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

[Swagger]

The assault on the traditions and values the Western, Christian world rests upon is real and on-going. And the New World Order apparatchiks maintain their grip on the national consiousness by fear and intimidation. How do they do it? They appeal to our greed and vanity. They demonstrate to the world how easy it is to ruin or humiliate you through various media vehicles, such as the show under discussion. For instance, after it became apparent that this Robertson fellow didn't live-up to the stereotype the producers were hoping to exploit and ultimately ridicule, something had to be done to show the masses that anyone could be brought down a peg or two. So they used and inflated a fairly innocuous interview that revealed what everyone with a functioning brain cell would anticipate to be the beliefs of a staunch Christian. After they'd ceased a fairly significant source of revenue - although the stars weren't exactly poor - they turned the media spotlight on the family and began mocking them, however tacitly. Afterall, in spite of some saying otherwise, none of us wants to see our faces and family mocked by the mainstream media, which they know, so they wield it like a weapon over anyone who dares disagree with them.

Seriously, if the masses violently turned against or boycotted the mainstream media the Elites' grip on us would be severely weakened. It's just a shame that your Founding Fathers were men of honour, tradition and integrity, otherwise they would put a clause in that Constitution of yours preventing liberal parasites from spreading their filth.

 

[G.T.]

You seriously sound like a little insecure bitch with that.

"If the masses arent behaving according to MY morals and values then theres TEH CONSPIRACY."

Yea, cuz your values are infallible bro.

 

[kaz]

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.

Sniff, sniff. What is that smell? OMG, it's HYPOCRISY! And wow, that's a bad one, it reeks. Dude, you really need to go outside before you fire those off. Or at least warn us first. Have you ever heard of a vegetable?

Seriously, liberals have zero self awareness. It's amazing.

 

[The T]

You seriously sound like a little insecure bitch with that.

"If the masses arent behaving according to MY morals and values then theres TEH CONSPIRACY."

Yea, cuz your values are infallible bro.

ARE yours?

 

[Foxfyre]

The assault on the traditions and values the Western, Christian world rests upon is real and on-going. And the New World Order apparatchiks maintain their grip on the national consiousness by fear and intimidation. How do they do it? They appeal to our greed and vanity. They demonstrate to the world how easy it is to ruin or humiliate you through various media vehicles, such as the show under discussion. For instance, after it became apparent that this Robertson fellow didn't live-up to the stereotype the producers were hoping to exploit and ultimately ridicule, something had to be done to show the masses that anyone could be brought down a peg or two. So they used and inflated a fairly innocuous interview that revealed what everyone with a functioning brain cell would anticipate to be the beliefs of a staunch Christian. After they'd ceased a fairly significant source of revenue - although the stars weren't exactly poor - they turned the media spotlight on the family and began mocking them, however tacitly. Afterall, in spite of some saying otherwise, none of us wants to see our faces and family mocked by the mainstream media, which they know, so they wield it like a weapon over anyone who dares disagree with them.

Seriously, if the masses violently turned against or boycotted the mainstream media the Elites' grip on us would be severely weakened. It's just a shame that your Founding Fathers were men of honour, tradition and integrity, otherwise they would put a clause in that Constitution of yours preventing liberal parasites from spreading their filth.

They probably ran into the same problem I have run into. How do you legally limit a GLAAD from being hateful, viscious, vindictive, and punative against Phil Robertson without limiting GLAAD's ability to say what they think and/or be who they are? At what precise point does speaking one's opinion become a bad ACT? I have enough legal training to know how difficult it is to write legal opinion that cannot be interpreted in any way other than how it was intended.

But--you can correct me if you think I am reading you incorrectly--I think you are agreeing with me. It is the court of public opinion that ultimately will change our culture from one of politics of personal destruction to one of true tolerance in which everybody--GLAAD or the American Family Association or Ellen Degeneres or the Robertson family or anybody else--can be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to bring wrath and physical/material punishment down upon them.

 

[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.

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.

Again, this isn't really important to the overall discussion, but....

I find trying to determine what the founders' opinions of the modern would be is little more than a silly game. It's like discussing who is the best ever at a sport. There is nothing but personal opinion.

The founders had no idea about the modern world. They could not have predicted what technology would do to change the ways we live, the ways we interact, even the ways we think. I don't think anyone really can know how any of the founders would react to a given situation in modern times, as we cannot know how the changes in the world might have affected their ideals.

So, while we use the foundation they gave us, I don't think we have any idea what they would say about this or any other modern situation. For all any of us know, some or all of the founders might have decided upon a very different system of governance if they were to create it in the modern world.

 

[G.T.]

You seriously sound like a little insecure bitch with that.

"If the masses arent behaving according to MY morals and values then theres TEH CONSPIRACY."

