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

[The T]

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, many 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 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?

Back when my father died during Viet Nam? Just a door away was a family whim were Mormon...they took me, my siblings into their fold, loved, comforted us...gave my mother solace...PEACE, as she mourned.

They as far as I can see are among the most honorable people in this nation, in MY experience.

I can remember as an eight year old broken hearted young child...ME crying in a bed that that family provided for me, the Mother of that family stroking my hair, speaking softly to me...telling me that my father was with God now, and I wasn't to be sad...

I certainly fail to SEE what so many have against these people of a different belief than mine?

I have fond memories.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Maybe you need to brush up on American history?

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, to fight the final skirmish of a long-lived political and personal battle. When the duel was over, Hamilton would be mortally wounded, and Burr would be wanted for murder.

Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican. The men clashed repeatedly in the political arena. The first major skirmish was in 1791, when Burr successfully captured a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's powerful father-in-law. Hamilton, then Treasury secretary, would have counted on Schuyler to support his policies. When Burr won the election, Hamilton fumed.

In 1800 Burr obtained and had published "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States.," a document highly critical of Adams, a Federalist. Hamilton, its author, had intended it for private circulation. Its publication proved highly embarrassing to Hamilton and helped widen rifts in the Federalist Party. That same year, when Republicans Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied in balloting for the presidency, Hamilton lobbied Congress to decide the election in Jefferson's favor. Hamilton's campaign had little effect, but in the end, Jefferson emerged the winner.
The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Sorry. The fact that GLAAD did a hateful bad act is not changed because A&E chose to do the right thing. I haven't seen any remorse or regret from GLAAD that they were hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, intolerant, and vindictive and chose to act that out intead of simply stating their opinion about what Phil Robertson said.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

??? Of course Christ wouldn't have harmed the Jews. What group in America has been the victims of hate crimes and violence? One of your 'ilk' called for locking up gays.

You have an empty head.

 

[The T]

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.

As is your right as a free human being in a FREE Society recognized by the wisdom of our Founders in their belief in powers higher than themselves for OUR benefit.

*I* support your right to believe what you wish, and defend it.

 

[The T]

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.

Maybe you need to brush up on American history?

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, to fight the final skirmish of a long-lived political and personal battle. When the duel was over, Hamilton would be mortally wounded, and Burr would be wanted for murder.

Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican. The men clashed repeatedly in the political arena. The first major skirmish was in 1791, when Burr successfully captured a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's powerful father-in-law. Hamilton, then Treasury secretary, would have counted on Schuyler to support his policies. When Burr won the election, Hamilton fumed.

In 1800 Burr obtained and had published "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States.," a document highly critical of Adams, a Federalist. Hamilton, its author, had intended it for private circulation. Its publication proved highly embarrassing to Hamilton and helped widen rifts in the Federalist Party. That same year, when Republicans Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied in balloting for the presidency, Hamilton lobbied Congress to decide the election in Jefferson's favor. Hamilton's campaign had little effect, but in the end, Jefferson emerged the winner.
The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

Does it MATTER what their political affiliation? IT WAS PERSONAL.
Good GOD man...

 

[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.

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?

Well, Foxy, if you don't know how Moromons are relevant to this discussion, then you need to do a little reading.

Like yourself, I like Mormons, and respect many of their social/religious beliefs.

However, they have be persecuted, and are often still persecuted.

To claim that the US Government was "Constituted" based on a strict policy of non-persecution is absurd. One example is Mormons who were, and many claim still are, PERSECUTED.

 

[Samson]

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.

Hilarious.

How about you just admit GLAAD is a big attention whore that got their way...almost.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Maybe you need to brush up on American history?

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, to fight the final skirmish of a long-lived political and personal battle. When the duel was over, Hamilton would be mortally wounded, and Burr would be wanted for murder.

Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican. The men clashed repeatedly in the political arena. The first major skirmish was in 1791, when Burr successfully captured a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's powerful father-in-law. Hamilton, then Treasury secretary, would have counted on Schuyler to support his policies. When Burr won the election, Hamilton fumed.

In 1800 Burr obtained and had published "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States.," a document highly critical of Adams, a Federalist. Hamilton, its author, had intended it for private circulation. Its publication proved highly embarrassing to Hamilton and helped widen rifts in the Federalist Party. That same year, when Republicans Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied in balloting for the presidency, Hamilton lobbied Congress to decide the election in Jefferson's favor. Hamilton's campaign had little effect, but in the end, Jefferson emerged the winner.
The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

Does it MATTER what their political affiliation? IT WAS PERSONAL.
Good GOD man...

It doesn't matter what their political affiliation was (I didn't write the article). But much of it was over PUBLIC disclosures.

 

[The T]

Maybe you need to brush up on American history?

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, to fight the final skirmish of a long-lived political and personal battle. When the duel was over, Hamilton would be mortally wounded, and Burr would be wanted for murder.

Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican. The men clashed repeatedly in the political arena. The first major skirmish was in 1791, when Burr successfully captured a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's powerful father-in-law. Hamilton, then Treasury secretary, would have counted on Schuyler to support his policies. When Burr won the election, Hamilton fumed.

