Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to How much must we tolerate?
gomedome on this topic you have my full support.
Now I'm off to sulk cos I din't think I'd find it so easy to agree with you.
posted by
Kabu
on May 23, 2007 at 10:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - that ultimately is what they are after
Everyone conforming to their beliefs as we live in a Christian theocracy.
posted by
gomedome
on May 23, 2007 at 6:09 PM
| link to this | reply
I just want everyone to be happy.
posted by
Jenasis
on May 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM
| link to this | reply
too many christians want a religious dictatorship
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 23, 2007 at 2:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Hi Gome - Liberalism seems to be the natural order in a democracy,
but it has to be kept in check and certain things must be punished. The problem is that the religious zealots are more interested in their own power, wealth and influence - all material wants rather than spiritual - than in democracy and tolerance. Otherwise they would be more tolerant, like you say!
posted by
Antonionioni
on May 23, 2007 at 1:00 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
Like you, I can't fathom how anyone could come to those conclusions concerning the ACLU. Part of the problem is the organization has been branded with possibly the worst slur we're able to utter in polite society,
liberal. Maybe it's that "center of the universe" mentality so many people have, that their way is the only way. Such thought is great for monarchs and dictators, but is of little use to representative democracies.
posted by
Talion
on May 23, 2007 at 10:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Talion - when I first came to Blogit, I heard all about the ACLU
Which as you know stands for the American Civil Liberties Union. I had no idea what it was as it is a group pertinent to a country other than my own. I've read posts about how this group was destroying society in the USA, how they were anti Christian and how they were promoting the rights of the underserving. After investigating who they were and what they stand for, which is encapsulated in one key slogan:
"If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled." . . I could not see where those who would rail against them were coming from. Are there really people that live in a free society that do not understand that everyone who is a member of that society has to get a fair shake? Has their religion blinded them to such a degree that they cannot see where they could be next if any group is allowed to infringe upon the civil liberties of another? It becomes clear that some folks only think in terms of them being the majority, despite their obtuseness, they should be grateful for any group that will protect them from the very things that they would impose on others.
posted by
gomedome
on May 23, 2007 at 9:11 AM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I might have mentioned this in a previous comment to you. Too many foolishly believe tolerance is synomous with agreement when in fact the opposite is true. Tolerance or the lack of it can only be applied to situations we don't agree with. Dangerous are those who wish to eradicate the things they don't approve of.
Note: This is said with the assumption the situation brings no intentional harm to others.
posted by
Talion
on May 23, 2007 at 7:19 AM
| link to this | reply