Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[Faeelin]

I am a tad concerned that the Economist poll doesn't say how that study was conducted. But I am also perplexed at how everyone's response to it was to attack Dguller, and not ask why Republicans polled were more willing to ban minarets.

[Martinus]

I also can't see how Democrats are "intolerant" of wealth or business. Communists were intolerant of wealth or business - they put wealthy people in gulags, they banned private ownership of businesses, etc.

Attempting to strike a balance between individual rights of different people is a middle ground position - not one of intolerance. In fact, while some left-leaning Democrats may be not too happy about businesses and wealthy people - they are remarkably tolerant of them, unlike Republicans who want to ban everything they dislike.

[Sheilbh]

I hate the use of tolerance when very often what we mean is equality before the law.  I always loved Tom Paine's attack on tolerance because he points out, I think rightly, that it suggests those in power deigning to allow people to live as they wish.  He said in matters of religion that intolerance is the burning stake but that tolerance is the selling of indulgences.

[Camerus]

Speaking anecdotally, I've found 'leftists' and 'rightists' to be more or less equally intolerant - albeit often of (ostensibly) different things - depending on the situation and individuals involved.  To suggest otherwise is usually just partisan fantasy.

[Valmy]

Well, it didn't forbid vote on Prop 8. 

For the very good reason there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course abortion is a tolerance issue.

Democrat position is that of tolerance - we leave people a choice when it comes to planned parenting and birth control. Republicans want to ban that - they do not tolerate the position in which some people are making a choice to have an abortion. The other end of the non-tolerance spectrum is a position in which abortions would be forced on people who meet certain criteria (e.g. forcible abortion for pregnant people with genetic disabilities, or having too many children, etc.)

Having a choice (in abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is a position of tolerance - we accept and tolerate the fact that some people may make some choices and others may make different choices. We can still believe that some choices are better than others (I don't think you would find many pro-choicers who think that abortion is an optimal solution) but nonetheless we tolerate people's right to choose.

That's a good summation of the pro-choice talking points.  But the fact is pro-lifers are just that: trying to preserve what they consider to be human life.  They're not furiously plotting different ways to limit female freedom of choice.  It's like saying death penalty advocates are intolerant of people's freedom to murder.

[Valmy]

I hate the use of tolerance when very often what we mean is equality before the law.

Yep.

[Martinus]

I hate the use of tolerance when very often what we mean is equality before the law.  I always loved Tom Paine's attack on tolerance because he points out, I think rightly, that it suggests those in power deigning to allow people to live as they wish.  He said in matters of religion that intolerance is the burning stake but that tolerance is the selling of indulgences.

I don't think I agree. I think the concept of tolerance is important because it informs the "equality under law" in a way that is consistent with our modern sensibilities. If you remove the concept of tolerance from "equality under law", it can be used to justify even the most restrictive laws, as long as they are applied equally (for example, a death penalty for anal sex - whether engaged in by straight or gay couples - would be a measure fulfilling the "equality under law" requirement).

[Martinus]

Well, it didn't forbid vote on Prop 8. 

For the very good reason there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution.

Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.

Valmy: I'm glad the Constitution prevents people from adopting an anti-freedom measure A.
Me: Pity it does not prevent people from adopting an anti-freedom measure B, though.
Valmy: And for a good reason, since it doesn't say anything about B.

Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?

[Sheilbh]

Well as a good lefty I prefer the concept of solidarity by all minority groups and from within the majority.  My problem with tolerance is that it's the powerful 'tolerating' a minority and that doesn't sit well with me (neither does Edith Sitwell ).

Edit:  I think I suppose I think that the restriction of rights from one group weakens all rights.  Implicit within our 'rights' is that we are the guarantors of each others' freedom - that is the responsibility that comes with every right that we defend not just our own but all others.

[Tamas]

[quote author=Martinus link=topic=2894.msg155584#msg155584 date=1260197522]

Democrat position is that of tolerance - we [/quote]

[Berkut]

The irony is strong in this thread.

Or at least the last page or two.

[Martinus]

Well as a good lefty I prefer the concept of solidarity by all minority groups and from within the majority.  My problem with tolerance is that it's the powerful 'tolerating' a minority and that doesn't sit well with me (neither does Edit Sitwell ).

I don't see it that way, at least not necessarily. For me tolerance means different groups tolerating each other, even if they do not agree with each other or make different lifestyle choices. Solidarity implies a need for some cooperation - which in turn can lead to exclusion of groups that are, for various reasons, seen as not contributing to the "solidarity".

After all, nazism could be very well defended as a system based on the solidarity concept - with only those groups that are seen as harmful or non-productive being sent to extermination.

[Sheilbh]

I don't see it that way, at least not necessarily. For me tolerance means different groups tolerating each other, even if they do not agree with each other or make different lifestyle choices. Solidarity implies a need for some cooperation - which in turn can lead to exclusion of groups that are, for various reasons, seen as not contributing to the "solidarity".

Soldarity is, I would say, the thing you have with someone like Peter Tatchell - who is a gay rights activist who vociferously argues for other minority groups so that they become secondary advocates for the gays and so on.

Tolerance is by it's very nature from someone in a position in power, it's not equal in any way, and has within it a hint of loathing.  Non-smokers tolerate their smoking brethren - solidarity is when the smokers give up smoking or the non-smokers go and stand in the cold

[Valmy]

Wow, what a retarded response. Seriously.

Valmy: I'm glad the Constitution prevents people from adopting an anti-freedom measure A.
Me: Pity it does not prevent people from adopting an anti-freedom measure B, though.
Valmy: And for a good reason, since it doesn't say anything about B.

Seriously, why do you sometimes come with something so retarded like this is beyond me. Is it too early in the morning or what?

That is not what you said.  You said that it didn't prevent anti-freedom measure B and there is a perfectly good reason for that.  If you had actually said pity it did not prevent anti-freedom measure B then I would have agreed.