Everywhere you go today, you hear about tolerance. Someone does something, people tell you, be tolerant. Schools are now teaching tolerance. You hear about tolerance for alternative lifestyles. And I ask you this: why should I tolerate it? Why should I tolerate homosexuality. And I'll tell you this: I shouldn't. I have no reason whatsoever to tolerate it. Why? Not because I'm a bigot, but because there's nothing wrong with it. Should I tolerate heterosexuality, no, once again, there's nothing to tolerate. There is nothing wrong with them, and tolerance is putting up with something. There is no reason to toleratew something that isn't wrong, it should be accepted as good.

A repurcussion of the tolerance band wagon, is the stigmatism that accompanies it. It's almost like saying, this is wrong, but I'll let you do it because I'm a tolerant person. This is wrong. Tolerance is simply a form of judgement with no penalty. This crusade for tolerance then breeds injustice. This need for tolerance over things that don't need to be tolerated, as they are not wrong, rolls over into tolerance for things that are wrong.

People start tolerating everything. We tolerate crime. We tolerate hate. And it is the byproduct of having tolerance for things that don't require it. It has resulted in a state of apathy, which is ultimately harming society. The United States has a huge crime rate. I believe a large part of this is due to the preaching of tolerance. Right and wrong begin to blend and people become more likely to commit crimes. We don't want to judge them because we want so hard to be tolerant. So I tell you this, stop tolerating that which doesn't need tolerance, accept and praise it rather, and stop tolerating evil, speak out against it before it destroys us all.

Thoughts?

Wow! Great thoughts. I agree with you, the problem with tolerating evil things is that we are destroying society.

People should respect everybody, and tolerate all views and personal beliefs, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Because your supposed to roll over & be like everyone else plain & simple. Don’t make any waves don’t be different, just conform & you’ll be ok.

Could you elaborate why this is fit for the spirituality versus scepticism part of the forums?

I didn't know where to put it. If it doesn't belong here, one of the mods can move it.

At a guess, because many religious groups are against homosexuality (the only example he really used), and even when they profess "tolerance" towards people who live like this it makes a value judgement on their action as wrong. The OP is thus separating himself from such arguments by refusing to say he "tolerates" gays because it is acceptable and right and proper and therefore nothing in need of tolerance.

More generally though, I don't think his view is necessarily correct. As a Christian i believe that an Atheist is wrong in their beliefs. But I can respect their beliefs (have tolerance for it). Likewise an Atheist believes that i am following an imaginary friend, yet they can respect my beliefs (have tolerance for it). But when they do not respect a Christian's beliefs (or when a Chrisitan does not respect the beliefs of non-Christians), it becomes intolerance.

I see "tolerance " as another word for "respect others beliefs". I don't think the nature of tolerance leads towards apathy towards all things criminal. Tolerance leads to respect of all people. That does not mean that we blur the boundaries of "right" and "wrong". There is still a sense of morality and Justice. If someone robs a store, they know taht what they are doing is wrong (though if they are starving their motives may not be wrong). I don't think people are becoming accepting of crime.

Just my thoughts, though

~ Regards, PA

I completely respect anyone's right to believe whatever they want. I mean it, if they want to believe anything thats fine, up and until it infringes on my rights. Then I have a problem with it and depending on the level of infraction against my rights thats where tolerance comes in. I'm a pagan and every christmas out comes the nativity scenes, and on church grounds, I have not one problem with it. On public spaces, then yes I believe my tolerance ends, as that space is reserved for everyone, not just those of the christian faith.

I have no problem if my sister wants to say a prayer at the dinner table, because her table, her turf, her beliefs supercede mine in that respect. At my home, for example, I have an altar. Just because she believes as she does I am not willing to take down my altar to make her feel okay. I feel like if I respect her beliefs she can respect mine. If she came and ask me to do so I'd have to think seriously about it, and that is where the tolerance comes. Tolerance to me is the moment of pause and reflection you give something that on first take may bother you.

I understand that someone may never be okay with a persons sexual preference or their beliefs, but they cannot use that discomfort they feel to justify treating them badly.

Once again... this is a perfect reason for why I hate everyone and everything. I don't have to worry about tolorance.

