5 ms·

>Speaking out against gay-marriage is intolerant. Are you tolerant of other peoples' religious beliefs? If so to what extent? I find people are quick to defen

• CocaKoala 11y ago
  >For example - a Jew's right to avoid pork and shellfish is respected but the right for an evangelical Christian to avoid people they see as ultimate sinners who could soil them and send them to hell for eternity is completely disregarded and not tolerated at all. The right for evangelican Christians to avoid people they see as sinners is respected just as much as the right for Jews to avoid pork and shellfish is; nobody forces a Jewish person to eat pork, and nobody forces evangelical Christians to interact with sinners. The right of evangelical Christians to enforce their beliefs on others, i.e. by making it illegal for homosexuals to get married, is a very different right, and you haven't made an argument for why that right should be respected at all; should Jews be allowed to shut down a restaurant just because that restaurant happens to serve pork or shellfish?
  • Nadya 11y ago
    >you haven't made an argument for why that right should be respected at all That's because I don't think it should be. You're entirely missing the point of my argument and why arguing from morals and right/wrong is completely pointless. You're arguing about enforcing beliefs - I'm arguing about what is and isn't immoral and how people treat behaviors they deem to be moral or immoral. It's only immoral when you don't agree with it. If you thought homosexuality was a sin and marriage should be banned defending the cause is moral. Enforcing beliefs would be impossible because everyone has their own beliefs and there would be contradictions everywhere. I'll use a different example, since people are missing my point entirely. A despised terrorist to one group of people is a glorified hero to another. The only difference is which group you belong to. It's all a matter of perspective and shouting down about how immoral or intolerant they are being will change nothing from their perspective because you are in the wrong. Not them. Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. It's a sin to tolerate such a presence. You are asking them to sin and go to hell. I can easily understand why they might not so willing to sin and go to hell, no matter how politely you ask.
    • CocaKoala 11y ago
      >Tolerating a homosexual in their presence goes against their beliefs. But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosexuals? Unless there's been a movement to ban homosexuals from doing things like being in public spaces; I'm not currently aware of any such movement, although I admit that I'm not really up on such things. If somebody doesn't want to be in the presence of a homosexual, then they can arrange their life in such a way that they never need to do that, and I don't think anybody is really going to force them to do something like travel to San Francisco to watch a pride parade. edit: I guess I'm not sure what your argument is, because you say that you're not talking about enforcing beliefs and then you say that evangelical christians are forced to interact with homosexuals.
      • com2kid 11y ago
        > But nobody has said that evangelical Christians have to tolerate the presence of homosexuals? Laws exist saying that public businesses must serve all customers without discrimination, there has been a lot of controversy over, for example, a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couples wedding. This is an example where government enforced capitalism has been enshrined in law and it is a good thing. Discrimination distorts the market in horrible ways, American history has plenty of examples of stores discriminating meaning other stores pop up providing substandard non-competitive service to a population.
• honestcoyote 11y ago
  >but the right for an evangelical Christian to avoid people they see as ultimate sinners who could soil them and send them to hell for eternity is completely disregarded and not tolerated at all. If there are any Christians who actually believe this, then they clearly have not read their gospels. Jesus, in word and deed, emphasized being around people who are sinners. The only people he ever pushed away were those who were abusing religion for their own gain. And entrance to Hell is not gained by being around or talking to sinners. If this were true, Christianity would have died out because its members would not have been able to talk to anyone outside the group, and therefore would have had zero converts. The reasons for going to Hell vary based on what part of the Bible you read or what theologian you favor, but all the reasons can basically be summed up as the individual rejecting God in some way. People aren't sent to Hell just because they picked up cooties from some random sinner. In short, your example is incredibly ridiculous and has no theological basis. Yes, some Christians separate themselves from the world. Some enjoy playing the "holier than thou" game. Even for people like that, none of them would think they were in danger of eternal damnation for spending time around a gay person.
  • tsotha 11y ago
    >In short, your example is incredibly ridiculous and has no theological basis. That's really beside the point, isn't it? If they believe something, however wrong it is in your eyes, it's still what they believe. Of course there's no reason to accommodate people whose beliefs actively affect someone else, but people have a right to refuse associations for any reason.
• pron 11y ago
  > people they see as ultimate sinners who could soil them and send them to hell for eternity is completely disregarded and not tolerated at all. And if that were true, this could be an actual problem (don't think "soiling" is a thing in Christianity). In any case, no one who wants to tolerate anything means that it takes precedence over everything else. Some cultures allow murdering unfaithful women. Even the most tolerant of free societies would not tolerate that, yet that doesn't make it intolerant. Society doesn't operate according to boolean logic and values have relative importance. > The issue stems from you not being tolerant or understanding of their religious beliefs. But I am tolerant of their expressing their beliefs. I'm all for Reddit allowing intolerance. I'm against it allowing mobs of intimidation. > It's that arguing between right or wrong will depend entirely on beliefs. Except I'm not arguing about right or wrong. I'm arguing about building an effective community (or a society) that can function well, given the composition of its members. If someone feels uncomfortable in a community where threats of rape are not acceptable and would rather spend time in a community that enjoys bullying and threats, it stands to reason that they should form a separate community and not spend time with the 99.9% of people who feel different.