The New Tolerance.

www.christianpost.com...

It is important that we, like the groundhog, stick our heads out every once in awhile, look around, and find out what is going on. In case some of you missed it, we just passed into a totally new age. We passed through the Age of Modernity, and we are now in the Post-Modern Age. It is altogether different. If you think things are the same as they were, you have a surprise coming!

Enlarge this Image There is one thing being taught to our children today and that it is the dominant theme of the post-modern curriculum. Do you know what it is? Tolerance!

**************************************

Firstly, I know what type of site this is and they obviously have their own loaded agenda but I think it still touches on some interesting points about to what extent we should practice tolerance and how we define it in the first place.

What do others have to say about this.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by ubermunche]

Mod Edit: Quote Reference - Please Review This Link

[edit on 20-5-2007 by chissler]

Interesting article (and not in a good way )

I have some comments about some of the text:

The “new tolerance” means: Not only do you put up with and endure and bear with those who have different views, habits, and/or lifestyles than your own, but you agree with their views as well.

BS. It does NOT mean that you must AGREE with others' views. That's tacked on the end there and it's complete BS. Tolerance does not equal agreement. It means tolerance.

Furthermore, you hold that their lifestyle is equally true and equally valid as your own

Yes... This guy seems to have a problem with this concept... Other lifestyles (legal ones) ARE equal and as valid as my own.

Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God...

Yeah, I see where this guy's going. Anyone who is different than him is "violating the commandments of God" (don't you remember when God said, "Thou shalt not be gay"?) and therefore should not be tolerated.

Then he tries to equate atheism and homosexuality with theft.

What can I say? I have a hard time finding "tolerance" in my heart for beanbrains such as this dude.

Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality. They will not have you condemning what they have done as being wrong, and they have created a belief system in which it is not, and in which they are no longer the criminal or the villain or the evil person, but you are!

What a loaded arguement. You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. (Pun intended!) The issue of morality is a sticky one, indeed, for it all comes down to a matter of perspective. For some, morals are strictly regarded as adherence to the Ten Commandments and other teachings of the Bible. For others, moral code may entail ethical issues such as respect, honor, and dignity.

I think tolerance is a wonderful virtue to embrace. If you want people to respect your views, you ought to have the ability to respect their's as well. You may not necessarily agree with another person or group's view, but at least respect their right to hold that opinion. In short, tolerance is a two-way street.

The “new tolerance” means: Not only do you put up with and endure and bear with those who have different views, habits, and/or lifestyles than your own, but you agree with their views as well.

There is no such thing as "new tolerance." Either you tolerate something, or you don't. You can debate an issue, but you can't force a person to agree with you. This is a BS arguement. "New tolerance" is simply a red herring for this man's real agenda: an excuse to dismiss true tolerance of another group's point of view.

In other words, there is only MY belief system, and because YOUR belief system hold's no merit whatsoever, it can simply be dismissed offhand.

Apparently, James Kennedy, Ph.D., senior minister of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, and president of Coral Ridge Ministries, an international Christian broadcast outreach, believes tolerance is no longer a Christian virtue. What a sad statement.

Originally posted by ubermunche
www.christianpost.com...
Firstly, I know what type of site this is and they obviously have their own loaded agenda but I think it still touches on some interesting points about to what extent we should practice tolerance and how we define it in the first place.

What do others have to say about this.

Since you ask...
As an agnostic (translation: 'uh...I donno'), I am continually surprised at the degree to which so-called 'Men-of-God' display un-Christ-like attributes, like intolerance. Mind you, it's always for the best reasons. What did Christ say about the 'mote in one's eye'?

Hmm...seems to me there's another verse about the devil quoting scripture, but that's not in the red ink is it? I guess in a po-mo world, you just make it up as you go along.

Firstly as a gay man I have absolutely no truck with the kind of politics these type of Christians are pushing so lets get that clear but in the interests of a wider argument and based on the saying that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day I'm afraid there were some comments that resonated even if it was obvious where his arguments were ultimately leading.

I have to say I think there is a new tolerance or at least a certain revised perception of what tolerance is that is being pushed to some extent in certain quarters. I see this a lot in the line of work I do and whereas it is fundamentally a worthy ideal I have seen how it's been co-opted by those with their own agenda and used to opress and inhibit opinion contrary to theirs. Rather like the original message of Christianity has been corrupted actually.

