Rather Have Intolerance?

[Spherical Time]

One of the complaints that I've seen many times here at Cf is that we liberals aren't being tolerant of intolerant people.

So, would you rather that we be intolerant of you?

I mean, after my time here I've found that it wouldn't take much to convince me that there are segments of the population that are threats to our culture and our way of life.

If given the chance, would you rather that I voted for people that are out to destroy the American way of life (i.e. Christian Nationalists) to be sent to internment camps until they can be tried and expelled from the U.S.?

Most Christians are decent and good people, but they rarely condemn the extremism that is found in the edges of their society. So many seem to twist what should be their religion of peace into a religion of hate and war. The Bible seems to support all sorts of interpretations that allow for war and genocide.

So, to all those that think that we're being hypocritical, should we treat you like you want to treat us? You seem to think that tolerance is pointless. Should we consider you enemies and evil, and do our best to make our personal views enforceable by law?

Just curious.

MOD HAT

 

[Robinsegg]

I don't think tolerance is pointless. I think the term is being usurped until the term is pointless. If tolerance means that I disagree with someone, but don't try to harm them or have them arrested, or slander them . . . that is tolerance. If tolerance means I must agree with and embrace whatever ideas anyone comes up with . . . that's agreement, not tolerance.

Rachel

 

[KarateCowboy]

I don't think tolerance is pointless. I think the term is being usurped until the term is pointless. If tolerance means that I disagree with someone, but don't try to harm them or have them arrested, or slander them . . . that is tolerance. If tolerance means I must agree with and embrace whatever ideas anyone comes up with . . . that's agreement, not tolerance.

Rachel

I totally agree. These days simply saying someone is wrong is seen as 'intolerance'.

SphericalTime, the problem is that your side sees it as 'intolerance' when it's actually not. There is nothing 'intolerant' about a Muslim believing that homosexuals (i am assuming that's what you are talking about) should be treated with respect in everyday circumstances like buying a car or applying for a loan but at the same time believing in Natural Marriage.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

There is nothing 'intolerant' about a Muslim believing that homosexuals (i am assuming that's what you are talking about) should be treated with respect in everyday circumstances like buying a car or applying for a loan but at the same time believing in Natural Marriage.

Of course there isn't. That's fine. The intolerance comes in the next step that all too many people make: that what they 'believe' has any relevance whatsoever to what other people can or cannot do by law. If someone thinks marriage is only between a man and woman, fine. But if two women want to get married then that opinion has absolutely no bearing on them. It is those that try to legislate their opinions that are intolerant.

peace

 

[Uphill Battle]

Of course there isn't. That's fine. The intolerance comes in the next step that all too many people make: that what they 'believe' has any relevance whatsoever to what other people can or cannot do by law. If someone thinks marriage is only between a man and woman, fine. But if two women want to get married then that opinion has absolutely no bearing on them. It is those that try to legislate their opinions that are intolerant.

peace

Perhaps... But in a free speaking country, such intolerance is to be expected. Political intolerance is not the same as personal intolerance... we all vote what we believe, if we vote at all.

But I have to go back to the OP, and state that you say that Christians do not condemn the fringe elements. We do, and we do regularly.

It's the fringe that gets all the press.

 

[levi501]

obviously not quite enough if a "fringe" president can get elected.

 

[Robinsegg]

It is those that try to legislate their opinions that are intolerant.

This is an interesting idea. Intolerance from voting your conscience. While I am coming to the conclusion that legislating religion doesn't really work (only a changed heart will keep people from doing what they ought not), I find it interesting that those with a differing opinion are labelled as intolerant. Perhaps because they are trying to outlaw that which they find wrong for their own reasons? Well, I suppose I can see how you get that. Otoh, in the US, the majority is supposed to rule through their representatives. Thus, a representative votes in such a way that reflects his/her constituents. If that representative does not agree with his constituents but votes that way to represent those people, is he still intolerant? Or just the constituents? What of those (since gay marriage was brought up) who want to take marriage out of the hands of the government and make them all civil unions, making marriage the strict purview of the church? Are they, too, intolerant? It's an interesting set of questions to consider.

Rachel

 

[Uphill Battle]

obviously not quite enough if a "fringe" president can get elected.

so you say. I would think if a majority speaks, it's not fringe. But beyond that, I don't see Bush waving a placard, even if my personal feelings about him and his administration is a bit on the down side.