A complex society cannot exist without tolerance. Tolerance is accepting some things you know are wrong, because failing to tolerate them would be a greater wrong, or evil.

For example, I do not believe in abortion. However in our society it is legal and this is one raeson to tolerate it. (given that I live in a free and democratic society) Another reason to tolerate it is that if i failed to do so, I would be forced to act in a way that was both illegal and also went against other ethical beliefs of mine. Because I do not think that ,at the moment ,abortion could be stopped without doing physical harm to others.

Tolerance does not mean that I cannot argue against it. or even protest against it. Tolerance simply means that I will allow it to continue.
In a complex society there are many differern personal and social beliefs; and moral/ethical systems. Short of pulling the society apart into component pieces, the only way for it to operate is tolerance . The tragedy in Kenya at the moment is an illustration of what can happen when our personal beliefs over come our tolerance of other people and their beliefs.

In any ethical system there are absolutes and perhaps a more honest approach would be for me to take action against all those things I do not believe in. Or to go into the hills and live as a hermit. In practical and realistic terms we have to make compromises to function in society, and tolerance is one of those compromises.

So I may not approve of homosexuality, but I will tolerate it. On the other hand, by law and personal inclination, I will not tolerate any evidence of child abuse which comes to my attention and will always take steps to end it.

No, if you speak out against something, you don't tolerate it. You aren't being tolerant of abortion. You think it's wrong, and you speak out against it. This isn't tolerance. It's verbal action, rather than illegal physical action.

Sorry, but while you are entitled to your definition, it is not technically correct. I am not just being semantic ;the definition of tolerance is very clear and indicates that one may suffer or endure something without hindering it.

Concise English dictionary.

Tolerate "to suffer to be done without hindrance, to endure"

Tolerant is"forebearing, long suffering, broad minded'
and i can see where you might think broadminded means accepting without question , but it really only means understanding and perhaps accepting but not condoning.

Tolerance is "forbearance(the disposition to bear with the views or behaviour of others)"

and Tolerantly is even more interesting, in the context of this debate. The example given is
" The act of tolerating; the practice of allowing people the privilege of worshipping as they please. The granting to minorities of political libeerty" ( in that a democracy COULD make, and enforce laws quite legall,y and morally, which discriminated against those from minority groups who lost the popular vote)

Its root word is from the latin tolerare. (to bear) It is not just that I am an english teacher, but because the commonly understood meaning of any language is an essential for acccurate communication, that I feel strongly about using language correctly.

I must admit that I do not see protesting, or making my views known, as hindering; given that hindering means to prevent from progressing or to stop, and I already said i would stop short of action designed to do this.

You are arguing that tolerance means the same as acceptance, but it is significantly different.

To paraphrase Arthur Dent in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - "Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'tolerant' that I wasn't previously aware of."

See, people can be intolerant in the name of christianity (now isn't that cool!), for example living in sin, fornication,homosexuality,witchcraft, devil worship & more if they take it literally

The OP is obviously confusing acceptance with tolerance. If I wholeheartedly agree with something how am I being tolerant of it?

No. Tolerance comes in when we don't agree with a view, practice or belief but understand it's important to someone else and because we respect that person's right to live their life, and we see that it's not directly harmful to our person, our family, our culture, or our country we do not oppose it with all available means. Tolerance doesn't require that I modify or abandon my values, morals, or beliefs to adopt values, morals, or beliefs I consider to be wrong or improper, just that I accept that a person has a right to hold those values, morals, or beliefs. Tolerance doesn't even require me to change my opinion that those values, morals, or beliefs are wrong. As a former soldier in the U.S. Army, I believe that tolerance even requires that I fight to protect the right of a person to hold values, morals, or beliefs that I personally disagree with.

I agree with some of the other posters here, the word tolerance is taking on a whole new meaning than what I was taught.
The biggest problem I have with people that lob the word tolerance and bigots at the rest of us is not that they want to be tolerated. What they really are seeking is absolute acceptance and approval and wants us to unequivocally condone their actions and beliefs.

I consider myself a very tolerant person but in my books tolerance does not equal approval.

