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

[The T]

Well stated!

Welcome back...now go make me a sammich!

Phil has the right to his opinion, and the people reacting towards his opinion have the right to theirs. A&E also has the right to control their network they see fit. More over if said group shuns said opinion, then that is what the public decides. Not all opinions are equal, nor should they be. This is a general statement not about what Phil said.

The internet and the Fox news style ( they created the medium we have for good or ill ) format is why people think all opinions have equal weight and should have equal time to be stated. The internet created our bubbles we have today in our political factions. You see it here on the right more and you'd have to go to the DU in order to see it more with the left. Regardless both do it, and its even in this thread on page 1.

Their is no more tolerance of intolerance because their is no public shaming of said opinion. Said person can run back to their group that agrees with them. Their minds not changed not their voices drowned out, mocked and put out to be ignored as legit.

Intolerant opinions should be mocked and shunned. 1+1=2 not 47.

note the OP ignores an actual answer that doesnt jive with her bias.

And WHAT BIAS is that? And while we're here? WHAT is your bias PlasDork?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah..so you were lying.

You said he ranted against gays, by saying GAYS are this, and GAYS are that.

But he didn't.

As I said.


"
“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 truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

THEY are sinners. Gays included, cuz we all sin. It just happens that homos IDENTIFY themselves by the sin they commit. So they think everyone should dump the bible to save them from having to hear about it.


Read more: ?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the USA. WTF is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

So your interpretation is that he is accusing YOU (because of course you are a sinner) as being just as much a GOD HATER as is a lesbian?

Are you comfortable with that? Do you believe that Jesus sees you the same as you believe Robertson does?

btw here's the actual video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiDjXf4AUIE]Part 3 Phil Robertson aka The Duck Commander - YouTube[/ame]

Until Robertson denies he was talking about homosexuals...

...he was talking about homosexuals.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So your interpretation is that he is accusing YOU (because of course you are a sinner) as being just as much a GOD HATER as is a lesbian?

Are you comfortable with that? Do you believe that Jesus sees you the same as you believe Robertson does?

I'm comfortable with it.

No bans, boycotts or emails required.

 

[paperview]

Ah..so you were lying.

You said he ranted against gays, by saying GAYS are this, and GAYS are that.

But he didn't.

As I said.


"
“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 truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

THEY are sinners. Gays included, cuz we all sin. It just happens that homos IDENTIFY themselves by the sin they commit. So they think everyone should dump the bible to save them from having to hear about it.


Read more: ?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the USA. WTF is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

You're full of murder? Everyone is?

Holy crap. My whole life, I never knew.

Everyone is evil. Is this what Christianity is about to you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the USA. WTF is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

You're full of murder? Everyone is?

Holy crap. My whole life, I never knew.

Everyone is evil. Is this what Christianity is about to you?

It must be sad living you life based off of stereotypes. What you think Christianity should be is not what I think it should be or what RKM thinks it should be. Anyone who expresses their intolerance of another's opinion through action and suppression is evil. No, not everyone is evil. Those who can't accept a different opinion than their own and must act to eliminate it are evil.

 

[The T]

what a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the usa. Wtf is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

you're full of murder? Everyone is?

Holy crap. My whole life, i never knew.

Everyone is evil. Is this what christianity is about to you?

it must be sad living you life based off of stereotypes. What you think christianity should be is not what i think it should be or what rkm thinks it should be. Anyone expresses their intolerance of another's opinion through action and suppression is evil. No, not everyone is evil. those who can't accept a different opinion than their own and must act to eliminate it are evil.

Amen.

 

[The T]

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

Hitler believed that the Liberal Tolerance of the Weimar Period had lead to the over assimilation of Jews inside Germany. He believed that Jews and other non-Germans were eroding German Borders, Language and Culture. He divided the world into Real Germans and anti-Germans. He believed that by tolerating Jews, Germany had lost its soul. He offered himself and the Nazis as a kind of moral renewal from the corrupt Liberalism that held Jews equal to Germans. The liberals inside Germany believed that Jews had every right to decide the trajectory of German culture. Hitler disagreed. He believed that there was only one Real Germany. The American Right feels the same way. They believe that there is only one Real America, which is infused by single set of values (mostly by Christian and Market orthodoxy). Hitler constantly provided a list of non-Germans who needed to be excluded, exiled, destroyed. Your side has a similar list of horribles, i.e., gays, liberals, socialists, atheists, non-whites, non-Christians, etc.

Like Hitler, the American Right does not tolerate a plurality of peoples, cultures, languages and beliefs.

