Thursday, February 25, 2010

Tolerance, Intolerance, Fascism, and Beauty Pageants

I didn't jump in on this -- for one thing, I don't think I am able to.  For another, a good friend of mine jumped in to it.  And he had it pretty well covered.  Not that it was going to do any good.

It was a discussion on a link a friend of his posted on Facebook.  It turns out that there is yet another beauty paegent contestant who doesn't believe in "gay" marriage and believes that homosexuality is wrong.

Therefore, she must be destroyed.  Obviously.

Now the claim was that this young lady, Lauren Ashley, thinks that gays should be put to death because of the Leviticus Bible passage she quoted:
"In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'"
Well, it does, that is a fact.  It doesn't say that they should be put to death by man.  And she didn't say she thought that man should put them to death.  She just cited it to back up the fact that her religion says it's wrong.  She believes that it is wrong because God was pretty stern in his warning.

Now, Things I Know #7 says "Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous."

In the long and heated argument that ensued, in an ostensibly conciliatory comment the original poster wrote:
Here's another thought: her lack of tolerance is met with a heaping helping of more intolerance.But the real trouble I see here is the belief some people have that their beliefs are enough to enact legislation.
Well... I've got two problems with this.

#1,  Lauren has shown no intolerance.  None.  She was asked a question on what she believed.  She stated that belief, and backed it with a passage from the book that lies at the core of her beliefs.  And people didn't like her answer.  So of course she must be destroyed as an example so that anyone with the same belief will think twice before stating that belief again.  That is by design.  It is one of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".   Ridicule.

#2, Who is trying to pass legislation to enact their beliefs?  Those who believe that gay "marriage" should be included in the definition of marriage, or those who do not?

Now that was a trick question, because right now the answer is "both".  But it wasn't always so.  It wasn't until the gay activists and their proxy supporters tried to enact legislation (which is routinely roundly rejected by voters everywhere) to re-define what "marriage" has always meant.   Since they can't get it passed via legislation, they have tried to circumvent legislation and go to the courts to "legislate" by judicial fiat a new definition from the bench.  They've had some success in that area.   In reaction, the groups that are trying to enact legislation to stop the judicial enacting of "legislation" that re-defines marriage.

My position on the subject is clear and consistent.   It boils down to basically this: "Gays can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. However, Government doesn't have any business defining Marriage as it is a social institution and not a government institution. It is free to recognize whatever unions it needs to for the enforcement of contracts."


Now.... back to tolerance.  Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous.

If you believe something is wrong, does that mean you are intolerant of it?

Actual answer: No.
PC World Answer: Yes, if you dare mention it.  And probably even if you don't.

In the PC world of  "Tolerance", Lauren is not allowed to believe what she believes because that belief is, in their view, defacto "intolerant".

Tolerance means I don't interfere with you doing what you want to do.  It doesn't mean I can't tell you I think it's wrong, especially if you ask me my opinion, which in both the Carrie Prejean and Lauren's cases -- is what happened.  They were asked, they answered, and their inquisitors didn't like the answer.

Now, who is trying to interfere with whom?  Immediately, scathing denunciations of Lauren's "intolerance" have poured forth.  Because she and anyone who dares articulate the same belief must be silenced.

Now a little earlier in the thread, the same poster went on to denounce it all thus:
I am a bit aggravated that the only reason cameras are on for this young woman is because of a 'scholarship program' that pushes fascist beauty standards on young women, and while she's got her 15 minutes, she's going to talk about how God is all for smiting the gays.
I also submit that anyone who uses a term like "fascist beauty standards" has no clue what the word "fascist" means.  None whatsoever.

Now what she probably means is "strictly and rigidly enforced" ... and there's a reason for this.  The Itailian National Socialists, also known as the Fascists, did use strict and rigid social controls as did their National Socialist brethren in Germany, the National Socialist Workers Party, also known as the Nazis.  And people who play fast and loose with the label "fascist" also tend to play just as fast and loose with the label "nazi" with just as much cluelessness.

