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

[Foxfyre]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

He should be able to express his opinion. And the people who don't like his opinion should be able to express theirs. That keeps it all equal as it should be. Taking someone's livelihood is tantamount to taking his life for without his livelihood he cannot feed himself. And if he cannot feed himself he would die.

This case shows that some of us have not progressed beyond the time of Christ when he was put to death for stating his opinions. They have chosen to mitigate the way in which they would put someone to death whose opinions they don't agree with.

But wasn't it A&E who 'took away his livelihood' and not GLAAD or anyone else? That's the point that keeps sticking with me.

However unethical you think GLAAD's actions were (and I'm not actually sure just what, specifically, they did...that's been pretty vague) it was A&E who actually decided to suspend Robertson.

I would prefer that A&E had had the balls to stand up to GLAAD but it didn't. I won't presume to dictate to A&E what business decisions they should make. But it is a near certainty that had GLAAD not gotten involved, A&E would not have gotten involved either. The fact that GLAAD went after A&E to demand they punish Phil Robertson though is quite telling because Phil Robertson has done nothing controversial in his role in Duck Dynasty.

GLAAD said absolutely nothing at all to GQ who did the 'offensive' (to GLAAD) interview and published the 'offensive' (to GLAAD) remarks in an article in their magazine. So they were not going after somebody because they were harmed in any way or even somebody who published an 'offensive' interview as an article. The were going after Phil Robertson for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And if you care about liberty at all in this country, that should offend you.

 

[hunarcy]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

I think it would be easier to put all the people who refuse to stay on topic on ignore than to reason with them. I admire your patience but to give time to trolls whose goals are obviously to derail discussion and insult is ultimately a time waster.

 

[hunarcy]

He should be able to express his opinion. And the people who don't like his opinion should be able to express theirs. That keeps it all equal as it should be. Taking someone's livelihood is tantamount to taking his life for without his livelihood he cannot feed himself. And if he cannot feed himself he would die.

This case shows that some of us have not progressed beyond the time of Christ when He was put to death for stating his opinions. They have chosen to mitigate the way in which they would put someone to death whose opinions they don't agree with.

Reasonable minds agree!

 

[hunarcy]

But wasn't it A&E who 'took away his livelihood' and not GLAAD or anyone else? That's the point that keeps sticking with me.

However unethical you think GLAAD's actions were (and I'm not actually sure just what, specifically, they did...that's been pretty vague) it was A&E who actually decided to suspend Robertson.

Nothing vague about it. A&E exercised their rights as employers after PR exercised his rights as a human. NO one has a problem with that. IF GLAAD boycotts PR or his fans boycott A&E, that's THEIR right. However, when GLAAD researches PR's sponsors to blacklist him, THAT'S intolerance and shouldn't be acceptable to anyone.

Got it?

 

[hunarcy]

Perhaps if she hadn't said she thinks it should be illegal in the first place, I wouldn't have felt compelled to reply to that comment.

And expression of frustration? To repeatedly say that you think something should be illegal, even arguing about why you think it should be? And has Foxfyre said she doesn't actually think it should be illegal, that she was merely frustrated? I think I'll let her tell me if she didn't actually mean what she said.

Saying something should be illegal is saying there should be legislation making it illegal. That may not be the point of the OP, but it's something she has said on multiple occasions now.

Well, if you are so desperate to score a "win" instead of talking about the main issue, be my guest.

Why is my discussion about comments made in the thread just trying to score a win? I'm far from the only person to discuss things only somewhat related to the OP....

It's mainly my disappointment that I thought you were better than the stupid ones and yet you got side tracked into their tactics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

He has no such right nor should he.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

I think it would be easier to put all the people who refuse to stay on topic on ignore than to reason with them. I admire your patience but to give time to trolls whose goals are obviously to derail discussion and insult is ultimately a time waster.

Ironic post of the day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
This case shows that some of us have not progressed beyond the time of Christ when He was put to death for stating his opinions. They have chosen to mitigate the way in which they would put someone to death whose opinions they don't agree with.

Ha.

 

[Montrovant]

He should be able to express his opinion. And the people who don't like his opinion should be able to express theirs. That keeps it all equal as it should be. Taking someone's livelihood is tantamount to taking his life for without his livelihood he cannot feed himself. And if he cannot feed himself he would die.

