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

[Billy000]

There you go with "real Christians" or "true Christians." Let me ask you sincerely:

Are you a Christian? How do you know what a "real Christian" or a "true Christian" is?

I don't understand why in this particular discussion I need objective viewpoints. None of you do. In my OPINION, people like Phil are not true Christians. How are your opinions on this matter more just than mine?

You aren't answering my question, Billy. I don't like being dodged. No opinion is greater than another, unless substantiated. Now, are you a Christian? How are you able to justify your assumptions about Christians?

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't understand why in this particular discussion I need objective viewpoints. None of you do. In my OPINION, people like Phil are not true Christians. How are your opinions on this matter more just than mine?

You aren't answering my question, Billy. I don't like being dodged. No opinion is greater than another, unless substantiated. Now, are you a Christian? How are you able to justify your assumptions about Christians?

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

And you have every right to express your opinion about what a Christian is or is not and also that you don't subscribe to that particular belief yourself. As does TK or any of the rest of us. And doesn't tolerance include allowing all of us to express what our Christian faith or lack thereof means to us without somebody demanding we be fired or otherwise punished for saying it?

 

[The T]

You aren't answering my question, Billy. I don't like being dodged. No opinion is greater than another, unless substantiated. Now, are you a Christian? How are you able to justify your assumptions about Christians?

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

And you have every right to express your opinion about what a Christian is or is not and also that you don't subscribe to that particular belief yourself. As does TK or any of the rest of us. And doesn't tolerance include allowing all of us to express what our Christian faith or lack thereof means to us without somebody demanding we be fired or otherwise punished for saying it?

Indeed. NO ONE should be fired for having a diverse OPINION, even apart from those that hire them, but that is for the employer to decide...but still, an injustice of intolerance was done here under pressure from an intolerant bunch that had NO association to the party that fired the man...

I really would love to see the guy's CONTRACT to inform myself of any clauses that may have precluded him from speaking his mind.

 

[Billy000]

You aren't answering my question, Billy. I don't like being dodged. No opinion is greater than another, unless substantiated. Now, are you a Christian? How are you able to justify your assumptions about Christians?

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

And you have every right to express your opinion about what a Christian is or is not and also that you don't subscribe to that particular belief yourself. As does TK or any of the rest of us. And doesn't tolerance include allowing all of us to express what our Christian faith or lack thereof means to us without somebody demanding we be fired or otherwise punished for saying it?

No, you're still not getting my point. I am not intolerant to a true Christian who is against homosexuality for religious reasons. I am against people who like Phil are insulting and degrading toward homosexual people. That is the issue because he was.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are gay Christians, TK. Are they any less Christians because they are gay? Is their faith and belief any different to that of their straight brethren? Should they be treated any differently?

I realize that.

And this might sound a little barbaric to you, but anyone who is "gay" and is a "christian" isn't a Christian to me. I've read the Bible, studied the Bible, nowhere does it speak of letting gays become leaders of a church or being a Christian while doing things that fly in the face of God's teachings. It is disingenuous to force your lifestyle on a religion that has unanimously rejected the notion of gay marriage. It is also disingenuous for the homosexual to put himself in a hostile environment that isn't conducive to his lifestyle. I would admonish his brethren to treat him with love and kindness, but I will not force them to accept his way of life.

I see homosexuality as an affront to the God's divine order of creation. Scientifically speaking in my opinion, homosexuality is contrary to natural procreation. If you have to resort to artificial insemination so a gay couple can reproduce, it is therefore unnatural.

Thank you for the honest response, TK. You are most certainly entitled to your views and opinion as to what constitutes Christianity and what does not.

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

This is not intended as a personal criticism of you at all, just an observation on the light of the topic in the OR. I support your right to your beliefs but I am curious as to how you reconcile the differences here.

Alright, I will respond to this as best as I can, point by point. [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

First:

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

Okay, firstly, my views of Christianity are based off of Protestantism, not of Catholicism. Therefore, I don't see the Pope as a true man of God. Anyone who prays to Mary and believes in the act of buying someone out of hell or purgatory does not truly understand the ultimate aspect of salvation and damnation. Christians worship Jesus Christ, not his mother. Pope Francis is an admirable man, but I cannot adhere to the tenets he believes in. We all have a general belief in God, therefore we should pray to God and to nobody else. In the end of all things, being a mere man will be irrelevant when God comes to earth at the end of days. All men will be judged equally for his transgressions. Catholics like gays are the children of God, but I believe personally that they are misguided and are stepping ever so closely to the wide path of destruction.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

As I said previously, all humankind are the children of God. But I must stand true to what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, it tells us not to judge others by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards in heaven. It also warns us not to cast what is precious before swine, too. However, if a homosexual claims to be a member of my faith, I feel I must judge him according to the teaching of my faith. I am allowed that right. Christians are to help other Christians grow in the body of Christ.