Yea, cuz your values are infallible bro.

ARE yours?

Nobody's are. The point where people stand on a pedestal and put their hand on their heads and say "oh, woe is me everyone is gullible and susceptiple to brainwashing apparently. Well,they must be. EXCEPT FOR people who share my views."

Its stupid. There are quotes as far back as Socrates about how older generations always think younger generations are going to shit. Fact is: its not true.

I meet decent, hard working and moral people every damn day. Some people who study the news, which is 85% BAD NEWS, lose their shit and think its how the whole world is. The remedy for them is to go outside.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well stated!

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

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?

Note no answer either..just more nothing

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Bubble person

 

[Plasmaball]

Well stated!

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

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

Didja' read all 39 pages?

Nope..not going to either...either she can address what I said or not.

 

[The T]

You seriously sound like a little insecure bitch with that.

"If the masses arent behaving according to MY morals and values then theres TEH CONSPIRACY."

Yea, cuz your values are infallible bro.

ARE yours?

Nobody's are. The point where people stand on a pedestal and put their hand on their heads and say "oh, woe is me everyone is gullible and susceptiple to brainwashing apparently. Well,they must be. EXCEPT FOR people who share my views."

Its stupid. There are quotes as far back as Socrates about how older generations always think younger generations are going to shit. Fact is: its not true.

I meet decent, hard working and moral people every damn day. Some people who study the news, which is 85% BAD NEWS, lose their shit and think its how the whole world is. The remedy for them is to go outside.

Brainwashing? And whom cares about Socrates? HE was an observer to the human condition...Christ came to answer it. Nullifies ALL ELSE, doesn't it?

Don't you, ME, and every swinging human on the planet feel small? If not? YOU should. I do.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Again, this isn't really important to the overall discussion, but....

I find trying to determine what the founders' opinions of the modern would be is little more than a silly game. It's like discussing who is the best ever at a sport. There is nothing but personal opinion.

The founders had no idea about the modern world. They could not have predicted what technology would do to change the ways we live, the ways we interact, even the ways we think. I don't think anyone really can know how any of the founders would react to a given situation in modern times, as we cannot know how the changes in the world might have affected their ideals.

So, while we use the foundation they gave us, I don't think we have any idea what they would say about this or any other modern situation. For all any of us know, some or all of the founders might have decided upon a very different system of governance if they were to create it in the modern world.

A universal truth is a universal truth/principle no matter what era it is in or who put it out.

The Founders did not write the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers or the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution in a vacuum. Many years of discussion, back and forth, debate, agreement and disagreement took place before the Constitution was finalized, along with the Bill of Rights, and ratified. Many of those discussion became quite heated and there was ultimately give and take, concessions, and compromise that went into the original finished product. And they left us a wealth of their notes, writings, letters, transcripts of speeches, and formal essays to give us a very clear insight into what they knew, thought, and believed about every component in it and what they intended by the words passed down to us.

Their concept of liberty IS what liberty is. That has not changed over the centuries. And the Founders, to a man, would agree that a GLAAD, an American Family Association, a Phil Robertson/Robertson family, an Ellen Degeneres all get some things right and get some things wrong. All are likely to be worthy of praise and criticism. But liberty requires that they all have an unalienable right to their own beliefs and opinions and that it is their unalienable right to hold those beliefs and opinions without fear of each other. Disagreement or criticism of another's remarks or point of view is our right. But it is not our right to physically and/or materially harm others because we disagree with them or hate what they say.

 

[The T]

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.

Again, this isn't really important to the overall discussion, but....

I find trying to determine what the founders' opinions of the modern would be is little more than a silly game. It's like discussing who is the best ever at a sport. There is nothing but personal opinion.

The founders had no idea about the modern world. They could not have predicted what technology would do to change the ways we live, the ways we interact, even the ways we think. I don't think anyone really can know how any of the founders would react to a given situation in modern times, as we cannot know how the changes in the world might have affected their ideals.

So, while we use the foundation they gave us, I don't think we have any idea what they would say about this or any other modern situation. For all any of us know, some or all of the founders might have decided upon a very different system of governance if they were to create it in the modern world.

A universal truth is a universal truth/principle no matter what era it is in or who put it out.

The Founders did not write the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers or the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution in a vacuum. Many years of discussion, back and forth, debate, agreement and disagreement took place before the Constitution was finalized, along with the Bill of Rights, and ratified. Many of those discussion became quite heated and there was ultimately give and take, concessions, and compromise that went into the original finished product. And they left us a wealth of their notes, writings, letters, transcripts of speeches, and formal essays to give us a very clear insight into what they knew, thought, and believed about every component in it and what they intended by the words passed down to us.