How do we balance a persons right to tolerance with the individuals subjective moral beliefs and vice versa. Just for the record I've met enough Christians with tolerant and accepting natures and enough homosexuals with strident intolerant political/social ideals to know that no one group has the monopoly on this.

Well, what is it precisely that we're being asked to tolerate?

I don't consider I 'tolerate' minority groups: I accept.

I don't 'tolerate' different religious viewpoints: I accept.

I don't 'tolerate' pedophiles and rapists: I object.

I AM compelled to 'tolerate' people who spit on the footpath: they do it and walk away and I'm not prepared to scoop up their infected mucus.

Just as I'm compelled to tolerate those who conduct loud and intimate mobile-phone conversations whilst in a supermarket or bank queue. I'd PREFER they refrained from holding personal discussions half a foot away from me, but if they were prepared to consider others, they wouldn't do as they do to begin with.

I do agree with the following, as posted by Ubermunche:

I have to say I think there is a new tolerance or at least a certain revised perception of what tolerance is that is being pushed to some extent in certain quarters. ...... whereas it is fundamentally a worthy ideal .... it's been co-opted by those with their own agenda and used to opress and inhibit opinion contrary to theirs.

And here, Ubermunche poses a question which would undoubtedly resonate with most:

How do we balance a persons right to tolerance with the individuals subjective moral beliefs and vice versa?

Most of us, most likely, have been unable to arrive at a satisfactory answer. I guess we know it's reached tipping point when we hear ourselves objecting or commenting --- only to reap accusation of 'intolerance'.

Originally posted by ubermunche
How do we balance a persons right to tolerance with the individuals subjective moral beliefs and vice versa.

In this case, if the right to tolerance belongs to a gay person and the individual is a person who doesn't think being gay is right, then I don't see a problem.

The gay person has a right to be here and to be treated (by law) equal to everyone else. If the individual wants to hate gay people, that is his right. There is no "right to tolerance". The individual doesn't have to tolerate or like gay people. That's freedom.

The individual also doesn't have to participate in gay activities.

The individual also has no right to dictate to the gay person how to live.

It's the "Live and Let Live" mindset that so many people have problems with. It's a case of the individual saying, "I don't think being gay is right, so I'm not gay." However, in my opinion, they cross the line when they say, "I don't think being gay is right, so YOU cannot be gay or have the same rights under the law as I do.

It's when the individual imposes their morals on other people that I begin to have a problem.

Don't think abortion is right? Don't have one!
Don't support gay marriage? Then don't marry a gay person!
Don't think recreational drugs should be legal? Then don't do them!

Live however you like, but don't insist that everyone else live to YOUR beliefs.

Dock6: I share your concern about the word "tolerate", but I'm using it in the old context, which actually equates to acceptance. There is a difference between acceptance and agreement, though, too. Many people are afraid to accept because they think that means that they'll be seen as agreement.



[edit on 19-5-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Fair enough, but perhaps we could nominate a few specific instances in which 'tolerance' is merely an imposed 'acceptance'; imposed by politically correct agenda aka: 'gagging' and suppression of righteous dissent.

For example : ' Some people like to drink alcohol to excess. That's their business, some would even claim it their 'right', but I nevertheless object to those who drink and drive.'

There are many who would cite the objector's remarks as 'intolerant'.

There are many who DO believe it their 'right' to drink and drive.

Do we suppress our objections for fear of being labeled 'intolerant' of others' rights ?

Are we in fact guilty of intolerance if we criticise or disparage those who drink and drive?

Is it the right of those who enjoy drinking and wish also to drive, to do so?

Then there are those whose sexual preference is for young children.

We label them 'pedophiles'.

THEY claim, and probably truthfully, that they were BORN that way. They have tried to enjoy sexual relations with adults, but they just didn't like it. Adult bodies, sex with adults, revolts them. Young children turn them on.

They claim they have the 'right' to express their inherent sexuality as openly and as freely as do homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Are they incorrect in this?

Does society have the 'right' to refuse such people sexual satisfaction and fulfillment, life-long, just because society believes pedophilia is 'wrong' ?

To justify our argument, we may claim that whilst homosexual and heterosexual relationships 'hurt no-one', but pedophilia DOES 'hurt children'.