Interesting you should ask that question, Derideo, "should we be hidebound to the intolerance of 2000+ years ago?" A lot of people think that we still believe in the old mosaic laws of the ancient Israelites, therefore we are seen as intolerant supposedly because it is assumed we are believing in such a system. However, Jesus did away with the old law and established a new covenant. All sin can be forgiven, any man can be redeemed, all he has to do is give his heart to God and expunge himself of his sinful ways. No man should die for his sin, since Jesus himself redeemed mankind with is death on the cross.

My rationale for "gay Christians" can be found here.

What Stat does with his life is of no concern of mine. And being the son of a single mother my entire life, I must say that I would not be intolerant of single parents. Even so, my uncle was gay, I have two gay friends. If I see two men holding hands on the street, I don't say a word. I don't cause a scene. Tolerance is a relative term to both gays and Christians. Frankly I've seen gays exercise more tolerance that Christians, and then again I have seen the converse.

 

[Billy000]

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

And you have every right to express your opinion about what a Christian is or is not and also that you don't subscribe to that particular belief yourself. As does TK or any of the rest of us. And doesn't tolerance include allowing all of us to express what our Christian faith or lack thereof means to us without somebody demanding we be fired or otherwise punished for saying it?

Indeed. NO ONE should be fired for having a diverse OPINION, even apart from those that hire them, but that is for the employer to decide...but still, an injustice of intolerance was done here under pressure from an intolerant bunch that had NO association to the party that fired the man...

I really would love to see the guy's CONTRACT to inform myself of any clauses that may have precluded him from speaking his mind.

More than likely he was due to renew a contract. He isn't necessarily under a contract now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't understand why in this particular discussion I need objective viewpoints. None of you do. In my OPINION, people like Phil are not true Christians. How are your opinions on this matter more just than mine?

You aren't answering my question, Billy. I don't like being dodged. No opinion is greater than another, unless substantiated. Now, are you a Christian? How are you able to justify your assumptions about Christians?

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

Then by what right do you have to judge Christians? I tolerate homosexuals, and I disapprove of their practices. Until you have experienced Christianity first hand, I don't believe you have the proper standing to judge people of my faith. You would say likewise of homosexuality no doubt, since I don't know what it's like (nor do I care to). If you want to truly grasp Christianity, I suggest you read the Bible, study it. I mean truly study it. Then you will have some basis for which to form a judgement.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, so either party (Phil, A&E, GLAAD) has a given right to do what they do. That we know. But the OP addresses an interesting paradox of thought.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance? No. Tolerance is a part of what defines our limits, as human beings; boundaries are what we are not willing to exceed or cannot exceed because of our values and standards. It is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance.

A man's tolerance can be like steel, it can be heated, beaten, water-cooled and refined. Even so, that still doesn't mean his tolerance is infinite. Steel can be bent, and even broken. Steel cannot exceed itself, not can a man exceed his tolerance before he breaks.

Intolerance of opinion on the other hand, well... a person's intolerance of opinion in this day and age is akin to a piece of tin. It is easily bent and twisted, before too long his intolerance is tolerance, and then back to intolerance. This person's original opinion is lost in the chaos of acceptance. In this case, it is intolerant to be intolerant.

gays want more than tolerance.....they want acceptance and validation....anything less and they resort to the histrionics we've been seeing in the media lately....

one can be tolerant of the existence of sin as nobody is perfect.....but one cannot accept and validate that sin as something good....this is where Christians and gays part ways...

Loathe the sin, not the sinner. Phil chose to out his opinion based in the Bible regarding the act he was asked about. He was honest, forthright...and now pays the price exacted by others for their intolerance of such an opinion...and he did nothing wrong but to speak.

The date on the calendar has changed, but the emotion of intolerance hasn't historically speaking when it comes to the human pursuit of true liberty. There are still too many that have yet to grasp it.

The fact is Phil was much more harsh and uncharitable than he needed to be to express what he believes the Bible teaches. That I think did deserve comment and criticism. And I have no problem with those Christians who don't share his particular interpretation saying so. But Phil is not on the most popular cable television show by hiding who and what he is. He is the real deal and is for the most part likable, personable, funny, and I am pretty sure he lives his life pretty much as we see it on the show. He would likely be a good neighbor and a good friend to all, straight or gay.

So while I defend neither what he said or how how he said it, I will defend his right to say what he thinks. And I will not defend GLAAD or anybody else having a moral imperative or right to demand somebody be fired for no other reason than they expressed what they believed.

 

[Vox]

That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.

can you change the title?

because it is the core essence of the left and the LBGT crowd in particular.

