The puzzle of intolerant tolerance
How can liberal democracies justify prosecuting people who wear crosses or refuse to preside at same-sex marriages and still pride themselves on being tolerant?
One of the most puzzling features of contemporary Western society is that governments are prepared to act intolerantly in the name of tolerance. Australian sociologist Michael Casey explains how this has come about.MercatorNet: You have written about the puzzle of “intolerant tolerance”. What is this all about?
Casey: Tolerance is essential to any sort of life in common, especially in complex democratic societies. Originally it was simply a practice, a way of living together and respecting the freedom of others. It has now become a value in its own right, perhaps the supreme value. Certainly it features high up on the list whenever people are asked to identify what the West stands for.
To create a tolerant society, however, democracies increasingly resort to intolerance. There is no question that a decent society must protect itself and vulnerable minorities from groups which refuse to respect the rights of other people. But intolerant tolerance is directed against groups which actually respect and defend the rights and freedoms of others.
Christians, for example, are treated as intolerant for maintaining legitimate distinctions between couples who can and cannot be married; for reasonably exercising a preference in employing staff for people who share their faith; and for defending the rights of the unborn and disabled. Intolerance means refusing to respect the rights of others, but in these cases it has been extended to something which is not a form of intolerance at all: the right we all have to refuse to validate choices with which we disagree and to say they are wrong. Intolerant tolerance means enforced validation of certain values and practices in the name of the tolerance.
MercatorNet: When did the modern notion of tolerance take shape? Whom do you regard as the touchstone of tolerance in Western history?
Loading ...
“the right we all have to refuse to validate choices with which we disagree and to say they are wrong.”
You have not been denied the right to refuse to validate choices or disagree with other peoples’ choices. But I think you are losing the right to impose your beliefs on others, by enshrining your prejudices in law.
Funny how making something legal doesn’t negate the inevitable natural consequence inherent in every choice. Come soon, or come late, there is always a consequence.
Once again those who attack others are claiming the victim status.
“All we have to do is concede that perhaps truth is possible after all, and might just be a better basis for our life together than the unexamined relativism from which we currently operate. “
@Sean You are demanding the right to impose your beliefs that homosexuality is right and proper. Hundreds of people have indeed been denied their rights to refuse to validate homosexuality by fines, jail time, loss of occupations, forced indoctrination courses, etc.
Every law is based on prejudices – we are prejudiced against murderers, rapists, thieves, drunken drivers, etc. We enshrine all these prejudices because by doing so we protect society. Keeping SSM as an illegal construct protects society.
“for reasonably exercising a preference in employing staff for people who share their faith”
Wow. It’s not often you see people standing up for the right to discriminate against Jews (or Muslims, Hindus, etc.).
What decade is this again?
I would imagine gay people would like to employ fellow gays.
I have to echo Rob’s thought. Employing a person over another because of their religious preference isn’t tolerance. What value this article might have had is pretty much ruined at that point.
“You are demanding the right to impose your beliefs that homosexuality is right and proper.”
That’s like saying that my insistence that Jews be treated equally as Christians is imposing my belief that being Jewish is right and proper. Well, yeah! If you find it to be an imposition to live in a country where different groups are treated equally, I think that’s a burden imposed from within.
That depends on what the employment entails. If I want a Christian business – such as a Christian book store – it is not intolerance to hire only Christians to work there. An atheist, a Muslim, Jew or Hindu would not be able to discuss the faith with customers, would not be able to explain the difference in Bible versions, doctrines, etc.
@Rob Tisinai Where did you get your conclusion from that statement? You should stop reading your own prejudices into what you read or hear people say.
There is a qualifier in the statement, that is “reasonably”, which indicates that there would be times that discrimination would be justified and at times not justified.
