April 23, 2002

9:53 PM

Some much needed words on "tolerism".To be tolerant of something or someone doesn’t mean acquiescence, and it doesn’t mean that you can’t speak out in opposition. From a religious perspective, but relevant to all.
posted by aaronshaf (16 comments total)

Who, exactly are these words "much needed" by? All I see is yet another bigot shooting off at the mouth about his supposed right to attempt to restrict the rights of others. God, I'm glad I don't believe in God anymore.
posted by Optamystic at 10:09 PM on April 23, 2002

I suppose you'll have to tolerate it then, won't you? :)
posted by aaronshaf at 10:38 PM on April 23, 2002

"Our tolerance is a fait accompli, because we believe in the rule of law and respect for human life. We believe in civility, and we believe in due process."

"...our tolerance stops far short of complete capitulation. Toleration, doesn’t mean we’ll empty our minds and suddenly be overwhelmed with warm fuzzies for the opposition. It does not mean that we’ll shut up, zip up and go away. And tolerance does not mean we’ll stop being political and use the democratic process to gain the upper hand, influence society, and see the dawn of civility return to America"

Interesting term used: "Christophobic pundit"
posted by aaronshaf at 10:47 PM on April 23, 2002

If what he means in his diatribe is that he has the right to shout his views from the rooftops, and that he shouldn't be silenced just because his views are unpopular with some, then I agree with him.

But I don't think that's all he means. The hue and cry against the religious right isn't about whether or not they're saying "intolerant" things, it's that they're trying to shove their religious views down our throats as a matter of policy. He can say I'm sinful and perverted until the cows come home - but when he favors denying me equal rights, that's when I call it intolerance. More to the point, I call it discrimination.

It comes down to this: in my vision of a perfect society, the religious and the non-religious get along. I think that in his vision of a perfect society I (as a gay man) don't even exist. Or if I exist I'm not allowed to give any hint to anyone else that I exist. I might be wrong - perhaps he really believes in "live and let live" - but I don't think so, and that's why I wouldn't sweat calling him "intolerant" for his views.
posted by Chanther at 10:50 PM on April 23, 2002

The irony is that while they’re clamouring for us to zip it up, they’ve got every Christophobic pundit out there preaching about their god-given rights. “If a man wants to sodomize another man—tolerate it!” “If a woman wants to terminate an inconvenient child—tolerate it!” “If the public schools are going to be used for the purposes of homosexual propaganda—tolerate it!” “If tax dollars are used to promote queer causes—tolerate it!”

I'm not Christophobic. I'm Christianophobic. Christophobic would imply a fear of Christ. I'd be pretty silly if I were scared of a guy who's been dead (or MIA) for two Millenia.

This guy is very, very, worried that someone, somewhere may be engaged in activities of which he disapproves. The fact is, he has no choice but to tolerate "sodomy". Or abortion. Or anything else that anyone else chooses to do within the law of the land. And when he takes it upon himself to attempt to change the law of the land to reflect his superstitions and prejudices, then it becomes my place to mock and belittle and heap scorn upon him and his supporters. And to encourage others to do the same.

I often wonder how much misery the world could have been spared if "God" had written an Eleventh Commandment that went something like this:

"Thou shalt mind thy own fucking business."
posted by Optamystic at 11:04 PM on April 23, 2002

Yes, tolerance. I believe in tolerance. I believe in it so much, I won’t harass people just because they disagree with me

Wow, what a fucking saint.

And tolerance does not mean we’ll stop being political and use the democratic process to gain the upper hand, influence society, and see the dawn of civility return to America, or Canada, where I live.

There's your answer, Chanther. This is the kind of thought that converts men from kind of looney Promise Keepers to way out there "God Hates Fags!" types. You want tolerance? I give you Tolerance!
This guy needs to find his hidden biases, learn 10 ways to fight hate. and then use 101 tools for tolerance,
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:10 PM on April 23, 2002

Well said Chanther.

If the public schools are going to be used for the purposes of homosexual propaganda—tolerate it!

Anybody know what he means by this? Did I miss the Homo101 class or something?
posted by LoraT at 11:13 PM on April 23, 2002

Toleration is allowing men to live as they wish, no matter if you disagree with them (to paraphrase Ludwig von Mises), but you certainly are allowed to persuade them to your point of view.

