The New "Tolerance"

[mrnoodle]

"Tolerance" in its current P.C. incarnation is a disease. It's a blanket term that essentially means "you have to like everything religious people are against, because religious people are evil and want to take away your fun." It has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of the word.

By the dictionary definition of "tolerance," I'm the epitome of the word. I don't try to force anything on anyone. However, because I hold certain beliefs, I am branded "intolerant", regardless of what I actually do.

It's okay, the pendulum will swing back again. I will be an old man when it happens though. I wish I had paid more attention when I was a kid. I didn't realize I was witnessing the end of common sense in the world. Maybe my grandkids' generation will revitalize it. We have to wait for the current middle-aged vapor-brains to die off though. Maybe the stress of trying to organize antiwar rallies, topple the tobacco industry, stuff envelopes for the Rainbow Coalition, and get all the Kwaanza shopping on time done will speed things along.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

By the dictionary definition of "tolerance," I'm the epitome of the word. I don't try to force anything on anyone. However, because I hold certain beliefs, I am branded "intolerant", regardless of what I actually do.

Unfortunately, you are getting blowback from the people who actually do do things. Take gay marriage, for example. The only people it could possibly affect are the people it will help, but huge swaths of people rise up and scream that it should be illegal. It was part of the Republican campaign strategy to get people to think that gay marriage would somehow affect them. My view of tolerance would be: If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. People who complain that they are being persecuted because gays can marry in Massachusetts are being extremely disingenuous.

[PizzaMonkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It was part of the Republican campaign strategy to get people to think that gay marriage would somehow affect them. My view of tolerance would be: If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. People who complain that they are being persecuted because gays can marry in Massachusetts are being extremely disingenuous.

Republican-bashing... Can't this go any other way? That's a cheap shot. Personally, I don't think gay marraige has any immediate effect on me. But allowing it would definitely make legislators more ... bold. You know, something like:

"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."

Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by PizzaMonkey

"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."

My 16 year-old son thinks legalizing gay marriage will pave the way for people to marry their cars.



He's a Republican.

Originally Posted by PizzaMonkey

Republican-bashing... Can't this go any other way? That's a cheap shot. Personally, I don't think gay marraige has any immediate effect on me. But allowing it would definitely make legislators more ... bold. You know, something like:

"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."

Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.

No, I did not get your point.
Gay marriage is about two people who are in love, not about anyone else or anything else. Fighting it was just selfish and mean spirited, nothing else, at all.
It had nothing to do with partisan politics, it had to do with bigotry.

[PizzaMonkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

No, I did not get your point.
Gay marriage is about two people who are in love, not about anyone else or anything else. Fighting it was just selfish and mean spirited, nothing else, at all.
It had nothing to do with partisan politics, it had to do with bigotry.

I may sound biased. Hell, I probably am. But the USA was based in Christian values. I think that if you try to take them away, everything else falls apart. Like I said before, I'm not Christian. But it was a foundation that worked, and I think that if you try to rip it out and replace it, we're going down.

If you live together for seven years (at least in Pennsylvania) you're married. You can just live together if you're gay. I don't know anything about what it's like to be in a gay relationship, and I don't pretend to. But I think that that's enough. We can't please everyone, after all.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by PizzaMonkey

But the USA was based in Christian values.

I disagree with this and agree that the US was based on the separation of Church and State.

But..for the sake of arguement, lets say you are correct. Then on WHOSE Christian values was the USA based?

The fundamentalists?
The gay Christians?
The Christians who believe that abortion is NOT a sin?
The Seventh Day Adventists?
The Baptists?
The Methodists?
The Catholics?
The Creationists?
The Evolutionists?
Your beliefs?
Mine?

WHO has the 'correct' beliefs that, without which, this nation will fall apart?

[now that sentence truly butchers all rules of grammar..lol]

But I think you get my point. Our foundation is NOT about a certain set of religious beliefs. However, everything we do that removes a piece of another human being's right to "the pursuit of happiness" does chip away at our foundation.

Stormie

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by PizzaMonkey

Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.

