Alright, so here's a link to a news article (2006, but very relevant to the topic). Here's another much more recent. Give them a read before commenting, of course - but I'd also like to hear opinions on the question of being intolerant of intolerance in general. This is similar in nature to the "Christians arrested for proselytizing" topic, but I'd like it to be more about whether the idea in general is a good thing.
Quote from 1 »
Under the new policy, which went into effect last month, would-be immigrants seeking a residency visa will have to pass a "civic-integration examination" before they arrive in the Netherlands. Applicants will have to pass a Dutch-language test administered at the Dutch Embassy in their country of origin.
They will also have to take an exam testing their compatibility with Dutch liberal values. The exam includes a movie featuring homosexuals kissing and a scene at a nude beach. The movie emphasizes the point that this is all part of normal life in the Netherlands.
The film has elicited the most controversy, with opponents saying it has been deliberately made to offend -- and exclude -- devout Muslims.
Quote from 2 »
An Augusta State University graduate student is facing dismissal from the university's counseling program unless she silences her convictions on homosexuality and gender identity, according to court documents filed Wednesday.
Jennifer Keeton, 24, plans to press forward with her lawsuit against the university if she is not allowed to retain her biblical viewpoints and remain a graduate student at ASU, according to the complaint filed by the Alliance Defense Fund.
The first one with immigration already had a better system of informing potential immigrants that "we have nude beeches and gay people kiss, if you don't like it don't come here." This has indeed dissuaded people from coming to those countries in the past. I have no idea of the statistics, but it's worked well enough for as long as they've had it. I feel they're changing it because they're feeling the pinch on their socialistic purse and are finding "nice ways" to say no to immigration.
The second one has been fairly much settled I believe in that a private institution has more leeway in dealing with beliefs. However, for a student I feel that it should be something that should have been let go by the institution itself and just reinforced on its hiring process. A student that's "supposed to shut up" isn't a good idea as it just makes other students restless, faculty that knows ahead of time during the hiring process should know what they're getting into.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The second one has been fairly much settled I believe in that a private institution has more leeway in dealing with beliefs. However, for a student I feel that it should be something that should have been let go by the institution itself and just reinforced on its hiring process. A student that's "supposed to shut up" isn't a good idea as it just makes other students restless, faculty that knows ahead of time during the hiring process should know what they're getting into.
The health sciences and helping professions are held to a slightly different standard. In the case of counseling, it is ordinarily not ethical for the counselor to openly promote his or her religious beliefs or chastise the client for his or her own religious beliefs. Doing so goes against the principle of patient autonomy and focuses undue attention in the counselor-client relationship, back onto the counselor.
(Exceptions are made if the client's religious beliefs are causing or might cause immediate danger to self or others, i.e. honour killing, suicide, lynching of a gay neighbour, etc. These are reportable to the authorities.)
As for whether it is right to dismiss students from training programs, vs. allow them to graduate and let the market sort them out, remember that students in the allied health professions are often placed in patient or client confidence long before they graduate, as part of their training and assessment. If a student demonstrates an inability to adhere to ethical guidelines per the professional regulatory agency of that state, the training program has a duty to either remove the student for remediation, or risk losing accreditation by the professional regulatory agency. This often means choosing the minor annoyance of a student's lawsuit over the major and dire situation of having all your graduates no longer be able to qualify for jobs or sit for their certification exams. Not to mention that public funding of an accredited program is much higher than for a program that cannot be accredited because it does not comply with ethical standards of patient or client care.
It's not about First Amendment rights or about the negative fallout from urging a student to be silent about her personal beliefs. It is about a different standard of conduct we expect from our providers in all fields. One that is not judgmental, but will protect the patient's autonomy and individuality first. This standard of conduct is implicitly and explicitly stated in nearly every regulatory college Code of Conduct, at the top or very near the top of the list. It is part of the universal Patient Bill of Rights and the cornerstone of building rapport with every client. The law has provided for religious conscience by allowing providers to recuse themselves entirely, without explanation, as long as they provide continuity of care. It is a difficult choice but there are alternatives for people whose religious beliefs disagree with the nonjudgmental approach to client care.
Call me nuts, but I personally thing that first bit about the "civic-integration examination" is brilliant! I'd LOVE to see something like that not only carried out here in the US but all around the globe even. I've dreamed of something like that since I was a child. Like the idea of having your own island/planet where anyone who wanted to come and live there would have to take a sort of "Don't be a douche" test, and whoever failed, simply wouldn't be allowed in.
It's not like these potential immigrants wouldn't have other options of where to live. And it seems like something like this would be greatly conducive to a productive and peaceful community. It seems like it'd be bad for both the immigrant and the community if he just hated everything his community stood for and was pissed off all the time about it.
