This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Why be accepting or tolerant of other religions?

User Info: darklao

darklao
4 weeks ago#51
SSj4Wingzero posted...
even a LGBT African-American judge ruled against American Atheists


Why wouldn't an LGBT black judge rule against them? What does that have to do with anything?

User Info: SSj4Wingzero

SSj4Wingzero
4 weeks ago#52
Because the judicial system has gotten rather polarized in recent years and said judge was nominated by Bill Clinton, so it's nice to see that she was able to make an impartial decision, unlike some of the mind-bogglingly unqualified people our current President has nominated. It's no secret that in the world of identity politics, Judge Batts, you would think, would sit squarely on the side of the people trying to take down the cross.
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 weeks ago#53
SSj4Wingzero posted...
Fortunately, even a LGBT African-American judge ruled against American Atheists, emphasizing that the first amendment separates church from state, but not religion from public life.


This is what I was getting at though. A presumably 'leftist' judge made the ruling that tolerance would dictate they should, despite the fact that it was in favor of Christians. Yea, the atheists who were also presumably 'leftists' were being intolerant a-holes, but when the rubber met the road, the right thing happened.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: SockThief

SockThief
4 weeks ago#54
kozlo100 posted...
I'm going to leave off Pence because I really can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to use him as an example of at this point. All I know is that he isn't just a guy minding his own business and treating his neighbors with respect. He's the vice president of the United States, and that makes him a whole different kettle of fish.


I don't understand why politicians can't be considered tolerant. Because people also vote for politicians. Can voters also not be considered tolerant people who mind their own business?

I'm using Mike Pence as an example because you said "As far as I've seen, treating your gay neighbor with kindness and honorably without dehumanizing him in any way is all anybody on the left has ever asked."

Mike Pence has always maintained that standard. I'm saying that that isn't good enough for Leftists, that they will accept nothing less than complete subjection to their views on human rights and sexual morality or else they'll brand you intolerant.

I would also say that tolerance isn't a weapon anybody, including the left, uses to beat anyone into submission about anything. It's a shield that's used to protect people. Folks on the left absolutely, as a rule, think it should be used to protect Christians as well, when needed. As evidence of that, you can take a look at this ACLU site: https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression-public-schools

In that they mention several defenses of the rights of Christians, including the right to display and wear Christian messages and iconography, as well as distribute Christian literature and proselytize in public spaces.


What does that have to do with the definition of tolerance? My earlier claim is that tolerance is logically incoherent. You said you disagreed and I'm waiting for you to explain how someone can tolerate one thing and not another and still be considered tolerant. You brought up "not hurting anyone" as an example but I don't think that's helpful at all, seeing as there's a wide variety of views on "not hurting anyone" and the definition of tolerance says nothing about that.
I steal your sock.

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 weeks ago#55
At this point, I can only think you don't want to hear what I'm saying. Which is fine, but it does mean I'm not going to just keep saying it. If you want to understand my point, it's been laid out. If you don't, or you just disagree, that's fine too.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: SSj4Wingzero

SSj4Wingzero
4 weeks ago#56
kozlo100 posted...
SSj4Wingzero posted...
Fortunately, even a LGBT African-American judge ruled against American Atheists, emphasizing that the first amendment separates church from state, but not religion from public life.


This is what I was getting at though. A presumably 'leftist' judge made the ruling that tolerance would dictate they should, despite the fact that it was in favor of Christians. Yea, the atheists who were also presumably 'leftists' were being intolerant a-holes, but when the rubber met the road, the right thing happened.


Which is nice and all, but it never should've even been a lawsuit in the first place. The fact that a bunch of people got together and thought that suing the museum to take down a historical artifact just because it has a religious undertone was a *good idea* is a sad marker for how far we've come. No longer is it, "I'll respect your views so long as you respect mine", it's now, "If I see something I disagree with, that means it's infringing on my right to not know that you exist!"

And give it time. It'll get worse before it gets better.
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 weeks ago#57
SSj4Wingzero posted...
The fact that a bunch of people got together and thought that suing the museum to take down a historical artifact just because it has a religious undertone was a *good idea* is a sad marker for how far we've come.


I don't think it's 'how far we've come'. We've always been here. There has always been groups trying to crush other groups. WBC, KKK, Mccarthyism, these kinds of things have always been around.

The important thing is that we have the systems in place that encourage tolerance and don't let them get very far. I'm of the opinion that we do a better job of that these days than we have in the past.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: SockThief

SockThief
4 weeks ago#58
kozlo100 posted...
At this point, I can only think you don't want to hear what I'm saying. Which is fine, but it does mean I'm not going to just keep saying it. If you want to understand my point, it's been laid out. If you don't, or you just disagree, that's fine too.


I would love to understand your point, but I think what you've stated so far is a rather naive and incomplete definition, and it seems you refuse to entertain any questions about the holes I see in it. That's too bad.
I steal your sock.

User Info: darklao

darklao
4 weeks ago#59
but it never should've even been a lawsuit in the first place.

Christians: No evolution in the classroom! Teach the controversy! Take down Roe v. Wade at all costs! Ban muslims! No trans people in our bathrooms! *makes laws furiously*

Also Christians: That you'd even think of using the legal system to assert yourselves against us in the matter of this t-shaped wreckage shows you hate us and are waging a war against us. Where is your so-called tolerance now?
(edited 4 weeks ago)
darklao posted...
but it never should've even been a lawsuit in the first place.

Christians: No evolution in the classroom! Teach the controversy! Take down Roe v. Wade at all costs! Ban muslims! No trans people in our bathrooms! *makes laws furiously*

Also Christians: That you'd even think of using the legal system to assert yourselves against us in the matter of this t-shaped wreckage shows you hate us and are waging a war against us. Where is your so-called tolerance now?


Don't feed this troll, people.
I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my awesome teams.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Why be accepting or tolerant of other religions?