GLADD is Really Quacked-Up on This One.

                                              GLADD is Really Quacked-Up on This One.

 

Everyone has their opinion of the GLADD, A&E, and Phil Robertson sage.  GLADD and other organizations were petitioning A&E to remove Robertson from Duck Dynasty because they viewed his comments as "hate speech".  While the term may mean different things to different people, my complaint is it seems so many activists define hate speech as "Expressing a position on a critical social issue different from the one I want expressed".  They develop an Orwellian view of speech something like:  "All speech except hate speech should be tolerated.  Speech that disagrees with my speech is hate speech."

What people need to understand is tolerance means not only getting others to tolerate your ideas, but getting yourself to tolerate the ideas of others as well. There's no question in my mind that the leadership of GLADD has an unwavering opinion they are right in their actions. Their own website says they are "Fighting Media Defamation of LGBT People for Over 25 Years." While I do not think that in itself is a bad cause, I personally find fault with their tactics. It seems ironic that an organization so devoted to expanding one type of freedom for a class of people is also so willing to take away another type of freedom for another class of Americans.

GLADD sees themselves as the loser in this incident. They failed to achieve their objective of stopping the expression of a viewpoint they believe wrong. I see the American people in general as the victors instead. At least in this one case, the right to express an opinion has been protected. Ironically, this benefits GLADD as well as all Americans.  They are one of the most controversial or cutting-edge organizations in our society today, depending on your viewpoint. What would their position be in if someone considered their speech too extreme and tried to suppress it?

 

 

 

Tolerance means more than you think.

I have just finished helping a fellow writer by critiquing a male/male romance story.  What is interesting is, I am a devout Lutheran who believes in strict adherence to the teachings of the Bible and also believes that same Bible condemns homosexuality.  So, why would someone with my religious belief system support a story about a homosexual romance by helping the author critique it?  The answer is it is my opinion the writing profession demands it.  Of all the disciplines, I believe writing should involve the free flow of ideas, even ones I or someone else may disagree with.

It is not up to any one individual to judge what is right or wrong; or appropriate or inappropriate.  We are all equal in that the most we can do is say it is our opinion this is right and that is wrong.  God in heaven has perfect knowledge of right and wrong and the most any of us can do is pray for knowledge of His mind and hope we are doing His will.

I'm sure many gays and social liberals are applauding my words at the moment. They may be joyful that they have 'gotten through' to another religious conservative.  My response to this reaction is 'not so fast'.

I'm finding that a lot of the people who seek tolerance of the gay lifestyle are also equally intolerant of traditional religion. Many of the same people who are politically correct about not mocking homosexuals have no reservations about mocking Jesus or traditional Christians.  My response is that the door swings both ways.  Just as it is wrong for someone to not be tolerated for their sexual lifestyle, it is equally wrong to not tolerate someone for their religious beliefs.

Looking at it logically, there are two possibilities.   Homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, or it isn't.  If it is not a sin, homosexuals have not committed wrong against God by practicing their lifestyle.  If it is a sin, God is loving and forgiving.  I'm convinced things will sort out at the time of judgment.  In the meantime, if we are to follow God's commandments, we are obligated to treat our neighbor with respect regardless of his or her opinions on social matters.