<p>Dbate: I think most people recognize that here. We know that Christianity and Christian principles are about forgiving sinners (as everyone is one) and accepting them as people. However, you're confusing your own personal convictions of what it means to be socially conservative with the social conservative movement prominent in US politics today, which often DOES preach intolerance of certain kinds of sinners (homosexuality, namely). I agree completely that these aren't Christian values, but are rather just bigotry and intolerance masked under a thin veil of Christianity. I think it's appropriate for Ephemeral to use the label social conservatism as that's the label they choose for themselves. If you notice Ephemeral never says that he doesn't understand Christian principles, but rather the modern social conservatism movement. Those are two separate things in my opinion.</p>
<p>But insofar as social conservatives (really the only type of conservatives if we aren't to reduce conservatism to libertarianism) believe in an absolute moral truth, it makes to sense to be "tolerant" of sin. Sure, you should love the sinner, and not be a bigot, and I think the large majority of even the most maligned evangelicals understand this perfectly, despite their reputation among smug liberals and the elite.</p>
<p>But asking someone to be "tolerant" of something like gay marriage or premarital sex is totally senseless if you lend any respect to those who possess a theistic worldview. When people clamor for "tolerance", they are essentially denying those who believe in right and wrong (instead of a nihilistic and decadent "freedom") a seat at the table or a place in the conversation. They are being, well, intolerant!</p>
<p>And so you can begin to see that "tolerance" is probably the wrong goal here, because real tolerance would require total neutrality in any and all moral decisions. And I for one am not keen on being "tolerant" of those who believe, for example, that stealing is okay, or that torturing small children for fun is cool. Morality is really what this is all about, and "tolerance" is just a smokescreen hiding the liberal view of it.</p>
<p>Go ahead, argue with me when I say that I think gay marriage is immoral. At least in doing so you are defending a moral claim. In doing so, you implixitly acknowledge that I too am making a moral claim, and so productive debate can follow. It's much more conducive to discovering the truth than simply telling me I'm a bigot and need to be "tolerant". Afterall, if a person who is against gay marriage is necesarrily a homophobe, doesn't that make someone who likes gay marriage a homophobophobe?</p>
<p>And to go back to the purpose of this thread a little bit- why should a conservative come to Yale? If you look hard enough, you can meet some of the most interesting people on campus: conservative homosexuals and bisexuals who are against gay marriage, conservative women who hate feminism, etc. It drives the liberals absolutely bonkers.</p>
<p>The difficulty with the above statement is that liberals don't just want to settle for "most of the population thinks this is immoral; thus, it should be outlawed." The thing is, regardless of whether something is moral or immoral, certain rights should be granted by the government when you look at social politics from the view of a liberal. Certainly many would question a view of morality entirely based upon a book written centuries and centuries ago. Again, though, morality becomes irrelevant when looking with a liberal perspective at social politics.</p>
<p>A true social liberal wouldn't bring morality into social politics. Instead, they believe (bearing in mind that this is laughably oversimplified) that the government should grant as many rights to the people as possible that don't infringe on another person's rights. </p>
<p>They see homosexual rights as fundamentally different from the other types of "rights" you brought up: stealing and torturing small children all SEVERELY infringe on the rights of others. This is why something like abortion can become a complicated issue even for some liberals (look at the problems within the Libertarian Party about this issue): IS someone's right being infringed upon? </p>
<p>Gay marriage, or even the very concept of homosexuality, doesn't infringe on anyone's rights insofar as no one is forced to HAVE a gay marriage or PERFORM a gay marriage. However, the conflicting, conservative ideology of social politics brings in morality to these claims. The reason why this bothers liberals so much is not because they feel conservatives are "intolerant," in fact, a true liberal would say that you have the right to believe whatever the heck you want, so long as it doesn't affect others' rights.</p>
<p>This becomes a VERY sore point for many activists because by bringing the concept of morality into government brings in deep-seated beliefs. In the mid-1800s, heck, even the mid 1900s, MANY, MANY people believed that African Americans, by virtue of being black, were immoral and didn't deserve equal rights. The idea seems ridiculous now (though, still, in all likelihood, some currently believe it). It's true that those ideas aren't anywhere near as deeply rooted in the Bible as today's relating to homosexuality, but the point still stands: If we brought morality into politics, who would decide what that "morality" was and when would we say "Okay, now we're 'moral' enough?" Morality is deeply entrenched in people's minds; Equality can be entrenched in politics themselves and applied to EVERY citizen.</p>
<p>So, anyway, here's my point: VERY few liberals actually care that much if you change your belief. A GREAT many disagree with you, but their anger comes from an anger at a lack of equality that you're suggesting. Because, they see that you're basing government sponsored INEQUALITY not on the concept of civil rights, but on the concept of morality.</p>
