Tolerance

Politics — By on November 12, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Tolerance: “A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.”

From the Desert Sun:

The woman at the center of a disturbance that erupted at a protest against the gay marriage ban on Friday will be pressing charges, The Desert Sun has learned.

Phyllis Burgess alleges that she was assaulted as she carried a Styrofoam cross through the crowd at a No on Proposition 8 rally. The 69-year-old Palm Springs resident originally declined to press charges when asked by police and joked she felt lucky, at least she didn’t lose her wig in the tussle like Cloris Leachman did on Dancing with the Stars.

“I guess I didn’t see the gravity of the whole thing and how it was being portrayed to the public,” Burgess said. “People are incensed. They seem to want some kind of justice.”

What was planned as a peaceful candlelight service in front of City Hall took a hostile turn when the crowd began pushing and a cross was torn from Burgess’ arms. The cross ended up in pieces on the ground.

The crowd chanted, “Go home!” “Nazi!” and “shame on you!” as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman. About 500 protesters attended the event, the largest in the county since 52 percent of voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage.

Palm Springs Police made no arrests, but say they spent about 40 minutes on Saturday trying to convince Burgess to press charges.

Lt. Dennis Graham said he tried to convince her how important it was to file a police report.

Detectives, he said, are reviewing video taken at the rally to try and identify possible suspects.

The charges likely would be assault and vandalism, both misdemeanors, Graham said.


Tags: , ,
  • Rob Ryan

    You certainly devoted a lot of space to say what everybody already knows: some partisans have broken irony meters, like the pro-lifers who murder abortion doctors.

  • ucfengr

    like the pro-lifers who murder abortion doctors.
    Wow, Rob. Is Rob short for Roberta, because you argue like my first wife. Everything, no matter how long ago it happened was fair game when she was losing the fight. What’s next? Are you going to make the stunning revelation that some Christians supported slavery? Bring up the Spanish Inquisition, maybe? It’s getting like an oldies station here.

  • ex-preacher

    There are different levels of tolerance and different degrees of importance for tolerating specific things. For instance, Jews in America may tolerate Nazi sympathizers to have freedom of speech. But if a Nazi waded into a crowd of Holocaust survivors while waving a styrofoam swastika, he might find a less than enthusiastic welcome. Christians who claim to be tolerant might also be less than happy for gay rights advocates to interrupt a church service. A group of non-violent civil rights marchers would have their tolerance tested by a segregationist waving a Confederate flag in their faces.
    Gay folks are asking simply to have the right to marry whomever they choose. Anti-gay marriage folks are trying to withold that right. I don’t know of any gay people who are saying we should not tolerate Christian marriage.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Everything, no matter how long ago it happened was fair game when she was losing the fight. What’s next? Are you going to make the stunning revelation that some Christians supported slavery? Bring up the Spanish Inquisition, maybe? It’s getting like an oldies station here.”
    You are making my point: hypocrisy is as perennial as your general nastiness. It exists on both sides of the political divide, and, unlike you, I don’t try to pretend that it is all in the past. I freely admit that there are gay rights activists, feminists, and secular progressives that are hypocrites right this moment. Will you admit the same for your side? If so, why do you take issue with my pointing it out?
    You are simply a very disagreeable person.
    You want a more recent example? Right now on Fox Forums, some right-wing nutbags are claiming that Obama will take away their freedom of expression. Where were these patriots when I was standing in a “Free Speech Zone” about a mile from President Bush’s motorcade, well-hidden even from the “liberal media”? Protesters were REMOVED from the motorcade route; cheering supporters were left where they stood.

  • ucfengr

    You are making my point: hypocrisy is as perennial as your general nastiness.
    I think what you are demonstrating is that you have no sense of humor and that you have lived a rather sheltered life. If you want nastiness, perhaps you should observe what happens over at DU or Kos when a dissenting voice appears.

