Religious tolerance

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

You're welcome to say that you think gays are going to hell. It's not ok to pass laws trying to outlaw homosexuality because of your holy text, nor is it ok to abuse them.

It's ok to say that some doctrine or followers are immoral in their behavior. It's not ok to outlaw religion or abuse all followers.

But, when's the last time someone in the US was beaten or killed for being Catholic? How about for being gay?

[Anonymous]

10:13 is from me, the OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. It is my understanding that the slow and secret persuasion of legislators was to basically blindside the church and not give them a chance to mount an opposition campaign. They were informed at the last possible moment.

\


So, we are supposed to be happy about persuasion being done in secret? Great....so much for transparency in government.

I have no problem with gay marriage -but if you truly feel that these people who oppose are in a minority, why tip toe around? I find that completely cowardly, and if that is how it was accomplished, it diminishes my respect for the accomplishment.

The basic idea of democracy is an open government where everyone can have their say. Not just the people who think like you or me.

[Anonymous]

One legislator left it up to the response from his constituents, which is how government should work.

Getting donors in order to back legislators in doing the right thing is also part of how our government works. With other financial backers in the wings and no time for a campaign against it, the Catholic church was left with few options or threats. The constituents can vote out their reps if they are unhappy.

Ps: I'm the OP.

[Anonymous]

So if we decline to adopt your particular nomenclature for your particular mythology, we are all "ranting" atheists? I don't have a deity of any sort but tend to happily believe that each person is entitled to their own fairy tales. If you believe in them, that's fine.

If you want to make me listen to them, that is a bit different. If you want to patronizingly announce that you will pray for me, that's worse.
If you want to act like a bigoted idiot and tell me that your get out of jail free card can excuse your actions during your lifetime, that is ridiculous.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if we decline to adopt your particular nomenclature for your particular mythology, we are all "ranting" atheists? I don't have a deity of any sort but tend to happily believe that each person is entitled to their own fairy tales. If you believe in them, that's fine.

A perfect example of the type of nastiness and lack of tolerance I just referenced.

[Anonymous]

Again, why am I expected to show capitalized respect? To me, all religious myths are just that: fairy tales, with the same amount of impact. Because you deeply believe in your version of Santa Claus, this feels like disrespect to you. To me, your insistence that I pay lip service to your beliefs feels just as disrespectful to me.

Religion is a myth. If you like it, fine. Keep it out of politics, neatly tucked into your pretty dresses and fancy hats on whatever day you choose to worship whomever on.

It is tolerance. You have a belief. Fine. Perfectly cool. Until you expect me to play along, and grant your particular mythology some fancy special status.

[Anonymous]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, why am I expected to show capitalized respect? To me, all religious myths are just that: fairy tales, with the same amount of impact. Because you deeply believe in your version of Santa Claus, this feels like disrespect to you. To me, your insistence that I pay lip service to your beliefs feels just as disrespectful to me.

Religion is a myth. If you like it, fine. Keep it out of politics, neatly tucked into your pretty dresses and fancy hats on whatever day you choose to worship whomever on.

It is tolerance. You have a belief. Fine. Perfectly cool. Until you expect me to play along, and grant your particular mythology some fancy special status.

You sound like a pain in the a$$.

[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.

I'm not the OP, I'm the PP you're responding to. I can utterly disagree with you, and vehemently disagree with your need to insert your religious views into policies that I'm forced to abide by, without being nasty or "intolerant". I have not been negative on this thread in the slightest. There is a huge difference between being nasty as you say, and being tolerant of a religion that I find offensive. I'm not gay, but I find the catholic church's stance on gay people to be disgusting quite frankly. Tolerance doesn't equal blind acceptance. I'm not going to treat a catholic person like crap, if that's what you mean. They have a right to their beliefs as long as they tolerate the fact that I have a right to mine. And my belief is that I think the catholic church's stance on gays (to raise only one of many many many issues with that church - yes, I was raised catholic) is offensive. As I said earlier, if you come up to me and say "I think you will burn in hell for being gay," I'm sorry, that is nasty and hateful, however you want to cloak it. Just because you believe if falls under some umbrella of religious doctrine doesn't mean that's not a nasty, mean-spirited statement, because at the end of the day, what are really saying? "You are wrong as a human being."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I'm not the OP, I'm the PP you're responding to. I can utterly disagree with you, and vehemently disagree with your need to insert your religious views into policies that I'm forced to abide by, without being nasty or "intolerant". I have not been negative on this thread in the slightest. There is a huge difference between being nasty as you say, and being tolerant of a religion that I find offensive. I'm not gay, but I find the catholic church's stance on gay people to be disgusting quite frankly. Tolerance doesn't equal blind acceptance. I'm not going to treat a catholic person like crap, if that's what you mean. They have a right to their beliefs as long as they tolerate the fact that I have a right to mine. And my belief is that I think the catholic church's stance on gays (to raise only one of many many many issues with that church - yes, I was raised catholic) is offensive. As I said earlier, if you come up to me and say "I think you will burn in hell for being gay," I'm sorry, that is nasty and hateful, however you want to cloak it. Just because you believe if falls under some umbrella of religious doctrine doesn't mean that's not a nasty, mean-spirited statement, because at the end of the day, what are really saying? "You are wrong as a human being."

Sorry, thought you were the OP. I'm hearing what you're saying, and I guess what I'm saying is to look at your last two sentences. Just because your beliefs don't fall under the umbrella of religious doctrine doesn't exempt them from being nasty and mean-spirited. Am I any more "wrong as a human being" because I believe abortion is wrong and should be illegal than you are "wrong as a human being" because you believe it's none of my business what you do with your body?

And I totally agree, coming up to anyone and saying they will burn in hell is absolutely nasty and hateful (we are on total agreement on that!) on an equal level as saying someone is ignorant or some other perjorative terms for being pro-life or against gay marriage or another similar issue.

[Anonymous]

I'm 9:31, and my last post was at 10:02.

I think 3-4 of us (i.e. excluding the ranting atheist at 11:11 and 11:26) actually agree about the need to respect each others' views. We also seem to agree that it's OK to either have religious beliefs, or not have them. Not sure where we ended up on whether imposing religious beliefs through legislation is different from imposing corn-related or banking bills based on your professional needs and desires, but that was an interesting side conversation.

I see us going posting and over again about how we would treat each other nicely in person, even as we disagree about certain doctrine or policies.

So in person, I think the 3-4 of us might manage to have a conversation pretty well.

But if this thread is about talking to each other on DCUM, then I'm not sure we can talk here. The problem, obviously, is the ranting atheist at 11:11 and 11:26. I can only assume she's not interested in having conversations, or in listening. But when she jumps in, people start getting offended, and others accuse them of having a persecution complex, and everybody starts confusing other posters with her.

Unless we establish a code of conduct and always identify who we are - which realistically isn't going to happen on every thread - I'm not sure how we deal with her and manage to have real conversations.

I'm impressed, though, that we've had some good conversations so far, despite her presence!

[Anonymous]

12:30 again. Wouldn't society suck if everybody was like the ranting atheist? We couldn't talk to anybody besides close family and friends.

"I like Virginia better than Maryland." "You are obviously a right-wing gun nut."

"I thought Woody Allen's latest movie about Paris was great." "Why are you such a slave to Holywood, and Hemmingway was a drunk."

It would be hell on earth, whether or not you believe in hell down below.

Which is why respect in all matters is so important.