In 1800 Burr obtained and had published "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States.," a document highly critical of Adams, a Federalist. Hamilton, its author, had intended it for private circulation. Its publication proved highly embarrassing to Hamilton and helped widen rifts in the Federalist Party. That same year, when Republicans Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied in balloting for the presidency, Hamilton lobbied Congress to decide the election in Jefferson's favor. Hamilton's campaign had little effect, but in the end, Jefferson emerged the winner.
The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's Duel

Does it MATTER what their political affiliation? IT WAS PERSONAL.
Good GOD man...

It doesn't matter what their political affiliation was (I didn't write the article). But much of it was over PUBLIC disclosures.

BUT YOU SUPPORT WHAT IT STATED.

Try again and man up. STOP making excuses to your incompetence to the TRUTH and Liberty. YOU are an ENEMY to it. ADMIT IT.

 

[Plasmaball]

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?

besides Greece and Rome, yes you are correct..

 

[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.

Sorry. The fact that GLAAD did a hateful bad act is not changed because A&E chose to do the right thing. I haven't seen any remorse or regret from GLAAD that they were hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, intolerant, and vindictive and chose to act that out intead of simply stating their opinion about what Phil Robertson said.

Now you're going to back pedal. I knew that was coming. You insisted that GLAAD was responsible for doing what you called physical/material harm to PR and/or A&E

and THAT is why you want to make it illegal.

Now you are forced to acknowledge that GLAAD never really had the means to force anything to happen,

they were only exercising two of their basic rights, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

In short you were wrong and I was right.

 

[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?

besides Greece and Rome, yes you are correct..

YOU have NO clue...you are a PLEEB...a MOOCHER defending every morsel YOU get from Gubmint. YOU are out of place, sit down and shut up. TAXPAYERS own yer ass.

 

[Plasmaball]

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?

Sure if you ignore Prop 8 in California. This is the problem with honest discussions, you first need to be honest.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Well, Foxy, if you don't know how Moromons are relevant to this discussion, then you need to do a little reading.

Like yourself, I like Mormons, and respect many of their social/religious beliefs.

However, they have be persecuted, and are often still persecuted.

To claim that the US Government was "Constituted" based on a strict policy of non-persecution is absurd. One example is Mormons who were, and many claim still are, PERSECUTED.

Persecution of the Mormons had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. It had everything to do with people who were unwilling to allow Mormons to be who and what they are. So in that sense that is pertinent to this thread. You, however, did not make your intent clear in your post, however, and I apparently incorrectly interpreted your post to be pointing fingers at the Mormons themselves and not at those who persecuted them. So I took your post as another excuse to teach. (Sorry about that.)

 

[Plasmaball]

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?

besides Greece and Rome, yes you are correct..

YOU have NO clue...you are a PLEEB...a MOOCHER defending every morsel YOU get from Gubmint. YOU are out of place, sit down and shut up. TAXPAYERS own yer ass.

wow you really showed me.....absolutely nothing as per usual thomas603.
like i said you live in a bubble and when you venture out of it, you tend to get your ass handed to you. Thus why you are always cheerleading others because you are a follower and not a free thinker.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Are you saying that general concepts of liberty are unable to be argued when it comes to specific situations? I'm not sure what you're attempting to say.

Again, the founders had no concept of instant communications, television, or anything of the sort. It's entirely possible some would have had very different views about how the concepts of liberty apply in regards to modern technology and society than you seem to think.

And the fact that there were so many disagreements and arguments, some quite heated, about what would go into the Constitution is just another example of why trying to use 'what the founders would think' of any modern situation tends to be an exercise in futility. The founders could barely agree amongst themselves what did or did not constitute protected liberties, why would anyone think they could determine how they would react to a modern situation?

Add in the fact that liberty was not an equal proposition in the founders' time (does anyone believe that women had equal liberty then?) and I think it's obvious that claiming the founders would be of one mind about GLAAD's actions in this situation is ridiculous. There's just no way to really know.

It would be more compelling to talk about individual founders and why what they said or wrote or did is evidence they might agree with your position. Even then, though, it's impossible to know how the differences in the world today might have affected their opinions.

 

[Bfgrn]

Does it MATTER what their political affiliation? IT WAS PERSONAL.
Good GOD man...

It doesn't matter what their political affiliation was (I didn't write the article). But much of it was over PUBLIC disclosures.

BUT YOU SUPPORT WHAT IT STATED.

Try again and man up. STOP making excuses to your incompetence to the TRUTH and Liberty. YOU are an ENEMY to it. ADMIT IT.

Find an adult and have them explain it to you. It is way over your head.

 

[The T]

It doesn't matter what their political affiliation was (I didn't write the article). But much of it was over PUBLIC disclosures.

BUT YOU SUPPORT WHAT IT STATED.

Try again and man up. STOP making excuses to your incompetence to the TRUTH and Liberty. YOU are an ENEMY to it. ADMIT IT.

Find an adult and have them explain it to you. It is way over your head.

In other words YOU are at MY FEET begging MY forgiveness?

Granted. GO, and SIN no more.

 

[Bfgrn]

BUT YOU SUPPORT WHAT IT STATED.

Try again and man up. STOP making excuses to your incompetence to the TRUTH and Liberty. YOU are an ENEMY to it. ADMIT IT.

Find an adult and have them explain it to you. It is way over your head.

In other words YOU are at MY FEET begging MY forgiveness?

Granted. GO, and SIN no more.

No, the political affiliation of Burr and Hamilton is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Our founding fathers were not all tolerant, civil and non-confrontational as FF wants to believe.