(of course, I'm Canadian, and don't worry much about American presidents.)

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that anyone who doesn't agree with your personal ideology is "fringe."

 

[~A.Pure.Heart~]

One of the complaints that I've seen many times here at Cf is that we liberals aren't being tolerant of intolerant people.

The only time I've ever heard of anyone being intollorant, is when someone, like yourself mentions it. I've never actually seen someone complain about "liberals" being anything.

So, would you rather that we be intolerant of you?

I don't know you. But, I can give you a general answer. I would rather anyone and everyone speak to me the way society would dictate...politely, and with a little consideration.

I mean, after my time here I've found that it wouldn't take much to convince me that there are segments of the population that are threats to our culture and our way of life.

Such as?

If given the chance, would you rather that I voted for people that are out to destroy the American way of life (i.e. Christian Nationalists) to be sent to internment camps until they can be tried and expelled from the U.S.?

America is a free counrtry...which would seem to mean that you are free to vote for whomever you choose.

Most Christians are decent and good people, but they rarely condemn the extremism that is found in the edges of their society.

So, have I got this straight? By your reasoning, to be decent and good, a person must condemnt extremism found at the edges of their society? :scratch. ...imo extremism is not found at the edges of society anyway, but more at it's center. ...imo there is no general opinion warrented for the group "most christians" as most Christians are as diverse in their beliefs, observances and opinions as grains of sand.

So many seem to twist what should be their religion of peace into a religion of hate and war.

Which religion is it that you're speaking of specifically? Can you site an example?

The Bible seems to support all sorts of interpretations that allow for war and genocide.

Not support interpretations, report history.

So, to all those that think that we're being hypocritical, should we treat you like you want to treat us?

I don't know you. I have no opinion on your actions. I can't control how you treat me or anyone for that matter. But, I would hope you would treat me according to your own character, which hopefully would be in line with how I want to be treated..with honesty, civility and hopefully a little consideration.

You seem to think that tolerance is pointless. Should we consider you enemies and evil, and do our best to make our personal views enforceable by law?

I would hope you wouldn't consider me an enemy, but an individual with a view point. Evil? Perhaps you used this word out of emotionality. Becasue although every human being is endowed with every characteristic of humanity, I would hope that I'm not thought of as "evil". Make your personal views enforceable by law? Is that even possible? Wouldn't it be better just to accept that we are not groups, but individual opinion, action and thought which is in a constant state of perpetual motion? That we are all in fact, facets of the same design?

I'm sorry you seem so frustrated and angry. I know what that's like. It's not a place I like to live....even if I, like every other human being on the planet makes the occasional visit to that state of mind every now and again. And, I can only give you the advise I was brought up with to help you deal with your feelings...treat others how you want them to treat you. And don't let other peoples actions dictate what you do. Because in the end, nobody cares or remembers who or what insighted you to act/react the way you did/do. What you do, your character, is all you. You just have to decide who you're willing to be.

 

[Robinsegg]

obviously not quite enough if a "fringe" president can get elected.

In this case, please define "fringe".
Rachel

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

This is an interesting idea. Intolerance from voting your conscience. While I am coming to the conclusion that legislating religion doesn't really work (only a changed heart will keep people from doing what they ought not), I find it interesting that those with a differing opinion are labelled as intolerant. Perhaps because they are trying to outlaw that which they find wrong for their own reasons? Well, I suppose I can see how you get that. Otoh, in the US, the majority is supposed to rule through their representatives. Thus, a representative votes in such a way that reflects his/her constituents. If that representative does not agree with his constituents but votes that way to represent those people, is he still intolerant? Or just the constituents? What of those (since gay marriage was brought up) who want to take marriage out of the hands of the government and make them all civil unions, making marriage the strict purview of the church? Are they, too, intolerant? It's an interesting set of questions to consider.

