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

[Sunshine]

.

Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street. It's about speech you don't like, not the speech you do like.

Unfortunately, our culture is now polluted with those who are all too willing to see people destroyed because they dared to speak their minds. Perhaps if these people were more confident in their OWN opinions, they would be more willing to engage with people with whom they disagree, rather than punish them.

It's sad to see.

.

Dead on. IOU + rep when I can.

 

[Sunshine]

Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Rep worthy when I can.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

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.

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?

 

[WillReadmore]

Excellent thread Fox.
Yes it is intolerant. But in my mind it is worse. Intolerance is usually born of ignorance. But to be intolerant of different ideas, or thoughts not like yours - is CHOSEN intolerance. It is therefore worse.
Take the Duck Dynasty guy. Look at the environment he grew up in...and stayed in. Limited experience outside of his isolated locale. Limited exposure to people different than him. So should anyone be surprised he feels this way? I don't think so. Nor should he be cast out or shuttered of his opinions. To do this only furthers the ignorance.
The man may be wrong. But he has the right to be wrong. And you have a right to challenge his opinion - but you do not have a right to silence it.
That - is fascism.

As far as I'm concerned, he can say whatever he wants - just like he did.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to protect him from the fallout of what he says. In fact, as it happens I will work to ensure that people do not see his expression as being acceptable as more than a dark personal secret of his.

I hope this is a learning experience for him as a person who is creeping out from wherever he was. As you say, he may not be acquainted with civil society.

 

[Billy000]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

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.

 

[Sunshine]

Minority or majority is not a legal consideration. Law is law and non-partisan (in theory anyway heh.)

Minority definitely IS a legal consideration. And it IS a legal consideration in designating certain constitutionally protected group:

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Not all minorities are protected and the hate crime legislation only applies to protected groups.

 

[Sunshine]

But I didn't intend this as a 'freedom of speech' issue. It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a cultural trend that has made its way into our political system and it is one of those things, in my opinion, that is slowly destroying our culture and our liberties. When one faction of society, however small, is able to control the national 'conscience' with threats of violence, punishment, or diminishment of all who do not share a particular point of view, we are in trouble. I think we are in trouble.

Nor was this a contractual issue. It has nothing to do with a contract. It has everything to do with a group like GLAD who demands all manner of tolerance for anything to do with gays, lesbians, bi's or whatever, demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because he expressed an opinion that GLAD didn't like. Again this is ONE example only and I don't want this to become another Duck Dynasty thread. Or one focused on gay issues for that matter.

I remember a William Raspberry, one of my most favorite liberals ever, writing a column during one of the Ann Coulter bru ha ha's. He admonished his colleagues who were absolutely blasting her for a particular un-PC statement, that if he and his colleagues wished to be heard and understood in their opinions and demanded fair play and tolerance, then the same must be extended to Ann no matter how much they disagree with her. She has every much right to her opinion as any liberal idol has right to his/her opinion.

You are correct. This was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction. It may have specified in his contract that he would be fired if he caused the loss of a considerable number of viewers. But one has to wonder if GLAAD constitutes a significant number of viewers in the context of total viewers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street. It's about speech you don't like, not the speech you do like.

Unfortunately, our culture is now polluted with those who are all too willing to see people destroyed because they dared to speak their minds. Perhaps if these people were more confident in their OWN opinions, they would be more willing to engage with people with whom they disagree, rather than punish them.

It's sad to see.

.

I am picky about whom I will engage not because of their positions but because of their inability to maintain a civil discourse. That doesn't mean that I punish them either. Instead I just shun them as being unworthy of any attention. And yes, you are absolutely right many of them lack confidence in their own positions as well as lacking the ability to defend them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Excellent thread Fox.
Yes it is intolerant. But in my mind it is worse. Intolerance is usually born of ignorance. But to be intolerant of different ideas, or thoughts not like yours - is CHOSEN intolerance. It is therefore worse.
Take the Duck Dynasty guy. Look at the environment he grew up in...and stayed in. Limited experience outside of his isolated locale. Limited exposure to people different than him. So should anyone be surprised he feels this way? I don't think so. Nor should he be cast out or shuttered of his opinions. To do this only furthers the ignorance.
The man may be wrong. But he has the right to be wrong. And you have a right to challenge his opinion - but you do not have a right to silence it.
That - is fascism.

The thing is the Duck Dynasty guy testifies that he lived a totally decadent, 'immoral', indulgent, alcohol and drug filled life in his youth. He was the typical anti-establishment 'free love' Hippie in the 1960's and 70's and admits he pretty well beat himself down with bad behavior. When he found the Lord he turned his life around and became what he is now--a fundamenalist Bible believer person who tries to live his life as honorably and honestly as he can. He HAS been on both sides. He HAS been exposed to all points of view. And he made his choices.

You are right that a lot of intolerance is born of ignorance, but not all is. Much is based on careful consideration and choosing what is the better way. I CHOOSE not to tolerate smoking in my house, for instance, and I regret if that causes discomfort to any of my guests. I do not see it as my right to dictate to them where they can smoke elsewhere. I CHOOSE not to tolerate discussions of politics at the dinner table or other social gatherings in my home when I have folks of opposing views present, but I would not presume to dictate to anybody what views they must hold elsewhere.

I cherish that I attended a university that invited speakers from all points of view ranging from hard core Russian communists to strongly activist John Birchers and treated all with respect and as honored guests. It would never have occurred to us students to demonstrate against somebody we disagreed with and many of us attended those speeches--some out of choice, some for class credit. Such tolerance was the America I grew up with, and it gave us a broad spectrum of points of view from which to form our own convictions.

So yes, Robertson may be wrong. But he harms nobody by being wrong when he does not act on it in any way that affects another in any physical or material way. He has a right to be as intolerant as he wishes. And we have every right to disagree with him. But in my view, liberty does not allow us to demand that he be punished for expressing a point of view just because we don't like what he says or how he says it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

How do you know what a true Christian is? Hmm? Where do you get off making such an inflammatory remark?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Excellent thread Fox.
Yes it is intolerant. But in my mind it is worse. Intolerance is usually born of ignorance. But to be intolerant of different ideas, or thoughts not like yours - is CHOSEN intolerance. It is therefore worse.
Take the Duck Dynasty guy. Look at the environment he grew up in...and stayed in. Limited experience outside of his isolated locale. Limited exposure to people different than him. So should anyone be surprised he feels this way? I don't think so. Nor should he be cast out or shuttered of his opinions. To do this only furthers the ignorance.
The man may be wrong. But he has the right to be wrong. And you have a right to challenge his opinion - but you do not have a right to silence it.
That - is fascism.

The thing is the Duck Dynasty guy testifies that he lived a totally decadent, 'immoral', indulgent, alcohol and drug filled life in his youth. He was the typical anti-establishment 'free love' Hippie in the 1960's and 70's and admits he pretty well beat himself down with bad behavior. When he found the Lord he turned his life around and became what he is now--a fundamenalist Bible believer person who tries to live his life as honorably and honestly as he can. He HAS been on both sides. He HAS been exposed to all points of view. And he made his choices.

You are right that a lot of intolerance is born of ignorance, but not all is. Much is based on careful consideration and choosing what is the better way. I CHOOSE not to tolerate smoking in my house, for instance, and I regret if that causes discomfort to any of my guests. I do not see it as my right to dictate to them where they can smoke elsewhere. I CHOOSE not to tolerate discussions of politics at the dinner table or other social gatherings in my home when I have folks of opposing views present, but I would not presume to dictate to anybody what views they must hold elsewhere.

I cherish that I attended a university that invited speakers from all points of view ranging from hard core Russian communists to strongly activist John Birchers and treated all with respect and as honored guests. It would never have occurred to us students to demonstrate against somebody we disagreed with and many of us attended those speeches--some out of choice, some for class credit. Such tolerance was the America I grew up with, and it gave us a broad spectrum of points of view from which to form our own convictions.

So yes, Robertson may be wrong. But he harms nobody by being wrong when he does not act on it in any way that affects another in any physical or material way. He has a right to be as intolerant as he wishes. And we have every right to disagree with him. But in my view, liberty does not allow us to demand that he be punished for expressing a point of view just because we don't like what he says or how he says it.

Intolerance can be borne of ignorance. Intolerance can be birthed by a lack of understanding or... fear.

 

[Billy000]

"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.

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.

What do you think of gay people on a personal level? Are you polite to gay people? Would you be friends with one?

 

[Billy000]

"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.

How do you know what a true Christian is? Hmm? Where do you get off making such an inflammatory remark?

My opinion is based on his blatant inflammatory remarks. You can be against homosexuality and still treat homosexual people with respect. Like it or not, they exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

How do you know what a true Christian is? Hmm? Where do you get off making such an inflammatory remark?

My opinion is based on his blatant inflammatory remarks. You can be against homosexuality and still treat homosexual people with respect. Like it or not, they exist.

But his blatant inflammatory remarks are inflammatory only to those who think such people should not be allowed to speak those remarks. If you simply disagree with him or wrinkle your nose because he expressed himself more crudely or judgmentally than was necessary, that is your right too. Your right to say so even.

