Sunday, July 29, 2012

According to LaBarbera, we should be tolerant of opposing points of view

In reference to hate monger Scott Lively, Pete writes "Will liberal elites and the media start holding pro-homosexuality activists accountable for their intolerance of opposing views?"  First of all, neither Lively nor LaBarbera have opposing views. They don't even have a different perspective. A religious belief that the Bible, as the inerrant word of God, should control civil law is not a point of view. Suggesting otherwise is intellectually dishonest. So yes     I am intolerant.
  • I am intolerant of people who claim that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution does not say precisely what it says.
  • I am intolerant of people who insist, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we are a Christian nation.
  • I am intolerant of incurious people who cannot think beyond ancient texts that are fraught with contradictions.
  • I am intolerant of people who believe that those same ancient texts nullify a great deal of modern science.
  • I am intolerant of people who hate LGBT people as they profess their love.
  • I am intolerant of people who seek to export their anti-gay hate to less developed countries.
Ultimately, I am intolerant of those who would suggest that anti-gay imbecility is an "opposing point of view" worthy of debate or consideration.

I have seen similar argument before. There is an "opposing point of view" that Jews control the media or that blacks are inferior. Should we be more tolerant of that tripe?
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.