Why is it that only the majority has to be tolerant?

Hangout GupShup Cafe
41

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Now this argument is just plain silly. If we use this line of thinking, blacks would still have different rest rooms, we would be pulling our troops out of Iraq and there would be publicly funded stem cell research by now.

I am not surprised that you think civil issues should be by 'majority rule' since you think civil rights for some should be limited based on what the majority thinks "ought to be allowed". That's why we don't have mob rule and we do have a judicial branch. The tolerance that liberals usually ask for are usually for minority groups to have the same rights as others; the "tolerance" you ask for is to have your beliefs dominate society (and be publicly funded) over others.
[/QUOTE]

Now that is what is just plain silly. How does putting a nativity scene in some public park keep blacks in different rest rooms? You and UTD have simply got to get off that slippery slope.

Insisting that the minority have tolerance for the viewpoint and traditions of the majority to the same extent the majority is required to be tolerant of the minority's viewpoint and traditions has nothing to do with subjugating civil rights to majority rule. Now that you've gotten sexually deviant lifestyles out of the closet, you've made enough room in there to force God and religion into it. Since you can see those d*mn crosses from public streets, maybe it's high time to force all churches to remove them from the outside of the buildings...put em inside where they won't offend anyone.

Instead of starting with Christmas, why don't you tolerant liberals go after the daily prayer said in the US Senate to get things started? The Nevada legislature (along with many others I'd guess) follows that up with the Pledge of Allegiance. Since you got that thrown out of the schools too, why don't you keep the Pledge out of our legislatures? The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves to see how you tolerant ones interpret the words they set to paper.

Seminole: The comment on taxes was directed to UTD for his comment about not letting his tax dollars used to establish parks and things be allowed to promote religion. 85% or more of those tax dollars were paid by the people who would welcome (or not object to) a nativity scene in the park.

42

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

Now that is what is just plain silly. How does putting a nativity scene in some public park keep blacks in different rest rooms?
[/quote]
Because you want the beliefs of the majority to be the rule of law instead of the system laid out by our Founding Fathers. There would have been no changes to antiquated laws like the right to vote for women and minorities if mob rule were law. You are asking for more than tolerance for the viewpoint of the majority, you are asking for the minority to finance those viewpoints whether they agree with them or not. Or whether or not they pass Constitutional muster in our court system.

I personally am in favor of my city's nativity scene in our downtown park, the tree on the capital steps, the cities lighted, lamp post fixtures and the Christmas parade every year down Main Street. I thoroughly enjoy the beautiful church in my neighborhood that rings their harmonious bells throughout the day.

What I am against is your selective reasoning when demanding rights. Basically if you are in the majority you have rights, if you are in the minority, you don't.

43

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Because you want the beliefs of the majority to be the rule of law instead of the system laid out by our Founding Fathers. There would have been no changes to antiquated laws like the right to vote for women and minorities if mob rule were law. You are asking for more than tolerance for the viewpoint of the majority, you are asking for the minority to finance those viewpoints whether they agree with them or not. Or whether or not they pass Constitutional muster in our court system.

I personally am in favor of my city's nativity scene in our downtown park, the tree on the capital steps, the cities lighted, lamp post fixtures and the Christmas parade every year down Main Street. I thoroughly enjoy the beautiful church in my neighborhood that rings their harmonious bells throughout the day.

What I am against is your selective reasoning when demanding rights. Basically if you are in the majority you have rights, if you are in the minority, you don't.
[/QUOTE]

You don't read much of what myvoice writes do you?

It was the Founders who put prayer in the Congress, God in the Declaration of Independence, religion in the schools, God on our money, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not asking the minority to pay for anything. I just want them to sit down and shut the f*ck up. The parks already exist and they were built and paid for to bring enjoyment to the citizenry they service. It costs the minority the same amount in taxes to maintain the park whether the Lion's Club puts a nativity scene in one part of it for a few weeks or it stays barrren for the whole year. Heck, the city could make a few bucks by charging people to put the nativity scene there.

