Monday, June 10, 2013

The Intolerance of Tolerance

When you replace the holy virtue of tolerance with forced agreement it becomes intolerance. The only difference between a person insisting on tolerance equaling acceptance and the bigot refusing to give in to such bullying, is honesty- and the honesty is on the side of the bigot.

23 comments:

Bill S said...

Prof. Beckwith doesn't appreciate real tolerance so he plays word games with it. This just encourages his readers to practice intolerance and to deride relativism, pluralism, etc. What good is that? It gives religious fanatics just the ammunition they need to practice bigotry with a clear conscience. How clever. Slick.

Like Pope Benedict's coining of the expression "the Dictatorship of Relativism", it makes no sense to say "the Intolerance of Tolerance". It turns everything upside down, which is what Christiand see as a good thing but it's not. It makes people who won't tolerate people different than them feel good about themselves. That's just counter productive. Why don't Christians stop their nonsense and learn to live in harmony with the real world?

Theodore Seeber said...

My understanding of "real tolerance" has been intensely damaged by my conversation with you alone. I don't think that word means what you seem to use it to mean.

It isn't Prof. Beckwith and Pope Benedict that have the problem- it is the people who scream "we want tolerance you evil homophobes" that confuses the issue quite a bit.

It isn't like YOUR side actually tolerates people who are different from them at all. Which is why the message I continually get from your side is "stop being a breeder- take contraceptives and become homosexual instead, it's great", all apparently without ever realizing how incredibly INTOLERANT that is.

Bill S said...

That is the kind of response that one gives when one has had a fight with someone and refuses to shake hands and make up. "You started it. No you started it." "You're being intolerant. No you're being intolerant". There is no real effort and no appreciation for tolerance. It is viewed as if it is surrender.

Theodore Seeber said...

That is because it is a surrender, Bill. I have NO doubt left that there will be no actual Catholic virtue of tolerance in this issue. One must conform or one will be eliminated from society with extreme prejudice. And since being for mere civil unions for all, the stance I took up 18 years ago on this subject, is considered equally evil from both sides, I have no doubt where I will end up.

Bill S said...

"One must conform or one will be eliminated from society with extreme prejudice."

Not so. All you are being asked to do is understand that different people have different worldviews and it is up to all of us to live in harmony and stop taking up divisive causes. People have rights and if your religion tells you that they don't then there is something wrong with your religion, not the people who it condemns.

Theodore Seeber said...

The problem is that Gay marriage, and many other liberal causes *are divisive causes* in and of themselves. If religion didn't exist at all, they would *STILL* be divisive causes, because they insist on conformity with the cause.

Stop blaming religion for your own bad behavior.

Bill S said...

"Stop blaming religion for your own bad behavior."

Since when is defending an oppressed minority bad behavior?

Theodore Seeber said...

When you cross the line into insulting the majority and supporting vandalism and violence, it is bad behavior.

There is a line of civility- and once crossed, it is *very* hard to get back.

We're at that point now. The uncivil behavior has PERMANENTLY affected my view of the left wing to the point that I am finding it very hard to see them as fellow human beings, let alone the people they claim to be "defending" by harming everybody else.

Bill S said...

"When you cross the line into insulting the majority and supporting vandalism and violence, it is bad behavior."

Is that what ALL gays do or a small minority that does not truly represent them?

"... I am finding it very hard to see them as fellow human beings, let alone the people they claim to be "defending" by harming everybody else."

Who is harming everybody else. You don't seem to be a very good judge of people. You'd be better off refraining from so many judgments. Just try to get along with everyone. You'd certainly be happier. Lighten up.

Theodore Seeber said...

A small minority does the violence, the rest do nothing or very little to stop the violence, thus lending their implicit support.



How can I "get along with" people who *clearly* don't want to get along with me? I tried meeting that community halfway, all it got me was more abuse and violence. I tried meeting you halfway, all it gets me is more abuse.

Bill S said...

" I tried meeting you halfway, all it gets me is more abuse. "

Is that "toung in cheek" or do you really feel like I'm abusing you. That is not my intent. It should just be friendly bantering between a west coast conservative and an east coast liberal.

Theodore Seeber said...

You act like you don't understand the immense economic and cultural privilege that east coast liberals have enjoyed in the past century or so.



Yes, you using terms like "homopobe" really do hurt; and worse yet, and what I'd really like to get across to you- is such actions do great harm to your argument and to the people you are trying to defend.

I doubt greatly the people of the United States will react to such bullying the way the people of France have, but that is only because we are more polite.

Theodore Seeber said...

A whole 'nother thought just occurred to me based on another conversation I've been having. I know already that much of the Northeastern Seaboard is city, and that you live in Boston, which is a huge metropolitan area. But where did you grow up?

I'm thinking maybe *some* of my conservative assumptions come from being raised in a rural area and having a distinct upbringing related to raising livestock.

Bill S said...

I grew up in East Boston which was almost all Italian American at the time. I have have never had any exposure to rural America. Although, I am not rich, I am comfortable and lived a pampered life until my mother died when I was going on 15. That event (her dying of cancer) has messed me up more than I should have let it.

I apologize for coming across as abusive. I always seem to cross the line on emails and blogs. I don't mean to. I just do.

I enjoy bantering with you and I don't take anything as personal and I hope you don't either, although, given some of the things I have said, I can see why you might.

Theodore Seeber said...

All I ask is that you be a bit more aware of it- and especially of the damage you are causing to the gay marriage and euthanasia movements.


I find it interesting that the pro-choice movement also makes the same mistake quite often. I know a lot of pro-life women who are pro-life ONLY because the pro-choice movement has co-opted the feminist movement.

I'll try to be a bit less knee jerk as well. We could all do with less intolerance disguised as tolerance

Bill S said...

" I know a lot of pro-life women who are pro-life ONLY because the pro-choice movement has co-opted the feminist movement."

That is a foolish reason to choose to be pro-life. I don't have much respect for someone basing such an important decision on how the other side behaves. And what exactly is wrong with feminism?

Theodore Seeber said...

The same thing that is wrong with any other sort of pride or bigotry- the claim that based on some accident of birth, one human being is better than another.

Bill S said...

So feminism isn't about equal treatment of women? It is about women being better than men? And that is why non-feminist women are pro-life?

Theodore Seeber said...

I should think that has become quite obvious- the hand that rocks the cradle rocks the world; remove the cradle, and fatherhood is worthless.

Bill S said...

Does that mean you are against feminism?

Theodore Seeber said...

Not originally. Not until they killed the Equal Rights Amendment.

Still am, in a way. I support the efforts that would make ratification of Amendments easier:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org

But the form of feminism that says a child can be raised only by one gender and turn out ok; that suggests that fatherhood is worthless, I'm very much against. The kind that insists that all sex is rape, and that dreams of the day human cloning becomes commercially available so that they can end male influence on the world entirely.

Bill S said...

You are judging all feminists by the actions and attitudes of the most radical.

Theodore Seeber said...

I judge every radical movement by the actions of the most radical.


I even judge much of the Catholic Laity by the actions of the most radical- whether radlibs or radtrads makes no difference.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at http://outsidetheaustisticasylum.blogspot.com.