Irish

by BlindMessiah:

Now, I like to commend you for writing down, what I have been reflecting on for sometime now. Thanks. This is exactly how I felt, and I think what you wrote is great!

by Paranoid Android:

I see, I see. I see your points. I shouldn't get upset at what someone else thinks, because it's their right. I understand that. I am glad you had a way of stating this, that made me reflect on two words and thus allowing me to see them in a different light. Tolerance and respect.

by SilverCougar:

Neat! So very simple. I respect that.

If we use your definition, then only criminals are intolerant. Yet masses of people are labeled intolerant, who are not criminals. I think society as a whole uses my definition for the most part. If something is genuinely wrong, then it shouldn't be tolerated. People need to speak out and take legal action. However, if something isn't wrong, there is no need to tolerate it. Anything that is worth being "tolerated" isn't wrong in the first place. If someone tolerates something, they simply lack conviction, assuming we use my definition.

Example, in Canada, churches aren't allowed to preach against homosexuality because it is hate speech and is intolerant. First of all, I hope it never comes to that in the US with such a blatant violation of free speech, but you can see the definition the government is using: mine.

Thank you, it would seem we're in the minority however.

There has been a recent flurry of acrimony– let’s call it ‘debate’– over militant atheism, angry atheism, and outspoken atheism, with one side holding the position that ‘religion is ridiculous’, the other claiming ‘uh-uh… its not’, and voices at various points between arguing for various degrees of moderation.

It ought to be obvious, from the title of this blog, where I stand. Consequently, I find the word ‘tolerance’ being thrown at me rather a lot. I am intolerant, the charge goes.

Not true.

I am not going to burn any churches, or lynch congregants. Nor will I egg the cars in the parking lots, or organize protests out front on Sunday morning. I won’t paint pentagrams on the alter. I’m not going to try to ban Bibles, or outlaw preachers. I’m not going to force Christians to wear scarlet letters or impose heavy taxes on Christian owned businesses. In short, I don’t intend the religious any harm. That is tolerance.

Tolerance is an action. It is behavior, conscious or unconscious, that allows people of varying beliefs to coexist within a community.

However, this is not what is meant when people accuse me of being intolerant.

What is meant, is…

“Shut Up!”

What is meant is…

“You should not express your opinion because it is hurtful to me.”

What is meant is…

“You do not have the right to that opinion since it contradicts my opinion.”

What is meant is…

“You should let me express my opinion without rebuttal, without obstruction, while keeping your own opinion to yourself.”

What is implied is…

“Mine is the correct opinion, and yours isn’t.”

What is implied is…

“I have the right to vocalize and evangalize my opinions, but you do not.”

What is implied is…

“Religion deserves special status.”

The reaction it is intended to provoke is…

“You are a bad person and there is something wrong with you for disbelieving my chosen ideology; and there is something very wrong and mean and nasty about you for having the nerve and gaul to evangalize that disbelief.”

I am not that kind of tolerant, and I suspect that I shall never be that kind of tolerant. Such tolerance really isn’t tolerance at all. Perhaps I should say, such exhortations to tolerance really aren’t about tolerance at all. They are the opposite. They are attempts to silence the opposition, to suppress dissent. They are bullying based in an assumption of privilege, and attempt to shame, embarass, or otherwise pressure dissenting opinions out of the public debate.

Sorry, no dice. Religion is ridiculous and it is ridiculous for the same reasons that believing in the monster under the bed is ridiculous.

Now, as a six year old I invoked an unseen entity– the thing under the bed– and refused to go to sleep. I was told, by my devout parents, to look under the bed. I looked. They looked. They told me, apparently not realizing the implications for their faith, that if I couldn’t see it or hear it or touch it, then it isn’t there and can’t hurt me.

Charlie Darwin’s angels… erm, clever

And I reserve the right to say so. I won’t shoot you in the street, and I won’t shove pamphlets into your hands as you go about your daily business, but nor will I be silent

>>this is from a member on another forum, & I agree

I agree momentary, but it goes for both sides. I get sick of liberals telling Christians to be tolerant. Why should they be? They think something is wrong, so they have every reason to speak out against it. So I think both sides need to stop throwing around the intolerant label and start calling things out for what they are. Realism is a beautiful thing.

