lawsuits will be filed....or else we will go after your advertisers......or else we will make your life miserable.

If GLAAD was interested in anti-defamation, why did they go after A&E and not after GQ who edited and published the 'objectionable' article? They weren't concerned about defamation. They were intending to hurt somebody not because he demanded anything of them, not because he harmed them in any way, not because he intended any harm to them, but purely because he expressed an opinon they didn't like.

And that is evil.

Should Martin Bashir still have his job? Was it evil that MSNBC, in the face of pressure from interest groups,

forced him to resign?

 

[koshergrl]

Somehow dainty missed all the yammering about how Robertson's quote of Scripture was "hate speech".

hate speech?


you need to step outside the echo chamber

Well it is strung all throughout the threads on this topic here...

But that's okay, as always, I can support my comment, using real world information, as well:

"
The Pennsylvania minister defrocked for officiating his son’s gay wedding slammed the “Duck Dynasty” star Friday for spouting “hate speech.”
“What gives people like Phil (Robertson) the right to speak interpretations of the Bible in that way? Has he been to seminary? Does he have a degree?” said Rev. Frank Schaefer, 51.
“It’s one thing to talk theology, to speak philosophically — but to stand on a soapbox and blurt hateful speech — it upsets me.”


Read more: Defrocked pastor: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson spouts harmful 'hate speech' - NY Daily News