Religious tolerance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to the original question - if I'm gay, why should I tolerate this religion? (Not the necessary the people, the religion and its leaders). Why can't I be free to say to a person, "the institution you belong to offends me." That's not intolerance, that's being a backboned individual.

Let me turn it around on you. Say I believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Why can't I be free to say to you, "I think homosexuality is wrong and anyone who engages in homosexuality is going to hell. I like you as a person, though." It's the same thing if my faith is a fundamental part of who I am, in the same way that being gay is part of who you are.

Of course you say that. But then don't ask me for "tolerance" of your religion. You don't get a "free pass" or have immunity from criticism if that's how you feel. You just think there aren't consequences in terms of how people feel about you if it's veiled as religious, and that's not the case. You don't get tolerance from me, you get a negative opinion about your religion, and possibly you yourself.

No, *you* don't get a free pass simply because it's the way you feel. Add Jesus, though, and you're immune from criticism...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to the original question - if I'm gay, why should I tolerate this religion? (Not the necessary the people, the religion and its leaders). Why can't I be free to say to a person, "the institution you belong to offends me." That's not intolerance, that's being a backboned individual.

Let me turn it around on you. Say I believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Why can't I be free to say to you, "I think homosexuality is wrong and anyone who engages in homosexuality is going to hell. I like you as a person, though." It's the same thing if my faith is a fundamental part of who I am, in the same way that being gay is part of who you are.

Of course you say that. But then don't ask me for "tolerance" of your religion. You don't get a "free pass" or have immunity from criticism if that's how you feel. You just think there aren't consequences in terms of how people feel about you if it's veiled as religious, and that's not the case. You don't get tolerance from me, you get a negative opinion about your religion, and possibly you yourself.

No, *you* don't get a free pass simply because it's the way you feel. Add Jesus, though, and you're immune from criticism...

Who are you angry at here? I'm confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:31. I think we agree that it's OK to criticize an institution. I've been thinking about 11:23's point and I think that if it's fair to criticize the bankers or the corn-growers, then it's fair to criticize particular churches when they support particular legislation.

Where I disagree with you on is your statement that "nobody has said that all Catholics are jerks." I actually see this all the time on DCUM, usually linked to sweeping statements about catholics and (a) pedophilia, (b) the entirety of catholic doctrine, (c) all catholics are intolerant of gays and/or non-believers, and (d) belief in fairies. Same for mormons and evangelicals. I'm not in any of these groups, FWIW.

Again, the point is HOW the criticisms are made (19:21), not that nobody can criticize anything.

But all of these things are true:

a) the Catholic church has an institutional history of pedophillia and institutional cover-up. Ironically, it also has a sordid recent history of trying to tie gay men to pedophillia. (You'd think they'd have just a sliver of shame over that, but whatever...)
b) don't care
c) the Catholic church as an institution is intolerant of gays.
d) You're being hyper-sensitivity. No one's said catholics believe in fairies. Just that there is as little reason for religious belief.

You may not like hearing them (particularly a and c), but much like libel, the truth is a defense. By remaining silent in these discussions, we give our quiet assent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to the original question - if I'm gay, why should I tolerate this religion? (Not the necessary the people, the religion and its leaders). Why can't I be free to say to a person, "the institution you belong to offends me." That's not intolerance, that's being a backboned individual.

Let me turn it around on you. Say I believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Why can't I be free to say to you, "I think homosexuality is wrong and anyone who engages in homosexuality is going to hell. I like you as a person, though." It's the same thing if my faith is a fundamental part of who I am, in the same way that being gay is part of who you are.

Of course you say that. But then don't ask me for "tolerance" of your religion. You don't get a "free pass" or have immunity from criticism if that's how you feel. You just think there aren't consequences in terms of how people feel about you if it's veiled as religious, and that's not the case. You don't get tolerance from me, you get a negative opinion about your religion, and possibly you yourself.

No, *you* don't get a free pass simply because it's the way you feel. Add Jesus, though, and you're immune from criticism...

Who says I'm angry? Was just pointing out that "civilians" have to defend their beliefs. If you add God, Jesus, or some other diety, you're exempt.
Who are you angry at here? I'm confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to the original question - if I'm gay, why should I tolerate this religion? (Not the necessary the people, the religion and its leaders). Why can't I be free to say to a person, "the institution you belong to offends me." That's not intolerance, that's being a backboned individual.

Let me turn it around on you. Say I believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Why can't I be free to say to you, "I think homosexuality is wrong and anyone who engages in homosexuality is going to hell. I like you as a person, though." It's the same thing if my faith is a fundamental part of who I am, in the same way that being gay is part of who you are.

Of course you say that. But then don't ask me for "tolerance" of your religion. You don't get a "free pass" or have immunity from criticism if that's how you feel. You just think there aren't consequences in terms of how people feel about you if it's veiled as religious, and that's not the case. You don't get tolerance from me, you get a negative opinion about your religion, and possibly you yourself.

