Quote:
|
it may come down to differing opinions, but in this case one side has much more merit than the other. not all opinions are equal, those which don't 'cut the mustard' (or is it muster?) need to be discarded.
|
Keep in mind that saying this presupposes a universal standard of 'what cut's the mustard'. (and I think it is mustard, not muster) It shouldn't take too many brain cells to realize that this has never been the case. The father wanting to marry off his 12 year old daughter may be wanting to do this because that's the way his society and belief system always worked in the past. For us to come in and say that this should be illegal would be a severe infringement on his rights to practice his own beliefs.
Equally, by stating that religious values are not acceptable reasons for something not to be tolerated, we proclaim our intolerance of those religious values. We cannot rule out someone's objection of "it's offensive to my religious morals" because in doing so we're being intolerant of someone else's beliefs. In so doing we are assuming the right to say what people can and cannot believe, because by telling someone to shut up about what they believe is effectively telling them they can't or shouldn't believe it. (first amendment rights, anyone?)
Quote:
|
We have to be as tolerant as possible as long as what we are allowing is not a danger to society or people not involved in the activity. if what you want to do doesn't harm me or society in general (like if you want to pray in church, or a federally funded park), then go ahead and do it
|
I disagree. People's definition of harm or danger is not universal either. What one person considers discipline for their children, another considers child abuse.
Quote:
|
To that end, I believe that what we "should" do is to ensure that we are rational actors, making decisions for logical reasons; that we have good information; that no one group has an unreasonable grip on decision-making or public influence.
|
I agree that no one should have an unreasonable grip on decision-making or public influence - everyone should have an equal say here. However, making decisions for logical reasons may not often fly when people are presenting objections, because what is considered logical by one person is not logical for another. Also, decisions that seem logical at one time may in fact be seen as harmful at a later time, and reversing a previous decision that was made is often harder than making the right one in the first place. This, however, gets to the checks and balances idea that was presented.
Quote:
|
If all you were to say is "X is should be tolerated and Y shouldn't" than you are making an arbitrary distinction. This is the problem with making moral decisions based on religious ideals
|
Fallacy. People who make moral decisions based on religious values know exactly why they make the choice. To them it is not arbitrary.
My main point here is that the ideal form of tolerance is all-or-none: either we let everything happen, or we let nothing happen. Of course, we don't do this in practice because if we did either of the two, society would collapse on itself. Unfortunately, we as a society are pulling in two different directions: those who originally pushed for tolerance have hippie-ized it and are now using it as their own personal beating stick on whomever they disagree with or dislike, and those who are now seeking tolerance are meeting a negative reaction because they are trying to get things accepted that few people see as being a good thing. What was once a good idea has now become corrupt.