We need to be careful here though. This is not just a problem unique to the Left or the LBGT crowd. It is just as wrong for a conservative group to try to shout down somebody shouting leftist rhetoric as it is for a liberal group to shout down the conservative. You see it here on USMB when somebody expresses approval for some New Deal or Great Society or whatever program and are immediately jumped on and accused of all sorts of nefarious things and that can be accompanied by the infamous
neg reps. The "I don't like what you say or the way you say it" neg rep syndrome. I don't believe for a minute that some on the right don't do that.

A truly tolerant group welcomes all points of view and is respectful to those invited to express them. Can we honestly say that all of us 'conservative' types are truly tolerant?

It becomes a problem when each side considers their intolerance justified or noble while the other side must be punished for their point of view.

while I agree with you as a rule I can find any examples of what would be the conservative groups shouting down the left figure - it does not exist in reality, just in theory.
New Deal and Great Society were great FAILURES so expressing your dismay over it is equal to somebody expressing their awe.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Okay, so either party (Phil, A&E, GLAAD) has a given right to do what they do. That we know. But the OP addresses an interesting paradox of thought.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance? No. Tolerance is a part of what defines our limits, as human beings; boundaries are what we are not willing to exceed or cannot exceed because of our values and standards. It is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance.

A man's tolerance can be like steel, it can be heated, beaten, water-cooled and refined. Even so, that still doesn't mean his tolerance is infinite. Steel can be bent, and even broken. Steel cannot exceed itself, not can a man exceed his tolerance before he breaks.

Intolerance of opinion on the other hand, well... a person's intolerance of opinion in this day and age is akin to a piece of tin. It is easily bent and twisted, before too long his intolerance is tolerance, and then back to intolerance. This person's original opinion is lost in the chaos of acceptance. In this case, it is intolerant to be intolerant.

gays want more than tolerance.....they want acceptance and validation....anything less and they resort to the histrionics we've been seeing in the media lately....

one can be tolerant of the existence of sin as nobody is perfect.....but one cannot accept and validate that sin as something good....this is where Christians and gays part ways...

Loathe the sin, not the sinner. Phil chose to out his opinion based in the Bible regarding the act he was asked about. He was honest, forthright...and now pays the price exacted by others for their intolerance of such an opinion...and he did nothing wrong but to speak.

The date on the calendar has changed, but the emotion of intolerance hasn't historically speaking when it comes to the human pursuit of true liberty. There are still too many that have yet to grasp it.

gays expect Christians to tolerate 'gay marriage'......yet they can't even tolerate something as basic as freedom of speech....

 

[Billy000]

You aren't answering my question, Billy. I don't like being dodged. No opinion is greater than another, unless substantiated. Now, are you a Christian? How are you able to justify your assumptions about Christians?

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

Then by what right do you have to judge Christians? I tolerate homosexuals, and I disapprove of their practices. Until you have experienced Christianity first hand, I don't believe you have the proper standing to judge people of my faith. You would say likewise of homosexuality no doubt, since I don't know what it's like (nor do I care to).

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

 

[The T]

gays want more than tolerance.....they want acceptance and validation....anything less and they resort to the histrionics we've been seeing in the media lately....

one can be tolerant of the existence of sin as nobody is perfect.....but one cannot accept and validate that sin as something good....this is where Christians and gays part ways...

Loathe the sin, not the sinner. Phil chose to out his opinion based in the Bible regarding the act he was asked about. He was honest, forthright...and now pays the price exacted by others for their intolerance of such an opinion...and he did nothing wrong but to speak.

The date on the calendar has changed, but the emotion of intolerance hasn't historically speaking when it comes to the human pursuit of true liberty. There are still too many that have yet to grasp it.

The fact is Phil was much more harsh and uncharitable than he needed to be to express what he believes the Bible teaches. That I think did deserve comment and criticism. And I have no problem with those Christians who don't share his particular interpretation saying so. But Phil is not on the most popular cable television show by hiding who and what he is. He is the real deal and is for the most part likable, personable, funny, and I am pretty sure he lives his life pretty much as we see it on the show. He would likely be a good neighbor and a good friend to all, straight or gay.

So while I defend neither what he said or how how he said it, I will defend his right to say what he thinks. And I will not defend GLAAD or anybody else having a moral imperative or right to demand somebody be fired for no other reason than they expressed what they believed.

And that is precisely the point living in a free society that cherishes liberty as laid forth by our Founders. While I don't condone what he said or the manner as you have laid out, I too join with you to defend his speech. And isn't that the crux of tolerance in of itself?

 

[Foxfyre]

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

Then by what right do you have to judge Christians? I tolerate homosexuals, and I disapprove of their practices. Until you have experienced Christianity first hand, I don't believe you have the proper standing to judge people of my faith. You would say likewise of homosexuality no doubt, since I don't know what it's like (nor do I care to).

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

But again, do you approve of GLAAD demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because, in your point of view, he was 'hateful of gay people'? Or if you expect Christians to be tolerant of homosexuality, does it not follow that homosexuals should be tolerant of an expressed fundamentalist Christian view expressed by a fundamentalist Christian?