<p>As long as gay rights don't trample on your own, why should they not be granted?</p>
<p>Because numerous Americans believe it's "wrong." If we lived in a society that was NOT founded on equality, including the equal right to practice your own religion, then that would be fine. But as it stands, why should morality trump equality?</p>
<p>Drummerdude, you do have a very legitimate point about the intolerance of hyper-tolerant liberals and hippies. When I lived in the San Francisco area, I was very frustrated by the smug sense of importance they often attribute themselves and their ideology and the dismissiveness or even hostility toward any other mindset. </p>
<p>That being said, I consider myself more or less a classical liberal/libertarian. I think the state should be subordinate to people's economic and individual interests... and should only be there to protect individuals from having their rights being infringed upon by others (rights being primarily life, liberty, and property) and having little other role except for a few essential social services like education. </p>
<p>I don't believe that I was taking a nihilistic view on morality at all. My argument is primarily one of the state's role in society, not the morality of homosexuality or any other sin. I strongly support people's individual moral decisions as long as they don't violate other people's intrinsic rights. Preaching against homosexuality or gay marriage is totally and completely legitimate. Where I have an issue is when morality is legislated in the government, as that is inconsistent with my view of the role of the state. </p>
<p>I think your whole slippery slope argument about tolerance misses the point. We don't have to tolerate everything, or even anything in my opinion (you don't have to personally tolerate homosexuality at all)... however I think that when that starts to encroach on people's life and liberty, the state has a right to protect that (and the individual has the right to be protected from it). Murdering small children and stealing violate the protection of life and property... hence there is no reason it should be tolerated by the state. Gay marriage, however, doesn't violate your life (you're not being hurt or killed over it), nor your liberty (you don't have to get one, nor do you have to attend any church that gives them, nor do you have to think it's right or moral), nor your property. I don't think that's nihilism at all... but a very consistent framework for how the state should in my opinion interact with society and individuals.</p>
<p>Basically, I think individuals should have a strong moral compass (or not, it's their right), but that morality is largely outside the realm of the state's role... and that's fundamentally different from your interpretation of my argument about tolerance.</p>
<p>Drummerdude that was probably one of the most cogent articulations of why tolerance is really intolerant. Kudos.</p>
<p>lol oh conservatives...</p>
<p>Dbate: only certain types of "tolerance" are intolerant. I believe true tolerance means respecting people's god-given rights (once again: life, liberty and property), and that's not intolerant at all. </p>
<p>I think liberals are just as much to blame as conservatives in terms of intolerance (or even worse sometimes, as they brand their intolerance as tolerance or diversity). The left wing are so obsessed with being politically correct that it's mind-numbing. They somehow feel they have the right to not be offended by what someone says. It's ridiculous doublespeak.</p>
<p>Social conservatives need to lighten up too. They are allowed to be as socially conservative as they want, but once it starts screwing with other people's lives then it becomes an issue. Free speech and expression can certainly be immoral, too, but would you suggest getting rid of the 1st amendment as a result? If so, then you're just as bad as the leftists who try to reprogram us to accept their world view.</p>
<p>Why does everyone posit "rights" out of thin air? Can anyone seriously defend the idea that rights (metaphysically speaking) actually exist?</p>
<p>Disney asks: "Why should morality trump equality?" Well, to put it bluntly, morality is what you SHOULD do. That is basically the definition of morality. To say something is an immoral act is essentially to say that one should not do it, and to say that something is moral is to say that one should do it. </p>
<p>Notice that the concept of equality carries no such weight. It is a value, for sure, and one that is deeply ingrained in American thought, but it's not one that anyone here has made a valid defense of. We should instead be asking whether equality is moral, and under what circumstances. Surely it makes no sense whatsoever to subordinate morality (ie, what you should do) to equality. Up to this point in the argument, equality is simply an arbitrary value, and if it is a correct value to always have (ie, we SHOULD seek equality), then equality is indeed moral, and the question Disney has posed is tautological, insofar as we can rewrite it "should we do what we should do?"</p>
<p>Also, it still makes no sense to say that social conservatives can be such but not influence others in any way with those views. Viewing the world as a collection of individuals is a horrible thing and thoroughly unconservative. I am not an individual so much as I am a social being and, as Aristotle would say, a political animal. The very concept of an individual is mostly a meaningless abstraction - I am the son of my parents, a brother to my sister, a member of the Yale community, a citizen of America, etc. My life consists of the duties I have based on my social context, not some ridiculous idea of an atomized autonomous individual. This is why doing heroin is wrong: of course we should let people choose to do heroin if it is really all about the individual and his or her choice in the matter. But we all know that the individual isn't the whole picture. If I do heroin, it doesn't just hurt me, it hurts all of my family, all of my friends, all of my mentors, and darn near everyone else I've significantly interacted with in some way. </p>
