"Tolerance is a two-way street." -- Who knew? - Arapahoe Tea Party2024-03-29T12:42:59Zhttps://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/forum/topics/tolerance-is-a-two-way-street-who-knew?commentId=3186561%3AComment%3A34578&feed=yes&xn_auth=noYou bring up good points. …tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-03-08:3186561:Comment:349262012-03-08T19:19:52.014ZYvonne Michelle Gerhardthttps://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/YvonneMichelleGerhardt
<p>You bring up good points. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Expanding on what you have written, tolerance as we known it has been altered to mean "new tolerance." While tolerance is mandated by the courts, it conversely disregards the absolute meaning of traditional tolerance. </p>
<p></p>
<p>For example, one may disagree with another's position without diminishing his own personal convictions, but do so with respect and peace--this is traditional tolerance. </p>
<p></p>
<p>New tolerance demands that…</p>
<p>You bring up good points. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Expanding on what you have written, tolerance as we known it has been altered to mean "new tolerance." While tolerance is mandated by the courts, it conversely disregards the absolute meaning of traditional tolerance. </p>
<p></p>
<p>For example, one may disagree with another's position without diminishing his own personal convictions, but do so with respect and peace--this is traditional tolerance. </p>
<p></p>
<p>New tolerance demands that everyone's perspective is correct, so long as it applies to the absolute position that everything is acceptable. This defies the law of contradiction. One cannot possibly have absolute acceptance of everyone's views as being correct without discrediting those with absolute beliefs. Otherwise, he would not truly be tolerant. What new tolerance subscribers strive to do is to justify an action that would otherwise be controversial or viewed as wrong. It is then subjective and lacks accountability. Such tolerance is the result of an illogical argument. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Additionally, those who push new tolerance are forcing those who do not believe this to accept something that is in violation of conscience. This is nothing less than tyranny wrapped in liberal rhetoric to divert from the real issues at hand.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Regarding the laws and tolerance, some may argue that we are required to tolerate an immoral law or practice. This is true within the constraints of the law. However, we are not required to give up our morality or sense of right and wrong in order to legitimize bad legislation and social policy. Nor should we.</p>
<p></p>
<p>All laws are based on some level of morality. What many people fail to recognize is that the liberal side, steeped in secular humanism, is in fact its own brand of religion or ideology. So then, what we have is in fact a war of right vs. wrong; good vs. bad; moral vs. immoral. Some would call this righteous vs. evil, and correctly so. </p>
<p></p>
<p>As I mentioned to one of the other bloggers, if there are no absolutes, then there is no need for any law.</p> I did not see a news report o…tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-01-31:3186561:Comment:345782012-01-31T21:49:06.091ZW. Branstetterhttps://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/WBranstetter
<p>I did not see a news report on that ruling. Good to see this.</p>
<p>I did not see a news report on that ruling. Good to see this.</p>