Wednesday, January 01, 2014






‘Duck Dynasty’ critics are not intolerant?

Gary Varvel and many of his fellow conservatives do not seem to understand the meaning of the word intolerant. In many instances we see a conservative make a homophobic, sexist or racist comment and then when liberals criticize the statement they are accused of being intolerant. Criticizing a person’s statement is neither intolerant nor a violation of that person’s free speech rights.

My dictionary defines “intolerant” as “unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.” No one is trying to deny the “Duck Dynasty” guy his rights of free speech. He is being criticized for his position.

Source

Except that such criticism threatens his employment.  Leftist "criticism" is more than criticism.  It's a demand for punishment.



10 comments:

Bob S. said...

I can understand where you are coming from with this post but I disagree with your characterization of those who disagree with someone like Robertson.

They aren't saying "I disagree with his view and this is why" -- they are labeling his opinion has hateful, vile -- in short telling him that he shouldn't have it.

Not that they dislike it but they are saying NO ONE should have such an opinion.

All the while they are saying "LGBT is OKAY" they are refusing to accept that others can say "LGBT is NOT OKAY".

And that is where the intolerance comes from.

Look at how GLAAD demanded the Robertson sit down with them and learn the error of his ways. They didn't ask to come to a mutual understanding. They didn't seek to understand his opinion (which wasn't hateful at all).

They tried to shut down his opinion. The Rose Bowl will feature a gay couple 'marrying' on National Television and we conservative Christians are not only supposed to accept it but approve of it. The language used by GLAAD and others make that abundantly clear.

Personally I think people should 'marry' who they want if their beliefs allow it. Get the government out -- but don't tell me I can't call homosexuality a sin like adultery, gluttony, greed. M

Anonymous said...

And my dictionary labels a Bigot as:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
But Robertson says he loves all people and that he is in no position to judge them, that will be for God.
Yet the LGBT community labels him is a Bigot.

Anonymous said...

So-called Christians are being extremely disingenuous and even using Orwellian double-speak to say they love everyone and never judge anyone, when that is exactly what they are doing and more than implying when not infrequently using insulting language. If certain behaviors are not to their taste they can simply say so (if they feel they really have to)and not start being "holier than thou" about sins and comparing sins as though they were all of equal demerit (talk about "projection"!). Wasn't there something in the Bible about "casting the first stone"?!

Bob S. said...

Anon @ 3:44 a.m.

It is a common misunderstanding that the Bible says not to judge people. What the intent of the scriptures is to call out hypocrisy in judging people.
That is the crux of Jesus' 'casting the first stone'.

The scripture "Judge not lest you be judged" is only half; the rest (paraphrasing) goes "by the same measure you use to judge. Worry not about the splinter in your brother's eye, pick out the plank in yours".

Phil did say certain behaviors were not to his taste (that is what the whole "women have more going for them was about".

And sorry to say but all sins are of equal demerit. That is very clear and very Scripturally based. In fact that was what Phil said if anyone had actually read it. He was asked what is sinful and listed homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, greed, gluttony, etc.

To close, you'll note that Phil talked about the sins and how it is God's job to judge them. He was saying this because he (Phil) fully admits he was and is (as am I) a sinner as anyone else.

Use the Name, Luke said...

You should know that robbing a bank will get you thrown in jail. You should not do it.

Oops, now I've done it. I guess I'm "extremely disingenuous" and "Orwellian" because I pointed that out.

Anonymous said...

No Luke, you aren't subtle enough for that!

Anonymous said...

So all sins are equal? Hitler's sins are the same as two men who mutually masturbate? Christians are too whacky for words!

Anonymous said...

Luke can't tell the difference between what is legal and what is not (robbing and consensual sex between adults).
He doesn't react well when he is given advice about the damage that religious indoctrination does to him, so why should other people welcome his advice about changing their legal "life styles".

Bob S. said...

@ Anon 3:37 a.m.

Hard to understand but yes. All sins are equal; they are all disobedience to God's commandments.

Now not all sins are equally horrific though.

Jay walking is a crime and so is murder. Does that mean everyone is too whacky for words?

Anonymous said...

He/she said "Christians" not "everyone". To consider all sins to be of equal demerit is indeed dumb, just because someone decides to classify them all under the "sin" umbrella, not to mention what should constitute as a "sin", as Christians today conveniently interpret the Bible as they choose. Someone can cheat on his wife and point fingers at a monogamous gay couple - hmm!