This case shows that some of us have not progressed beyond the time of Christ when he was put to death for stating his opinions. They have chosen to mitigate the way in which they would put someone to death whose opinions they don't agree with.

But wasn't it A&E who 'took away his livelihood' and not GLAAD or anyone else? That's the point that keeps sticking with me.

However unethical you think GLAAD's actions were (and I'm not actually sure just what, specifically, they did...that's been pretty vague) it was A&E who actually decided to suspend Robertson.

I would prefer that A&E had had the balls to stand up to GLAAD but it didn't. I won't presume to dictate to A&E what business decisions they should make. But it is a near certainty that had GLAAD not gotten involved, A&E would not have gotten involved either. The fact that GLAAD went after A&E to demand they punish Phil Robertson though is quite telling because Phil Robertson has done nothing controversial in his role in Duck Dynasty.

GLAAD said absolutely nothing at all to GQ who did the 'offensive' (to GLAAD) interview and published the 'offensive' (to GLAAD) remarks in an article in their magazine. So they were not going after somebody because they were harmed in any way or even somebody who published an 'offensive' interview as an article. The were going after Phil Robertson for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And if you care about liberty at all in this country, that should offend you.

It's not about dictating anything to A&E. If the whole point of this thread is ethics and/or morals, I would think that A&E would be just as guilty and deserving of scorn as GLAAD. While GLAAD may have wanted Phil Robertson to be financially harmed, it was up to A&E to make it happen. GLAAD couldn't fire or suspend him. A&E could have said, "Phil Robertson has the right to express his opinions without fear of any groups causing him financial harm" and left it at that, but they did not. Yet they seem to get a pass under the auspices of 'it's a business decision'.

As to why GLAAD wouldn't do anything to GQ, I'd guess there are two parts to that. The first is that an interview is probably much harder to see as an endorsement than employing someone for their own reality show. The second is that whatever they did to GQ would have little to no effect on Phil Robertson, which seems to have been the point.

 

[MeBelle]

Oh, well heaven's sakes, of course he would NEVER do that!!!

I mean, he only lumped homosexuality in with bestiality and terrorism, starting with homosexuality. No, why of course he meant nothing by that.

And if I say that when you start with Christians, then it's just a short jump over to pedophiles and cannabals and mass murderers and stalkers and people who only bathe every two years, you would of course not be offended in the slightest to see the word "Christians" lumped in with all those other groups, right? Because it is free speech, right? And it's the same methodology Mr. Ducky Duck used. And gee, why should we ever use logic to connect the dots in what a person is saying, right?

Dear Lord, get over it.

I already said that I support his right to say whatever his little heart desires. But that doesn't make it any less informed, any less stupid or any less repugnant.

And it is fun as hell to watch many Righties here try to jump through as many hoops as possible and twist themselves into pretzels to justify what he said. Good God, there is no need to justify it. The man has the right to say it, just as I have the right to laugh or scorn at him for it. Only, may laughing and scorn, Righties love to call intolerance. They are like screaming babies when it comes to this stuff.

Geez....

Let's see...This tidbit of conversation was not between you and I.

Hope you feel better after your rant.

Who the hell do you think you are to dump your contrived BS on me?

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] ?? Really? You thanked this attack on me??

[MENTION=31178]MeBelle60[/MENTION] - this is open thread on an open forum, where any member can contribute. If that bothers you too much and you want your conversation with someone in particular to be private, then I suggest you get a room...

Thanks for not answering my question and the unsolicited lecture.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

 

[MeBelle]

Oh, well heaven's sakes, of course he would NEVER do that!!!

I mean, he only lumped homosexuality in with bestiality and terrorism, starting with homosexuality. No, why of course he meant nothing by that.

And if I say that when you start with Christians, then it's just a short jump over to pedophiles and cannabals and mass murderers and stalkers and people who only bathe every two years, you would of course not be offended in the slightest to see the word "Christians" lumped in with all those other groups, right? Because it is free speech, right? And it's the same methodology Mr. Ducky Duck used. And gee, why should we ever use logic to connect the dots in what a person is saying, right?

Dear Lord, get over it.

I already said that I support his right to say whatever his little heart desires. But that doesn't make it any less informed, any less stupid or any less repugnant.