Their concept of liberty IS what liberty is. That has not changed over the centuries. And the Founders, to a man, would agree that a GLAAD, an American Family Association, a Phil Robertson/Robertson family, an Ellen Degeneres all get some things right and get some things wrong. All are likely to be worthy of praise and criticism. But liberty requires that they all have an unalienable right to their own beliefs and opinions and that it is their unalienable right to hold those beliefs and opinions without fear of each other.

The Founders had history to back them up in what they proposed to do.

NEVER been tried before in the history of mankind. ODD that so many others try to emulate it, isn't it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, this isn't really important to the overall discussion, but....

I find trying to determine what the founders' opinions of the modern would be is little more than a silly game. It's like discussing who is the best ever at a sport. There is nothing but personal opinion.

The founders had no idea about the modern world. They could not have predicted what technology would do to change the ways we live, the ways we interact, even the ways we think. I don't think anyone really can know how any of the founders would react to a given situation in modern times, as we cannot know how the changes in the world might have affected their ideals.

So, while we use the foundation they gave us, I don't think we have any idea what they would say about this or any other modern situation. For all any of us know, some or all of the founders might have decided upon a very different system of governance if they were to create it in the modern world.

A universal truth is a universal truth/principle no matter what era it is in or who put it out.

The Founders did not write the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers or the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution in a vacuum. Many years of discussion, back and forth, debate, agreement and disagreement took place before the Constitution was finalized, along with the Bill of Rights, and ratified. Many of those discussion became quite heated and there was ultimately give and take, concessions, and compromise that went into the original finished product. And they left us a wealth of their notes, writings, letters, transcripts of speeches, and formal essays to give us a very clear insight into what they knew, thought, and believed about every component in it and what they intended by the words passed down to us.

Their concept of liberty IS what liberty is. That has not changed over the centuries. And the Founders, to a man, would agree that a GLAAD, an American Family Association, a Phil Robertson/Robertson family, an Ellen Degeneres all get some things right and get some things wrong. All are likely to be worthy of praise and criticism. But liberty requires that they all have an unalienable right to their own beliefs and opinions and that it is their unalienable right to hold those beliefs and opinions without fear of each other.

The Founders had history to back them up in what they proposed to do.

NEVER been tried before in the history of mankind. ODD that so many others try to emulate it, isn't it?

Yes. They all were first or second generation Europeans and were very much aware of the dangers of a government or church or any other entity who would have the power to dictate the thoughts, opinions, values, and beliefs that all the people were expected to have. The Founders intended the people to be free to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have whether that was the Puritanical religious strictness of some of the New England colonies or the lawless anarchy of a Deadwood type community. They trusted a free people to work out the bugs and get it right. And sure enough the restrictive religious groups relaxed their harsh treatment of heretics and dissolved their little theocracies, and Deadwood type communities all over the place chose a society of laws and discipline over anarchy. People who enjoy the blessings of liberty do eventually get it right or at least more right.

Which is why I so object to a GLAAD who would presume to dictate to a Phil Robertson who and what he is required to be or else he will be physically and/or materially punished. That kind of mentality we already dealt with back in the 18th Century and we learned not to do that to people and we should all be better than that now.

 

[Samson]

Yes. They all were first or second generation Europeans and were very much aware of the dangers of a government or church or any other entity who would have the power to dictate the thoughts, opinions, values, and beliefs that all the people were expected to have. The Founders intended the people to be free to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have whether that was the Puritanical religious strictness of some of the New England colonies or the lawless anarchy of a Deadwood type community. They trusted a free people to work out the bugs and get it right. And sure enough the restrictive religious groups relaxed their harsh treatment of heretics and dissolved their little theocracies, and Deadwood type communities all over the place chose a society of laws and discipline over anarchy. People who enjoy the blessings of liberty do eventually get it right or at least more right.

Which is why I so object to a GLAAD who would presume to dictate to a Phil Robertson who and what he is required to be or else he will be physically and/or materially punished. That kind of mentality we already dealt with back in the 18th Century and we learned not to do that to people and we should all be better than that now.

Um...one word:

Mormons.

 

[The T]

A universal truth is a universal truth/principle no matter what era it is in or who put it out.

The Founders did not write the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers or the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution in a vacuum. Many years of discussion, back and forth, debate, agreement and disagreement took place before the Constitution was finalized, along with the Bill of Rights, and ratified. Many of those discussion became quite heated and there was ultimately give and take, concessions, and compromise that went into the original finished product. And they left us a wealth of their notes, writings, letters, transcripts of speeches, and formal essays to give us a very clear insight into what they knew, thought, and believed about every component in it and what they intended by the words passed down to us.

Their concept of liberty IS what liberty is. That has not changed over the centuries. And the Founders, to a man, would agree that a GLAAD, an American Family Association, a Phil Robertson/Robertson family, an Ellen Degeneres all get some things right and get some things wrong. All are likely to be worthy of praise and criticism. But liberty requires that they all have an unalienable right to their own beliefs and opinions and that it is their unalienable right to hold those beliefs and opinions without fear of each other.

