The T
George S. Patton Party
And WHAT BIAS is that? And while we're here? WHAT is your bias PlasDork?
In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?
- Thread starter Foxfyre
- Start date
- Status
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
So your interpretation is that he is accusing YOU (because of course you are a sinner) as being just as much a GOD HATER as is a lesbian?
Are you comfortable with that? Do you believe that Jesus sees you the same as you believe Robertson does?
btw here's the actual video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiDjXf4AUIE]Part 3 Phil Robertson aka The Duck Commander - YouTube[/ame]
Until Robertson denies he was talking about homosexuals...
...he was talking about homosexuals.
OODA_Loop
Account Terminated
paperview
Life is Good
You're full of murder? Everyone is?
Holy crap. My whole life, I never knew.
Everyone is evil. Is this what Christianity is about to you?
- Moderator
- #1,565
It must be sad living you life based off of stereotypes. What you think Christianity should be is not what I think it should be or what RKM thinks it should be. Anyone who expresses their intolerance of another's opinion through action and suppression is evil. No, not everyone is evil. Those who can't accept a different opinion than their own and must act to eliminate it are evil.
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
Amen.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Hitler? REALLY? And let me guess? Hitler was a Conservative...? Correct? YOU idiots and your references need to be checked. YOU are part of the problem. YOU wouldn't know EVIL if it was screwing you in your sorry behind...only YOU enjoy it.
The Moral Majority is nothing NEW…
“If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.”
“I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!”
Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
Last edited:
How the eff do you translate sin runs amok to everyone murders. You are effin retarded.
The T
George S. Patton Party
PPV has that habit.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Are you comfortable with the people who disagree with you on that point? Are you comfortable with the OP who wants to make it illegal for people to act on that disagreement?
Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.
This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.
The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.
Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.
In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.
As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.
I agree with everything except the red part. Not that they didn't personally believe that people should be free to express their views, but they did not believe that it was government's job to protect them from the consequence of stating their views.
I think what people, including me, are stuck on is your use of the word "illegal."
Certainly the people who got Robertson kicked off the air are far more motivated by hate and intolerance than he is. I agree with you on that.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
First, I'm going to go with the obvious, the targets of hate and intolerance. Which by definition is not based on fair evaluation.
More broadly, hate and intolerance are tools in politics utilized by liberals and socons to control people into supporting their side without questioning their logic or policies. For example, liberals target the old, saying those evil Republicans are going after your check, which is not true. You use hate and intolerance so much that by the time you get past manipulating blacks, women, gays, Latinos, the poor, the elderly, ... that you never get to any constructive policy at all, you just destroy. And that destruction includes the people you manipulated into supporting you with hate and intolerance.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Hitler? REALLY? And let me guess? Hitler was a Conservative...? Correct? YOU idiots and your references need to be checked. YOU are part of the problem. YOU wouldn't know EVIL if it was screwing you in your sorry behind...only YOU enjoy it.
The Moral Majority is nothing NEW
If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.
I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!
Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:
The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.
...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
It would seem so.
It comes as no surprise, of course, that most conservatives would seek to silence the opposition using the authority of the state, as opposed to allowing private society to determine on its own what is or is not appropriate, as intended by the Framers.
Foxfyre
Eternal optimist
- Thread starter
- #1,576
Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.
This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.
The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.
Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.
In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.
As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.
I agree with everything except the red part. Not that they didn't personally believe that people should be free to express their views, but they did not believe that it was government's job to protect them from the consequence of stating their views.
I think what people, including me, are stuck on is your use of the word "illegal."
Certainly the people who got Robertson kicked off the air are far more motivated by hate and intolerance than he is. I agree with you on that.
Absolutely GLAAD is the hateful and intolerant party in that particular flap, but you're probably right that the word 'illegal' is muddying the waters.
Let me try to explain better.
Government, at some level, is necessary to pass NECESSARY laws that restrict our ability to do intentional harm to others with impunity. It is against the law for me to punch you out or shoot you or deliberate run you over with my car or do any other intentional physical harm. Government at some level is necessary to enforce such laws that protect your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Likewise, under libel and slander laws, it is illegal for me to write or speak deliberate untruths with intention of malice that impune your reputation and cause you physical and/or material damages. Government at some level is necessary to enforce those laws too.
But if you really piss me off or I just don't like you or who you are, there is no law that prevents me from mobilizing my large, well funded organization from threatening your employer witth boycotts or worse if he doesn't fire you, from threatening other businesses if they hire you, from harrassing your family or friends or customers or suppliers. I can make your life a living hell and there is no government power at any level that can require me to back off.
And in my view that is as wrong as striking you, libeling you, and/or slandering you so, in my opinion, it SHOULD be illegal also. I just haven't been able to figure out a way to word such a law that wouldn't also restrict our unalienable rights to express disapproval of the bad acts of others.
So for now my campaign is to do my very small part to try to change the culture. Shame GLAAD or the American Family Association or ANY group that would attack people for no other reason than who they are or for an opinion the group didn't like. If enough of us can see the evil and harm in that, we will make a difference. Good people demanding good acts can make a difference.