Did it ever occur to you that there is no Real America and no Real Americans; rather, there are only free American citizens who should have the freedom to choose why they love this great nation. You are free to love it for its free markets, and I am free to love it for the New Deal. You are free to love it for the Vietnam War, and I am free to love it for the citizens who had the freedom and courage to oppose that war. There are many Americas, not just one Real America to be imposed by you, God or Washington.

The Moral Majority is nothing NEW…

“If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.”

“I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!”

Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984

"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

Hitler? REALLY? And let me guess? Hitler was a Conservative...? Correct? YOU idiots and your references need to be checked. YOU are part of the problem. YOU wouldn't know EVIL if it was screwing you in your sorry behind...only YOU enjoy it.

 

[RKMBrown]

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the USA. WTF is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

You're full of murder? Everyone is?

Holy crap. My whole life, I never knew.

Everyone is evil. Is this what Christianity is about to you?

How the eff do you translate sin runs amok to everyone murders. You are effin retarded.

 

[The T]

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the USA. WTF is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

You're full of murder? Everyone is?

Holy crap. My whole life, I never knew.

Everyone is evil. Is this what Christianity is about to you?

How the eff do you translate sin runs amok to everyone murders. You are effin retarded.

PPV has that habit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So your interpretation is that he is accusing YOU (because of course you are a sinner) as being just as much a GOD HATER as is a lesbian?

Are you comfortable with that? Do you believe that Jesus sees you the same as you believe Robertson does?

I'm comfortable with it.

No bans, boycotts or emails required.

Are you comfortable with the people who disagree with you on that point? Are you comfortable with the OP who wants to make it illegal for people to act on that disagreement?

 

[kaz]

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

I don't understand why that simple concept is so difficult for some to understand. If I DO something that causes harm to somebody, then certainly I deserve whatever legal pressure is applied to persuade me to stop doing that something.

But if I express an opinion that somebody else doesn't like, that should not be cause to hurt me physically and/or materially.

It does not matter what opinions I have expressed at other times or in other contexts. It does not matter how crappy and cruddy a person I might be. It does not matter how much a NYC or CC or bgfn might hate me. I should have the right to express a personal opinion without fear that some mob, group, or organization will hurt me physically and/or materially.

If they threaten you or harm you physically, that is already a crime. If they hurt you materially, that goes again to whether they are truthful or disregard the truth and if it's the latter that's a civil offense.

As long as someone is truthful, they want to boycott your business because they are liberal and you're not or they don't like your policies then it goes to whether people agree with them or not. If they say they just don't like you because, that's unpersuasive.

Freedom of speech means freedom from government, it doesn't mean freedom from the reactions of people who heard it. Again, as long as they don't commit another crime in the process.

Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.

This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.

The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.

Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.

In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.

As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.

I agree with everything except the red part. Not that they didn't personally believe that people should be free to express their views, but they did not believe that it was government's job to protect them from the consequence of stating their views.

I think what people, including me, are stuck on is your use of the word "illegal."

Certainly the people who got Robertson kicked off the air are far more motivated by hate and intolerance than he is. I agree with you on that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Certainly the people who got Robertson kicked off the air are far more motivated by hate and intolerance than he is. I agree with you on that.

As a general principle, what's wrong exactly with hate or intolerance?

Answer that without any reference to what specifically one might hate or be intolerant of...

 

[kaz]

[Certainly the people who got Robertson kicked off the air are far more motivated by hate and intolerance than he is. I agree with you on that.

As a general principle, what's wrong exactly with hate or intolerance?

Answer that without any reference to what specifically one might hate or be intolerant of...

First, I'm going to go with the obvious, the targets of hate and intolerance. Which by definition is not based on fair evaluation.

More broadly, hate and intolerance are tools in politics utilized by liberals and socons to control people into supporting their side without questioning their logic or policies. For example, liberals target the old, saying those evil Republicans are going after your check, which is not true. You use hate and intolerance so much that by the time you get past manipulating blacks, women, gays, Latinos, the poor, the elderly, ... that you never get to any constructive policy at all, you just destroy. And that destruction includes the people you manipulated into supporting you with hate and intolerance.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hitler believed that the Liberal Tolerance of the Weimar Period had lead to the over assimilation of Jews inside Germany. He believed that Jews and other non-Germans were eroding German Borders, Language and Culture. He divided the world into Real Germans and anti-Germans. He believed that by tolerating Jews, Germany had lost its soul. He offered himself and the Nazis as a kind of moral renewal from the corrupt Liberalism that held Jews equal to Germans. The liberals inside Germany believed that Jews had every right to decide the trajectory of German culture. Hitler disagreed. He believed that there was only one Real Germany. The American Right feels the same way. They believe that there is only one Real America, which is infused by single set of values (mostly by Christian and Market orthodoxy). Hitler constantly provided a list of non-Germans who needed to be excluded, exiled, destroyed. Your side has a similar list of horribles, i.e., gays, liberals, socialists, atheists, non-whites, non-Christians, etc.

