The New "Tolerance"

I have, somewhere, statements that our founding fathers based the structure of the US on ancient Babylonian, Greek and Native American Governments, Philosophies and Ideals as much as & among anything else... I hope to find it soon and share it.
The Babylonian document is facinating... I studied it in Humanities in college, I just can't remember the name.
Ironically, the Ten Commandments are not mentioned at all.

[wolf]

Tolerance. To "tolerate" something means that you can still despise it, if I remember my English properly.

I don't think that's what the "tolerance" advocates really have in mind.

I'm all for tolerence, just so long as I'm not forced to tolerate abject stupidity.

Ditto for that false diversity crap.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by PizzaMonkey

It is basically a changing of the definition of tolerance, in which it changes from a respecting of anothers opinions, to being forced to wholeheartedly agree with everything everyone says, or risk being labeled "intolerant"

This sounds eerily similar to how one cannot discuss any issues which resonate with a specific racial group or groups without being labelled racist.

[Happy Monkey]

Actually, most of the stupid stuff associated with racisim is a result of the idea of "bad words", like the DC guy fired for saying "niggardly", or Tony Snow's "tar baby" thing. I don't recall much stuff that was actually issue related.

[Flint]

This reminds me of the new definitions of "persecution" or "oppression" as relates to how Christians are whining about being the victims of a "Culture War" - a "War" which actually consists solely of other people trying to defend themselves from having Christianity crammed down their throats. So, yes, it is a "War" - but the Christians are the agressors, as usual, not the other way around.

[Elspode]

Focusing on race/religion/etc keeps us from addressing the real issues. We have problems with the real issues.

[mrnoodle]

How can Christians be the aggressors when society is becoming less religious as a whole, and the standards that Christianity represents are disappearing from public life almost as fast as you can name them? Who's defending what?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

the standards that Christianity represents

Claims to represent, or actually represents?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Who's defending what?

Good question.
Christians don't "own" the "good guys" position on everything.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

Tolerance. To "tolerate" something means that you can still despise it, if I remember my English properly.

Exactly. But what do you then do with that despite? To go back to gay marriage, there is no reason to ban it except despising gays, so people who work for that ban are acting on that despite, and are therefore moving into intolerance.

[mrnoodle]

Christianity represents good values. There are some who call themselves Christians who don't display the attributes that back up their claim. They ruin it for everyone else.

Christians don't own any position -- we're just normal people. God owns the good guy's position on everything. That doesn't have anything to do with the government. Government can't make someone righteous by enacting laws. Likewise, having a manger scene in the town square does not interfere with your right to do whatever you want. There is no freedom from religion. There's only freedom from having the government tell you what you must worship. In fact, the government can even follow religious precepts, as long as they're not preventing you from worshiping or not as you choose. For example, if you don't want to put your hand on a bible in court, you no longer have to. That doesn't mean that there can't be a bible in the courtroom. Grow up. (not you, flint, i'm just venting)

[mrnoodle]

There's no ban on gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would require a restating of the law to newly include same sex unions, in most cases. Not being willing to add protection to the law is not the same as removing protection from the law.

That said, marry your toaster oven, for all I care.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

For example, if you don't want to put your hand on a bible in court, you no longer have to.

But, at one time, you did have to, and that's what we are moving away from, as a society. That is not an attack on Christianity, it's just a suggestion that Christianity "mind it's own business" - a huge difference.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

That said, marry your toaster oven, for all I care.

Are you familiar with Zappa's Church Of Appliantology (from Joe's Garage)?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

How can Christians be the aggressors when society is becoming less religious as a whole, and the standards that Christianity represents are disappearing from public life almost as fast as you can name them?

Agressors don't always win.

There's no ban on gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would require a restating of the law to newly include same sex unions, in most cases. Not being willing to add protection to the law is not the same as removing protection from the law.

I disagree, except in the most semantic of interpretations, but even in that case anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments belie that point. Not to mention the related issue of explicitly banning adoption by gays.

That said, marry your toaster oven, for all I care.

Well, toasters can't consent, but minus the hyperbole - exactly.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Likewise, having a manger scene in the town square does not interfere with your right to do whatever you want.
...
For example, if you don't want to put your hand on a bible in court, you no longer have to. That doesn't mean that there can't be a bible in the courtroom. Grow up. (not you, flint, i'm just venting)

Also, not having a manger scene on government property, and not having a Bible in the courtroom don't interfere in anyone's worship.