But isn't that the point of your original question about tolerance on an individual level? I DON'T express some of the hatred and bigotry towards others who might not share my viewpoints. I might disagree with you on issues, but I wouldn't ever consider the way I express those views as nasty or hateful, but instead as respectful of you, even as I might try to impact the laws and policies towards the outcome that I want. By contrast, some of the posts here towards persons of religious faith are downright poisonous. OP, wasn't that your original question about tolerance? It's not about agreeing, there's plenty of room for criticism and debate on both sides of most issues, it's about respect and not being the first to spew nastiness and generalized bigotry towards others. To me, that's tolerance.

You've pretty much defined white, male, hetero privilege. i.e. "Why do the Negroes have to be so angry all the time?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Warning: one of the posters here is 12, with impulse control problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to the original question - if I'm gay, why should I tolerate this religion? (Not the necessary the people, the religion and its leaders). Why can't I be free to say to a person, "the institution you belong to offends me." That's not intolerance, that's being a backboned individual.

Let me turn it around on you. Say I believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Why can't I be free to say to you, "I think homosexuality is wrong and anyone who engages in homosexuality is going to hell. I like you as a person, though." It's the same thing if my faith is a fundamental part of who I am, in the same way that being gay is part of who you are.

Of course you say that. But then don't ask me for "tolerance" of your religion. You don't get a "free pass" or have immunity from criticism if that's how you feel. You just think there aren't consequences in terms of how people feel about you if it's veiled as religious, and that's not the case. You don't get tolerance from me, you get a negative opinion about your religion, and possibly you yourself.

No, *you* don't get a free pass simply because it's the way you feel. Add Jesus, though, and you're immune from criticism...

Who says I'm angry? Was just pointing out that "civilians" have to defend their beliefs. If you add God, Jesus, or some other diety, you're exempt.
Who are you angry at here? I'm confused.

This conversation seems to be going in circles. Doesn't everybody already agree about the part I've bolded? One poster is totally entitled to say that homosexuals are going to hell, and the second poster is totally entitled to (a) disapprove and have a "negative opinion", and (2) argue back. It's called democracy. Is there really any disagreement here about that?

Oh wait, this thread has probably been mucked up by the ranting atheist. I'm guessing she's the poster referring to free passes and immunity from criticism. But nobody is talking about free passes or immunity. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Can I get immunity for being an asshole anywhere? I'd say "where do I sign up?", but we all know the world doesn't work like that if we want to live side by side in a civilized manner.

I think almost all of this conversation has been good and enlightening. I'm not sure we can take it any further with the current tone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Can I get immunity for being an asshole anywhere? I'd say "where do I sign up?", but we all know the world doesn't work like that if we want to live side by side in a civilized manner.

I think almost all of this conversation has been good and enlightening. I'm not sure we can take it any further with the current tone.

It was going so well there for a while....

[Anonymous]

OP here. I feel the urge to hold hands and sign Kumbaya with my fellow posters, but not sure I agree with the religious tone of the song.

[Anonymous]

Sing, not sign

[Anonymous]

Maybe we could sing the Coca Cola song instead? You know,

"I'd like to sing the world a song, in perfect harmony...."

PS - I wonder why the ranter thinks she gets a free pass for her behavior, but expects to be the only one who is immune. Oh well, who cares. She's welcome to join us in singing, if she can manage to stay with the same notes, rhythm and tune as the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

To the poster who said because of the Church's stance on homosexuality, I find Catholicism offensive, and why should I tolerate an institution that is trying to break up my family - how far do you take that? Do you not tolerate only Catholicism, or do you also not tolerate Islam and Hinduism for the same reasons? I think it is possible to take a princi

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:31. I think we agree that it's OK to criticize an institution. I've been thinking about 11:23's point and I think that if it's fair to criticize the bankers or the corn-growers, then it's fair to criticize particular churches when they support particular legislation.

Where I disagree with you on is your statement that "nobody has said that all Catholics are jerks." I actually see this all the time on DCUM, usually linked to sweeping statements about catholics and (a) pedophilia, (b) the entirety of catholic doctrine, (c) all catholics are intolerant of gays and/or non-believers, and (d) belief in fairies. Same for mormons and evangelicals. I'm not in any of these groups, FWIW.

Again, the point is HOW the criticisms are made (19:21), not that nobody can criticize anything.

But all of these things are true:

a) the Catholic church has an institutional history of pedophillia and institutional cover-up. Ironically, it also has a sordid recent history of trying to tie gay men to pedophillia. (You'd think they'd have just a sliver of shame over that, but whatever...)
b) don't care
c) the Catholic church as an institution is intolerant of gays.
d) You're being hyper-sensitivity. No one's said catholics believe in fairies. Just that there is as little reason for religious belief.

You may not like hearing them (particularly a and c), but much like libel, the truth is a defense. By remaining silent in these discussions, we give our quiet assent.

I would really appreciate an explanation because I don't understand your comment. I understand the difference between the two groups, but isn't it possible that the particular priests who are guilty of pedophilia are also homosexuals? I rarely, if ever, hear of any young girls in the Catholic church being molested.

[Anonymous]

Sorry hit post too soon - it is possible to take a principled stance that you won't associate with anyone who opposes gay marriage, but I think it crosses over into bigotry if you single out one religion for a belief shared by many religions. So if you condemn the Catholics for being anti gay marriage you have to also go After the Muslims and Hindus and Protestants, etc etc. Otherwise it is just bigotry.