The Duality of Religious Thought

[JoeyKnothead]

Obviously there are those theists who do not engage in 'double thought,' but I say there are many who do. I offer from another thread...

I can tolerate the notion, but would try to prevent the notion from becoming a reality by exercising my political voice.

I take this to mean, 'I can tolerate it, but I won't allow you to do it legally.'

To me this seems so contrary to logic. If you can tolerate something, would that mean you would not oppose it as a matter of law? Is this not a contradiction?

How could someone be accepting of something, but use the powers they have to deny it?

[realthinker]

Obviously there are those theists who do not engage in 'double thought,' but I say there are many who do. I offer from another thread...

I can tolerate the notion, but would try to prevent the notion from becoming a reality by exercising my political voice.

I take this to mean, 'I can tolerate it, but I won't allow you to do it legally.'

To me this seems so contrary to logic. If you can tolerate something, would that mean you would not oppose it as a matter of law? Is this not a contradiction?

How could someone be accepting of something, but use the powers they have to deny it?

One may prefer that some behavior be restricted but recognize that it is not within their power to exercise that preference. Should that preference not be exercised by those with that power, one may continue to work for that restriction, but not cause any consequence to those acting against that preference. That is, they tolerate those who think and act differently, but do not concede that they should tolerate the decision to allow their behavior.

It's part of the polite political process. It's necessary for a majority rule sort of government. The alternative is aboslutism, fundamentalism, terrorism.

[JoeyKnothead]

realthinker wrote:

One may prefer that some behavior be restricted but recognize that it is not within their power to exercise that preference. Should that preference not be exercised by those with that power, one may continue to work for that restriction, but not cause any consequence to those acting against that preference. That is, they tolerate those who think and act differently, but do not concede that they should tolerate the decision to allow their behavior.

It's part of the polite political process. It's necessary for a majority rule sort of government. The alternative is aboslutism, fundamentalism, terrorism.

I'm not sure if I follow you, so I will try to rephrase my point.

If I use my vote to outlaw the wearing of blue shoes, am I not intolerant of blue shoes, or the wearers of blue shoes? Weak example but I'm trying not to use stereotypical stuff.

I think it would help if we go ahead and disregard things like murder, and rape, and pillaging, and restrict it to the 'gray area' crimes.

[cnorman18]

I have honestly wondered about this too.

It seems to me that religious people have an absolute right to exercise their right to express their political beliefs by campaigning and voting like anyone else, and if their political positions are influenced by their religious beliefs, so be it. I don't see a way to prevent that, and I don't see a reason to. Marketplace of ideas and all that.

But: If one really believes that a given activity is truly evil, how can one "tolerate" its being legal and acceptable? In some ways, I think the anti-abortion "activists" who bomb clinics and target doctors for assassinations are more intellectually honest and morally consistent than those who don't. If one really believes that abortion is literally murder, and that abortion clinics are the modern-day equivalent of Auschwitz, what else could one do? It seems to me that holding those beliefs and "tolerating" that practice as legal and common, as most pro-life people do, would involve a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.

The problem, of course, is that most people do not hold those views; I don't. I regard abortion as a personal decision between a woman, her physician, and her God (if she believes in one), and as none of my business (though I think there ought to be limits).

Are murder and bombing acceptable means of political expression? Certainly not. We call that "terrorism," and justly so. Those acts are crimes, and should be treated as such.

Working to pass laws that would ban abortion is perfectly acceptable; breaking the law to prevent them while they remain legal is not--but again, if one holds the moral conviction that "abortion = murder," would one not be morally obligated not to stop short of such acts? I don't envy those who have to wrestle with those questions.

As with most such intractable disagreements, a compromise seems to be in order; but extremists at both ends seem unwilling to even consider one. That may be morally consistent and intellectually honest on both sides, but it's hard to reconcile with public policy being determined by a general population which is mostly somewhere in the middle.

[JoeyKnothead]

As usual, good points CNorman.

I'm the smartest, most humble man I know, but I can't get my head around the idea. :):)

I am tolerant of mothers day, and I will vote for it
I am intolerant of murder and I will vote against it

I will vote against blue shoes, but if it doesn't go my way I will tolerate the law? But that's backwards really, right?