For example, employment of teachers at a Catholic school. It can be argued that here it is justified to discriminate, that is ‘reasonable’, and seek only teachers who are practising Catholics themselves. On the other hand, when the school requires, say, a plumber, it can be argued that here it would be unjust discrimination, that is ‘unreasonable’, to seek only plumbers who are practising Catholics themselves. Please note, for the blindly pedantic, this latter example would not include the natural network that groups of people form which naturally tend to be like-minded.
Of course, in both these examples, it can be argued the other way, however this position does not have the stronger justificiation.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
But why would an atheist, muslim or jew apply there, unless they were either, theology buffs or super desperate?
All sorts of cases have demonstrated where non-believers file suits against Christian organizations who don’t hire them. Other suits have been lost because Christian organizations, etc, will fire someone who is found to be a practicing homosexual. These employers should have the right to employ only those who agree with their beliefs.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Well, generally speaking, a christian bookstore would probably, you know, interview and test applicants for knowledge about christianity. Knowledge would be a bit of a requirement. Again, I’d like you to back up those claims, but I’m not really okay with people who apply to valid religious organizations (actual churches, faith-based charities) for the purpose of suing if turned away. But, there’s also a difference to say, not being christian and applying at a christian based charity and being turned away then say, applying to Forever21 headquarters and being turned down because ones not christian.
And again, firing someone just because their gay is not exactly cool either. (I could see, like firing a catholic priest, but you know, most cases aren’t that extreme)
“All sorts of cases have demonstrated where non-believers file suits against Christian organizations who don’t hire them. Other suits have been lost because Christian organizations, etc, will fire someone who is found to be a practicing homosexual. These employers should have the right to employ only those who agree with their beliefs.”
But they never seem to object to employees who have had pre-marital sex, committed adultery, gotten divorced, dishonored their parents, eaten shellfish, worked on a Sabbath, etc. It’s only the gays who get held to biblical accountability. Why is that? Since when did Christ say you can’t be in the presence of sinners? I thought he spent a great deal of time with sinners!
I think we’re talking about personal, not biblical, disapproval.
What claims are you asking about?
@Sean Sean, you’re showing your ignorance again. Dietary laws of the O.T. were only for the Jews and even then Christ did away with the dietary laws. The Sabbath was never for anyone but the Jew as a sign of a covenant between them and God. And even homophiles don’t get discriminated against unless they are seeking employment where sexual immorality of any kind is forbidden – they don’t single out homosexuality.
There are plenty of jobs wherein if someone participates in sexual immorality, they have been relieved of their job if morality is part of the contract.
@Sean
All of the things you mentioned are in the past tense.
Similarly, Rabbi Shaul of Tarsus said, “And such were some of you: but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
@Glenn: “There are plenty of jobs wherein if someone participates in sexual immorality, they have been relieved of their job if morality is part of the contract.”
What does that have to do with homosexuality?
“And even homophiles don’t get discriminated against unless they are seeking employment where sexual immorality of any kind is forbidden – they don’t single out homosexuality.”
There’s nothing immoral about being gay, or engaging in gay sex. You learned that there is, somewhere, and someone lied to you! Now, maybe your personal beliefs are such that you don’t like gay people but no morality is based on personal beliefs.
Sexual orientation, once again, is not the same as sexual behavior. A gay person may choose to be celibate, but can still be kicked out of a rental property or fired from a job for merely being gay. That doesn’t happen to straight people. So even if homosexuality acts were immoral, a gay person need not even engage in them to be punished by straight people.
@Glenn: ““And even homophiles don’t get discriminated against unless they are seeking employment where sexual immorality of any kind is forbidden – they don’t single out homosexuality.”
A comment like that is only reliable if it’s based on exhaustive research. Can you provide a link to this research which examined every case of anti-gay discrimination?
@Rob Tisinai Homosexuality is sexual immorality.
@Sean Sexual activity outside of husband/wife marriage – i.e. real marriage – is immoral. That is the standard God laid down. If you believe otherwise it is because someone lied to you.
