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

[hunarcy]

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

Is this the start of a new defense...

...well, yeah, PR said that, but he doesn't really believe that...

that would not be at all surprising from the clowns around here.

You said that they were HIS words. They were not, as he was reading from the Bible. He then either went on to talk about what he believes they meant or it was a reading that his Pastor asked him to do to create the foundation for the Pastor's sermon. I have no idea, and neither do you. A reasonable person would recognize that and let it drop, not repeat over and over that "they were his own words" to the point where he becomes so discredited that people start to ignore him.

 

[hunarcy]

Too bad TK and Hunarcy aren't striving for the example Foxy is setting. Whole lotta intolerance in this thread, for sure.

I apologize for not living up to FF's example. I have a long way to go in my journey through life. But, it seems to me that sniping and snide comments are a form of intolerance as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This whole "conservatives are evil, hypocritical and inconsistent" assertion proves her point yet again, since such assertion only applies to conservatives, not liberals. It speaks to your intolerance. You have such a biased view of the world that anyone who holds one view over another is as you described them. You are intolerant, accept it.

Liberals employ the same hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards, too. I can rattle off a list of Christians who have been targeted for their views on homosexuality, yet liberals preach of tolerance. Such behavior indicates a lack of tolerance, an obvious hypocrisy, and a glaring double standard.

When have you seen a liberal defend a conservative's right to free speech with such passion and "frenzied zeal" as they have defended the rights of a black man or a gay man?

Let me help you.

The answer is never.

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

Where's your objection to all of the people who called for Martin Bashir to lose his job?

Can you link us to that?

Can you link us to anywhere that I insisted that Bashir had a free speech right that should make it unconstitutional for him to be forced to resign? Can you link to anywhere I called for it to be made illegal for groups to criticize Bashir and make 'demands' to MSNBC to fire him?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

Is this the start of a new defense...

...well, yeah, PR said that, but he doesn't really believe that...

that would not be at all surprising from the clowns around here.

You said that they were HIS words. They were not, as he was reading from the Bible. He then either went on to talk about what he believes they meant or it was a reading that his Pastor asked him to do to create the foundation for the Pastor's sermon. I have no idea, and neither do you. A reasonable person would recognize that and let it drop, not repeat over and over that "they were his own words" to the point where he becomes so discredited that people start to ignore him.

Only the 1st of the 5 quotes in that link are from the bible. Here are the other 4;

"Why do they murder and why do they hate us? Because all of them ... 80 years of history, they all want to conquer the world, they all rejected Jesus and they're all famous for murder. Nazis, Shintoists, Communists and the Mohammedists. Every one of them the same way." -- Preaching at Hillsboro Church of Christ in El Dorado, Ark., in 2008.

"From one man God made all nations of men. We all came from the same dude, and I don't know what color he was." -- Preaching at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. in July 2013.

A good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course." -- Speaking at Sportsmen's Ministry in Georgia in 2009.

"I'm no preacher. Know how you can know? This is free! Now, if I pass the hat, you can say, 'He's a preacher.'" -- Speaking at Lakeway Chevron in Texas, December 2012.


'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

Given those 4 rants it isn't hard to make the leap to PR embracing the canards in this one;

"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Judge not, lest ye be judged".

There is also a theological dispute between you and me on this.

Yeschuah said more than once and was quoted by more than one apostle:

"I have come not to take away even one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it" - which means that Halakhah (jewish law) should still apply to all Christians. That being said, law is constantly being re-interpreted all the time.

What I find to be totally hypocritical of many Christians vis-a-vis homosexuality is that they usually very quickly indicate that that most of the Old Testament laws don't really apply, since the Covenant of Jesus - in their words - replaces the old Abrahamic Covenant, and yet, they suddenly grab at two verses, one from Leviticus, one from Deuteronomy, to condemn homosexuality, forgetting all the time that Jesus himself never even said one word about it. Not only that, the verbage used in the hebrew and aramaic in those two verses are entirely different. But that would be stuff for an entirely different thread.

And finally, not a whole lot of love of fellow man coming out of many Christians when it comes to this. I don't see them condemning smokers or drinkers with the same intensity, in spite of fact that destroying the temple of God (a phrase to describe the human body in the OT) is a deadly sin.

Food for thought.

Actually, Stat, the Jewish law was not intended to make men right before God:












I admire your attempt at apologetics Stat, but this is what the Bible says about the Old Law. The ceremonial law is defunct. The moral law isn't. But the death penalty for not keeping the moral law has been paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ himself.