And it is fun as hell to watch many Righties here try to jump through as many hoops as possible and twist themselves into pretzels to justify what he said. Good God, there is no need to justify it. The man has the right to say it, just as I have the right to laugh or scorn at him for it. Only, may laughing and scorn, Righties love to call intolerance. They are like screaming babies when it comes to this stuff.

Geez....

Let's see...This tidbit of conversation was not between you and I.

Hope you feel better after your rant.

Who the hell do you think you are to dump your contrived BS on me?

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] ?? Really? You thanked this attack on me??

I didn't see an attack on you. I agreed with what I did see.

Good to know! [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

And yet neither the OP nor any of those who agree with her have put forward how exactly this will be accomplished.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

And yet neither the OP nor any of those who agree with her have put forward how exactly this will be accomplished.

It is accomplished by good people demanding it. It is accomplished by people being non partisan when it comes to fair play. It is teaching our children that everybody is entitled to his/her own thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and principles and good people allow others their own thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and principles. We don't have to appreciate or accept or emulate what others think and say or tolerate the unacceptable in space that we control, but we all need to respect the right of others to be who and what they are in their own space.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

And yet neither the OP nor any of those who agree with her have put forward how exactly this will be accomplished.

It is accomplished by good people demanding it. .

That's funny.

Phil Robertson is a conservative Christian.

Conservative Christian groups are some of those with the most propensity to engage in actions such as boycotts and similar campaigns,

threatening the livelihood of individuals and the fortunes of businesses,

if they don't conform to the demands of those groups.

You should start your 'good people don't do this' campaign against them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

And yet neither the OP nor any of those who agree with her have put forward how exactly this will be accomplished.

It is accomplished by good people demanding it.

See, there you go. Foxfyre's campaign against GLAAD making demands is that people get together and demand that GLAAD stop making demands.

And then, in all fairness, those of us who disagree with FF can join a group that demands that FF's group stop demanding that GLAAD stop demanding.

 

[hunarcy]

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

And yet neither the OP nor any of those who agree with her have put forward how exactly this will be accomplished.

It is accomplished by good people demanding it. It is accomplished by people being non partisan when it comes to fair play. It is teaching our children that everybody is entitled to his/her own thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and principles and good people allow others their own thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and principles. We don't have to appreciate or accept or emulate what others think and say or tolerate the unacceptable in space that we control, but we all need to respect the right of others to be who and what they are in their own space.

Notice how idiots who feel guilty about their side's actions make up stuff to try to create a comparison between what you believe and what they do, though none exists? That's why the ignore feature was created, IMHO.

 

[koshergrl]

And yet neither the OP nor any of those who agree with her have put forward how exactly this will be accomplished.

It is accomplished by good people demanding it. .

That's funny.

Phil Robertson is a conservative Christian.

Conservative Christian groups are some of those with the most propensity to engage in actions such as boycotts and similar campaigns,

threatening the livelihood of individuals and the fortunes of businesses,

if they don't conform to the demands of those groups.

You should start your 'good people don't do this' campaign against them.

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

 

[koshergrl]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

He has no such right nor should he.

Yes, he does have that right, as does anyone in America.

 

[koshergrl]

What the hell is with a piece of shit who claims we don't have a right to speak without being attacked by a mob?

 

[koshergrl]

Here's what God says about homos:

Leviticus 18:22 ESV

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


Romans 1:26-28 ESV /

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.




1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV /

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the ade themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV /

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,



1 Timothy 1:10 ESV /

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,



1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV /



But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.




1 Corinthians 7:7-9 ESV /



I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.




Mark 10:6-9 ESV /



But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”


HelpfulNot Helpful
Romans 1:32 ESV / 61 helpful votes

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

HelpfulNot Helpful



Leviticus 20:13 ESV /

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Jude 1:7 ESV /

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.



Hebrews 13:1-25 ESV /



Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”



1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV /



The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.



1 Kings 14:24 ESV /



And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.




1 Corinthians 6:10-11 ESV /



Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



Hebrews 13:4-7 ESV /



Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?” Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.





Yes, I'm sure they're being married under the watchful eye of God.

But trust me, God does not consider them *married*. He's pretty adamant about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

I think most of the statements were made by men, not any God.

lol

It doesn't matter what you *think* (and I use the term loosely)...the Bible is the Word of God.

lol