You claim no morality is based on personal beliefs, but that is the ONLY kind of morality you have been propagating, since you say there is no objective standard.
I’d like to see evidence of your claim that a celibate homophile has ever lost a job, etc due to his orientation. (and if he isn’t practicing – then how does anyone know his orientation – why does he have to broadcast it?)
No one is punished for their thoughts (except those who step afoul of government “hate crimes” laws)
@Rob Tisinai Can you provide evidence to the contrary?
@Glenn E. Chatfield
If you’re going to say non-believers sue christian organizations when they’re not hired, you should be able to provide a source that backs up your statement when asked.
@Glenn Prove it.
Rob Tisinai, what would you accept as proof of sexual immorality?
I expect that you’d rely on moral neutrality, rather than moral approbation, when it comes to weighing proof.
If you have an argument for moral approbation of sexual immorality, please put it forth. If instead you’d rely on neutrality, please say so. In this way you might illustrate, if not state the criteria for, the ‘proof’ you would consider acceptable.
Typpo correkshun: “If you have an argument for moral approbation of same sex sexual behavior …”
@Rob Tisinai Prove what?
@Glenn You made the accusation. Baseless accusations are generally frowned on. So back it up. You wrote:
“Sexual activity outside of husband/wife marriage – i.e. real marriage – is immoral. That is the standard God laid down.”
Prove it.
@Glenn “No one is punished for their thoughts (except those who step afoul of government “hate crimes” laws)”
Can you provide an instance in America where someone was punished by hate crime laws SOLELY for their thoughts? Because that’s not how hate crime laws work.
@Rob Tisinai Well, God says homosexual behavior is a sin, He says fornication is wrong (sex outside of marriage) and he says adultery is wrong, etc. Do you want chapter and verse?
@Rob Tisinai Hate crime is SOLELY about thought and speech. If you beat a person because he made you angry for some reason, then you get a punishment fit to the crime. If at the same time you call him a non-approve epithet, then you get additional punishment because it now becomes a hate crime. In Canada and Europe, all you have to do is say homosexual behavior is wrong and you get fined or jailed.
@Glenn “Well, God says homosexual behavior is a sin”
Prove it.
That’s right Glenn, you have to beat someone — or commit some other sort of traditional crime — before hate crime laws can invoked. No one is punished just for their thoughts.
By the way, you know that hate crime laws protected Christians (and followers of all religions) for DECADES before they protected gays and straights who are attacked for their sexual orientation, right?
Hate to point out the obvious, but Christians have been persecuted and killed for centuries.
Are you suggesting that these laws switch focus in who they protect, or that they should protect both?
“Hate to point out the obvious, but Christians have been persecuted and killed for centuries.”
And what, it’s payback time, by going after gays and lesbians? What have gay and lesbians ever done to Christians? Gays and lesbians themselves have endured quite a bit of persecution. That doesn’t appear to be stopping anytime soon!
“Sexual activity outside of husband/wife marriage – i.e. real marriage – is immoral.”
But that’s only using your irrational, Bible-based immorality. Genuine morality sees nothing wrong with sexual behavior between consenting adults. US law sees nothing wrong with sexual behavior between consenting adults.
“No one is punished for their thoughts (except those who step afoul of government “hate crimes” laws)”
Hate crimes are not thought-based, but action-based.
On Lawn: Neither. I’m just trying to make the facts known.
That’s hardly payback time. I haven’t heard of any gays being thrown to lions for the amusement of a huge crowd of people. But, you’re right, woe to gays!!!! (As if Christians aren’t still persecuted today.)
But Betsy, if you’re well-informed then you HAVE heard of gays being institutionalized against their will, even lobotomized, in the past hundred years, in AMERICA, just for being gay.
Payback? Lets review Sean’s recent comments for motivation for payback…
Indeed, just reading Sean’s writing it is clear he is out to promote gays at the expense of everyone else, with a keen spitefulness towards people who happen to believe in a God that around 2000 years ago died and suffered to save his creation (humanity) from the penalty of their own wrong doings, and promoted peace and love and patience.