My reason for not following the ceremonial law in the Old Testament:


The New Testament covenantal system completely does away with what is deemed as "barbaric" practices by us today, in that day and age they weren't. They suited the times and the peoples for which they were written. You speak of judging, yet here you are judging the moral standards of the Old Testament. Simply put, in order for you to raise a valid objection against the moral statutes of the Old Testament, you must provide a standard by which such judgments can be made. You speak of judging, but judge Christians based on their "intolerance" of homosexuality. You speak of judgement, yet you don't quote the entire verse in Matthew 7: 1-6:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

You speak of judgement, but judge any and all Christians by laws and commands that you yourself don't follow. Any pro-gay liberal who judges a Christian for his supposed intolerance should first address his own intolerance of said Christian's attitude towards homosexuality. Any Christian who mistreats or abuses a homosexual is wrong. Any homosexual who mistreats or abuses a Christian is wrong. Naturally those who abuse "God's temple" will have it taken from them, hence the sin of such being deadly. The punishment is clear, there is no need for us to go ballistic over it.

First, I am not going ballistic.

Second, you still did not address the direct quote of Jeshua from Matthew, I believe, 24 or 25....

I have judged you. I challenge you. There is a difference. but you are smart, you knew that already.

I did address the direct quote. It appears I gave too extensive an answer. I didn't imply you were going ballistic, I meant there was no need for Christians to go ballistic over those who abused their bodies or "temples" as they are known. I addressed that quote citing what "Jeshua" (Yehoshua) or Jesus said in Luke 22:20. The quote you are referring to is Matthew 5:17-21.

 

[hunarcy]

Is this the start of a new defense...

...well, yeah, PR said that, but he doesn't really believe that...

that would not be at all surprising from the clowns around here.

You said that they were HIS words. They were not, as he was reading from the Bible. He then either went on to talk about what he believes they meant or it was a reading that his Pastor asked him to do to create the foundation for the Pastor's sermon. I have no idea, and neither do you. A reasonable person would recognize that and let it drop, not repeat over and over that "they were his own words" to the point where he becomes so discredited that people start to ignore him.

Only the 1st of the 5 quotes in that link are from the bible. Here are the other 4;

"Why do they murder and why do they hate us? Because all of them ... 80 years of history, they all want to conquer the world, they all rejected Jesus and they're all famous for murder. Nazis, Shintoists, Communists and the Mohammedists. Every one of them the same way." -- Preaching at Hillsboro Church of Christ in El Dorado, Ark., in 2008.

"From one man God made all nations of men. We all came from the same dude, and I don't know what color he was." -- Preaching at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. in July 2013.

A good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course." -- Speaking at Sportsmen's Ministry in Georgia in 2009.

"I'm no preacher. Know how you can know? This is free! Now, if I pass the hat, you can say, 'He's a preacher.'" -- Speaking at Lakeway Chevron in Texas, December 2012.


'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

Given those 4 rants it isn't hard to make the leap to PR embracing the canards in this one;

"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

*Yawn* the first two aren't intolerant and the last two would be "tongue in cheek" if you humorless drones weren't so desperate to find something to hang him on. Move along, I can't take you seriously.

 

[Vox]

If you can prove he didn't say that, then I and several hundred websites quoting it will stand corrected.

Otherwise **** off.

you lying idiot it is the quote from his SERMON where he uses the quotes from the Bible.
But for the brainwashed ignorants like you are that is obviously the words of PR

So because it was in a SERMON, we can assume he doesn't actually believe that.

What the ****? Are you speaking Conservatopian or something, because you are making no sense whatsoever to normal people.

he can believe whatever he wants to - he has a God given and Constitutionally affirmed right to his beliefs and to free expression of them without being punished by hateful bigoted militant groups.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

Where's your objection to all of the people who called for Martin Bashir to lose his job?

Can you link us to that?

Can you link us to anywhere that I insisted that Bashir had a free speech right that should make it unconstitutional for him to be forced to resign? Can you link to anywhere I called for it to be made illegal for groups to criticize Bashir and make 'demands' to MSNBC to fire him?

1) I never called for him to be fired. In fact, I had very little to say about the subject. It was MSNBC's right to fire him if indeed he was fired. Just as you and everyone else here agrees that it was A&E prerogative to suspend Phil Robertson.