No. When you're making a slippery slope argument, the different items should be on the same slope. Do you seriously think that religious tradition is the only reason we don't kill off old people? Things that were once taboo should be legalized if the taboo isn't based on something real.

I may sound biased. Hell, I probably am. But the USA was based in Christian values. I think that if you try to take them away, everything else falls apart.

Please tell me how many of the Ten Commandments have equivalent US laws. Please tell me how many Levitican laws have equivalent US laws. Please tell me how many of Jesus' outright orders are enforced by US law. And then please tell me what precisely you mean by "the USA was based in Christian values".

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by PizzaMonkey

Republican-bashing... Can't this go any other way? That's a cheap shot. Personally, I don't think gay marraige has any immediate effect on me. But allowing it would definitely make legislators more ... bold. You know, something like:

"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."

Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.

And on the converse, there were people who thought the world would come to an end when they had to sit at the same lunch counter with people who had different color skin.

Was this a symbol of liberalism? Yes. Was it wrong? No.

You also seem to confuse the giving of rights with the taking of rights (in this case the right of someone over 60 to live).

I grew up studying WWII Germany, and the one thing I believe I have come to understand is that noone loses by giving people more freedom. It is only when we try to carve out exceptions for one group or another and say that they are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms that we risk the rights that have been given to us. We are all minorities, subject to the tyranny of the majority. Only there is no true majority, only a host of minorities who can be banded together in fear or hatred to deny other groups their rights.

We can call it security, tradition, God's will, or just the 'right way', but in the end we really cannot come up with any reason beyond that it makes us 'uncomfortable'.


Sorry about the rant. "My Own Native Land" and "I Wanna Love You Forever" were playing on my MP3 player, and there is nothing more dangerous than listening to emotional ballads when writing about politics. I am, however, serious about the point. The Bible teaches us to 'cast our bread upon the waters'. The same holds true of our freedoms.

UG thinks I disagree with the idea of America sharing it's concept of democracy with the world. In reality, I only believe that America cannot force it's concept of democracy on people who are unwilling to reach for it themselves or share it with their fellow citizens.

We have a group of people who want to realize the dream of having their union recognized and be treated with the same dignity as other citizens.

We have other groups who feel that by granting this, what they have will somehow be diluted, as if freedom is a zero sum game where ones freedom can only be measured by what someone else doesn't have.

I have seen some people on this board (UG) measure the strength of an argument by taking the most extreme people who believe in a position and hold them up as an example. So I will now perform the amazing first-time-on-the-Cellar double straw man manuever.

If you had to choose between Fred Phelps and Rosie O'Donnell, whose hand would you rather walk up and shake?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

If you had to choose between Fred Phelps and Rosie O'Donnell, whose hand would you rather walk up and shake?

Rosie's a gun-grabber. But Phelps is an asshole. Rosie wouldn't let me keep my guns to defend myself from Phelps...it's a no-win.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Rosie's a gun-grabber. But Phelps is an asshole. Rosie wouldn't let me keep my guns to defend myself from Phelps...it's a no-win.

You need a gun to defend yourself from that creep?! Sheesh, I could fend him off with a penknife and a rubber band.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

You need a gun to defend yourself from that creep?! Sheesh, I could fend him off with a penknife and a rubber band.

No, but it saves time and effort. He has never shown up at a demonstration he's scheduled when it was announced that there would be counterdemonstrators from the Pink Pistols.

Actualy it's not Phelps personally that's a genuine threat, but the people who listen to him and either take him seriously or use him as an excuse for their own behavior...including his extended family.

By the way, I strenuously resist the "do you need a weapon to defend yourself" question...it's used by gun-grabbers to get you on to a slippery slope; "well, you haven't proven you really need a weapon so we're going to balance your needs against society's need to make sure only criminals are armed, etc....". It's a right, and I refuse to be required to prove I "have a need" to exercise my rights.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I have come to understand is that noone loses by giving people more freedom. It is only when we try to carve out exceptions for one group or another and say that they are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms that we risk the rights that have been given to us. We are all minorities, subject to the tyranny of the majority. Only there is no true majority, only a host of minorities who can be banded together in fear or hatred to deny other groups their rights.

This is some good stuff.