All the brew-haha over Duck Dynasty that is in the news brings up an interesting question about tolerance. As defined by Webster: 1.: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.

At what point does tolerance cross the line? I don't believe in god. Is this offensive to other, perhapse but I expect tolerance. I tolerate there belief, I expect them to tolerate my dis-belief.

I am heterosexual, I have friends who are homosexually. I tolerate their lifestyle even though it is different then mine. But some people feel that homosexuality is a sin, against their religious beliefs. I consider those people to be intolerant but does that in turn make me intolerant because I do not accept their beliefs?

Views: 990

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Louisiana Gov Bobby Jindal (and also Sarah Palin) defend Duck Dynasty star

When you've got Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin coming to your rescue, you know you've said or done something really f * cking stupid. 

If Jindal and Palin came to my rescue over anything, I'd.....  I don't know!  That seems like a fate worse than death!

I agree SB!!!

Greg, where are you from?

Arizona, originally. Move to Florida about 3 years ago.

As I have explained in my recent discussion, religion is an anti-freedom con game made to give up your sovereignty. And thus I don't accept religion in any way or form. The religious are more or less victims of this scam and should be brought out of it.

Not intolerant just sensible. You're not judging their private lives but the opinions they openly share. How else would you know how they feel about gays? Being gay is a very private matter. Passing judgment on gays... Not so much.

What matters is that the government was in no way involved. We can talk about "tolerance" all we want, but what law is there saying we have to tolerate anything? People just have to take responsibility for their views and how they choose to express them, because no one lives in a vacuum. You can think what you want, believe what you want, but you need to realize that what you say and do in this world have repercussions; it's still free speech, but free doesn't mean there are no consequences.

It is not intolerance to rebuke bigoted statements.  It is standing up for a group who has historically been targeted for hate, despite the fact that being homosexual is not a "choice".  (Even if it were, it should not elicit hate words or actions.)

Likewise, it is not intolerance to state categorically that pedophiles are a scourge on society and deserve to be reviled and severely punished for their acts.

Let's also get something straight.  To "tolerate" someone or something means that on "The Tolerance Scale", one merely "puts up with" that person or thing.  No hate words, no hate actions occur.  The Tolerance Scale (a real thing!) goes from mere tolerance to jokes about the group to unkind words and actions, including bullying, to outright acts of hate and violence by individuals, groups, and finally, by the state itself, i.e., even unto ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Society sets boundaries in our culture demarking what is acceptable from the unacceptable, and the thing about boundaries is that as the culture changes, the lines of demarcation also change over time. So the lines on various "isms" have shifted, not just to "tolerance" but to acceptance. 

The thing about religious beliefs is that they are highly resistant to culture change, even when such change goes on all around them.  This is really what is at issue here:  Should our society "tolerate" hate words in the name of religion? Or, as most of us believe, are hate words even LESS to be tolerated when in the name of religion? 

I taught what I called "prejudice-reduction" courses and workshops at the college level, both incorporating it in classes (ex., ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia when that occurred; apartheid in S. Africa; the Killing Fields in Cambodia; Mideast violence; and the ever persistent oldest surviving hatred, anti-Semitism worldwide...).  I taught faculty & administrators--not some kind of preachy thing, like "Can't we all just get along," but the Principles of Progression (Richard Hofstadter), the genesis & evolution (pardon the pun) of anti-Semitism, and genealogies of hate literature, plus the neurological foundations for "othering" and categorizing by groups...

One thing which should never be tolerated is hate.  Unchecked and unanswered by reasonable people, it too easily blossoms into the Holocaust and other genocides.

Excellent Sharon.  Really excellent.

No, Gregory, it doesn't and I feel just like you do in this whole mess. I'm a heterosexual man with a few homosexual friends and the reason I don't criticise them is that I no longer believe in the bible. Even if the bible was right, it's an "all male" book. Gay men should be erxecuted but nothing is said about lesbians. You can kill thousands of babies but don't dare mix 2 colors of clothes, etc. A little study of this book and you start to see things like where the Taliban came from because all of it was once "Abrahamic."

My belief is that this Duck Dynasty star is proud to be on a hit show, and he's telling the whole world he wouldn't be where he is without god. He's speaking out against homosexuals because "they don't have god" and he is so much better because he does.

The man should be aware that this is a type of reality TV show after all, and Duck Dynasty could come and go just like the rest of them. These shows are a dime a dozen and this man is no better than any other man.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service