  • Caifornia Dad

    The Sun article is one of many recent examples exhibiting the lack of tolerance by the proponents of same sex relationships. In part, the ongoing angry and violent intolerance directed against Christians by same sex proponents is to be expected. Their behavior and attitude are consistent with one of Christ’s teachings that those who have rejected the view of reality that he taught, are going to hate those who have accepted his teaching and claims he made regarding himself. To a degree, the intolerant behavior and attitudes of the same sex proponents validate Christ’s teaching.
    Pointing to improper behavior by Christians or other individuals is a observation that correctly validates another of Christ’s teachings, namely, we have all fallen short of some standard that we should be judged by. The Biblical concept is that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s standard. The point here is that when evaluating whether what the Bible says should be considered a valid source of knowledge, one should look at what the Bible teaches, as opposed to looking at imperfect individuals.
    This in part takes us to ex preacher’s observation that Gay folks are seeking the “…right to marry whomever they choose”. His phrasing would imply that if a male or female adult wanted to marry a willing minor of the same sex, then they should be given this right. I suspect that at some point ex preacher would argue that there needs to be a line. At some point the intolerance of ex preacher and others advancing his contention would again exhibit itself. The question then becomes – who determines where the line should be drawn.
    Those who have accepted the Bible’s claim that it represents truths revealed by a God who has created all that we know and is therefore separate from and greater than his creation, would contend that the line drawn is that same sex relationships are wrong, as is marriage infidelity, sexual relations outside of a marriage, etc. The point here is that a law greater than any law of man, has drawn this line. The position that I and other’s who have accepted Christ’s teaching as the standard we are to follow, is in part that our actions are acts of obedience and not intolerance, for we all agree a line needs to be drawn.

  • pentamom

    Interesting. Ex-preacher’s point depends on the idea that the cross is similar, for the purposes of his point, to a swastika or a confederate flag.

  • jd

    some partisans have broken irony meters, like the pro-lifers who murder abortion doctors.
    So the protesters are like the abortion doctor murderers in that they both have “broken irony meters.”
    Is there no end to the liberal’s lack of discernment when it comes to moral equivalence?

  • jd

    Right now on Fox Forums, some right-wing nutbags are claiming that Obama will take away their freedom of expression.
    Isn’t the Fairness Doctrine a pretty good example of that?

  • jd

    You are simply a very disagreeable person.
    You want a more recent example? Right now on Fox Forums, some right-wing nutbags…
    At least he didn’t call ucfengr a rightwing nutbag.
    Must be the irony meter is broken.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick (gryph)

    The cross has come to mean a symbol of prejudice and tyranny to many, if not most gay and lesibian people.
    Of course, when you examine the massive overwhelming support by Christians and Christianity for the last 8 years of a government regime that brought “water-boarding” and other forms of torture into popular style in the national discussion, some might think that they have a point.
    Do you think that when you die Jesus will say, “Good job beating on the homosexuals, so don’t worry about that whole supporting torture thing”?

  • Richie

    Oh man this is rich. It’s the gay protesters who are intollerant?!?!
    Tolerance: “A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.”
    What a wonderful definition. Let’s apply that to same-sex marriage. Tolerant people would allow gay people to marry, simply by taking a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from their own.
    However, gay people were denied that right. It can’t be ignored that many religious groups had a hand in this. They took it up as their mission to deny gay people the right to marry because they did not have a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differed from their own.
    And now, to cap it all off, you are claiming that YOU are being victimized?
    California Dad – No, WE choose where to draw the line. The Bible, if I remember correctly, condemns interracial marriage:
    2 Corinthians 6:14: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”
    Yet we decided to ‘cross the line’ here. I wonder if you think the decision to do so was a good thing or a bad thing… Was allowing interracial marriage stepping over the line that God has drawn?