Realism is a good thing yeah.............but the truth hurts, first it will piss you off and then it will set you free.

I am with you...I hate all this – be tolerant crap

Nothing but a bunch of wallys at that love the sound of their own voices, who chant all about tolerance, yet ironically they don’t tolerate anyone with the freedom to speak their own minds, bunch of no good dictators.
Then when you come on line to get away from the every day things that annoy you, in come the online wallys looking out for anyone that says they are against something, or how they don’t agree with something – IE religion..the sec someone says – I don’t like it, I feel it causes harm...BAM in come the loud mouth dictator to chant BE TOLERANT QUIT BASHNG <-gimme a break!!
We don’t have to put up with anything we don’t want to...but here is always some clown that will not tolerate your freedom of speech and yap about it
Look at the word itself TOLE RANT <-- thats all these wallys ever do is rant at anyone that disagrees with something else

TO ler RANT

eh...I hate such thinking.




I agree wholeheartedly. I think the reason a lot of the Toleration Squad people like to say "Be Tolerant" is because when you voice your opinion you will most likely offend someone no matter how polite you are being, in many cases the offended party responds with violence. Thus, the TS people say if everyone is "tolerant" than we don't have the violence which ensues. I'm sure that as society evolves into a more mature society people will be able to take the criticism of their opinions and not respond with violence but with an adequate reply.

tol·er·ate /ˈtɒləˌreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-uh-reyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing. 1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.

To tolerate is to put up with..and NO ONE has to put up with things they dont like PERIOD

Its not just religion it can be linked to anything IE drugs, fighthes , people who swear like a trooper, people who are lazy, ignorant, foul, ect ect.....<---why do you have to tolerate that...I dontI dont agree with the bible...there where times I said so and some clown jumped in to tell me I was no tolerant...but they had no clue what the word meant....

I respect anyone with a religious belief..but I dont have to tolerate it!!!

I hear what your saying. To be tolerant for the sake of tolerence is just another form of political correctness. One thing that occurred recently where I live that really bothers me is the release of a child molester. He was locked up for it once, released and he did it again. This time he not only molested the child, but he physically abused him and left him for dead in the woods. Why should I as a citizen tolerate the release of that ahole? I have kids. That guy shouldn't even be breathing air in my opinion.

No i don't see that and in fact I had never heard of tolerant used the way you suggest. From other posters comments it seems that there may be a move in popularculture to change the meaning, but that is not a simple thing to do. Tolerance means disapproval without taking action to prevent . It is actually impossible for the same word to mean approval of.

I don't understand most of the rest of what you are trying to say, perhaps because my terminology is so different from what you are using.

Hate crimes are examples of intolerance, but plenty of people do not approve of the views and actions of different cultures within their society. These people are tolerant of those other people.

You are assuming that one belief or action is universally correct

This is not so. There are few things universally accepted as wrong (I gave child abuse as one example) However, there are many beliefs and actions on which people are deeply divided, and for which there is no absolute criteria which says they are right or wrong. Each depends on a personal or socially based set of beliefs and ethics.

For example, you would never convince me on logical grounds that there is any ethical basis for abortion other than if the mothers life was at risk'or if the child was not fully functioning. I base that on a set of criteria which includes that life begins at conception and that each human life has basically the same value.

Are you suggesting here that because abortion is genuinely wrong, i should do all in my power to oppose it? No ,you probably mean that I should not see it as wrong.


However, I know, and appreciate, that other people apply different sets of criteria and thus formulate different opinions. They think I am wrong. I think they are wrong There is no way to "prove" who is correct. Thus, we must learn to tolerate each others views or we would be at each others throats either literally or metaphorically.



Ill take your word for this, and agree with you that it is a dangerous precedent. In Australia there have been moves to ban christmas celebrations in schools because it may offend other faiths. These are both actually examples of intolerance. A tolerant society would accept opinions, even if it disagreed with them. The obvious answer is to celebrate more faiths, rather than restrict any.

I think the ban in churches may be one of incitement, where govts fear people inciting others to take action against others. I find it hard to see how a govt could prevent biblical christians from preaching the bible in church for example . But social mores do change and anything is possible .