Additionally, I am very intolerant of intolerance, hence I am a hypocrite. But, I take solace in knowing and expecting that.
I'm pretty much on the same page here.
I think the real question that sparks debates and heated arguments is more the question of: Can you think that someones actions / behaviors are wrong and still be a "tolerant" person.
A lot of people think thats a definitive no. I'm pretty entrenched in the "its 100% possible to be tolerant and still think a behavior is wrong." Example: I think its wrong to live with someone before you're married, but I'm not going around trying to make it illegal, or yelling at people who do (several of my really close friends had that type of relationship).
The issue is some people take the mere statement "I think action X is wrong" as intolerance of "action X". People who take it that way are misunderstanding what "tolerance" means and using it when they mean to say "acceptance" or "approval".
Additionally, I am very intolerant of intolerance, hence I am a hypocrite. But, I take solace in knowing and expecting that.
Intolerance of intolerance makes for an amusing joke, but the context of both intolerance is different and so the joke falls apart under further scrutiny.
If I am intolerant of crime for example, that is not a type of tolerance I am expected to have, so not having it is not really intolerant behavior. "Intolerance" as defined in the one context is not tolerating generally socially acceptable behavior. To be intolerant of that type of "intolerance" is not possible in the sense of the word in its context. How can one tolerate "intolerant" behavior without being themselves "intolerant".
In effect, Tolerance of "intolerance" is intolerant. Intolerance of "intolerance" is tolerant behavior. Put more clearly, Individual nonacceptance of socially acceptable behavior is unacceptable. Individual nonacceptance of socially unacceptable behavior is socially acceptable.
What the OP attempts to construe is that "Individual nonacceptance of socially nonacceptance behavior is socially nonacceptance." This is a falsity with guise in the language used to appear valid.
A valid way to pose the question at hand would be, "Is it right to filter immigration based on social norms?"
The topic was worded for the memetic value more than anything; it sounds cute. A much better way to phrase it would be: "What forms of intolerance, if any, should be tolerated?" or perhaps "What consequences should espousing intolerant beliefs carry in a modern society, and to what extent and in what manner is a society justified in enforcing those consequences?"
Intolerance of intolerance makes for an amusing joke, but the context of both intolerance is different and so the joke falls apart under further scrutiny.
Context is not important when asking if intolerance is intolerance. All forms of any kind of intolerance is intolerance. Period.
If I am intolerant of crime for example, that is not a type of tolerance I am expected to have, so not having it is not really intolerant behavior. "
Yes it is. This is not something you can even argue.
intolerance = intolerance
It's simply a Tautology. As my uncle once said, "Never argue about a fact."
The topic was worded for the memetic value more than anything; it sounds cute. A much better way to phrase it would be: "What forms of intolerance, if any, should be tolerated?"
The correct answer is all of them (in my mind). The instant you or I start saying "I am not tolerant of you because you aren't tolerant of X" is the instant you or I have just made the exact same argument you or I are complaining about!
Really it DOES boil down to "tolerance" and "acceptance" not being the same thing. I can tolerate people who do stuff / say stuff I disagree with. I cannot accept that the stuff they are doing / advocating is OK.
In order to tolerate someone I don't have to "like" them. I don't have to agree with them. Hell, I can vehemently and vocally disagree with them, and still "tolerate" them.
Further with my example: I, as a person who opposes cohabitation before marriage am free to speak, yell, and tell people about my viewpoint. None of that is intolerant. As soon as I start trying to force others to agree with it, or behave in accordance with my viewpoint is when I start being intolerant.
I consider intolerance of intolerance a very healthy social defense mechanism. Liberty of speech and such have value, of course, but when some kind of behavior bothers (and in this case, cause very true danger) to society, enought is enought.
Of course you can defend that what we call intolerance and what we call "reasonable" is a matter of historic moment and social rules. It's true if you go into heavy philosophy, but truth is, anyone that preaches that someone ELSE should not be allowed to live their own lives in their own way (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or disseminate the idea of hurting other groups) is simply bad to life in society.
You want to live by some group of erratic rules and that makes you feel better? You pray to some cardial point, only take cold showera, don't eat some kind of animal, give up about your sex life? Good for you, as long as you do it and don't prejudice on people who don't. As long as you start to attack people that don't do what you do, you should be suppressed for the good of the society.
The inquisitoin, crusades, the islamic Jihad, persetution and death of homossexuals, black people, immigrants, etc. There's plenty of base (all around the globe) to say it's something we need to do before things get out of hand in any given society at any time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Alea iacta est
I'm a Spike Vorthos - I love lore and flavor, but only if the cards are competition worthy.