Sounds like they were not understood, thought to be mentally ill, just like deaf people were thought to be stupid.
@Rob Tisinai Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
Genesis 19 cf Jude 7
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10
@Rob Tisinai Hate crime laws have been used in Canada and Europe against preachers who only condemned homosexual behavior in their speaking or writing – that is being punished just for thoughts.
When you increase a penalty for a crime based on a person’s comments at the time, that is punishment for thoughts.
@Sean Homophiles are attacking Christians on a daily basis, only they use the liberal courts to force Christians to bend to their desires or suffer punishment.
@Sean There you go again attacking Bible-based morality, and even irrationally calling it irrational, while your morality is based on only your own opinion. Genuine morality has an objective standard – not just personal opinions. God set the standard and you can ignore Him if you wish, but that doesn’t make Him go away, nor will it take away your accountability before Him.
US Law sees nothing wrong with sexual behavior between consenting adults? Is that so? Then I guess prostitution is okay? I guess incest is okay? These are consenting adults and yet are illegal behaviors.
As noted above in response to Rob, hate-crime laws are based only on thoughts, and this has been proven over and over again as people are fined and jailed in Canada and Europe for merely speaking against homosexuality. In the USA all you have to do is use a word when you commit a crime and suddenly your punishment is increased. That is punishment for thought.
Okay Glenn, you’ve cited the Bible. Or rather a translation of a copy of the original text. But you have yet to PROVE it’s a reliable guide to what God says. So far all we have is your opinion.
Glenn, this was my original question: can you provide an instance in America where someone was punished by hate crime laws SOLELY for their thoughts?
What specific translation of arsenokoitai are you using to justify your condemnation of gay men and lesbians? Do you think that effeminate straight men can enter the kingdom of heaven? Adulterers such as Newt Gingrich? Perhaps we should also forcibly remove all children of adulterers from their homes, seeing as how they are just as much “condemned” as those who practice homosexuality and seeing as how you think gay couples destroy children’s lives. Or are you saying that some condemned groups are more acceptable than other condemned groups?
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“There are many people who ask questions – and don’t really want answers. Answers can be very limiting, very inhibiting, and even very challenging. Answers can cause us to re-think, re-evaluate, perhaps admit error, and even sometimes to change. Some people are more comfortable with questions than with answers.”
Steven Pruzansky
“There you go again attacking Bible-based morality, and even irrationally calling it irrational, while your morality is based on only your own opinion.”
Bible-based morality IS irrational: it is based on the principle of pleasing a “god” whom no one has seen or can prove exists, and too often results in harm to people.
My morality is based on principle, not pleasing some god I don’t even know exists. The principle is to avoid actions that harm others. It’s what I’d want for myself so it’s rational to believe it’s what others would want.
“Genuine morality has an objective standard – not just personal opinions.”
Exactly. Genuine morality is consistent and logical, not about pleasing some potentially existing god, no matter who gets harmed.
“God set the standard and you can ignore Him if you wish, but that doesn’t make Him go away, nor will it take away your accountability before Him.”
No, some people, humans like you and me, describe a god they say exists, and defined what it is he likes and dislikes. We haven’t heard from god or gods yet. We’ve heard from humans.
“US Law sees nothing wrong with sexual behavior between consenting adults? Is that so? Then I guess prostitution is okay? I guess incest is okay? These are consenting adults and yet are illegal behaviors.”
Nevada seems to be okay with it.
“hate-crime laws are based only on thoughts”
It is explicable that you believe this, or purport to believe it. You can think whatever you want, free of criminal prosecution. It’s your actions that get you in trouble!
@Rob Tisinai What we have today in our English translations (formal vs dynamic) has been conclusively proven to be what the original manuscripts say. If you studied a wee bit of textual criticism you would know that.
