Well I happen to live in the United States of America where all religions are tolerated. Just because you don’t like the way I practice my religion or the people I tolerate doesn’t mean I can’t call you out on your own intolerance.
Originally Posted by txdot-guy
I suspect you have some misinterpreted meanings associated with words and concepts. Let's explore a couple to be sure.
BTW: The first one is a doozy, in that it's a
transative verb, ironically enough.
From the good folk at The American Heritage® Dictionary
tolerate (transitive verb)
- To refrain from interfering with or prohibiting (something undesirable or outside one's own practice or beliefs); allow or permit.
- To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
- To accept or be patient regarding (something unpleasant or undesirable)
consideration (noun)
- Careful thought; deliberation.
- A result of considering; an opinion or a judgment.
- A factor to be considered in forming a judgment or decision.
perspective (noun)
- A view or vista.
- A mental view or outlook.
- The appearance of objects in depth as perceived by normal binocular vision.
perception (noun)
- The process of perceiving something with the senses.
- An instance of this.
- The process or state of being aware of something.
intentional (adjective)
- Done deliberately; intended
- Having to do with intention.
- Done by intention or design
You know me by now. I'm a sucker for learning.
Take a moment to explain how your "tolerance" is developed with "consideration" or were you just winging it?
In the case of claimed "intolerance" can you give a reasonable example where someone said any or all forms of gay must be shunned, side lined, persecuted, dispatched or killed?
Would you be so kind as to explain how you "considered" your "perception" of a messaging kerfuffle morphing into "intolerance". That would be great
So you are offended by the fact that THIS year Easter happens to land on the same day as International Transgender Visibility Day. Do you know how the day of Easter is calculated. ...
Originally Posted by txdot-guy
No to the 1st statement(?). The OP does not contain the word offended and that is not what kerfuffle means either. Yes to the pseudo question. I also know a question ends with a question mark.
You seems to have a "perspective" that the universe revolves around you and your beliefs. For that we have to go back to our bag-o-words at The American Heritage® Dictionary, as it seems to me your "religion" has the trappings of:
Existentialism (noun)
- A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
- A philosophical theory or attitude having various interpretations, generally emphasizing the existence of the individual as a unique agent with free will and responsibility for his or her own acts, though living in a universe devoid of any certain knowledge of right and wrong; from one's plight as a free agent with uncertain guidelines may arise feelings of anguish. Existentialism is concerned more with concrete existence rather than abstract theories of essences; is contrasted with rat...
- A twentieth-century philosophical movement emphasizing the uniqueness of each human existence in freely making its self-defining choices.
Actually, Britanica.com has a decent synopsis of that as well.
Let's look briefly at 2 charities and their charters:
Working to Reduce Poverty in America -
Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Charities USA is a network of agencies that serve the poor and vulnerable, regardless of their faith...
That would also included the phrase; 'or lack there of' as well. Regardless, seems pretty ding-danged inclusive and tolerant to me.
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
...Since our first appearance in San Francisco on Easter Sunday, 1979, the Sisters have devoted ourselves...
Well... pretty much just gay related things. Not overly inclusive. Eh Comrade? But the real question is whether their founding day was "intentional" or merely an inability to calculate ye olde lunar cycle calendar.
So if you want to go beyond the base OP regarding the "messaging kerfuffle", we should really have asked a broader question of: was the WH messaging, yet another "intentional" slight of mainstream religion or a "just a teensey communication error. Could have happened to anybody."? But I cannot change how the OP was phrased though it seems to be how you "perceived" it..