Like Hitler, the American Right does not tolerate a plurality of peoples, cultures, languages and beliefs.

Did it ever occur to you that there is no Real America and no Real Americans; rather, there are only free American citizens who should have the freedom to choose why they love this great nation. You are free to love it for its free markets, and I am free to love it for the New Deal. You are free to love it for the Vietnam War, and I am free to love it for the citizens who had the freedom and courage to oppose that war. There are many Americas, not just one Real America to be imposed by you, God or Washington.

The Moral Majority is nothing NEW…

“If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.”

“I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!”

Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984

"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

Hitler? REALLY? And let me guess? Hitler was a Conservative...? Correct? YOU idiots and your references need to be checked. YOU are part of the problem. YOU wouldn't know EVIL if it was screwing you in your sorry behind...only YOU enjoy it.

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So your interpretation is that he is accusing YOU (because of course you are a sinner) as being just as much a GOD HATER as is a lesbian?

Are you comfortable with that? Do you believe that Jesus sees you the same as you believe Robertson does?

I'm comfortable with it.

No bans, boycotts or emails required.

Are you comfortable with the people who disagree with you on that point? Are you comfortable with the OP who wants to make it illegal for people to act on that disagreement?

It would seem so.

It comes as no surprise, of course, that most conservatives would seek to silence the opposition using the authority of the state, as opposed to allowing private society to determine on its own what is or is not appropriate, as intended by the Framers.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they threaten you or harm you physically, that is already a crime. If they hurt you materially, that goes again to whether they are truthful or disregard the truth and if it's the latter that's a civil offense.

As long as someone is truthful, they want to boycott your business because they are liberal and you're not or they don't like your policies then it goes to whether people agree with them or not. If they say they just don't like you because, that's unpersuasive.

Freedom of speech means freedom from government, it doesn't mean freedom from the reactions of people who heard it. Again, as long as they don't commit another crime in the process.

Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.

This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.

The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.

Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.

In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.

As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.

I agree with everything except the red part. Not that they didn't personally believe that people should be free to express their views, but they did not believe that it was government's job to protect them from the consequence of stating their views.

I think what people, including me, are stuck on is your use of the word "illegal."

Certainly the people who got Robertson kicked off the air are far more motivated by hate and intolerance than he is. I agree with you on that.

Absolutely GLAAD is the hateful and intolerant party in that particular flap, but you're probably right that the word 'illegal' is muddying the waters.

Let me try to explain better.

Government, at some level, is necessary to pass NECESSARY laws that restrict our ability to do intentional harm to others with impunity. It is against the law for me to punch you out or shoot you or deliberate run you over with my car or do any other intentional physical harm. Government at some level is necessary to enforce such laws that protect your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Likewise, under libel and slander laws, it is illegal for me to write or speak deliberate untruths with intention of malice that impune your reputation and cause you physical and/or material damages. Government at some level is necessary to enforce those laws too.

But if you really piss me off or I just don't like you or who you are, there is no law that prevents me from mobilizing my large, well funded organization from threatening your employer witth boycotts or worse if he doesn't fire you, from threatening other businesses if they hire you, from harrassing your family or friends or customers or suppliers. I can make your life a living hell and there is no government power at any level that can require me to back off.

And in my view that is as wrong as striking you, libeling you, and/or slandering you so, in my opinion, it SHOULD be illegal also. I just haven't been able to figure out a way to word such a law that wouldn't also restrict our unalienable rights to express disapproval of the bad acts of others.

So for now my campaign is to do my very small part to try to change the culture. Shame GLAAD or the American Family Association or ANY group that would attack people for no other reason than who they are or for an opinion the group didn't like. If enough of us can see the evil and harm in that, we will make a difference. Good people demanding good acts can make a difference.

 

[Foxfyre]

And an addendum to the Phil Robertson issue:

It wasn't a big well funded organization threatening A&E and/or its advertisers that made it happen, but mllions of Duck Dynasty fans each expressing his/her anger at Phil Robertson's firing that has made A&E blink. They have brought Phil back on board. They are throwing GLAAD a bone by promising to run some pro-gay PSAs too, but that is their right to do. At least public opinion--not organizational bullying tactics--convinced them to do the right thing. That's the way it should be in a free society.