<p>And because a conservative is anti-individualism while a liberal (and this includes libertarians) is not, then to tell me as a conservative that I can't influence others with my socially conservative views is again to simply assume the truth of liberalism.</p>
<p>I find it incredibly funny that while other people, both conservative and liberal, are bringing in other points like economic freedom and legislation the OP seems to concentrate on religion and homosexuality. </p>
<p>If those are the points you're going to advocate rigid conservatism on in college, you're in for a rude awakening.</p>
<p>Its not about whether your conservative or liberal, youll be accepted and fit in fine if you dont have a stick up your ass and feel the need to pick a fight about your conservatism or liberalism.</p>
<p>@drummerdude:</p>
<p>Here is not the place for a serious philosophical discussion. For one thing, it takes too much time and effort to type out a serious, cogent argument about questions to which some of the most brilliant people ever to exist have devoted thousands of pages answering.</p>
<p>Nevertheless your post included a number of inchoerencies which could use some accentuation.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Why does everyone posit "rights" out of thin air? Can anyone seriously defend the idea that rights (metaphysically speaking) actually exist?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, I can. As can John Locke, John Finnis, and anyone working within the natural rights tradition. Social contractarians, including such diverse thinkers as David Gauthier and John Rawls, have supported the concept of rights with vastly different justifications.</p>
<p>Next, you make the improper distinction between morality and equality. I would expand your definition of morality to include any normative value or set of values--that is, anything that should happen. So construed, morality can demand a preservation of equality. Ronald Dworkin goes so far as to call equality the "Sovereign Virtue." </p>
<p>An individual as a meaningless abstraction? Oh dear... A discussion of collectivism vs. individualism on such an abstract level could not take place on this forum. Generally, debates online transform from well-intentioned discussions into entrenched, WWI style, verbal stalemate. Neither side wants to give ground, neither side wants to admit a single error, and neither side's outlook is in any way improved.</p>
<p>Perhaps we should discuss this next year at Yale :).</p>
<p>You have failed to point out any so-called incoherencies, but I will say (without my own justification, since I agree that this is not the place) that I think Hobbes, Locke, and other social contractarians have failed pretty miserably, and that most people, though they know it not, simply have their ideas about rights ingrained in them by American education and American values, and so they begin to use the concept of rights thoughtlessly and without even being able to conceive of criticizing the idea of a rights-based political philosophy.</p>
<p>As for morality and equality, I don't believe you've disagreed with what I've said at all. As I said, one can claim that equality fits into the correct concept of morality. My point was to address the problem with the question "why should we choose morality over equality?" If equality is indeed moral, we should of course seek equality, but that isn't choosing equality over morality.</p>
<p>Also, collectivism vs. individualism is a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose to see yourself as a rights-bearin atomized individual or not view "yourself" at all, rejecting all concepts of identity in service to the state or some other collective. The traditionalist answer is to value one's role in the community, one's role in the family, one's history, one's social context, etc. It is about neither me as an individual nor as a cog in a collective wheel (which is also in some ways often an abstraction that should be avoided), it is about my relationships with others.</p>
<p>I think that the crux of this situation is that learned intellectuals like those at Yale aren't going to stand for sick behavior towards certain groups due to poor interpretation of a silly book attributed to a Santa Claus-esque deity.</p>
<p>^^^What are you talking about? They have a whole school focused on religion. Its called Yale Divinity School, oh and btw that was really rude.
Regardless of one's opinions it is rude to mock other people's beliefs. That should never be tolerated.</p>
<p>No, it should be tolerated. :D You don't have a right not to be offended. He can say what he wants, even if it may be warantless or rude.</p>
<p>So going by your logic Dbate;</p>
<p>Insulting someones orientation and lifestyle by labelling them as immoral based on YOUR belief is a-ok but insulting your beliefs should not be tolerated?</p>
<p>Pot. Kettle. There might be something there.</p>
<p>Cloaking ones self in religion doesn't alieviate's one biggotery or intolerance.</p>
<p>Hey, I thought it would be rude to simply just hold back my values and tolerate those of others, so I let it all out. If you're offended, too bad.</p>
<p>Moderator Note:</p>
<p>I believe that the OPs question has been answered. However this thread has now veered off topic and is headed toward uncivility and TOS violations. Before it gets there, I'm going to close it.</p>