Now the bible says that the act of homosexuality is a sin, but that we should love the sinner as a person, and leave any judgement of the person in gods hands. When someone uses the bible to incite hate against or judgement of homosexuals, that is not a christian thing to do', so I don't have a lot of personal sympathy for such churches or their members.
Still the division between speech and action is an impt one; and in australia several people have been charged for using mobile phones to organise race riots in suburban sydney. It was not so much the words they said but the deeds and intention of the deeds they commited which formed the offence.

You mean kinda like this thread.. ' Taking a Stand Against Tolerance'.. and if some go on about tolerance.. doesnt that come under their freedom of speech anyway.. So all I really see here is more irony.


lol


I agree... kinda.

Yes, you should act against it if you feel it to be wrong. If you have the choice to vote for a pro-life candidate, you should do so. That is acting against it. Furthermore, don't be so quick to judge me. I'm pro-life myself.

People who preach tolerance, use free speech to support their right to do so. But they then go and tell people what they can and can't say, based on tolerance. Tolerance is destroying free speech.

I dont really see many people doing that though. I mainly see people just saying their opinions and beliefs, not forcing them on others so much. And if they do ask people to try be tolerant.. its only so people arnt so rude to others..


And what is 'evil' anyway? Is it just what society thinks is wrong? Sorry, I dont really believe in evil because I only believe in God.

You have every right to be vocal about how you feel about abortion, as long as you don't get violent. Although abortion is seen by many as an act of violence or child sacrifice.

Just us non-religious want the same privilege, that is all.

Yes it's their freedom of speech...but they USE their freedom of speech to dictate to others how they should react...tolerance is another form of political correctness you have to tred carefully with your choice of words.
Well over here you do...for example - In my work place they have hired a buch of foreigners to stack shelves ect, and most cant speack much english.....but you are NOT allowed to refer to them as foreigners because that is wrong..(even though in reality they are forigen)....you had to watch yourself around christmas time, saying merry christmas in front of the wrong person would have landed you in hot water...

If you felt a foreigner was thrown infront of you for a promotion all because they are forigen and the employer has to be seen giving equal rights ....even though that forigen person can barely speak english, has only been in the job for like a few months and the other guy who was working hard to get that promotion for years...gets pushed back to allow the forigen person get the promotion...fair?? well dare the guy say anything about it..he would find himself in a lot of trouble....

There is no real freedom of speech...they tell you there is...but with all this polituical correctness...freedom of speech is limited!!!!!!!

I think that's just apart of multiculturalism. And I wouldnt call anyone foreign anyway.. its not something I would naturally call someone hey. I think its kinda rude to be honest and I can understand why people might not like those words. When words get used in bad ways over time they taint them. So I think they are like seperating words that make the person feel not apart of a group. And if they are working with you then its just not nice to refer to them in that way. It's not good for morale etc. Thats kinda how I see that.


Nah I wouldnt care hey. I'm not like that at all. I would just think I bet he was happy and I hope he isnt finding it too hard in his new home with the language barrier. Anotherwords I'd feel sorry for him alittle and wish good things for him. And I wouldnt complain about who worked harder etc etc because lifes like that sometimes.. it's not always fair hey.. and if I was working under a boss I'd expect that. And I'd expect to get in trouble(kinda)if I went against what the boss thought. And thats how it goes isnt it because he's the boss. So it's like... who's the boss?..

Refering to people from other countries as forigeners is NOT insultinng, it is fact and forigen was NEVER regarded as a bad choice of words before...

I mean look at politics...the forigen secretary <---thsts NOT an insulting title to have...in fact its an impressive title...

When I travel to the USA I AM a forigner...its a fact..and I would be very easily offended if I complained about being called one....im not that sensitive

The forigeners in our work place have names that are easy to pronounce..but they are not all from the same country....and because they are white people, it is really hard to tell them appart from the irish folk...so when we talk to them, we call them by their actual name...