  • Christian

    The evangelical right is OBSESSED with gayness. It’s very strange. I know many gay people, and they almost NEVER talk about being gay. If they could, they would just be quietly gay… just like most people are quietly straight. I mean, I don’t run around making out with my wife in front of children yelling “I’m a straight guy! See! You should be straight too!”
    The evangelical right just can’t stop talking about gayness though. They can’t get enough of it. It’s like, hmmm, suspicious… isn’t it? Like maybe the leadership is so ashamed (ahem, Ted Haggard) that they got a little turned on by Daniel Craig in a swimsuit in the last Bond film that they better make gayness illegal. That’s it! Let’s just make being gay against the law. That’ll teach me, I mean… them, those gays!
    If aliens came to earth, they’d logically assume that evangelical churches were where the gays hang out, because they love to talk about it so much.
    So what is it? What makes it so hard to accept that there are gays in this world? Do you try to go to bed at night and find two gay guys hogging the sheets? I mean, a gay person has never infringed on my own happiness. They aren’t trying to make me gay. They just want to be allowed to be quietly gay, like straight people can be quietly straight.
    So if your so worried that the dreaded gay agenda, whatever the heck that is, is going to take over if gay people are treated like fellow americans with the same rights, why are you making sure that they stay on top of the headlines. If nobody was fighting gay marriage, it would long ago have become non newsworthy. Nobody would even talk about it. Worst case, you may get invited to a gay wedding or something that you have to politely decline because you are afraid of catching the gay.
    So what is the problem? If you think they’ll go to hell, then God has that covered for you. No need for you to step in. If you think they’ll turn your kids gay, then you are delusional, or your kid is already acting a little gay on his own, in which case you’re in for some uncomfortable thanksgivings in the future.
    If you had a gay friend growing up, you’d know that you are born gay. My friend was named Derrick. He had two brothers, both straight as an arrow. But he was enrolling himself in ballet class by the time he was seven. He threw like a girl and talked with a lisp. We all knew he was gay. And lo and behold, he grew up, and after a few brief attempts at dating girls, he came out of the old closet and is now happily and quietly gay.
    So anyway, what on earth is the big deal? Can’t you live your own life and stay out of other people’s? Why is it your business? This is not a religion-based country, like Iran, or Afgahnistan under the Taliban. We do not have an office of virtue and vice, or a minister of morality. Is that what you want? Do you want the government telling you whom you are allowed to marry?
    The only possible answer is that the leadership that is pushing you folks to go try and rain on somebody else’s parade is in fact a self-hating, closetted homosexual.
    That’s what the rest of the world thinks anyway. We think those protesters are closet gays. It’s the whole, doth thou protest too much thing. Kind of like the people that insist on telling you that they are really nice, are the ones that are actually the biggest jerks. Carrying a gay-hate sign at a rally is like putting a big sticker on your forehead that reads, “I’m secretly gay and I hate myself!”
    So anyway, why don’t you give it a rest and let these folks live the way they choose to live. If God has a problem with it, he’ll punish them enough. No need for you to step in. Just get your own life and stop trying to destroy the lives of others. It’s pathetic.
    God Bless,
    Christian

  • Rob Ryan

    “Is there no end to the liberal’s lack of discernment when it comes to moral equivalence?”
    The only commonality I suggested was a failure to recognize irony. Now that you have brought it up, though, I am interested in knowing which act you consider to be more immoral: gays hassling an old lady or pro-lifers murdering abortion doctors.

  • Rob Ryan

    “I think what you are demonstrating is that you have no sense of humor and that you have lived a rather sheltered life. If you want nastiness, perhaps you should observe what happens over at DU or Kos when a dissenting voice appears.”
    Not that it is any of your business, ucfengr, but my life has been anything but sheltered. As an adult with a family, I have more control over my circumstances and more self-discipline than I used to have, and my life is accordingly much tamer. I do tend to avoid vexing people when I can, these days. Compared to those I voluntarily associate with, my friends and co-workers, you are decidedly negative and contrary. Perhaps I should be grateful that you are not vile and vulgar.
    I avoid Kos for the reason you mention; I am embarassed by liberals behaving badly. If you go to Fox Forums (ANY thread in the opinion section will do most days), you will see nastiness that cannot be exceeded at Kos or anywhere else except for the fact that Fox attempts to filter foul language. Folks get around that through unusual phonetic spellings and oddly placed periods and dashes. You should note the current racist tone of the comments, comparing Michelle Obama’s appearance to that of an orangutan, for instance, or commenting on her physique in graphic and unflattering terms. It rivals anything I have seen about Sarah Palin in any forum.
    I freely admit the nastiness on my side of the ideological divide, but you seem strangely reluctant to acknowledge the same on yours.