As to demanding rights, I've done no such thing in starting this thread. What I've asked for is ** tolerance **. Something you seem to be in short supply of.

44

And when a group wants to put their witchcraft props up you won't mind myvoice?

45

good point

46

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
It was the Founders who put prayer in the Congress, God in the Declaration of Independence, religion in the schools, God on our money, etc. etc. etc.
[/QUOTE]

so why did they want the separation of church and state ( an excellent idea btw), and how did they think they could realistically manage this separation while referring to god, putting religion in classrooms and god on money etc.

was it all zubaani jama kharach i.e. loose talk...

47

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
It was the Founders who put prayer in the Congress, God in the Declaration of Independence, religion in the schools, God on our money, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not asking the minority to pay for anything. I just want them to sit down and shut the f*ck up. The parks already exist and they were built and paid for to bring enjoyment to the citizenry they service. It costs the minority the same amount in taxes to maintain the park whether the Lion's Club puts a nativity scene in one part of it for a few weeks or it stays barrren for the whole year. Heck, the city could make a few bucks by charging people to put the nativity scene there.

As to demanding rights, I've done no such thing in starting this thread. What I've asked for is ** tolerance **. Something you seem to be in short supply of.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you aren't "demanding rights", but you are asking that we keep what you deem as tradition and public policy simply based on the religion of the majoirty and disguising it in name and spirit of 'tolerance'. Is it tolerance to call a school break "Christmas" instead of "Winter". Tolerant to whom? Not for those who don't celebrate Christmas.

There were many things the founders were doing at the time of the Constitution that are no longer legal, ethical, practical, possible or even moral by today standards. Just because they did something 200 years ago doesn't mean it is policy until the end of time. The founding fathers put checks and balances all throughout our system to enusre we do not have mob rule and to allow for changing norms and culture so we can stay a progressive society.

Now, how am short of tolerance when I have absolutely no problem with publicly funded Christmas dislplays and activities? It seems you don't read much of what Seminole writes either. If I wasn't tolerant I would be asking those with differing views to to sit down and shut the f*ck up.

48

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
so why did they want the separation of church and state ( an excellent idea btw), and how did they think they could realistically manage this separation while referring to god, putting religion in classrooms and god on money etc.

was it all zubaani jama kharach i.e. loose talk...
[/QUOTE]

Fraudia: The First Amendment is often misunderstood. Here is the relevant text: ** Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **

From a historical perspective, the Founders did not intend on taking God out of public life. Rather, in light of the religious persecution suffered by many immigrant groups coming to the US, the Founders intended on prohibiting Congress from establishing a single state sponsored religion to the exclusion of others. The key words include ** Congress shall make no law. ** ** CONGRESS. ** That means no law ESTABLISHING religion and no law PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof. Thus, Puritans could include religious training in accordance with their beliefs in their schools and Catholics could do the same in their schools and the Amish could do the same in their schools, etc. etc. etc. There is no common sense reading of the First Amendment that suggests a local city council cannot enact an ordinance that permits some christians from putting a nativity scene in a city park. CONGRESS is totally out of the picture in that scenario. Add to that the 10th Amendment and it would appear that the Founders basically intended no federal action at all in the arena of religion and left it to the states and localities to sort things out.

Obviously, the Founders did not mean to take any and all references to God out of public life or they wouldn't have included them in the first place. It made sense to them and I'm not quite certain why it cannot make sense to people today. TOLERANCE.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UTD: *
And when a group wants to put their witchcraft props up you won't mind myvoice?
[/QUOTE]

This is the second time you brought up the slippery slope and witchcraft. Why don't you try to reply to my initial response. For over 200 years, the United States Congress has started off each day's session with a prayer. Figuring maybe 150 working days per year for these Senators, that means prayers have started over 30,000 Senate sessions. In over 200 years and 30,000 Senate sessions, have you ever heard of any problem with witches demanding the right to say the invocation? It's not a problem UTD. Common sense seems to sort out these slippery slopes. Besides, witches already have holloween, so what's the problem? Are you going to start a campaign to take carved pumpkins out of city parks next October? Probably only if someone carves the pumpkin to look like the baby Jesus.