 

[The T]

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

Then by what right do you have to judge Christians? I tolerate homosexuals, and I disapprove of their practices. Until you have experienced Christianity first hand, I don't believe you have the proper standing to judge people of my faith. You would say likewise of homosexuality no doubt, since I don't know what it's like (nor do I care to).

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

Careful...your boney finger of indignation may be met with others pointing right back at YOU, Billy.

Learn it, Live it, Know it. Disagree with the speech, and move on. NEVER try to stifle it, or support those that DO. It someday may come back to haunt you byt the very SAME you might support.

LIBERTY, Free Society has a price to exact. The wise KNOW the fine lines. Our Founders surely did.

 

[Mac1958]

.

When you're making the rules, you get to decide when a line is crossed; you get to decide when a word or thought is punishable; you get to create your own little game.

Their game is over when we say it is.

.

 

[Vox]

I am not against true Christians who think homosexuality is morally wrong based on religious doctrine, but what I do not tolerate are actual bigots who use religion as an excuse for their prejudice. I think Phil is an example of this. It's one thing to say you oppose homosexuality for religious reasons, it is quite another to group them in with drunks and terrorists. That is an example of hate.

"True Christians"? I take offense to that. You have your definition of what a "true christian" is, or a Christian who accepts, not merely tolerates homosexuality. Elsewise they are seen as bigots.

My point is that some bigots use Christianity as an excuse to hate. Phil is an example of this. He is not a true Christian.

and who are you to decide who is a true Christian?
Nobody.
Phil has all the right to express what he wants. And that has absolutely nothing to do with being or not being a Christian.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A true Christian is someone all loving and tolerant. A true Christian is against the homosexual act rather than homosexuals themselves.

No, I am not a Christian.

Then by what right do you have to judge Christians? I tolerate homosexuals, and I disapprove of their practices. Until you have experienced Christianity first hand, I don't believe you have the proper standing to judge people of my faith. You would say likewise of homosexuality no doubt, since I don't know what it's like (nor do I care to).

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

You said you 'weren't a Christian' so which is it my friend? Being a Christian isn't merely doing the motions, Billy, going to Church everyday does not assure you a place in heaven. There are many other factors involved. Did you think that by just "doing the motions" that you were a Christian? I have bad news, Billy, that isn't the case at all.

 

[Billy000]

Then by what right do you have to judge Christians? I tolerate homosexuals, and I disapprove of their practices. Until you have experienced Christianity first hand, I don't believe you have the proper standing to judge people of my faith. You would say likewise of homosexuality no doubt, since I don't know what it's like (nor do I care to).

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

But again, do you approve of GLAAD demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because, in your point of view, he was 'hateful of gay people'? Or if you expect Christians to be tolerant of homosexuality, does it not follow that homosexuals should be tolerant of an expressed fundamentalist Christian view expressed by a fundamentalist Christian?

A person who believes gays should be compared to terrorists is not a true Christian in my opinion. Period. They can all themselves anything they want.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then by what right do you have to judge Christians? I tolerate homosexuals, and I disapprove of their practices. Until you have experienced Christianity first hand, I don't believe you have the proper standing to judge people of my faith. You would say likewise of homosexuality no doubt, since I don't know what it's like (nor do I care to).

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

But again, do you approve of GLAAD demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because, in your point of view, he was 'hateful of gay people'? Or if you expect Christians to be tolerant of homosexuality, does it not follow that homosexuals should be tolerant of an expressed fundamentalist Christian view expressed by a fundamentalist Christian?

B

i

n

g

o

!

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think the majority of Americans agree that Duck Dynasty guy should not be suspended for expressing his religious beliefs. Rather people find his opinions hatful or ignorant is inconsequential. The bigger topic we are having concerns the application of tolerance. It's a good conversation to have. I tend to side with the majority of people who say that A&E had a legal right to suspend Duck Dynasty guy but believe, ethically, that people should not be punished for expressing their religious views.

No, what is the issue are the remarks themselves. They were disrespectful and insulting. Had he simply stated homosexuality goes against his beliefs, he wouldn't have been suspended. He took it too far.

I don't understand why people aren't getting that.

So what if his comments were disrespectful and insulting? I've heard many insulting and disrespectful comments on television. I'm a conservative and I've been called every name in the book by people on television. So what? I've been called a racist, xenophobic, sexist, terrorist, etc by people who classify conservatives in the dumbest and angriest language possible. I find Pierce Morgan and Chris Mathews as insulting and disrespectful as I'm sure you find Duck Dynasty guy. However, it would never occur to me to suspend them because of their vile remarks. I'm far more interested in the rights of the individual to express their opinions than I am about forcibly shutting other people's arguments down.