Good questions. Are there not meant to be, however, certain inalienable rights that even the democratic process cannot eradicate? Surely this is one of the fundamentals of a free society? If a country that is 70% [insert religion] votes in a referendum to outlaw all other religions, would the fact that the law had been changed solely through democracy make it conducive to a free country? Is democracy really the only pre-requisite of having a free nation?

peace

 

[Robinsegg]

Good questions. Are there not meant to be, however, certain inalienable rights that even the democratic process cannot eradicate? Surely this is one of the fundamentals of a free society? If a country that is 70% [insert religion] votes in a referendum to outlaw all other religions, would the fact that the law had been changed solely through democracy make it conducive to a free country? Is democracy really the only pre-requisite of having a free nation?

peace

In the US, there are certain rights granted by the government to the populace at large (with a few exceptions, such as incarcerated persons). These are set down in the Constitution and its' Ammendments (including the Bill of Rights). Inalienable rights (as indicated in The Declaration of Independence) are given by God to His created people. Thus, no one can take those rights away from anyone, as they are granted by God, not man or government. Freedom to practice the religion of one's choice is included in our Bill of Rights, thus no simple referendum could disenfranchise those of any religion. There are many things now viewed as "rights" that are not stated in such venues. Many are not rights, but priveledges. Others should be available to all, but are not.

Rachel

 

[Vylo]

I totally agree. These days simply saying someone is wrong is seen as 'intolerance'.

See to me that is acceptance. I know pretty semantical, but that is what is pretty much spelled out in our rights. We have the right to freedom of expression, so we have the right not to accept people. But at the same time we have to be tolerant. That simply means not persecuting or attacking them.

I don't accept homosexual in that I think it is good and fine. Natural perhaps, but I find homosexuality revolting. I do however think they should have equal rights and be able to marry.

 

[levi501]

In this case, please define "fringe".
Rachel

extremism.

 

[levi501]

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that anyone who doesn't agree with your personal ideology is "fringe."

baseless accusation.

 

[Uphill Battle]

baseless accusation.

perhaps. I did say correct me if I'm wrong. But then, it was stated that the Christians have a right to express their views in a democratic society, you really don't want them to have that, as it's "bigoted"... I can only surmise that from your posts so far. (and it wasn't an accusation. simply an opinion, you need to relax.)

 

[TeddyKGB]

This is an interesting idea. Intolerance from voting your conscience.

While we're tilting at semantic windmills, "conscience" has unfortunately become a political buzzword used to shield opinions from criticism. If my conscience tells me that homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other, and Pat Robertson's tells him they shouldn't, why should we value "voting one's conscience"? It seems conceivable that any particular person's conscience might say anything at all.

While I am coming to the conclusion that legislating religion doesn't really work (only a changed heart will keep people from doing what they ought not), I find it interesting that those with a differing opinion are labelled as intolerant. Perhaps because they are trying to outlaw that which they find wrong for their own reasons?

Maybe. In a constitutional republic, we don't get to take away rights for our own reasons.

The Constitution values the right above the way in which the right is used. I would throw hatemongers like Fred Phelps from the proverbial train if I could, but I am forced to resist his message rather than his means. I have to protect his right to speak lest anyone come to similarly oppose something I might say.

What of those (since gay marriage was brought up) who want to take marriage out of the hands of the government and make them all civil unions, making marriage the strict purview of the church? Are they, too, intolerant?

Of what would they be intolerant? The word "marriage"?

 

[Spherical Time]

Perhaps... But in a free speaking country, such intolerance is to be expected. Political intolerance is not the same as personal intolerance... we all vote what we believe, if we vote at all.

So . . . If I believe that fundamentalist Christians are not human, you think that I should be allowed to advocate that we should amend the constitution so that we can remove their human rights?

I mean, the Bible says that you'll be oppressed for what you believe. What better oppression is there than dehumanization?

I don't believe this yet, but what if I believe that Christians should be sold into slavery, and then voted my conscience on the matter? That should be okay, right?

But I have to go back to the OP, and state that you say that Christians do not condemn the fringe elements. We do, and we do regularly.

It's the fringe that gets all the press.

This was a separate point, that hasn't been discussed yet, so I'll leave it be.

This is an interesting idea. Intolerance from voting your conscience. While I am coming to the conclusion that legislating religion doesn't really work (only a changed heart will keep people from doing what they ought not), I find it interesting that those with a differing opinion are labelled as intolerant. Perhaps because they are trying to outlaw that which they find wrong for their own reasons? Well, I suppose I can see how you get that. Otoh, in the US, the majority is supposed to rule through their representatives. Thus, a representative votes in such a way that reflects his/her constituents. If that representative does not agree with his constituents but votes that way to represent those people, is he still intolerant? Or just the constituents? What of those (since gay marriage was brought up) who want to take marriage out of the hands of the government and make them all civil unions, making marriage the strict purview of the church? Are they, too, intolerant? It's an interesting set of questions to consider.