I don't think the author is saying Christians should enact public policy to be intolerant, he says they should feel free to argue their case in public. He means that Christians should be tolerant by not forcing others to live a certain way. According to his definition, then, toleration is not moral agreement with someone else's way of life, it is merely a willingness to peacefully coexist with another point of view. Essentially, he is arguing against relativistic tolerance, which demands that you accept as equally valid any belief or way of life. If you oppose this sort of tolerance, you are intolerantly branded a bigot.

Unfortunately, he totally contradicts his essay when he talks about using the political process to gain the upper hand, I have trouble understanding what he means by that, but he's probably a socialist (he's from Canada, after all) in which case he thinks it's perfectly fine for the state to direct individual action.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:51 PM on April 23, 2002

Of course, I could be wrong, and the statement about influencing the political process may mean, based on reading his other articles, limiting the power of the government, in which case his two points would not be contradictory.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:56 PM on April 23, 2002

You people seem to be misunderstand what a belief is. A belief cannot be reasoned with. For all intents and purposes, this man is right. Nobody asks you to believe him. Why so many people go out of their way to expose themselves to a column they know they'll disagree with and then go on to criticise it is far and beyond my comprehension right now.

Though to be fair, the Church, in all of its forms, has imposed its will on a great number. Sometimes belief does that. When one believes something one believes it is superior, and that it is the only option, and that all other must be converted. It is self fulfilling, it's rather like a form of life actually. Religions cannot live in harmony, they can either wipe eachother out or live in conflict. So long as different groups "believe" that theirs is the best, the struggle will continue. And yes, this applies to buddhism.
posted by Settle at 12:45 AM on April 24, 2002

Does this mean that I don't have to tolerate any more of this religious BS? Good.
posted by eas98 at 6:42 AM on April 24, 2002

I assume there are quotes around "tolerism" because it's not a word. Try "tolerance" or even "toleration."
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:54 AM on April 24, 2002

That's like saying "communism" isn't a word, try "commune" or "community." He's not attacking tolerance, he's criticizing the ideology of tolerance, hence the "-ism." He is in effect coining a word.
posted by kindall at 8:37 AM on April 24, 2002

You people seem to be misunderstand what a belief is. A belief cannot be reasoned with.

Uh, well, I guess not, by definition, but one certainly hopes that people who hold said beliefs can be.

Why so many people go out of their way to expose themselves to a column they know they'll disagree with and then go on to criticise it is far and beyond my comprehension right now.

It is? Then why on earth are you on Metafilter? Or did you get an accidental redirect from Settlefilter?
posted by Skot at 8:50 AM on April 24, 2002

warm fuzzies for the opposition

You, who would ask their followers to love their enemies. Bunch of dirty hippies, I tell you.
posted by NortonDC at 8:54 AM on April 24, 2002

insomnyuk - I read through some of the author's other articles, and I don't see too much concerning limiting the power of the government. I think your first reaction was correct - despite his initial claims of live-and-let-live-while-politely-criticizing, he actually does have a political agenda to limit the rights of others based on his interpretation of his religion.

Too bad. There is something to be said for distinguishing between the two types of tolerance - A) Keeping out of other people's business & accepting that their ways may be as legitimate as ours, vs B) Accepting that others have a right to their ways, while retaining our right to criticize. Under B, Mr. Emmanuel can state that gays are breaking god's law, but they have a right to do so, and I can state that Mr.Emmanuel is an ignorant bigot, but he has a right to be one. Unfortunately, the author's view seems to be C) "I don’t sue those who promote perversion." - because he has no legal basis to do so, so he wants to democratically change the laws so he will have a legal basis to do so. As propaganda for this mission, he's spreading nonsense about "tax dollars being used to promote queer causes." I don't know about Canada, but I certainly haven't seen any of that here in the States.

I also like how he calls those who disagree with him "Christophobes." I've got no problem with Jesus, or with those individuals I've met who seem to embody his teachings. It's just bile-filled, hypocritical bigots who annoy me. Not to worry, though. I don't harass, threaten, harm or sue said bigots, so I guess I'm pretty tolerant.
posted by tdismukes at 9:42 AM on April 24, 2002