Actually that is unfair to the person who has tried so hard to get to where they want to go..and be over looked due to a forigner who is not experienced for the job roll.................if they wanted to be REALLY fair and treat the forigen person like the rest of the working team, then it would be FAIR to train him up and make him go through EXACTLY what the other guy has been going through BEFORE throwing them into a promotion just to make it look as though you are an equal opportunity employer.....that doesnt make sense..because the employer has already PROVED to be an equal opportunity employer by hiring the forigner in the 1st place before promotions came about

*******EDIT PS...If you throw a foreign person a promotion who has not been in the job long and has no experience for the roll and you push them to it in front of someone who is qualified..then you are not being fair to the foreign guy...because he wont have the training and things can go terribly wrong and pressure will get the better of him..actually it could be stressful for him....I have seen this happen..the forigen guy handed in his months notice to leave because he couldnt do the job...he too felt it was unfair...in fact he never applied for the promotion..the boss kinna pushed him there...so yea it was unfair... If you want to make them feel part of a group..then train them up to work as part of the group 1st before you make thing difficult for them

Modesty, propriety can lead to notoriety
You could end up as the only one
Gentleness, sobriety are rare in this society
At night a candle's brighter than the sun

Takes more than combat gear to make a man
Takes more than license for a gun
Confront your enemies, avoid them when you can
A gentleman will walk but never run

If "manners maketh man" as someone said
Then he's the hero of the day
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say

I'm an alien, I'm a legal alien
I'm an Englishman in New York
I'm an alien, I'm a legal alien
I'm an Englishman in New York

Ha ha I can just imagine calling people from other countries ALIENS LMAO..I think that would be more insulting!!

Yes, there needs to be a serious crack down on child predators. It is too close to murder to let them ever breathe free air again.

It doesn't remotely matter whether or not you would call someone foreign. I have every right to do so. But I would be hateful and labeled intolerant for calling something what it is. We see the same thing with the war on terror. People get offended because they are called Islamic extremists. News flash, they are extremists who hold to the Islamic faith. We have a title for that nowadays, it's called Islamic extremism.

Secondly, the laws that govern promotions are absurd and down right immoral. Employers are required to hire so many people from every minority, regardless of whether the member of the majority is better fit for the position. And did I get you right, you don't believe evil exists? Perhaps you should open up your eyes and look at the world around you, you are clearly blind.

Exactly...the next thing would most likely be that, calling someone a terrorist because they are one..will be seen as offensive....I wouldnt be surprised if calling someone who has brutally raped a girl - a rapist..will be seen as offensive.........the person that robs a store..the word thief will be offensive!!! where does it end?

White people dont give a toss if they are refered to as WHITE PEOPLE...but Black people will correct you from calling them black people...

I once worked for a muslim family in a clothes store part time when I was still in college..............they said they don't like to be refered to as MUSLIMS...they classed themselves as ASIANS....with is weird because, yes they are asian but they are muslims...if we just called everyone from Asia..asians..then when talking about a certain person..it would be a nightmare to try and describe who they actually are!!!!!

Fair comment. I could not quite follow your pov and read something into it which was not there. I apologise.

You actually were saying that I should not be tolerant of viewpoints i do not agree with. That is ok, but if everyone acted like that, society would be a very violent and disruptive place, until only peolpe of one persuasion were left standing. Many countries, like lebanon and northern ireland have gone down this road and it is not a pleasant one. I would rather accept that others in society may hold differing opinions, and only react when their actions impinge on my freedoms.

I made no call for violence. I called for citizens to excercize their rights through free speech and the legal system.

No I just dont believe or think in the same way you might. I only believe in God which means 'evil' is apart of Gods creation. imo

So please dont try say I'm clearly blind... thats just silly.. I see what happens everyday but the difference is I dont call it evil and go around looking for a devil to blame.

I think he means the evil that we see proof of every day in life

IE the evil that man does to the world, by destroying it..harming and hurting innocent people...the hate, the greed the anger that turns nasty....thats what people call evil and thats the proof of it, what we all read and see..and when you can see it, then it exists

.. thanks for clearing that up for me.

No problem

QFT. The problem with this, though, is that one can be mistaken that something is wrong. I'm not a moral absolutist, I'm just saying that what if one of us is wrong about what is wrong? Nonetheless, it's for the better good, although it has it's drawbacks at times. So, I agree. But that is not tolerance, or even respect, that's pseudo-tolerance, and pseudo-respect:



QFT.

