Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archpaladin
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?)
|
There is a difference between acknowledging and accepting someone's right to feel a certain way and bending over backwards to let them get their way. I am tolerant of the evangelican need to condemn to hell, but i would never support public policy based on that need. I don't read my horospcope either, but that doesn't mean that i am intolerant of everyone else who does.
Quote:
|
Fallacy. People who make moral decisions based on religious values know exactly why they make the choice. To them it is not arbitrary.
|
I know exactly why most religious decisions are made too. That still doesn't make them reasonable, or rational. Don't give this statement more weight than it deserves, but in many ways even being religious flies in the face of rationality. For example, in matters of life or death, would you sooner trust your average christian or your average scientist? I know who i'd pick and chances are my choice would have the periodic table memorized. It is arbitrary, because in the specific instances i am speaking of it isn't based on rational thought, it is based on interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of religious text. Also, depending on your denomination, god is the most arbitrary of beings. When your power is absolute you don't need logic to impose your will.
Quote:
|
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.
|
How can it be the ideal form of tolerance if embracing it as such would result in the collapse of our society? All or none is almost never a desirable course because most every rule has an exception.