2) However, Bashir's opinion was exceptionally grotesque and misogynistic, to which not even you objected to. Yeah that's right, I never heard you objecting to him referring to a woman in such a way, being the man that he is. Such is an example of a selective view of misogyny. To whether he had a free speech right to say such is inconsequential.

3) Phil Robertson's comments to GQ, not his sermons are in question here. Those comments did not call for any action to be taken against homosexuals, as opposed to Bashir's in regards to Sarah Palin.

Stop putting words into peoples mouths, yet again, carbine.

 

[Vox]

Is this the start of a new defense...

...well, yeah, PR said that, but he doesn't really believe that...

that would not be at all surprising from the clowns around here.

You said that they were HIS words. They were not, as he was reading from the Bible. He then either went on to talk about what he believes they meant or it was a reading that his Pastor asked him to do to create the foundation for the Pastor's sermon. I have no idea, and neither do you. A reasonable person would recognize that and let it drop, not repeat over and over that "they were his own words" to the point where he becomes so discredited that people start to ignore him.

Only the 1st of the 5 quotes in that link are from the bible. Here are the other 4;

"Why do they murder and why do they hate us? Because all of them ... 80 years of history, they all want to conquer the world, they all rejected Jesus and they're all famous for murder. Nazis, Shintoists, Communists and the Mohammedists. Every one of them the same way." -- Preaching at Hillsboro Church of Christ in El Dorado, Ark., in 2008.

"From one man God made all nations of men. We all came from the same dude, and I don't know what color he was." -- Preaching at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. in July 2013.

A good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course." -- Speaking at Sportsmen's Ministry in Georgia in 2009.

"I'm no preacher. Know how you can know? This is free! Now, if I pass the hat, you can say, 'He's a preacher.'" -- Speaking at Lakeway Chevron in Texas, December 2012.


'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

Given those 4 rants it isn't hard to make the leap to PR embracing the canards in this one;

"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

you have to be a total idiot to consider the bolded part a "hate speech" or a "rant" as you obviously conclude.

especially the last one

 

[TemplarKormac]

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

Who is "they all"?

Define "violently", please...

Here I stand, a liberal who is tolerant of your views, and you think I react "violently"? Really?

Coconuts!

"They all" as in BDBoop, candycorn, carbine and Bfgrn. Not once did I mention you. I don't make blanket statements, by the way.

I define "violently" as anyone who engages in name calling, ad hominem, character assassinations, overly verbose objections known as "rants" and etc., in response to any opinion, position or argument. The term is restricted to debate parameters, not physical parameters.

PINEAPPLES!

 

[Foxfyre]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

As you see, FF doesn't want to debate the points she can't win.

You're right. I'm not going to debate an off topic subject. Not because "I can't win" but because those subjects don't belong on this thread. And I have requested that all stop the personal insults and sniping. That has no place on this thread. Some have respected that request. Some have not.

I have pointed out again and again and again that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT PHIL ROBERTSON'S OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING IS. It does not matter how prejudiced or bigoted or wrong he (or anybody else) might be. As I made clear in the OP, Phil Robertson is just the current example. We can use any such example that might apply.

And it does not matter who has called for whomever to get fired. It does not matter whether it is the left or right doing it or who has or has not done it in the past. The principle remains the same regardless. It is evil to physically or materially attack somebody purely because they express an unpopular opinion.

Tolerance is allowing people to be who they are whether that be bigots or idiots or fundamentalists or accordian players when those people have no intention or power to harm us in any way. Tolerance is allowing people to be who and what they are without fear of some angry intolerant person demanding they get fired.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Too bad TK and Hunarcy aren't striving for the example Foxy is setting. Whole lotta intolerance in this thread, for sure.

And for the record, you ended our friendship because of certain views I had on homosexuality. And you want to lecture me on tolerance? I don't think so, miss.

 

[BDBoop]

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

As you see, FF doesn't want to debate the points she can't win.

You're right. I'm not going to debate an off topic subject. And I have requested that all stop the personal insults and sniping. That has no place on this thread. Some have respected that request. Some have not.

I have pointed out again and again and again that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT PHIL ROBERTSON'S OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING IS. It does not matter how prejudiced or bigoted or wrong he (or anybody else) might be. As I made clear in the OP, Phil Robertson is just the current example. We can use any such example that might apply.

And it does not matter who has called for whomever to get fired. It does not matter whether it is the left or right doing it or who has or has not done it in the past. The principle remains the same regardless. It is evil to physically or materially attack somebody purely because they express an unpopular opinion.

