Tuesday, November 06, 2012

At Least She is Honest and I Am Thankful For It

Finally someone willing to admit that they are not "tolerant"!

Writing for the Huff Post Marilyn Sewell writes passionately about why she is intolerant of the Christian worldview.  Take heed.  Fidelity to the Bible will become more and more incongruous with the broader culture in coming days.  

But we should be able to understand their point of view and interact with it.  I am actually more inclined to interact with someone like Marilyn than someone who embraces a wishy-washy relativism of "that's cool for you".  At least Marilyn makes the lines a bit more clear and she gives reasons for why she is against what she is against.  We can work with that.  


Anonymous said...

It's called the paradox of tolerance. In the words of the philosopher Karl Popper:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

J Kanz said...

Here was my take on this. Thanks for pointing me to it.

J Kanz said...

Oops, here's the link: