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

[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.

 

[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.

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

(guffaws)

I have two gay friends, one was a cohort of mine at the University, the other lives in Toronto (both of us are hardcore gamers). I think homosexuality is sinful, but I don't have to accept it, I tolerate it unlike some people. And yes, I am always polite to homosexuals. Personally they are nice people to be around, some don't even care if you care about their lifestyle, some even willingly debate it.

What did you have me pegged for?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes, if he had violated A&E's express policy, then of course A&E can enforce whatever policy they choose. That was not the case here. A&E didn't care one way or the other--they don't have to agree with the Robertsons to appreciate that they have a huge audience and following and millions of people do enjoy and appreciate them.

The issue here was not A&E's point of view, but the fact that they allowed themselves to be bullied by threats and demands from GLAAD who had zero skin in the game and no personal interest in the issue whatsoever. Robertson was un-PC re homosexuality, and it was THAT which GLAAD was determined to punish as severely as possible. It is THAT kind of intolerance, acted out, that I think dangerous and evil if we allow it to stand.

You would think since Robertson also included drunks, swindlers, and adulterers in his little diatribe, that Congress would be mad at him too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Do you think I am such an ignoramus that I blatantly deny their existence? Inflammatory remarks consist of those that assume to know what a "true Christian" happens to be. And as I have mentioned in my previous response [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION], I treat all of them with respect, so long as they do the same for me.

 

[SwimExpert]

This question reminds me of a conversation I had back in the early days of the Iraq occupation. Someone posed the question asking what would happen if the Iraqi people democratically voted for themselves a totalitarian government based on Sharia law. Would this be a victory for America's drive to spread democracy? Or would it be a failure? It's not an easy dilemma to resolve. But I came to the conclusion that a people "democratically" rejecting democracy ultimately was not success story.

Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

On the other hand, maybe two negatives make a positive. In any event, kudos to you for posting quite possibly the most thoughtful thread I've seen so far around here.

 

[Billy000]

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?

(guffaws)

I have two gay friends, one was a cohort of mine at the University, the other lives in Toronto (both of us are hardcore gamers). I think homosexuality is sinful, but I don't have to accept it, I tolerate it unlike some people. And yes, I am always polite to homosexuals. Personally they are nice people to be around, some don't even care if you care about their lifestyle, some even willingly debate it.

What did you have me pegged for?

All I did was ask the question lol. I didn't assume you didn't associate with gay people. I just wanted clarification.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

(guffaws)

I have two gay friends, one was a cohort of mine at the University, the other lives in Toronto (both of us are hardcore gamers). I think homosexuality is sinful, but I don't have to accept it, I tolerate it unlike some people. And yes, I am always polite to homosexuals. Personally they are nice people to be around, some don't even care if you care about their lifestyle, some even willingly debate it.

What did you have me pegged for?

All I did was ask the question lol. I didn't assume you didn't associate with gay people. I just wanted clarification.

I assume since you're asking questions about my positions that you sought a) clarification or b) affirmation of assumptions. Forgive me for being overly analytical.

 

[Billy000]

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.

 

[The T]

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.

Indeed. Those that agree with GLADD, and A&E have forgone their decision of liberty, NAY, their right to just turn the program off...in favour of fascist tactics of stifling speech they don't agree with. In my book? Makes them un-American, and flies in the face of what WE as a people are deep down in principle regarding LIBERTY itself, and smacks of dishonor towards those millions that have fought and died for to protect in the very spirit of liberty, good or bad.

SURE, A&E made a business choice, (AND their right to do it), but one that will bite them in the long run. A&E caved, and didn't IMHO think of the ramifications. But such is the PC world we live in. SAD.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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.

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

 

[The T]

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.

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

It is what Billy wants. Billy shows himself to be intolerant, while saying he's tolerant. BILLY is a classic case of hypocrisy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

The operative word here being "HE needs to limit. . . . ."
The point of the OP is that HE has the right to his beliefs and the ONLY people who should have any say in what he expresses or how he expresses himself are himself and those who must associate with him.

The idea that GLAAD would demand that he be punished physically and materially for expressing a personal belief is evil. It would be evil if it was the Ladie's Temperance League or the Humane Society or the Royal Order of Tiddly Wink Players--anybody who would take it upon themselves to physically or materially punish somebody purely because they didn't like what somebody said or how he/she said it.

That should never be acceptable in a free society.

 

[Billy000]

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.

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

Freedom of speech has consequences. He had the right to say what he said, and A&E had the right to suspend them. I'm glad they did, but part of that is because I sincerely hate that show lol

 

[Billy000]

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.

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

It is what Billy wants. Billy shows himself to be intolerant, while saying he's tolerant. BILLY is a classic case of hypocrisy.

So me voicing my opinion that he should have been suspended means I am intolerant?

 

[The T]

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.

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

Freedom of speech has consequences. He had the right to say what he said, and A&E had the right to suspend them. I'm glad they did, but part of that is because I sincerely hate that show lol

Sure it does...and should be treated without malice of forethought. But is stifling such speech a good recourse in a free society?

I think you need more thought on the subject, for YOU advocate what YOU think your are railing against.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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.

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

Freedom of speech has consequences. He had the right to say what he said, and A&E had the right to suspend them. I'm glad they did, but part of that is because I sincerely hate that show lol

He doesn't care about the consequences to being true to his beliefs.

That is freedom.

 

[Billy000]

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

Freedom of speech has consequences. He had the right to say what he said, and A&E had the right to suspend them. I'm glad they did, but part of that is because I sincerely hate that show lol

Sure it does...and should be treated without malice of forethought. But is stifling such speech a good recourse in a free society?

I think you need more thought on the subject, for YOU advocate what YOU think your are railing against.

Who is stifling this guy? No one is.

 

[Mac1958]

So me voicing my opinion that he should have been suspended means I am intolerant?

Yes.

Well, that, and the fact that a vast majority of your other posts include personal insults and/or name-calling.

Track record.

.

 

[Billy000]

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

Freedom of speech has consequences. He had the right to say what he said, and A&E had the right to suspend them. I'm glad they did, but part of that is because I sincerely hate that show lol

He doesn't care about the consequences to being true to his beliefs.

That is freedom.

But if you word your beliefs in an insulting and degrading way, you deserve the consequences.

 

[The T]

He needs to limit his beliefs, opinions and statements.

It is what Billy wants. Billy shows himself to be intolerant, while saying he's tolerant. BILLY is a classic case of hypocrisy.

So me voicing my opinion that he should have been suspended means I am intolerant?

YOU seem to advocate it for someone that quoted the BIBLE in a seperate and apart interview from his program, and the network that carries his program.

YOU need further review and soul-searching.

*THANK ME*