Tolerance is allowing people to be who they are whether that be bigots or idiots or fundamentalists or accordian players when those people have no intention or power to harm us in any way. Tolerance is allowing people to be who and what they are without fear of some angry intolerant person demanding they get fired.

I brought up Million Moms because you said you were not aware of any such group on the right doing any such thing.

 

[BDBoop]

Too bad TK and Hunarcy aren't striving for the example Foxy is setting. Whole lotta intolerance in this thread, for sure.

And for the record, you ended our friendship because of certain views I had on homosexuality. And you want to lecture me on tolerance? I don't think so, miss.

So you are intolerant of my decision?



My sister is a lesbian, my niece-in-law is biracial. I asked you if you agreed with the things Phil said, and you said yes.

There is nothing left to say after that.

 

[Vox]

I brought up Million Moms because you said you were not aware of any such group on the right doing any such thing.

except that was a left wing group which marched on Washington not because of opposition to gays but because their opposition to guns
Million Mom March - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you can't escape LYING being a typical leftist, do you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I find it odd that liberals here are having to dig up dirt on the man simply to have a point. .

Has he recanted his preaching of hatred of homosexuals from 2010?

 

[Vox]

Wasn't it One Million Moms who tried to get JCPenney to fire Ellen?

no, those were left wing nuts with their antigun hysteria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Mom_March

what is it - ignorance or flat out lying, Boop?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you just call her "pure evil"? You made her point for her, Carbine. You would do well not to put words in other people's mouths.

She described herself. Didn't you even read her post:

"To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil."

GLAAD expressed an opinion. FF earlier in this thread said GLAAD's actions should be criminalized. That would certainly qualify as seeking to punish somebody.

Therefore, by her own measuring stick and hers alone, FF is pure evil.

...so now you can be the weasel you are and deny that FF called for such criminalization, to try to force me to look it up and remind you,

and then you can run off, or else come up with some new weasel move.

Carbine? What with all the name calling all of a sudden? Must I humble you?

Opinion- adj. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Action - adj. Organized activity to accomplish an objective.

There is a huge difference between opinion and action. One isn't an action, but a belief. The other is acting on a belief. You can have your beliefs, but the actions arising from it may not be the least bit desirable to some.

The fact that you begrudge her the right to opine on her feelings of what GLAAD did is intolerant in and of itself. You are a hypocrite, carbine. I have never seen such a graceful reaffirmation of a point in my experiences in debating. You lost the moment you chose to call her names and distort her words. You lost the moment you made the implication that she was "evil" for having an opinion you disagreed with.

You were played like a fiddle, my friend.

Despite it being irrelevant whether someone expressed an opinion or took an action,

GLAAD's only action was to express their opinions to A & E.

The author of this thread wants to criminalize that. Do you agree with her?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I find it odd that liberals here are having to dig up dirt on the man simply to have a point. .

Has he recanted his preaching of hatred of homosexuals from 2010?

Why should he? The very suggestion that he should "recant" pretty much wraps your argument up, carbine. Do I ask you recant an opinion I disagree with? No. I attempt to disprove it.

You are simply intolerant of his religious expression in the sermons, and his opinions he gave to GQ. You lose.

Have a seat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

Where's your objection to all of the people who called for Martin Bashir to lose his job?

Can you link us to that?

Can you link us to anywhere that I insisted that Bashir had a free speech right that should make it unconstitutional for him to be forced to resign? Can you link to anywhere I called for it to be made illegal for groups to criticize Bashir and make 'demands' to MSNBC to fire him?

1) I never called for him to be fired. In fact, I had very little to say about the subject. It was MSNBC's right to fire him if indeed he was fired. Just as you and everyone else here agrees that it was A&E prerogative to suspend Phil Robertson.

2) However, Bashir's opinion was exceptionally grotesque and misogynistic, to which not even you objected to. Yeah that's right, I never heard you objecting to him referring to a woman in such a way, being the man that he is. Such is an example of a selective view of misogyny. To whether he had a free speech right to say such is inconsequential.

3) Phil Robertson's comments to GQ, not his sermons are in question here. Those comments did not call for any action to be taken against homosexuals, as opposed to Bashir's in regards to Sarah Palin.

Stop putting words into peoples mouths, yet again, carbine.

lol, PR's sermon statements are not in question? So you wish to eliminate them from consideration?

So can we also pretend that Martin Bashir never said what he said about Palin?

Fair enough?