 

[Montrovant]

Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.

This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.

The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.

Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.

In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.

As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.

Just a couple of quick comments about this.

First, I don't believe the founders wanted everyone to be able to be who and what they are. I don't think people tended to be nearly as tolerant during those times. I understand your point, and in the context of their times it could be considered true, perhaps, but in the context of today, they were likely fairly intolerant men who would have supported boycotts, lawsuits and bullying against certain groups or behaviors or opinions. That is, of course, entirely speculation on my part.

Second, I think it's fair to say both GQ and Phil Robertson put his opinions out for others to see. Unless you think he was unaware that his interview was going to be published, he and GQ are pretty much equally responsible for his opinion being published (although GQ maybe a bit more for however they edited it).

Finally, Robertson didn't just express his opinion, he did it quite publicly. Certainly he has every right to do so, but when a person puts themselves in the public eye, they become far, far more likely to receive public criticism. I don't say this to argue anything, just to clarify that I think the way he expressed his opinion is different than how the vast majority of us do it (although with social media, it's becoming more common for opinions to be open to the public at large) and, as such, different reactions should be expected.

Nothing important, just a few minor comments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.

This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.

The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.

Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.

In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.

As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.

Just a couple of quick comments about this.

First, I don't believe the founders wanted everyone to be able to be who and what they are. I don't think people tended to be nearly as tolerant during those times. I understand your point, and in the context of their times it could be considered true, perhaps, but in the context of today, they were likely fairly intolerant men who would have supported boycotts, lawsuits and bullying against certain groups or behaviors or opinions. That is, of course, entirely speculation on my part.

Second, I think it's fair to say both GQ and Phil Robertson put his opinions out for others to see. Unless you think he was unaware that his interview was going to be published, he and GQ are pretty much equally responsible for his opinion being published (although GQ maybe a bit more for however they edited it).

Finally, Robertson didn't just express his opinion, he did it quite publicly. Certainly he has every right to do so, but when a person puts themselves in the public eye, they become far, far more likely to receive public criticism. I don't say this to argue anything, just to clarify that I think the way he expressed his opinion is different than how the vast majority of us do it (although with social media, it's becoming more common for opinions to be open to the public at large) and, as such, different reactions should be expected.

Nothing important, just a few minor comments.

Yes, if GLAAD was honestly going after a villain in that particular flap, it would have been GQ who is the entity that made the remarks public. The fact that they didn't even blink at GQ but instead went after Phil Robertson is very telling that their motive was personal and pure hatred and was in no way associated with defamation of gays and lesbians.

Phil Robertson's comments were not made publicly. They were made in response to a direct question from a GQ interviewer. GQ made the comments public. If GQ thought the comments unacceptable or inflammatory or inappropriate, they did not have to publish them.

Even if Phil Robertson's comments HAD been made publicly, the Founding Fathers intended for him to have the right to do that wherever it was allowed and to do so without fear. You are quite right that most of the early colonists were not at all tolerant of many thngs and they formed societies that reflected their personal ethics and sense of right and wrong as the Founders intended that they be able to do. This was after all the era of the scarlett letter, putting people in stocks, witch burnings, and such for nothing worse than expressing a belief or opinion. But those narrow minded communities were NOT allowed to force other communities to adopt their value system or practices.

And in time, as the Founding Fathers knew they would, all those narrow minded communities modified their demands, discontinued their more hateful practices, and chose liberty over oppression. A free people will make many mistakes and screw a lot of stuff up, but they will always eventually get it right or at least do it better.

The Founding Fathers were all first or second generation Europeans and had come from a culture in which what people were allowed to think, say, worship, or be was dictated by government and/or the Church. They intended that we Americans be free of such demands and be free to be who and what we chose to be. Their intention would have been for an organization like GLAAD to be who and what they are and that a Phil Robertson be who what he is without any fear from each other.

 

[The T]

The Moral Majority is nothing NEW…

“If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.”

“I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!”

Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984

"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

Hitler? REALLY? And let me guess? Hitler was a Conservative...? Correct? YOU idiots and your references need to be checked. YOU are part of the problem. YOU wouldn't know EVIL if it was screwing you in your sorry behind...only YOU enjoy it.

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.

Would Christ have killed the Jews?

GAME SET MATCH. Begone with your off topic paintbrush son.