Rachel

So, as long as I found a majority of people that agreed that Christians should be made slaves, it would be ethical and moral for me to vote my conscience and vote to remove human rights from them? After all, it would just be for my own reasons.

There's a further interesting point in your text. When I said that liberals are accused of being intolerant of intolerant people, that's because they have a difference of opinion.

It seems since your post is the first one on this thread, you've started the ball rolling by being intollorant of...well, whom ever you think will read this.

I don't know you. But, I can give you a general answer for the purpose of your question. I would rather anyone and everyone speak to me the way society would dictate...politely, and with a social grace.

Such as?

America is a free counrtry...which means you are free to vote for whomever you choose. Vote your conscience. Don't vote at all. Run yourself. Or you can do what many choose to do instead...just voice your complaints somwhere where you will be heard.

So, have I got this straight? By your reasoning, to be decent and good, a person must condemnt extremism found at the edges of their society? :scratch. ...imo extremism is not found at the edges of society, but at it's center. ...imo there is no general opinion warrented for the group "most christians" as most Christians are as diverse in their beliefs, observances and opinions as grains of sand.

"Religion of peace"?

Not support, report. The Bible was written thousands of years ago. The parts of which you are referring are a historical account of civiliazation over 2,000 years ago. .

I don't know you. I have thusfar, not treated you any different than I treat everyone, everywhere. And I can't control how you treat me or anyone for that matter. But, I would hope you would treat me with civility.

I would hope youw ouldn't consider me an enemy, but an individual with a view point. Evil? Perhaps you used this word out of emotionality. Becasue although every human being is endowed with every characteristic of humanity, I would hope that I'm not though of as "evil". Make your personal views enforceable by law? Is that even possible? Wouldn't it be better just to accept that we are not groups of black and white, but all facets of the same design? And try to be a little considerate to each other...so that maybe someone else out of the generosity of their heart will be considerate to us when we need it?

I'm sorry you are so angry. I know what that's like. And it's not a place I like to live.

I don't think I want to respond to anyone that plays the race card, or even someone that calls me emotional and intolerant.

Thanks for replying though.

In the US, there are certain rights granted by the government to the populace at large (with a few exceptions, such as incarcerated persons). These are set down in the Constitution and its' Ammendments (including the Bill of Rights). Inalienable rights (as indicated in The Declaration of Independence) are given by God to His created people. Thus, no one can take those rights away from anyone, as they are granted by God, not man or government. Freedom to practice the religion of one's choice is included in our Bill of Rights, thus no simple referendum could disenfranchise those of any religion. There are many things now viewed as "rights" that are not stated in such venues. Many are not rights, but priveledges. Others should be available to all, but are not.

Rachel

The Constitution can change. Ask the Constitution Party.

In fact, that's the best way to get around those activist judges that would probably want to stop someone that believes that Christians aren't human. Especially if they just want to more clearly define things. Freedom of religion is fine, but if someone chooses to become an enemy of the state, shouldn't it be okay to define them as animals? They don't respect the law of the land, why should it protect them?

 

[Uphill Battle]

So . . . If I believe that fundamentalist Christians are not human, you think that I should be allowed to advocate that we should amend the constitution so that we can remove their human rights?

You techincally have the right to it... to a degree. Good luck with it however.

I mean, the Bible says that you'll be oppressed for what you believe. What better oppression is there than dehumanization?

not much.

I don't believe this yet, but what if I believe that Christians should be sold into slavery, and then voted my conscience on the matter? That should be okay, right?

If the matter was up to vote, then yes, vote what you believe. I don't know at what point a viewpoint of removing the rights of one group or another becomes "hate crime" related, but hey, if a vote is available, vote.

This was a separate point, that hasn't been discussed yet, so I'll leave it be.

cool.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I don't think I want to respond to anyone that plays the race card, or even someone that calls me emotional and intolerant.

Not to be a Smart Aleck, but does that mean that if you call Natural Marriage advocates intolerant, that I should go into ignore mode?