@Rob Tisinai If a person was punished for a hate crime he was given additional punishment over what anyone else would have gotten for the same crime, just because of his thoughts – what he said or wrote. There is no purpose for hate crime otherwise. Whether one beats a person because they are ugly or because they don’t like what they do, the crime is the same, but when the second guy gets increased punishment, that increase in punishment is for the thought expressed.
@Emma The condemnation by God is for the sin. Adultery is a violation of marriage, not a redefinition.
The translation of the Greek I go with is the literal translation. IF you really want the answer, check out my article on the subject at http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html
Are redefinitions sins?
@Sean Don’t play word games. Yes, if you are telling God what he designed and defined is wrong, then you rebel against God – and that is a sin
Rob Tisinai, your remarks strongly suggest that your pro-homosexual view hides behind a facade of moral neutrality rather than an argument for moral approbation of same sex sexual behavior. Meanwhile Glenn`s remarks are for moral approbation of something you`d neutralize. The onus is on you,Rob to prove your case on both these points at which your view is shielded in your accusatory rhetoric.
“Yes, if you are telling God what he designed and defined is wrong, then you rebel against God – and that is a sin”
Yet straight people are free to do it everyday: by engaging in pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce, all three against God’s design for marriage. By what principle are gay people supposed to live biblically, but straight people aren’t? Where can I find that distinction in the Bible: “thou shalt legally forceth only gayeth people to live biblical marriage, but noteth straight people!”?
Since we’ve legalize the three biblical marriage “sins,” I say we go for go ahead and legalize same-sex marriage, about which the bible is silent. How ’bout it?
@Sean Now Sean is resorting to the “To Quoque” logic fallacy. “Well you sin too!” So if a person robs a bank, that makes it okay for another person to kill someone. After all, the other guy violated a law.
Sean has also built it into a red herring – the fact that people sin means he should be able to redefine marriage.
No one claims that normal people are not supposed to live biblically, nor is anyone saying homophiles are to live biblically. The issue is whether the institution of marriage includes SSM. By definition it does not. The definition of marriage started with God, and for thousands of years those who obeyed God as well as pagans all adhered to the definition of marriage as being between members of the opposite sex.
You last claim about the Bible being silent on SSM is again demonstrating your lack of knowledge of Scripture (when ARE you going to quit talking about something for which you have no understanding?). The Bible identifies what marriage is, and it condemns same-sex unions. That isn’t “silence” except to the one whose ears are closed.
Interestingly, the commandment to honor your mother and father is different from the commandment to not commit adultery. The latter is more of a prediction, it simply says “you probably won’t commit adultery.” It lays down in no uncertain terms what is expected: to not commit adultery.” But the “honor your mother and father” one is not phrased the same way, it does not just say what is expected, it also says that if we honor the mother and father, our days will be long on the earth. It tells us that if we stop honoring the mother and father and start making human beings from some other method, we will soon stop living.
@John Howard That has to be one of the most bizarre interpretations I’ve ever heard.
The Bible never specifically says that same-sex marriage is a bad thing. It says homosexuality is “unnatural,” but it also says that slavery and the oppression of women is okay. We have already won equal rights for woman and then for blacks and other races, why is it not time for the LGBT community? The Bible is not the final word on everything. The Bible tells people how to live their lives–by following in the footsteps of Jesus and using what he preached. Things like love and tolerance. By restricting rights to certain people, how can you say you are following in Jesus’s name?
@Kaila
Does your commitment to the Bible inform your beliefs about homosexual practice, or does your commitment to homosexual practice inform your beliefs about the Bible?
I have no “commitment” to either the Bible or any “homosexual practices,” as you put it. I am a straight atheist. My beliefs are informed by knowledge and a general understanding of the fundamental world.
@Kaila
I see.
You asked, “By restricting rights to certain people, how can you say you are following in Jesus’s name?”
Jesus name, which is literally “Anointed Savior”, restricts the ability to save to only one Person.