And pedophiles may state correctly that many homosexual and heterosexual acts DO in fact 'hurt someone'; as in rape for example.

The pedophile may claim that many children actually do enjoy sexual relationships, contrary to society's beliefs. Pedophiles might claim that children are entitled to sex in the same way as are adults.

Would you recognise the 'right' of pedophiles to follow their natural bent, or would you refuse to 'tolerate' their choice of sexual expression?

We need to be careful and cognizant of the difference between moral tolerance (or acceptance) of differences in the way people are as opposed to tolerance of the way people behave.

Originally posted by Dock6
' Some people like to drink alcohol to excess. That's their business, some would even claim it their 'right', but I nevertheless object to those who drink and drive.'

There are many who would cite the objector's remarks as 'intolerant'.

The objector in this case is in fact intolerant. And justifiably so. People who drive drunk are a proven high risk to other drivers who do not wish to be involved with drinking and driving.

So the behavior that is drinking and driving should not be tolerated, due to the undeniable damage it causes to individuals.

Then there are those whose sexual preference is for young children.

The bottom line here is informed consent between all parties. The social assumption is that children are unable to give informed consent for sex with an adult, therefore such activity is coercive and therefore rape.

One societal problem in the US currently is that there is no cultural 'rite of passage'. Most societies throughout history have had certain ceremonies or acts that marked the transition from childhood to adult. In the US, it is merely a matter of having 18 birthdays (or 21, depending on the specific subject).

This has problems in two directions: Some people are emotional adults at a young age and are able to in fact give informed consent, while others are not, and cannot give informed consent at any age.

The societies that had an explicit rite of passage were not perfect, but they did at least provide some measure of the maturity of the people involved. And it is possible to envision a society where merely staying alive for 18 years would in itself be such a measure. That is not the case in the US today.

So in the US we have the case, say, of a boyfriend/girlfriend pair that are three days apart in age. And they are sexually active at 17. This is socially frowned upon, but is not a crime given free consent by all parties. Then the boy turns 18, and for the next three days, it is a felony for these two to have sex. Then the girl turns 18 and it is all OK again. With no recognition that maybe both people are fully capable of informed consent, or not.

To justify our argument, we may claim that whilst homosexual and heterosexual relationships 'hurt no-one', but pedophilia DOES 'hurt children'.

And pedophiles may state correctly that many homosexual and heterosexual acts DO in fact 'hurt someone'; as in rape for example.

See above re: informed consent. Someone who is raped, be they gay, straight, 4 or 40, male or female is not giving consent. The harm in this case, and the difference between rape and consensual sex is painfully clear.

All of this comes down to informed free consent, and the difference between what someone is vs what they do and the damage inflicted on others.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
One societal problem in the US currently is that there is no cultural 'rite of passage'. Most societies throughout history have had certain ceremonies or acts that marked the transition from childhood to adult. In the US, it is merely a matter of having 18 birthdays (or 21, depending on the specific subject).

In the US, there used to be a rite of passage regarding sexual activity and it was called marriage.

Now, marriage is eschewed by those who should get married and seized upon by those who don't have any business getting married.

The problem is not that we don't have rites of passage, it's that we have destroyed them.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In the US, there used to be a rite of passage regarding sexual activity and it was called marriage.

Agreed. But even at that stage, the deciding factor on when people could get married was essentially age, with no other determination (leaving out for the moment the various other requirements in place at various times). In at least some cultures that have these rites, a child, male or female must perform the rite, or accomplish the task before they are eligible to marry.

The problem is not that we don't have rites of passage, it's that we have destroyed them.

Again, I agree, to some extent. Many of the traditions of US culture, the very aspects that made us an admirable society have been discarded and replaced, if at all, with shallow, trivial and meaningless charades.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In the US, there used to be a rite of passage regarding sexual activity and it was called marriage.

grady, premarital sex has always been around. it may not have been as prevalent, but it was always there.

Now, marriage is eschewed by those who should get married and seized upon by those who don't have any business getting married.

who doesn't have any business getting married?


anyway, the type of so-called "new tolerance" being taught is crap, it's not real. hell, the supreme court ruled that an elementary school student was allowed to wear a shirt saying something along the lines of "homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder, some things are just black and white" because it was his "religious freedom" to do so.... as if children really have a choice in their personal religious beliefs....