The fact of the matter is, these strict social controls were needed to suppress dissent and demand allegiance to The State and the morality of The State -- which is precisely what gay activists are trying to do with people who don't want to call gay unions "marriage".  Progressives & gay activists want religious morality replaced by a their own secular morality and enforced through the state.  Thay seek to  force everyone to call gay unions "marriage" by having the state officially re-define it.  At that point, anyone who expresses a belief contrary to the State-mandated belief could be tried for "hate speech" crimes.   Similar things have happened in Europe.  But to gay activists and to their progressive sympathizers,  Lauren and Carrie are the intolerant "fascists".

Can you say "projection"?

footnote:  I'd like to further add that I know of no beauty pageant (other than those really strange ones for little girls, and I suppose most of the little girls in them actually like being in them anyway, but I digress) ... where contestants are forced to enter and compete.  It is completely voluntary.  I also know that there are women and a lot of whipped men who buy into the hyper-rationalization that it's all some patriarchal plot by white males to keep women down ... but I digress once again.  If women want to enter a pageant where they are judged on various ideals of beauty, that's their perogative, and if it's public and I want to watch them, it's mine.

Nobody is "enforcing" anybody's beauty standards on anybody except for those who wish some people to stop celebrating their own beauty standards because they don't like them.

Beauty is ultimately in the eye of the beholder no matter what the idealized versions are in these things.  We are pre-wired to be attracted to certain body features and physical manifestations of youth and health.  It's just the way it is.  Progressives want to re-make mankind into something it will never be.  Conservatives recognize that we are flawed in nature and our natures will always need to be recognized and dealt with.

We are who we are.  Deal with it.


Cylar said...

The Bible condemns homosexual behavior (note - behavior, not people). Besides the verse you quoted:

Leviticus 18:22
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

It's condemned in the New Testament as well:

Romans 1:26
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."

I believe there are more, but these two alone are enough to get the point across to anyone who doubts.

So here we have the Bible referring to it with words like "shameful", "detestable," and I believe "abomination" in some other verse.

My favorite is the objection "Who are you to claim to speak for God?"

Over at Right Wing News, a poster nailed it:

"God has already spoken on the subject. I'm just repeating what He said."

philmon said...

All that may be true. But my real point is, even if you don't believe it's wrong -- you can't cry "intolerance" while being "intolerant" yourself.

One of Alinsky's rules (and most of the rules in and of themselves are not evil ... it's the rules coupled with an "ends justify the means" philosophy that makes it evil) ... anyway, one of his rules is to "make them live up to their own rulebook".

Well, we have THEM on this one.

The kings of "tolerance" are far less tolerant of people with opinions opposed to theirs than the rest of us. And they are blind to it.

I really mean it. I am tolerant of gays. I even like some people who are. I just don't agree with their attempted forced re-definition of social institutions to include them. I don't think it should be taught in schools as acceptable ... or unacceptable (as long as we have public schools. Private schools can teach whatever they want. But I digress.)

It is not these young ladies who are guilty of intolerance.

You can't say you are for tolerance of all beliefs while condemning people who don't share yours ... getting them fired, getting them removed from competitions, and slandering them.

And it extends to "white" American culture. How can you be for "diversity" while condemning any particular culture?

Whitehawk said...

The problem of homosexuality is complex and very sensitive. The first problem is that in America, you cannot criticize anyone's source of pleasure without a malestrom of reaction. Homosexuality is the best example of this.

I can remember several arguments in college I wrongly conceded when my homosexual opponent shouted me down saying, "You can't shove your morality down my throat!" Now I am choking on the taste of their morality. I did not realize then that someone's morality will have to prevail. Militant homosexuals will not be content till the law of the land requires exceptance of homosexual behavior in every aspect. This will make Christian Morality illegal. A church will have to perform gay weddings and except gay couples for membership and church leadership positions etc... or be prosecuted. The church I attend will be illegal.

Let me emphatically state that I am not condoning or encouraging persecuting those who practice homosexuality. In fact, I condemn that kind of behavior.

In situations like this you have to consider which behavior is right. One "morality" has to prevail. Either homosexuality is right, wholesome and good or it is not.