  • Dustin Steeve

    Richie,
    Come now Richie, the evidence is everywhere. In Holland, Christians are no longer able to preach against homosexuality since it is seen as essentially hate speech against a protected class. If you do not think that homosexual activists in the United States are following a similar trend, I invite you to review hate-speech legislation and to look at the grounds upon which people are fighting the voter’s decision on proposition 8. They claim it to be discrimination against a protected class of people. I can appreciate disagreement, but at least have the integrity to admit that this is the path that same-sex advocates are traveling.
    Also, your use of the Corinthian’s passage is absurd. Find me one, serious, Christian scholar who asserts your reading of that text. The Bible is the Holy Word of God, it has been revered through many ages and will continue to be revered through the ages. I suggest you read passages in context and become clear on their widely accepted readings before throwing them around sloppily in an argument.
    Regarding the victimization point, nobody here is playing victim. The post is not about victimization. If it were about victimization, I would have titled it “Victimization.” Or, to be more Christian about it, I would have titled it “Martyrdom.” However, any sensible person can see why such a title would be silly and melodramatic. This post speaks for itself. Tolerance is a very narrowly defined word for same-sex advocates.
    The people of California are exceedingly tolerant. Not only to the people of California believe that homosexuals should enjoy the same basic human rights as every other person (that goes without saying), they have even given same-sex couples every freedom and every privilege that heterosexual couples enjoy. Singer Elton John, a vocal advocate for homosexuals, made that point just this week. Californian’s intolerant? Hardly the case.
    And for their tolerance, what do Californian’s hear when they define marriage as it has always been defined in the United States? They hear cries and suffer the wrath of intolerance: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081113/news_1n13quit.html.
    Finally, why don’t we (Christians) “give it a rest and let these people live as they want to live?” Because we love them. Homosexuality is a sin and it is bad for their soul. Why would a loving Christian want to see anyone languish in sin? We need to invite homosexuals to church, we need to show homosexuals the love of Christ and preach them the Gospel.

  • ex-preacher

    The Corinthians passage is usually interpreted nowadays to mean that Christians should not marry non-Christians. Perhaps you should push for a law, Dustin, to say that Christians can only marry other Christians.
    You say that you can let homosexuals marry because homosexuality is a sin. Many Christians also believe that divorce and/or remarriage are sins. Why don’t you press to make remarriage illegal? After all, it would only be motivated by your love for them. And for the children. Don’t forget the children. Divorce harms far more children than gay marriage does. Do you really think a single objective person believes that you are against homosexual marriage because you love homosexuals? Have you even deluded yourself? The truth is that you are afraid of what you don’t agree with. If you could, you would create a theocracy to outlaw every behavior you define as “sin.”

  • Dustin Steeve

    Ex-Preacher,
    Don’t be afraid of God’s love for you.

  • ex-preacher

    Dustin,
    I won’t if you promise you won’t be afraid to be touched by the noodly appendage of her holiness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. She loves you.

  • Christian

    “We need to invite homosexuals to church, we need to show homosexuals the love of Christ and preach them the Gospel.”
    AHA! So that’s what you want!! You want to meet gay guys and bring them to your church! Maybe have a little bible study at your house or something. Nothing suspicious about that… OK, who am I kidding, you people are DEFINITELY gay, in the closet, and afraid to admit to your church and family that you like hot guys and want to meet some of them.
    Seriously??? ARE YOU SERIOUS??? “We need to show homosexuals the love of Christ.” SERIOUSLY???
    OH MY GOD!! Too funny. Get a grip people, you all just like guys and it is driving you insane. At least that’s what everybody else thinks, and we’re probably right. You are all just a bunch of Ted Haggards, but without the money and fame.
    God Bless,
    Christian

  • smmtheory

    Why do you bother signing your comments that way Christian when it is rather obvious you do not mean it?