The Founders had history to back them up in what they proposed to do.

NEVER been tried before in the history of mankind. ODD that so many others try to emulate it, isn't it?

Yes. They all were first or second generation Europeans and were very much aware of the dangers of a government or church or any other entity who would have the power to dictate the thoughts, opinions, values, and beliefs that all the people were expected to have. The Founders intended the people to be free to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have whether that was the Puritanical religious strictness of some of the New England colonies or the lawless anarchy of a Deadwood type community. They trusted a free people to work out the bugs and get it right. And sure enough the restrictive religious groups relaxed their harsh treatment of heretics and dissolved their little theocracies, and Deadwood type communities all over the place chose a society of laws and discipline over anarchy. People who enjoy the blessings of liberty do eventually get it right or at least more right.

Which is why I so object to a GLAAD who would presume to dictate to a Phil Robertson who and what he is required to be or else he will be physically and/or materially punished. That kind of mentality we already dealt with back in the 18th Century and we learned not to do that to people and we should all be better than that now.

ALL boils down to the liberty of the individual to do, to BE...whatever they wished, to GO wherever they wished...and NO ONE to answer to but a benevolent God, (or deity, NON deity of their choosing)...NO ONE to answer to but them selves unless they stepped on the foot of liberty of another individual.

My how far from such a simple premise we have strayed from.

Good form Ms. Foxy.

~No worries.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. They all were first or second generation Europeans and were very much aware of the dangers of a government or church or any other entity who would have the power to dictate the thoughts, opinions, values, and beliefs that all the people were expected to have. The Founders intended the people to be free to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have whether that was the Puritanical religious strictness of some of the New England colonies or the lawless anarchy of a Deadwood type community. They trusted a free people to work out the bugs and get it right. And sure enough the restrictive religious groups relaxed their harsh treatment of heretics and dissolved their little theocracies, and Deadwood type communities all over the place chose a society of laws and discipline over anarchy. People who enjoy the blessings of liberty do eventually get it right or at least more right.

Which is why I so object to a GLAAD who would presume to dictate to a Phil Robertson who and what he is required to be or else he will be physically and/or materially punished. That kind of mentality we already dealt with back in the 18th Century and we learned not to do that to people and we should all be better than that now.

Um...one word:

Mormons.

I have lived near and worked with and/or worked for Mormons much of my life. Our favorite super market is Mormon owned and, in my opinion, is the best super market in town. While every group usually has a bad egg or two, for the most part I have found such people to be honest, hard working, honorable, and decent people who are good neighbors, pleasant coworkers, and loving family members--I have a couple of Mormons in my family. Yes, the Mormons choose to form themselves into their own society that practices and teaches their particular beliefs, most of which I do not share. One of their beliefs is that they are required to go into the world and make disciples as the Bible instructs but their methods are persuasion and not coercion. They do take care of and favor their own for the most part, and that is their right to do.

They are not applying pressure on the rest of us to do things the Mormon way. I suppose most Mormons are convinced I will be headed straight for hell if I do not repent and become Mormon, but I have never been picketed by or boycotted by or assaulted or threatened with any form of physical or material harm by a pack of angry Mormons.

Have you?

So how are Mormons relative to this discussion? Except as an example of folks who hold strong opinions allowing the rest of us to be who and what we are?

 

[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...

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.

Wrong answer. But kudos for being you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Phil Robertson's suspension is over.

I think the first thing that should be done on this board is that all of you imbeciles who claimed that GLAAD was evil because they were forcing A&E to do this or that

should apologize to the rest of you for your choice to annoy us with such rubbish.

 

[G.T.]

ARE yours?

Nobody's are. The point where people stand on a pedestal and put their hand on their heads and say "oh, woe is me everyone is gullible and susceptiple to brainwashing apparently. Well,they must be. EXCEPT FOR people who share my views."

Its stupid. There are quotes as far back as Socrates about how older generations always think younger generations are going to shit. Fact is: its not true.

I meet decent, hard working and moral people every damn day. Some people who study the news, which is 85% BAD NEWS, lose their shit and think its how the whole world is. The remedy for them is to go outside.

Brainwashing? And whom cares about Socrates? HE was an observer to the human condition...Christ came to answer it. Nullifies ALL ELSE, doesn't it?

Don't you, ME, and every swinging human on the planet feel small? If not? YOU should. I do.

No, I don't feel small. I enjoy my life, it feels FULL and not irrelevant.

The quote regarding brainwashing was not my terminology. You must have forgot about the diatribe I was responding to.

I don't believe in Christ. I am an agnostic.