EarthNSky wrote:
Right, but there is some contact with those groups or people who represent those groups. If there had been no contact, no exposure, there would have been no perceived threat to protect against and therefore no 'anti' laws to begin with. Those laws continue to harm future generations of people, strangers, that had nothing to do with the original case.
Again, I disagree. Some people see the mere existence of something as a threat, and that, I think, is where the biggest danger lies. Why is gay marriage banned in so many places? What possible threat is it, except to some people's idea of right and wrong? The Bible says it's wrong, so you don't need an example in front of you to think it's wrong. The hatred of gays was implanted in a person long before that person met anyone gay. The churches/people who are so vehemently against homosexuality in general aren't talking about a specific person or couple...there is no 'original case'. To them, it's just plain wrong, and NO ONE should be allowed to do it.
So since I used you in my example, and since you have delineated the process above, go back and in the example I suggested about the nasty gang member who moved in your building and is now threatening you...how do you negotiate and compromise there?That has nothing to do with tolerance. Threatening is illegal, and for good reason. It is an act against someone and is not acceptable in our society. No negotiation or compromise.
until they start to take away someone else's personal freedoms. The majority rules on where those lines are.
If the person's beliefs in threatening people are that strong, he'll have to go find somewhere where it is acceptable.
consider violations of my personal freedoms in the city...the constant noise, the drunks screaming in the street at 2am...but these are accepted by the majority. I didn't like the culture of the city, so rather than try to change millions of people, I found somewhere I like.
some atheists who were as intolerant of other people's beliefs as those who try to push their religion on others.I'd have to agree with that, too. But we all draw the lines at different places so if you line is further away than mine, does that mean you more more tolerant than me?
I don't know. I don't consider myself overly tolerant if someone's actions affect me. I tolerate smokers, but not in my house. I tolerate anyone's religious views until they come to my house to 'save' me, or try to make me pray their prayers. I'm very much 'live and let live', but also "don't impose you views/morality on me".
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.