[RyanPm40]

I recently read an interesting article. It is rather conservative, just as a warning.

http://townhall.com/columnists/chris... ce/page/full/

Anyways, I just think it brought up a lot of good points. How many times, nowadays, is the word "intolerance" thrown at a person in an intolerant manner?

Ronald Reagan had a great quote: “The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.”

Another noteable quote from the article is: "This is what the practice of intolerance in the name of tolerance produces: a hatred and intolerance toward those who simply disagree with a liberal position. Whatever happened to true tolerance -- one where we agree to disagree with those who have an opposing view? True tolerance means coexisting with those whom you may disagree."

I feel like nowadays words like "intolerant" and "ignorant" are thrown around too easily. I believe that "intolerant" is usually thrown around in a hateful, insulting way to people, which is kind of ironic since the point of "tolerance" is for everyone to respect one another. Kind of contradictory . I just find the words rather overused and more often than not used in situations where it really isn't appropriate. Hate breeds hate, and shouting such accusatory remarks back and forth between political parties only further divides our already heavily divided US.

Now, I am not this author, and I'm not saying that liberals are the only ones guilty of using such words. I'm not saying that the words aren't used correctly at times, but I just get really uneasy around them being thrown around so easily nowadays by your more uninformed college/high-school age kind of people (And even a few politicians here and there)

Thoughts? Is the word "intolerant" thrown around a bit too easily nowadays?

(Let's have a serious discussion, people, and not just make a hate-fest for whatever political party you disagree with)

"Not long ago, the word 'tolerance' meant 'bearing or putting up with someone or something not especially liked'. However, now the word has been redefined to 'all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal'. Denying this makes a person 'intolerant', and thus worthy of contempt."[1] (Also, whether your Christian or not, the article I took this quote for, linked by the [1], also raises some interesting points about what tolerance really is nowadays. Agree or disagree, I still find it interesting)

[Debut_Fin]

The bias in that article was a little overwhelming

[RyanPm40]

Originally Posted by Debut_Fin

The bias in that article was a little overwhelming

Oh yeah, I'm definitely not refuting that. I'm saying to look at it in a way where it isn't necessarily about liberals, but about anyone who uses the word "intolerant" regularly, regardless of their views. It's kind of interesting to think about how the definition has gotten warped over the years and I'd say it's fair to say that it is misused in a rather negative, contradictory way a lot nowadays. There were just a few quotes in there that really got me thinking a bit.

[Debut_Fin]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

Oh yeah, I'm definitely not refuting that. I'm saying to look at it in a way where it isn't necessarily about liberals, but about anyone who uses the word "intolerant" regularly, regardless of their views. It's kind of interesting to think about how the definition has gotten warped over the years and I'd say it's fair to say that it is misused in a rather negative, contradictory way a lot nowadays. There were just a few quotes in there that really got me thinking a bit.

I'm sure there's been several arguments where "you're intolerant" has been used as kind of a cop-out but overall the tone of this article would suggest that hating racism is just as "intolerant" as hating black people, which I have a huge problem with

[birdman]

Originally Posted by Debut_Fin

I'm sure there's been several arguments where "you're intolerant" has been used as kind of a cop-out but overall the tone of this article would suggest that hating racism is just as "intolerant" as hating black people, which I have a huge problem with

I don't think the article makes that point at all. In fact, the bolded statement just illustrates the article's point.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by birdman

I don't think the article makes that point at all. In fact, the bolded statement just illustrates the article's point.

How so?

[birdman]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

How so?

Well, he equates a Christian organization's ire of being labeled a "hate group" as a "cop-out". Forgetting that there was a shooting there as a direct result of said designation.

[David87]

I am completely intolerant of the view that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married, that poor people and people of color have the exact same opportunities as everyone else, and other ignorant views.

No problem admitting I'm intolerant of those things. They shouldn't be tolerated, period. I can ignore ignorance sometimes, but I don't have to tolerate it.

[Debut_Fin]

Originally Posted by birdman

Well, he equates a Christian organization's ire of being labeled a "hate group" as a "cop-out". Forgetting that there was a shooting there as a direct result of said designation.

If you establish an organization around denying a group of people their civl rights, "hate group" probably isn't an inappropriate label. Most people fight to end that kind of intolerance without murdering anybody. Walking into a building and shooting someone is murder and it's wrong. Opposing (or "not tolerating") their intolerance and bigotry, however, is not something I see as hypocritical

[Debut_Fin]

Originally Posted by David87

I am completely intolerant of the view that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married, that poor people and people of color have the exact same opportunities as everyone else, and other ignorant views.

No problem admitting I'm intolerant of those things. They shouldn't be tolerated, period. I can ignore ignorance sometimes, but I don't have to tolerate it.

Yup

[J.C.]

Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating intolerance, it means being able to differentiate between harmless differences and harmful differences. There are plenty of teachings from and aspects of religion that I've never saw reason to take issue with, even if I find fault with the premise behind the beliefs. That's because I can understand the desire for humans to want to believe in things beyond what they're capable of seeing or understanding. I can understand how scary it is to confront the possibility that what we do in our lives doesn't amount to anything greater than what we've already experienced, that our existences may ultimately be pointless.

If that's all religion was, just a mechanism for comfort, you would find it relatively tolerated and unassailed. No one gives Buddhists or the Amish shit about things. It's when religion is used as a mechanism for discrimination against those who don't share the same beliefs that it lends itself, justifiably, to criticism and accusations of intolerance. Feeling your religion takes precedent over the rights of gay people to be happy, supersedes a woman's decision about whether or not she brings a kid into this world, or interferes with the ability to teach elementary science in schools, are not stances without consequence; they're not harmless differences. They adversely affect the lives of other individuals while being of no detriment to the rights you're personally guaranteed. That makes those, and any beliefs alike, unworthy of tolerance for tolerance's sake.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by Debut_Fin

If you establish an organization around denying a group of people their civl rights, "hate group" probably isn't an inappropriate label. Most people fight to end that kind of intolerance without murdering anybody. Walking into a building and shooting someone is murder and it's wrong. Opposing (or "not tolerating") their intolerance and bigotry, however, is not something I see as hypocritical

I'm sorry I disagree, otherwise The Brandy Campaign would be considered a hate group. Any group opposing drug use, groups that are either pro or anti union, PETA, anti-tobacco groups etc would be considered a hate group because their position is to take away or restrict an individual's rights. People are trying to take away my rights or restrict them everyday, are they all bigots?

[_veges_]

If it's intolerant for me to believe in science and gay marriage then I'm ok with that.

[RyanPm40]

Originally Posted by _veges_

If it's intolerant for me to believe in science and gay marriage then I'm ok with that.

The article doesn't say you are intolerant for believing those things. What makes you intolerant is to hate and be unable to tolerate someone who thinks differently. Whether or not you believe in evolution, for example, is your own business, but to try and belittle somebody's entire religion due to them believing in creationism is nothing but needless hate.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

The article doesn't say you are intolerant for believing those things. What makes you intolerant is to hate and be unable to tolerate someone who thinks differently. Whether or not you believe in evolution, for example, is your own business, but to try and belittle somebody's entire religion due to them believing in creationism is nothing but needless hate.

What about when said creationist try to teach creationism in schools? Is it intolerant to not let them?