Your not painting fast enough! (gun to the head)

I see this attitude presented a lot. It makes me think that the person who wrote it (present company excluded of course) is an emotionally disturbed person. I see a lot of people online who exhibit characteristics of social phobia. Namely they feel they are being JUDGED because another person expresses their opinion.


For example if a Christian states that the reason they believe in Jesus is because they want to go to heaven, the EDP hearing "You don't believe in Jesus so you are going to hell" I've heard many of these EDP types of people state that they've been told they are going to "burn in hell" when I don't think I've ever in my entire life heard a Christian say that to a non Christian person.


Telling another person what they believe is ridiculous is an attack. The EDP always tries to excuse this accusation by pointing out that the Christian was trying to convert them so they are just defending themself. Again I have Christian friends and have never seen a Christian attemtp to convert the non believer in an aggressive way.

To hear it told though, the EDP can't separate the person from their beliefs. So they don't report that a "crazy person accosted them in the parking lot at Sears" but rather that a Christian did it.....its always forced to be part of the belief that they do not wish to tolerate.

An example of this would also be the way people will associate aggressiveness with Islam because deep inside they are hostile because of 911.

Here's a discription of the type of personality I mean and you will note the characteristic of being hostile towards Authority figures and towards anyone who they perceive as judging them and looking down on them.

Its very specific. For example I have know homosexuals for years and most of the ones I know are not hostile towards people who don't approve of their lifestyle. It may sadden them or make them angry but they don't writhe with hatred about these people. Generally they don't associate with them.

Its a clarion call of an emotional disorder when somoene seeks out the very people they supposedly hate for confrontation and debate. Compare how the West Boro Baptist church deliberately seek out the gay community for confrontation and show up in a cowards way at funerals. This is similar to the the militant atheist stance that seeks out believers ala Richard Dawkins to aggresssively demand they hear their point of view.


Like the lovely sentiment in the above post that believing in God is ridiculous. Again that's an insult. I've stated elsewhere that I don't understand why most people can't leave others to their beliefs and focus on themselves.


Here's a discription of social phobia

In public places, such as work, meetings, or shopping, people with social anxiety feel that everyone is watching, staring, and judging them (even though rationally they know this isn't true). The socially anxious person can't relax, "take it easy", and enjoy themselves in public. In fact, they can never fully relax when other people are around. It always feels like others are evaluating them, being critical of them, or "judging" them in some way. The person with social anxiety knows that people don't do this openly, of course, but they still feel the self-consciousness and judgment while they are in the other person's presence. It's sometimes impossible to let go, relax, and focus on anything else except the anxiety and fear. Because the anxiety is so very painful, it's much easier just to stay away from social situations and avoid other people altogether.

Many times people with social anxiety simply must be alone---closeted---with the door closed behind them. Even when they're around familiar people, a person with social anxiety may feel overwhelmed and have the feeling that others are noticing their every movement and critiquing their every thought. They feel like they are being observed critically and that other people are making negative judgments about them.

One of the worst circumstances, though, is meeting people who are "authority figures". Especially people such as bosses and supervisors at work, but including almost anyone who is seen as being "better" than they are in some respect. People with social anxiety may get a lump in their throat and their facial muscles may freeze up when they meet this person. The anxiety level is very high and they're so focused on "not failing" and "giving themselves away" that they don't even remember what was said in the conversation. But later on, they're sure they must have said the wrong thing.....because they always do.

Social phobia ,huh ?

So if I say Scientology is ridiculous, I'm insulting that person ? If people worship aliens or think I'm a lizard person and I say this belief is ridiculous it's an attack ? No I don't agree and no one is going to shut us up because they choose to call it an attack.

And yes, I have had people tell me I'm going to hell, namely fundies. But I have a restraining order so it doesn't get me too hot around the collar.

You are saying religion deserves special status I see, I don't agree one bit .

The people with real social anxiety are the ones afraid to say/voice what they really think

There is a pedophile movement who believe they should have the right to sleep with children,should I respect their "beliefs" now too ? I mean I don't want to attack them or nothing you know


Oh ,and so now we are "hostile" to authority figures too ? LMAO !!!