| Welcome to Edl The Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| A question of tolerance | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 28 2010, 12:36 AM (79 Views) | |
| dave34 | Sep 28 2010, 12:36 AM Post #1 |
Newbie
|
"To tolerate intolerance is cowardice" it was once said,i would say well said.But the questions are:What is it to be tolerant?What is it to be intolerant?It can all be semantics of course so let's try and break it down into what is healthy and unhealthy. We "tolerate" racism to the extent that we do not jail people merely for holding racist beliefs,i think most of us think that's how it should be(not that it would come as a surprise to me if some of our "anti-facist" friends actually did want to see people jailed for holding racist beliefs) In free societies we have a legalistic tolerance of what is not desirable.Racists can speak there mind-the rest of can in turn provide the evidence that all human beings have common ancestors and developed different physical characteristics after we left the plains of Africa and talk about the hurt that being subjected to racism can bring on people.But we do not tolerate racist attacks-racist language can get you thrown out of a football ground,or lose you your job,we do stick people in jail for racist violence. Imagine if political parties had schools the same as religions did-would there be a legalistic tolerance of a BNP private school where children were taught to believe in the vision of a Britain for whites only?I would say we should not tolerate this mass indoctrination of this view into children,though people would have a legalistic right to teach there own child what they want in there own home. By this rational(it may be flawed-feel free to disagree)i do not think we should tolerate Muslim faith schools-public or private on the basis the Koran vilifies non-Muslims from start to finish. The discussion a British Defense League interested me because it was about that "tribal"-for want of a better word-part of us. Is the tribal part of us something we should attempt to rise above?I think not.I think a nautural affinity to your tribe(i use the word here as a label for 'in-group')for better or worse,is part of the human condition. But there is a difference between natural affintiy to your tribe and dogmatic belief in your tribes perfection and superiority-as many Muslims will have with Islam.Dogamatic belief you should not marry outwith your tribe not to healthy either-Muslim intermerriage rate extremely low. Some of the American public think Barack Obama is a Muslim,So what if he was? some might ask.In the same way it would matter if the President held racist beliefs it would matter if he believed the Koran was the timeless and infallible word of God.America does not have laws saying people who have racist beliefs can't become President-nor should it have-but Americans would have a right to know if a Presidential candidate held racist beliefs and how it affected his decision making and then take that into account in deciding who to vote for.We need merely apply the same principle to believing in a book that put's Muslim at odds with non-Muslim as well as it does anything else.We are not "persecuting racists for there beliefs" if we acknowledge racism is problematic. Is Britain a tolerant society?Yes in a good way-but we have now descended into what we could call "ultra-tolerance" where we tolerate anything-divisive rhetoric being taught in schools,religious wars being brought to country,lack of respect for our cultural integrity. I say:Let's bring an end to ultra-tolerance but keep the healthy tolerance which we pride. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 28 2010, 11:00 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
I don't think any child should be forced into religious belief. It is indoctrination. When they get to 16, let them decide for themselves which (if any) religion they want to follow. If someone can't teach morality without the threat of eternal damnation, that's their failing. |
|
|
| lancashirelad | Sep 28 2010, 11:10 AM Post #3 |
Patriot
|
Thats right Homo Sapien, i never mentioned God or anything to my son and as far as i know is mum hasnt either and guess what he doesnt follow any religion, in fact when he was a little lad i was learning him how to cross the road, he said it didnt matter if he got knocked over because he would wait for me in heaven, (told at school). it took me a while to get it through to him there was no heaven and if he got knocked over he would never see me again, that really brought it home to me how stupid religion is. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · EDL Chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
1:25 AM Jul 11
|
Feliz Navidad (Gold) created by Sarah & Delirium of the ZNR






1:25 AM Jul 11