The OP concerned an alleged 'New Tolerance'. But almost immediately, we are descending into semantics and expressing, subtly or otherwise, our personal interpretations of what constitutes and/or warrants tolerance.

To the pedophile, 'informed consent' is open to interpretation. The pedophile believes that society's intolerant attitudes are responsible for his being required to suppress his natural sexual bent. The pedophile does not accept society's restrictions regarding adult-child sex. The pedophile believes children are naturally highly-sexual and will enjoy and benefit from sexual relations with adults. The pedophile claims that he was born with a strong preference for children (as sexual partners). As such, he believes, this urge to be natural. He feels no compulsion to conform to society's demands that he refrain from seeking sexual fulfillment. He believes society is intolerant and demands equality.

There can be little argument that pedophilia is a form of sexual expression. A very thorough research programme in the UK published its conclusion that pedophilia is 'incurable' and one of the strongest forms of sexual-drive known and most prolonged, with offenders in their 80's still actively seeking child victims aka 'partners'.

Therefore, regardless of our personal opinions re: pedophilia, we are nevertheless compelled to acknowledge that a sizeable percentage of adults regard children as valid sex partners and continue to feel this way throughout their lives, regardless of the length of time they spend in prison and/or therapy.

As regards the children, the pedophile claims the greatest harm caused them is inflicted by society and its insistence that as a result of sexual relations with adults, those children are irreparably harmed, both physically and psychologically.

I cited pedophilia in relation to 'New Tolerance' deliberately, for a number of reasons, including the fact that in the Netherlands relatively recently, a pedophile party apparently ran in elections there. Some would dismiss this out of hand, but the fact individuals were prepared to stand under the pedophile banner at elections in a first-world nation implies a confidence that at some time in the future (possibly sooner than we would credit) there will be serious attempts to convice society that pedophilia is an acceptable form of sexuality, deserving of recognition and UNdeserving of intolerance.

If child-sex relationships are recognised by law (and there are some worrying developments in this direction) then derogatory remarks concerning same would be seen legally in the same way as are derogatory remarks about same-sex relationships.

Were this to become the case, anyone voicing disapproval about child-adult sex would be deemed to be 'intolerant'.

The rest would be seen to be demonstraing 'tolerance' re: child-adult sex.

Hence: the New Tolerance referred to in the OP.

Currently we have the New Tolerance with regard to graphic pornography. Younger people would possibly not be aware that less than 50 years ago, even married couples (in movies, tv.) were required to occupy separate beds and the husband or male partner was required to keep one foot on the ground throughout any physical contact between himself and his wife/female partner. During that era, the public would have been shocked to outrage by the explicit sex scenes in today's movies and tv. They would not have 'tolerated' them. Today, people sit often in embarrassed silence as simulated sex is performed before them and their children on tv and in movies (DVDs, videos). They have learned to 'tolerate' what was --- only a few decades ago -- regarded as 'intolerable'.

The public has learned to tolerate drug use by sections of society. They have learned to tolerate road-rage, misogynistic rant from gangsta rappers, continual interference by governments in what was until relatively recently regarded as 'people's personal affairs'. They've learned to tolerate the replacement to a large degree, of cash, in favour of plastic. They've learned to tolerate foreigners, people with multiple piercings and tattoos and green hair and invasion into virtually every aspect of their lives. They've learned to tolerate criminals within their government and the lies and corruption practised by those criminals and the media. Endless. And all requiring tolerance basically by decree, posing as political-correctness.

People have been instructed to demonstrate tolerance re: religions which they may find abhorrent. It's not enough that people are to evidence religious-tolerance towards those of other nations. Those other nations have been located by their politicians within the streets and towns in which they live. Further, those of the host nation are now required to remove the evidence of their own religious beliefs from within schools and other public places (in deference to migrants of other religions) at the same time those of the host nation are required to fund the erection of places of worship dedicated to those religions to which they may be personally opposed.

Whereas once people were exhorted by their political leaders to go to war (and kill and face death) 'for God and country' --- now they are still called to fight for their country, but are told to keep 'their' god out of it. Is it still their country? Well sure, the politicians continue to launch wars in which they will kill or die, so in that respect they're encouraged to believe it's 'their' country. Realistically of course, it's ANYone's country; even those their politicians claim are the nation's 'enemies' are permitted to enter and gain resident-status AND to demand the nation's god be effectively removed from prominence.