Last edited:
Foxfyre
Eternal optimist
- Thread starter
- #1,577
And an addendum to the Phil Robertson issue:
It wasn't a big well funded organization threatening A&E and/or its advertisers that made it happen, but mllions of Duck Dynasty fans each expressing his/her anger at Phil Robertson's firing that has made A&E blink. They have brought Phil back on board. They are throwing GLAAD a bone by promising to run some pro-gay PSAs too, but that is their right to do. At least public opinion--not organizational bullying tactics--convinced them to do the right thing. That's the way it should be in a free society.
It wasn't a big well funded organization threatening A&E and/or its advertisers that made it happen, but mllions of Duck Dynasty fans each expressing his/her anger at Phil Robertson's firing that has made A&E blink. They have brought Phil back on board. They are throwing GLAAD a bone by promising to run some pro-gay PSAs too, but that is their right to do. At least public opinion--not organizational bullying tactics--convinced them to do the right thing. That's the way it should be in a free society.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.
This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.
The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.
Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.
In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.
As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.
Just a couple of quick comments about this.
First, I don't believe the founders wanted everyone to be able to be who and what they are. I don't think people tended to be nearly as tolerant during those times. I understand your point, and in the context of their times it could be considered true, perhaps, but in the context of today, they were likely fairly intolerant men who would have supported boycotts, lawsuits and bullying against certain groups or behaviors or opinions. That is, of course, entirely speculation on my part.
Second, I think it's fair to say both GQ and Phil Robertson put his opinions out for others to see. Unless you think he was unaware that his interview was going to be published, he and GQ are pretty much equally responsible for his opinion being published (although GQ maybe a bit more for however they edited it).
Finally, Robertson didn't just express his opinion, he did it quite publicly. Certainly he has every right to do so, but when a person puts themselves in the public eye, they become far, far more likely to receive public criticism. I don't say this to argue anything, just to clarify that I think the way he expressed his opinion is different than how the vast majority of us do it (although with social media, it's becoming more common for opinions to be open to the public at large) and, as such, different reactions should be expected.
Nothing important, just a few minor comments.
Foxfyre
Eternal optimist
- Thread starter
- #1,579
Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.
This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.
The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.
Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.
In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.
As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.
Just a couple of quick comments about this.
First, I don't believe the founders wanted everyone to be able to be who and what they are. I don't think people tended to be nearly as tolerant during those times. I understand your point, and in the context of their times it could be considered true, perhaps, but in the context of today, they were likely fairly intolerant men who would have supported boycotts, lawsuits and bullying against certain groups or behaviors or opinions. That is, of course, entirely speculation on my part.
Second, I think it's fair to say both GQ and Phil Robertson put his opinions out for others to see. Unless you think he was unaware that his interview was going to be published, he and GQ are pretty much equally responsible for his opinion being published (although GQ maybe a bit more for however they edited it).
Finally, Robertson didn't just express his opinion, he did it quite publicly. Certainly he has every right to do so, but when a person puts themselves in the public eye, they become far, far more likely to receive public criticism. I don't say this to argue anything, just to clarify that I think the way he expressed his opinion is different than how the vast majority of us do it (although with social media, it's becoming more common for opinions to be open to the public at large) and, as such, different reactions should be expected.
Nothing important, just a few minor comments.
Yes, if GLAAD was honestly going after a villain in that particular flap, it would have been GQ who is the entity that made the remarks public. The fact that they didn't even blink at GQ but instead went after Phil Robertson is very telling that their motive was personal and pure hatred and was in no way associated with defamation of gays and lesbians.
Phil Robertson's comments were not made publicly. They were made in response to a direct question from a GQ interviewer. GQ made the comments public. If GQ thought the comments unacceptable or inflammatory or inappropriate, they did not have to publish them.
Even if Phil Robertson's comments HAD been made publicly, the Founding Fathers intended for him to have the right to do that wherever it was allowed and to do so without fear. You are quite right that most of the early colonists were not at all tolerant of many thngs and they formed societies that reflected their personal ethics and sense of right and wrong as the Founders intended that they be able to do. This was after all the era of the scarlett letter, putting people in stocks, witch burnings, and such for nothing worse than expressing a belief or opinion. But those narrow minded communities were NOT allowed to force other communities to adopt their value system or practices.
And in time, as the Founding Fathers knew they would, all those narrow minded communities modified their demands, discontinued their more hateful practices, and chose liberty over oppression. A free people will make many mistakes and screw a lot of stuff up, but they will always eventually get it right or at least do it better.
The Founding Fathers were all first or second generation Europeans and had come from a culture in which what people were allowed to think, say, worship, or be was dictated by government and/or the Church. They intended that we Americans be free of such demands and be free to be who and what we chose to be. Their intention would have been for an organization like GLAAD to be who and what they are and that a Phil Robertson be who what he is without any fear from each other.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Would Christ have killed the Jews?Hitler? REALLY? And let me guess? Hitler was a Conservative...? Correct? YOU idiots and your references need to be checked. YOU are part of the problem. YOU wouldn't know EVIL if it was screwing you in your sorry behind...only YOU enjoy it.The Moral Majority is nothing NEW
If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.
I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!
Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:
The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.
...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.
GAME SET MATCH. Begone with your off topic paintbrush son.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
Senate approves budget plan to fund immigration enforcement, bowling over Democrat blockade- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 13
-