  • Richie

    Ramen to that, ex-precher… :)
    I am not denying that Christians in Holland are not allowed to preach against homosexuality on the grounds of hate speech – mainly because I didn’t know that. But I find it easy to believe, and frankly I approve. It IS hate speech.
    If I were to give a speech in front of a group of like-minded people outlining the moral sin of being Jewish, or black or disabled, I would (quite rightly) be silenced for hate speech. The problem is that you seem to think it is acceptable to discriminate against people for their sexuality in a way that it is not acceptable to do for their race, religion or able-bodiness (is that a word?). If this is so, I’d like to know why.
    My passage from Corinthians is rather immaterial too. There are other passages in the Bible which seem to oppose interracial marriage, but you are quite correct that no-one interprets them in this way any more. The point here is that people have a habit of re-interpreting the Bible to make it say what they want it to say. I have heard a rather strong case made that the Bible does not oppose homosexuality at all. This is a view which may not be popular, and you may find it odd, but that is just because you do not agree with such an interpretation. Who is really right, on this topic? It is a matter of opinion, and no-one should have the right to force theirs onto anyone else the way that has happened with proposition 8.
    As a side point, what is the point of having the ‘Holy Word of God’ if no-one can agree on what it really means? Really, what good is it? If He was powerful enough to orchestrate the construction of the Bible, you’d think it would be in His best interests to preserve it, and make sure it is interpreted correctly. Yet this is the scource of untold religious conflict. Catholics and Protestants have killed each other in droves, and yet they are both sects of the same religion! Why doesn’t God step in and say, ‘Okay, Catholics, you are right about this, while Protestants, you are right about this…’? But I digress..
    Back to your post, your final paragraph (in comment 16) displays a touching but rather misplaced sense of empathy. I can see that you want to ‘save homosexuals from themselves’ in the way one might want to step in and save an alcoholic or drug addict. But your mistake is to assume that homosexuality is a destructive behaviour that people need to (or even CAN) be saved from. It is not. Your sexuality is simply a part of you. It is not a choice, an addiction, a lifestyle, a corruption or a mental illness. You cannot help who you fancy; it’s as simple as that. Gay people can accept they are gay and life happy and fulfilled lives honestly as themselves(which is hard enough to do as it is, by the way), or they can repress their sexuality and become miserable, frustrated and ham-strung with self-loathing, which is the path you are encouraging them down with this message that homosexuality is wrong.

  • ucfengr

    Compared to those I voluntarily associate with, my friends and co-workers, you are decidedly negative and contrary.
    Is “negative and contrary” a euphemism for me not agreeing with you? That’s what it sounds like. It also sounds like you don’t voluntarily associate with people who disagree with you. That sounds rather sheltered to me.
    The evangelical right is OBSESSED with gayness….
    Ah the old, “if you don’t agree with every jot and tittle of the ‘gay political agenda’ (for lack of a better term) then you are a self-loathing, closeted homosexual” routine. I swear, that one never gets old.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Is “negative and contrary” a euphemism for me not agreeing with you? That’s what it sounds like. It also sounds like you don’t voluntarily associate with people who disagree with you. That sounds rather sheltered to me.”
    You don’t even want to know how unsheltered my life has been. Like I said, it probably seems tame these days. But I haven’t forgotten what the world is like.
    *sigh* I was trying to avoid saying that I do not associate with jerks. You make it difficult for me to be nice. By the way, I have many dear friends with whom I disagree. We generally manage to do this without being disagreeable. You should try it.

  • ucfengr

    *sigh* I was trying to avoid saying that I do not associate with jerks. You make it difficult for me to be nice.
    Then the polite thing to do would have been not to respond. That way you avoid associating with your moral inferiors.
    And let’s be honest here, your initial comment was more than a little “jerky”. By making it you surrendered the moral high ground and make your current attempt to claim the status of aggrieved party a little silly.

  • ucfengr

    We generally manage to do this without being disagreeable. You should try it.
    Do you equate them with people who murdered abortion doctors too? No offense, but you really are a silly person. You plop out that crack about abortion clinic murderers and expect a polite response. Then have the temerity to get indignant when you don’t? Geez, you keep saying you haven’t lived a sheltered life, but your actions belie it.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Geez, you keep saying you haven’t lived a sheltered life, but your actions belie it.”
    You seem to think of yourself as a reasonable person, but your words belie it. You are so convinced of your rectitude that you eschew self-examination. You really don’t see yourself, and my arm is tired of holding up the mirror. I’m moving on, ucfengr.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Geez, you keep saying you haven’t lived a sheltered life, but your actions belie it.”
    You seem to think of yourself as a reasonable person, but your words belie it. You are so convinced of your rectitude that you eschew self-examination. You really don’t see yourself, and my arm is tired of holding up the mirror. I’m moving on, ucfengr.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Geez, you keep saying you haven’t lived a sheltered life, but your actions belie it.”
    You seem to think of yourself as a reasonable person, but your words belie it. You are so convinced of your rectitude that you eschew self-examination. You really don’t see yourself, and my arm is tired of holding up the mirror. I’m moving on, ucfengr.

  • Rob Ryan

    Wait a minute; I’m not done.
    You said: “Do you equate them with people who murdered abortion doctors too?”
    Is this meant to imply that I compared YOU to a murderer?
    And: “That way you avoid associating with your moral inferiors.”
    Is this meant to suggest that I consider you my moral inferior? Because I don’t think you are particularly well-mannered? Who is the wounded child now?
    If you insist on twisting my remarks to serve your rhetorical purposes, I’ll have to throw you in the same box as smmtheory: either dim or disingenous.
    Now I’m done.

  • smmtheory

    If you insist on twisting my remarks to serve your rhetorical purposes,

    Nobody has to twist your remarks Rob, they are twisted before you hit the enter key.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Nobody has to twist your remarks Rob, they are twisted before you hit the enter key.”
    Example, please.

  • ucfengr

    If you insist on twisting my remarks to serve your rhetorical purposes,
    Why is it that so few people can admit when they said something really stupid? I didn’t twist your words. You said what you said. Why not just be honest with yourself and admit that your “abortion doctor” comment was the intellectual equivalent of “so’s your mother” and move on.
    Is this meant to suggest that I consider you my moral inferior? Because I don’t think you are particularly well-mannered?
    Yawn. You don’t think I’m well mannered because I call you out when you make rude and obnoxious comments. It seems to me that rude and obnoxious comments are a better example of poor manners and an inadequate upbringing than calling you out for them.
    I’ll have to throw you in the same box as smmtheory:
    Am I supposed to be insulted here?
    either dim or disingenous.
    I get it, rather than admit you were wrong, you double down on your rude and obnoxious comments. I am not surprised, but I must confess, I was hoping to be.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I posted most of my thoughts on this subject on the latter post but briefly:
    1. I find it kind of strange that protestors are supposed to tolerate people crashing their protest. It’s one thing for the Catholic Church to refrain from catapulting flaming pitch at the Synagogue across the street but if a Rabbi grabs the microphone during Easter Service is it intolerant to get angry and tell him to go back to his own house?
    2. This, of course, doesn’t mean if a Rabbi did crash a Catholic service the parishioners should attack him, yell at him, call him names, or yank off his Yarmulke. On the other hand, if such a thing did happen I wouldn’t be so quick to say this is proof that Catholics are intolerant. Only that they, like everyone else, can have problems controlling their anger.
    3. Protests are not calm peaceful affairs like religious services. They have always been, to quote the Godfather, “a little bit dangerous”. What this woman did was essentially inciting a riot. I don’t think she did that intentionally. She did it because she was stupid but that is what she did and it is unfortunate that Christians seem to think that is something to be encouraged. Unfortunately, despite ucfengr’s idiocy, this isn’t good advice. Don’t believe if you get in the middle of a pro-life protest and suddenly rip off that pro-life t-shirt and start waving a abortion rights banner you are going to be showered with waves of tolerance because the right wing humans are somehow less fallen than left wing ones. You are quite likely to start some violence and if you’re not pummeled by protestors I’d have no problem with the cops leading you away in handcuffs.

  • Rob Ryan

    “It seems to me that rude and obnoxious comments are a better example of poor manners and an inadequate upbringing than calling you out for them.”
    So now it is rude and obnoxious to point out that hypocrisy exists on both sides of the political spectrum? I must say, that is certainly a self-serving redefinition on your part. Guess it beats admitting you are wrong.