Once, nations were basically united by a unique culture. In Western societies for example, men were encouraged to protect females and children, to accord them respect. Wife and child beating were discouraged and offenders often prosecuted. To a large degree, society imposed censure on such men and kept them in check. In short, society refused generally to 'tolerate' such behaviour. Society's refusal to tolerate anti-social and other reprehensible behaviours is a strong deterrent, freeing law-enforcement to concentrate on serious dangers to society generally. People are often more afraid of their community's disapproval and ostracisation than of prosecution. Were it otherwise, societies would not have been able to function successfully throughout history.

Today however, people are kept in constant state of anxiety because of constantly shifting and accelerating demands for tolerance re: people and behaviours which they were raised to believe were undeserving of tolerance.

Rapid changes cause confusion and disintegration within supposedly 'stable' societies, just as they do during times of war.

Certainly, 'tolerance' is a virtue and is encouraged by civilised societies. Tolerance should largely be spontaneous and freely bestowed however. Imposed tolerance is not tolerance at all: it's the stuff of dictatorships: it's suppression of free speech posing under the pseudonym of tolerance. At best, it results in simmering resentment with the potential for rebellion. At worst, it causes disintegration (of personal, family, community, national values, attitudes and behaviours).

Will you learn tolerance towards pedophiles? Or will you be persuaded that it is, on reflection, a valid form of sexual expression? Just as you learned to tolerate so many other behaviours and attitudes.

Does the 'final straw' necessarily break the camel's back, as we've been told?

Or does the camel actually sag a little more, straw by straw, until it gives up the ghost and sinks soundlessly to the ground ?

Once, nations were basically united by a unique culture. In Western societies for example, men were encouraged to protect females and children, to accord them respect. Wife and child beating were discouraged and offenders often prosecuted. To a large degree, society imposed censure on such men and kept them in check. In short, society refused generally to 'tolerate' such behaviour. Society's refusal to tolerate anti-social and other reprehensible behaviours is a strong deterrent, freeing law-enforcement to concentrate on serious dangers to society generally. People are often more afraid of their community's disapproval and ostracisation than of prosecution. Were it otherwise, societies would not have been able to function successfully throughout history.

This to me is the central point of the whole argument. Where is the fine line between social enlightenment and anarchic free for all and conversely the ability of cultures to police themselves by convention and censure without descending into rigid and oppressive societies.

After the massive swing towards the liberalising of the west in the sixties will the ineveitable reaction be a move back to the austere post war rigidity of the fifties. Both ends of the spectrum produced their fair share of casualties IMO.

In my more optimistic moments I hope we take the best of both experiences and try to blend them to produce a kind of society where common sense and enlightenment act as constant ongoing balances against each other. Unfortunately this also has to work on an individual level whereby we're all big enough to question our own dearly held beliefs and prejudices. That's the bit I don't hold much faith in.

The “new tolerance” means: Not only do you put up with and endure and bear with those who have different views, habits, and/or lifestyles than your own, but you agree with their views as well.

Agree? .. No, that would be called Believing, not Tolerance. Tolerance is simply the acknowledging of ones differences to those around him, and accepting that difference and accepting all men have the right to choose their own beliefs, instead of pressing his views on others around him.

"new tolerance" is actually a term for "over tolerant" .. the article is blatantly saying that because of to many people practicing tolerance Christianity is being effected.

Furthermore, you hold that their lifestyle is equally true and equally valid as your own

What is wrong with this? If you honestly believe your better then someone else because they think, act or say something that is not up to your standards then you have your own personal issues to deal with, which i am afraid many Christians do.

Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God...

Again, the New Tolerance is a call for an end to tolerance entirely. This man wishes to build a Christian society where heathens are burned at the stake, tortured and expelled from society through death. To destroy all these vile sinful acts that so go against the "commandments" of his own god, regardless of the individual beliefs of those around him.

I think its safe to say, we should count our selves lucky that such a bigot has no real power, just the ability to preach his tirades on the internet for other fools to read and believe.

Men like this are the worst men in all the world, true actors of the most evil possibilities conceivable through a mans soul and devising of intolerant spiteful hate without justful cause or founded reasoning.

How do we balance a persons right to tolerance with the individuals subjective moral beliefs and vice versa.