49

Originally posted by myvoice: *
**it would appear that the Founders basically intended no federal action at all in the arena of religion and left it to the states and localities to sort things out. *

sheesh, the founders over estimated the intelligence and benovelance of localites there :)

*Obviously, the Founders did not mean to take any and all references to God out of public life or they wouldn't have included them in the first place. It made sense to them and I'm not quite certain why it cannot make sense to people today. TOLERANCE. *

I think the issue is when one group's faith is force fed to others then it becomes an issue. Tolerance is well and goo, person a can follow his religion and person B can follow his, niether need to shove it down the other's throat.

The point here is of the separation of church and state, and if to some it appears that soem churches are more separate than others..then there may be some concern.

50

So because the stuffiest, most traditional, exclusionary club in the US (Senate) has never allowed an ordained witch (or anyone that is not from the Abrahamic religions) to open a Senate session, that means the slippery slope analogy won't apply and we'll never have a club similar to Lion's Club that wants to put up a non-traditional display in a public park? It's funny how the slippery slope excuse is fine when it fits our viewpoint (same sex marriages will lead to people marrying cows), but denied when it doesn't fit.

51

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
**it would appear that the Founders basically intended no federal action at all in the arena of religion and left it to the states and localities to sort things out. *

sheesh, the founders over estimated the intelligence and benovelance of localites there :)

[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I think they had a great idea that the federal government has really screwed up in a power grab. In my travels, I have noticed that like minded and like-cultured people very often like to live and eat together. You've got clear Jewish communities in many parts of NY. Chinatown exists in all major cities. I'm pretty sure their are Desi enclaves somewhere too. Why shouldn't a public school with virtually all jewish students be allowed to take Yom Kippur off as a school day and make it up on Christmas. The same for other predominantly ethnic/cultural/religious community public schools. Public neighborhood schools are supposed to serve the interests of the public neighborhood they provide service to. There exists no school, no government, no person who can be all things to all people.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
**Obviously, the Founders did not mean to take any and all references to God out of public life or they wouldn't have included them in the first place. It made sense to them and I'm not quite certain why it cannot make sense to people today. TOLERANCE. *

I think the issue is when one group's faith is force fed to others then it becomes an issue. Tolerance is well and goo, person a can follow his religion and person B can follow his, niether need to shove it down the other's throat.

[/QUOTE]

That sounds good but it is cr*p. People are too easily offended in today's world. If some Muslim finds himself in a city park when it is time to pray, let him kneel and pray. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that someone will be offended and think the poor guy is shoving his religion down other people's throats. When we had the national televised memorial service for the WTC victims, I guarantee that some were offended by having Islamic Imams participate and offer prayers. Shoving Allah down our throats and that sort of thing. Unfortunately, it is becoming politically correct for the majority to be forced to be tolerant of the minority when it comes to many things including religious worship but the majority is viewed as intolerant when it asks for a little tolerance from the minority in return.

Seminole:
I never used the slippery slope argument regarding same sex marriages. I'm against them because it is rewarding deviant (not alternative) behaviour. PS. I'm also against humans marrying cows. Although, I can be tolerant of non-marital sex between consenting opposite sex partners from different species.

52

Myvoice, the U.S. Supreme Court has said prayers such as ones said before Congress must be nonsectarian. Your Ten Commandments is not hence its removal from court property by order of the law.

But myvoice please answer my question rather than avoiding it, would you be tolerate of witchcraft props/symbols in parks (right by the playground) as you want others to be of Christian ones?