But when you seek to punish him physically or materially because you didn't like what he said or how he said it, you've crossed over a line from opinion to destructive activism. I think that is wrong. Even evil. And I think good people have to start standing up and pushing back on that kind of activism because it is harmful and destructive and is very bad for us.

 

[Billy000]

How do you know what a true Christian is? Hmm? Where do you get off making such an inflammatory remark?

My opinion is based on his blatant inflammatory remarks. You can be against homosexuality and still treat homosexual people with respect. Like it or not, they exist.

But his blatant inflammatory remarks are inflammatory only to those who think such people should not be allowed to speak those remarks. If you simply disagree with him or wrinkle your nose because he expressed himself more crudely or judgmentally than was necessary, that is your right too. Your right to say so even.

But when you seek to punish him physically or materially because you didn't like what he said or how he said it, you've crossed over a line from opinion to destructive activism. I think that is wrong. Even evil. And I think good people have to start standing up and pushing back on that kind of activism because it is harmful and destructive and is very bad for us.

The Gay marriage issue aside, simply treating gay people with respect is a very sensitive issue. A&E has a right to protect their interests. If they do not wan to associate their business with someone who says such bigoted remarks, that is their right.

Had Phil said something dignified and simple like "homosexuality goes against my religious beliefs", I would say you would have a point. Instead his remarks were disrespectful and insulting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Answered 3 years ago.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1970142-post25.html

 

[Sunshine]

"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.

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.

The Bible specifies who can be a bishop or deacon:

1 Timothy 3:2, 12

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Nothing in there about husband of one husband.

 

[Foxfyre]

My opinion is based on his blatant inflammatory remarks. You can be against homosexuality and still treat homosexual people with respect. Like it or not, they exist.

But his blatant inflammatory remarks are inflammatory only to those who think such people should not be allowed to speak those remarks. If you simply disagree with him or wrinkle your nose because he expressed himself more crudely or judgmentally than was necessary, that is your right too. Your right to say so even.

But when you seek to punish him physically or materially because you didn't like what he said or how he said it, you've crossed over a line from opinion to destructive activism. I think that is wrong. Even evil. And I think good people have to start standing up and pushing back on that kind of activism because it is harmful and destructive and is very bad for us.

The Gay marriage issue aside, simply treating gay people with respect is a very sensitive issue. A&E has a right to protect their interests. If they do not wan to associate their business with someone who says such bigoted remarks, that is their right.

Had Phil said something dignified and simple like "homosexuality goes against my religious beliefs", I would say you would have a point. Instead his remarks were disrespectful and insulting.

Again I have no problem with any business decision A&E makes. I have full choice whether to do business with A&E or not or to watch A&E or not. But when A&E, who otherwise would have done nothing, gives in to GLAAD's demands that Robertson be fired, then both A&E and GLAAD have crossed over that line between our right to hold whatever opinion we hold and assuming a right to punish those who we disagree with. It is assuming that we are justified in FORCING people to be respectful and PC when we have no skin in the game that is the issue here.

To expect or require him to use words or phrases or content that is pleasing to GLAAD or New Yorkers or accordian players can also be disrespectful and insulting.

 

[Billy000]

But his blatant inflammatory remarks are inflammatory only to those who think such people should not be allowed to speak those remarks. If you simply disagree with him or wrinkle your nose because he expressed himself more crudely or judgmentally than was necessary, that is your right too. Your right to say so even.

But when you seek to punish him physically or materially because you didn't like what he said or how he said it, you've crossed over a line from opinion to destructive activism. I think that is wrong. Even evil. And I think good people have to start standing up and pushing back on that kind of activism because it is harmful and destructive and is very bad for us.

The Gay marriage issue aside, simply treating gay people with respect is a very sensitive issue. A&E has a right to protect their interests. If they do not wan to associate their business with someone who says such bigoted remarks, that is their right.

Had Phil said something dignified and simple like "homosexuality goes against my religious beliefs", I would say you would have a point. Instead his remarks were disrespectful and insulting.

Again I have no problem with any business decision A&E makes. I have full choice whether to do business with A&E or not or to watch A&E or not. But when A&E, who otherwise would have done nothing, gives in to GLAAD's demands that Robertson be fired, then both A&E and GLAAD have crossed over that line between our right to hold whatever opinion we hold to assuming a right to punish those who we disagree with. It is assuming that we are justified in FORCING people to be respectful and PC when we have no skin in the game that is the issue here.

To expect or require him to use words or phrases or content that is pleasing to GLAAD or New Yorkers or accordian players can also be disrespectful and insulting.

To my understanding A&E's actions came before GLAAD said anything. I really doubt GLAAD had anything to with his suspension.