A person does not have a "right" to tolerance or anything like that.. if someone has a differing view then the people around him, he is simply subjected to the will of those around him.. if the group says no, and forces him out, pressing their views on him and treat him sub human, thats simply the way it goes..

But as moral and ethical people, it would be expected that the tolerance level would be much higher, and that the oppression of the majority would not be subjected to the minority faiths..

When 2 or more groups clash politically thats where the majority of these issues come from.. an atheist does not want prayer in school, a Christian does, you have a clash.. the Christian is seen as oppressive and the Atheist seen as unmoral heathen .. In the end one group will be expected to bend before the other, unless some kind of agreement cannot be reached, in our society it is mostly the religion that has to bend to meet the needs of those who differ in belief..

And while that seems wrong on every level, its actually the way it should be..

So long as another religion does not fill the void that is created when a Christian belief is subjected to scrutiny, the majority faith has no right to oppress those around them with their own faiths..

Tolerance is expected. Not acceptance.

I don't know much about the writer of the article in question, but before people start "burning him at the stake," let's consider what he is saying and what he is reacting to.

This is what he has to say about tolerance and how it relates to Christians:

Tolerance is being willing to put up with, endure, and bear with those whose views or lifestyles are different from others’ views, without agreeing with them. Every Christian should be tolerant in the correct and historical meaning of that word. It is what the Bible means in the love chapter of I Corinthians 13: “Love endureth all things.” Every Christian should be tolerant.

www.christianpost.com

This is the mentality that he is concerned about:

Here’s how it works. If you discuss atheism with an atheist, you are finding fault with that man and criticizing his views. You can’t separate the two. If you find fault with a thief and criticize his stealing, you are finding fault with him, not merely what he does. The same thing is true of a homosexual. You cannot have a rational discussion of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

www.christianpost.com

I can hardly believe the lack of tolerance exhibited by those who disagree with Dr. Kennedy's point of view relative to tolerance.

The slippery slope that he is fearful of is one that we should all be fearful of, because, no matter whom we are, there are limits to our tolerance as there should be.

Do we really want to live in a society in which any group can decide that it is okay to live as they please without criticism. What of free speech?

Is it okay for some Mormons to have multiple wives, some of them children, because it is considered intolerant to criticize them?

Is it proper for two men to marry, just so they can double up on health insurance? Wait a minute. I think that is proper, or maybe it's going to become proper.

I'll have to check my tolerance newsletter.

OK, I see what you mean Grady,

But then, who is to regulate the level in which we are to become intolerable to differences?

It goes both ways, and if history can tell us anything, its always to one extreme, and never with equilibrium.

Here’s how it works. If you discuss atheism with an atheist, you are finding fault with that man and criticizing his views. You can’t separate the two. If you find fault with a thief and criticize his stealing, you are finding fault with him, not merely what he does. The same thing is true of a homosexual. You cannot have a rational discussion of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

www.christianpost.com

again, this is why it's crap. the guy is comparing atheism to theft
people saying that not believing in a deity is a crime. the problem is one is personally held to be wrong while the other is societally held to be wrong

i just love the underlying bigotry in the article and how everyone is overlooking it

Originally posted by Rockpuck
But then, who is to regulate the level in which we are to become intolerable to differences?

Well, it's done many ways, some of which I think have been discussed already.

We have the court of public opinion and ostracism.

We have the courts and the legislature.

We have the vote.

In fact, we have limits to our tolerance in virtually every sphere of our culture.

Have you used the "N" word lately?

Committed murder?

Molested a child?

Driven under the influence of psychoactive substances?

Quit your job without giving notice?

Exposed your genitalia in a church service?

Lynched a homosexual?

Burned a synagogue?

Which of these is tolerable?

I don't see Dr. Kennedy as having equated atheism to thievery. What he has said is that under the rules of the new tolerance, rational discussions of such things would be discouraged because we don't want to offend the atheist or the thief.

We must remember that Dr. Kennedy was preaching to the choir in this article, which didn't require that he explain or qualify each assertion, as there are certain assumptions one can make regarding shared values among a closed audience.

In some respects, I think that is why some here object to what is really a rational argument.

The "New Tolerance" doesn't benefit the greater good, only specific groups who wish to challenge social norms without themselves being challenged.

[edit on 2007/5/20 by GradyPhilpott]