53

myvoice, perhaps one day you will see that equality isn't a reward based on societal norms but a right. But your intolerance on that subject is well documented. You love to quote the founding fathers as if they came down from the mountain top with stone tablets in hand. These are the same founding fathers who didn't give slaves any rights because it was deviant behavour to think of Africans as equals. Things change, cultures change, society develops.

In the meantime, please refrain from moaning and groaning about others' intolerance. It rings as hollow as your demigod O'Reilly's complaining about the objectivity of other networks while sanctimonuously claiming "Fair and Balanced". Or Rush Limbaugh pushing for mandatory drug sentencing. Or Bush claiming to be a Uniter, not a Divider. The intolerant cannot use the "intolerance" card only when it suits their needs.

54

Tolerance is not exclusively compulsary to "majority" groups, however it is more immidiately important that majorities display tolerance becasue the alterantive or reversal results in persecution. As has been witnessed many times in history.

Once the majority is tolerant and so forth however the minority need to stop feeling afraid and follow suit.

But the progative land initial responsibility lies with the larger community, as they are the ones who can potentially cause more harm with intolerance.

55

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
myvoice, perhaps one day you will see that equality isn't a reward based on societal norms but a right. But your intolerance on that subject is well documented. You love to quote the founding fathers as if they came down from the mountain top with stone tablets in hand. These are the same founding fathers who didn't give slaves any rights because it was deviant behavour to think of Africans as equals. Things change, cultures change, society develops.

In the meantime, please refrain from moaning and groaning about others' intolerance. It rings as hollow as your demigod O'Reilly's complaining about the objectivity of other networks while sanctimonuously claiming "Fair and Balanced". Or Rush Limbaugh pushing for mandatory drug sentencing. Or Bush claiming to be a Uniter, not a Divider. The intolerant cannot use the "intolerance" card only when it suits their needs.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting how the intolerant resort to labeling as a last resort in almost all arguments. As a rule, I don't listen to, watch or read O'Reilly or Rush as I generally don't like blowhards. I probably would miss a commandment or two if you asked me to recite them. I don't go to church except for weddings or funerals. I didn't put up a tree for Christmas this year or hang lights. I don't listen to or watch evangelicals preach on radio or the TV. For a career, I mostly defend people who are victims of some form of gevernment abuse. I have offered my services for free to defend civil rights.

But...if you voted for Bush over Kerry, think that homosexual marriage is wrong and/or ask people to be tolerant enough to allow Christian Americans to put up a nativity scene in a public park for Christmas, watch out because you become a real target for the intolerant left wing that are the self annointed protectors of fairness and equity in this world. What is really sad is that Seminole and UTD would probably be the first ones to join the ACLU in protecting some guy's right to display in a public place a nativity scene carved out of human feces as long as the sculptor called it art.

56

Arent the big shots in american politics masons?

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Interesting how the intolerant resort to labeling as a last resort in almost all arguments.
[/quote]
I agree, your propensity to label is pretty funny. Voting for Bush doesn't make one intolerant. Asking to put a nativity scene is a public park is a lofty goal in my view. If your personal view is that same sex marriage is wrong, that doesn't make you intolerant either. How does any of that makes me part of the 'intolerant left wing?' I never said I had a problem with Christmas displays or activities. I support and particiapte in them whole heartedly. I think all this hoopla over Christmas displays and such is kinda silly since Christmas has so little to do with Christianity anymore. It is a 95% secular holiday in this country.

But as far as "self annointed protectors of fairness and equity", isn't that what we all proclaim to be in our self righteous and self important posts? For instance, your views regarding same sex marriage (or unions or whatever) are your own and you shouldn't be forced to marry another man. But I don't believe we should deny rights to people just because "the majority" have a problem with the way other people were born and who they fall in love with. It has nothing to do with "rewarding" behavior since being homosexuality isn't a behavior, it is a condition. Thank God we didn't reward blacks by allowing them to vote if they bleached their skin and hair, and instead afforded them the right in the condition they were born.