If homosexuality is unwholeome, unhealthy and damaging to an individual or society in any way, why should we "tolerate" someone hurting themselves and others much less make it illegal to criticize. Do you really care for them if you allow them to hurt themselves and others? Tolerance is not always a good thing.

I realize this sounds "intolerant" but we all cannot have our own morality. We all affect each other as a matter of citizenship in the Great Country. The standards we choose to live by will determine the quality of life we all experience as a nation. The standards that your neighbor lives by affect you. All of us have first hand experience to substantiate this.

So, does homsexuality have any adverse impact on the U.S.? Does it cost us anything as a society? I would say it does in many ways. Primarily in the lives of those who practice it but consider A.I.D.S. alone. I once went to the library to get a figure on what the U.S. Gov't. spends on A.I.D.S. research, care and lost productivity. I could not find a reliable total. It is gargantuan. Look, I would not change this. I am a Christian and all for finding a cure and treating the sick, but is it fair for me to get pinched for part of the bill and have no right to say anything about one of the main causes of the problem?

Yes, I do have a right to my opinion and belief. What is more, it may be of some value. It did not originate with me but I have become a subscriber to the view that homosexlaity is a harmful behavior. It is tempting to stop considering the cons of homosexuality because those in the gay community shout that it is their business. It is their business yes, but it is affecting us all. We all have a right to join the discussion and voice our understanding of the issue.

The gay community wants to change the standard for us all. That is the bottm line. They believe that changing the standard will make their lives better. If homosexuality is harmful or unwholesome it won't improve their life if the official standard is changed, but it will affect the rest of us.

I have friends and relatives who practice homosexuality. I can tell you that most of them I respect and I care about them all. As a matter of my faith I am required to love everyone, even those who do not tolerate my beliefs.

I agree with you on most things Philmon but this one I disagree. Tolerance is not always good. Christians cannot afford to tolerate the actions that will make their beliefs illegal.

philmon said...

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "Tolerance", and that is not surprising since there has been an effort to blure the line "tolerance" and "acceptance".

By "tolerence" I mean I won't do anything to physically try to stop you, and by "you" I mean consenting adults.

By "acceptance", I mean that I tacitly approve of the behavior and see it as morally equal to behavior I accept.

My point here is that they are in fact trying to cram their morality down others' throats.

Be careful how far you go with the "one morality must prevail" argument. Our ancestors came here to escape that train of thought.

As long as the behaviors' victims are those exhibiting the behavior, allow God to sort it out in the end. You can speak and try to persuade, but in the end, it's between them and God.

Whitehawk said...

I understand your point on the difference between tolerance and acceptance. It was well stated. But I cannot back away from my point that one morality must prevail. It's the other side that is forcing this. How long should Christians tolerate being marginalized and eventually forced to agree with something that is morally harmful.

When our ancestors came to this country there was only one morality, Christian. There were no contending moralities among them. They were fleeing oppression in how to worship "according to the dictates of their own conscious."

Christian Morality is the foundation for American freedom. It provided the foundation for a great nation to be built on.* (I have been posting on this subject lately.)

No doubt there were and are abuses, but it is the standard that must be judged to be wholesome or dangerous. My point is we cannot allow the standards to be swept away that have guided this country to greatness. I'm not talking about going on a witch hunt to make examples of those engaged in harmful behavior, but if I stand by and allow the standard to be changed I am guilty of promoting harm by doing nothing. More lives will be harmed by the behavior. Apply this to any harmful behavior i.e. drug abuse. If no one warns that this is harmful or makes it illegal (to set the standard) more people will be harmed by it than would be otherwise and the rest of us are left with picking up the pieces of a wrecked life (if you care about them) or watch them spread the damage in their own life and to those around them. "It is far better to have a gaurd rail and warning sign at the top of the cliff than to have an ambulance at the bottom."-Arian Rodgers

My chief concern is with the standards. Lives will be better and experince less pain if the standards are high to begin with.

You are fighting the good fight Philmon. Keep up the good work. We both see the problem. We just have 2 different emphasis'.

*David Barton's "Original Intent" is a landmark writing that lets the Founders say in their own words how important high Biblical standards were to the founding of this country. (Just for reference.)