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

[OODA_Loop]

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.

A&E is suffering the consequences. Deservedly.

 

[Intense]

"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher

I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.

Should we tolerate injustice? Of course not.

But this is not a case of tolerating injustice either. Or at least it wasn't until Phil Robertson was suspended at A&E. It was a case of a demand that he be fired for expressing a personal belief. Not for calling for action from anybody. Not suggesting that anybody be attacked or discriminated against or harmed in any way. It was purely for expressing a personal belief.

When did that become an unforgivable sin in this country? Is expressing one's personal belief in itself an injustice? A punishable offense?

It's all cycles. There is nothing new under the sun. There is also no excuse for bad manners. The Golden Rule FF does not fail.

 

[Billy000]

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.

.

I'll admit I have such a record, but i think each of my posts speak for themselves.

 

[Gracie]

About that contract Phil may have signed.....

Did you know that many retailers tell their employees that if their cash register till is short after their shift that they (the employee running that machine) is liable for any loss...and they signed an agreement stating such would be the case....and the employer does indeed take out what is missing or lost from that persons check? But do you know that that is also ILLEGAL to do, signature on a contract, or not, and cannot be LEGALLY enforced? At least, not in California. Don't know about other states.

So...perhaps Phil signed a contract that is illegal in the first place. Nobody knows or will know unless the contract is shown in it's entirety.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

 

[Billy000]

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*

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

 

[Geaux4it]

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*

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

What then should the Tea Party get? They are routinely called terrorist

-Geaux

Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz2o9ZtTsuQ


By JONATHAN ALLEN and JOHN BRESNAHAN | 8/1/11 4:07 PM EDT Updated: 8/2/11 3:25 PM EDT

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz2o9a1g4Gf

 

[The T]

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.

Indeed. principle. What separates us from the animal kingdom, and our ability to think.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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*

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

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?

 

[The T]

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*

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

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?

If Billy knew, he wouldn't have to ask or pose such thoughts of REAL Christians as juxtaposed with faux ones. But then I think a bit of projection he does exhibit IMHO.

 

[Billy000]

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*

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

What then should the Tea Party get? They are routinely called terrorist

-Geaux

I don't think it would be fair to call all tea party people terrorists, but is definitely justified to say Ted Cruz is.

 

[The T]

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*

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

WHAT then, praytell IS a "REAL Christain", Billy?

 

[Derideo_Te]

"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.

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.

 

[Billy000]

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*

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

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?

 

[The T]

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

What then should the Tea Party get? They are routinely called terrorist

-Geaux

I don't think it would be fair to call all tea party people terrorists, but is definitely justified to say Ted Cruz is.

A bit OFF TOPIC, don't you think? What has TED Cruz to do with this? Did he weigh in with his verdict?

 

[The T]

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

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 have 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?

Did Christ ever say that his followers should NOT speak their minds for fear of reprisal?

To answer this LOOK at what he did? It flew in the FACE of the collective wisdom of the time. CHRIST was murdered for it.

Again, with all due respect, Billy? YOU need to think this thing through.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Christ I already made it clear I don't have anything against real Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, this case is much more complicated than that. He compared terrorists to gay people. That is insulting and degrading and thus the reason I think it was justified for him to be removed.

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?

 

[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...

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys, let's don't let this become personal or dissolve into challenging the views of each other. The topic is defining and recognizing intolerance. We've all done a pretty good job at focusing on that concept so far even though we don't all agree.

I am as susceptible to the next person to bristling when somebody says something I consider erroneous or unfair or ungracious or insulting about somebody I admire or appreciate. Sometimes I am moved to defend such somebody; but usually I just bite my tongue and at least pause to ask "How important is it?" For each of us who has very negative opinions of Barack Obama, there is somebody else who likes and admires him. And each of our points of view may or may not be based on anything legitimate, but we harm nobody by the beliefs or perceptions we hold. We hurt people only when we would punish them for holding the views they hold.

In Phil Robertson's case, I would have counseled him to reconsider how he expressed his point of view in that interview with GQ. Again I disagreed with his point of view and I disliked how he expressed his point of view in that case. And I am not and may never be a Duck Dynasty fan. But I am sick of the mindset that it is okay to destroy and punish people purely because they express an opinion that we don't like and/or in a way we don't like.

 

[The T]

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.