BTW, you should watch O'Reilly because many of your posts could be used as his Talking Points Memo. Defending the status quo, "watching out for you" (the staus quo), conservative (or traditionalist as he calls it), moral standard bearer, what's right and wrong for society, etc.

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
I never said I had a problem with Christmas displays or activities. I support and particiapte in them whole heartedly. I think all this hoopla over Christmas displays and such is kinda silly since Christmas has so little to do with Christianity anymore. It is a 95% secular holiday in this country.
[/QUOTE]

You should have just said so in your first post in this thread and expressed your agreement with me and we could have saved a lot of memory bits on the Gupshup servers. :)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
For instance, your views regarding same sex marriage (or unions or whatever) are your own and you shouldn't be forced to marry another man. But I don't believe we should deny rights to people just because "the majority" have a problem with the way other people were born and who they fall in love with. It has nothing to do with "rewarding" behavior since being homosexuality isn't a behavior, it is a condition. Thank God we didn't reward blacks by allowing them to vote if they bleached their skin and hair, and instead afforded them the right in the condition they were born.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to debate deviant behaviour with you in this thread. We've done so in other threads. Staying on topic, I think Christian gays ought to be able to put up nativity scenes in public parks too provided they remain intellectually/historically accurate and make the Mary and Joseph figurines different sexes.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
BTW, you should watch O'Reilly because many of your posts could be used as his Talking Points Memo. Defending the status quo, "watching out for you" (the staus quo), conservative (or traditionalist as he calls it), moral standard bearer, what's right and wrong for society, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe O'Reilly visits Gupshup and makes my posts the subject of his Talking Points. D*mn Plagiarist.

59

Originally posted by myvoice: *
**On the contrary, I think they had a great idea that the federal government has really screwed up in a power grab. In my travels, I have noticed that like minded and like-cultured people very often like to live and eat together. *

very often, but not always.

*You've got clear Jewish communities in many parts of NY. Chinatown exists in all major cities. I'm pretty sure their are Desi enclaves somewhere too. Why shouldn't a public school with virtually all jewish students be allowed to take Yom Kippur off as a school day and make it up on Christmas. The same for other predominantly ethnic/cultural/religious community public schools. *

Because by doing so you are discouraging people of other backgrounds from even moving into those areas and are further creating de facto segregation.

*Public neighborhood schools are supposed to serve the interests of the public neighborhood they provide service to. There exists no school, no government, no person who can be all things to all people. *

true, but it can not treat one group of people as more "equal" than others.

*That sounds good but it is cr*p. People are too easily offended in today's world. If some Muslim finds himself in a city park when it is time to pray, let him kneel and pray. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that someone will be offended and think the poor guy is shoving his religion down other people's throats. When we had the national televised memorial service for the WTC victims, I guarantee that some were offended by having Islamic Imams participate and offer prayers. Shoving Allah down our throats and that sort of thing. *

well if a guys i prayingin a park, most likely police will be called but then that is a whole diff can of worms to be opened.

Now as far as memorial service and having an imaam there, my view is either allow reps of all faiths to participate if they want to or none at all.

There is a difference between someone saying a religion is being pushed upon them, and intolerance. If one is being made to do something or support something or participate in something that one does not want to do, then it is religion being shoved down one's throat, but if one has an issue with someone exercising his or her religion then one can be considered intolerant.

** Unfortunately, it is becoming politically correct for the majority to be forced to be tolerant of the minority when it comes to many things including religious worship but the majority is viewed as intolerant when it asks for a little tolerance from the minority in return. **

Its simple really, I dont have to follow your faith and you dotn have to follow mine, I dont have to celebrate christmas, and you dont have to celebrate eid. i dont have to sing hymns and you dont have to recite quran. Now you and I may think that it is only human to greet each other on religious occassions etc, but some dont want to and it is their right to not have to.