About the first quote. I'm fine with that. The Dutch are liberal, they want liberals moving there. Makes sense. Why don't we have a douche test too?
As for targeting Muslims... not so much. Just targeting those who hate/dislike others on the basis of homosexuality or prudery. My very Christian neighbors hate gays and refer to girls in mini skirts as ☺☺☺☺s. Same thing.
As for the second... I'm intolerant of intolerance. Happy to be so. Want your homophobic/sexist/racist opinions? Sure, fine. Keep them to yourself and don't ***** if they get you fired or expelled. I wouldn't want someone like her working as a consuler... just imagine the harm she could do.
Legacy/Vintage GWREnchanted Eve (building) ~ BPoxy Pox
Standard WUMeow-Go~BU Infection
Casual BWAngel Doom ~ GRWWarpride ~ WGUStoic Control (ARG)
EDH BRGWUScion of the Ur-Dragon ~ BSiezan, The Perverter of Truth ~ W 8.5 Tails (needs work) All my Decks.
It's not about First Amendment rights or about the negative fallout from urging a student to be silent about her personal beliefs. It is about a different standard of conduct we expect from our providers in all fields. One that is not judgmental, but will protect the patient's autonomy and individuality first. This standard of conduct is implicitly and explicitly stated in nearly every regulatory college Code of Conduct, at the top or very near the top of the list. It is part of the universal Patient Bill of Rights and the cornerstone of building rapport with every client. The law has provided for religious conscience by allowing providers to recuse themselves entirely, without explanation, as long as they provide continuity of care. It is a difficult choice but there are alternatives for people whose religious beliefs disagree with the nonjudgmental approach to client care.
My presumption was the person went to gay rights rallies or something, then went to the campus and argued or debated with people over it, but when in the "professional environment" the person followed the rules.
The basis I was using was similar to a case that Fox aired with a conservative
social worker in his master's thesis applying conservative principles to what is generally a government based profession. A sort of renegade "bad ass" that had stern beliefs and tried to prove through research that it was effective, but when it came to the job he did what he had to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What I gleaned from the various articles, the student in question actually stated she would not refrain from expressing her beliefs about gays in counseling the client. This is different from holding those beliefs and using good clinical judgment, or from those beliefs guiding your arguments in an academic discourse.
Her suit has to do with upholding her First Amendment right to her religious conviction. The university (and the regulatory college of counseling) are pointing only to her insistence on imposing those religious convictions on others as the reason for her being dropped from the training program. I don't think the school cares what the particular religious belief is. The code of conduct is fairly clear on this.
What I gleaned from the various articles, the student in question actually stated she would not refrain from expressing her beliefs about gays in counseling the client. This is different from holding those beliefs and using good clinical judgment, or from those beliefs guiding your arguments in an academic discourse.
Do you have additional articles you read? the extent of the linked article that is relating to what she actually DID is this:
""Jennifer Keeton has not been accused of mistreating a client," said David French, senior counsel for ADF, a legal alliance that supports religious freedom. "She's being told, 'You must change your beliefs or we'll deny you a degree.' "
Keeton claims that she has voiced her Christian beliefs inside and outside the classroom on homosexuality and other biblical teachings. ASU faculty has ordered her to undergo a remediation plan, which would include diversity sensitivity workshops, she says."
it seems pretty clear that she hasn't been enforcing her beliefs on clients, but that she has been asserting her beliefs in class discussions, and in her own free time outside of class/work. Neither of which would violate anything. The article at no point includes her saying she would "not refrain from expressing her beliefs about gays in counseling the client." -- Did you make that up?
Edit: One of the things brought up in the comments to the article is someone claiming to konw her, and claiming that she has said that she would need to refer homosexual clients to other counselors because she would be unable to provide un-conflicted care. To me this seems like a reasonable position to have as it is recognizing her inability to provide adequate care and sending them to someone else who can. I'm not an expert (or even an ametuer!) on medical / counseling ethics so I don't know if thats true, its jsut the way it strikes me.
The issue at hand is this with the college case. Can a degree conveying body withhold that degree for refusing to comply with the code of ethics associated with that degree. The school by granting that degree is certifying that the individual meets that institutions requirements.
If she can obtain this degree while holding that she will not treat gay clients or keep her views on their behavior to herself, in violation of the institutions code of ethics... then how can any institution withhold certification based on codes of ethics? Lawyers could not be disbarred due to ethics violations for example. Would we tolerate a doctor who stated they would not treat gay patients or would only treat them if they submitted themselves to his proselytizing?
We need to take a step back and think about what is actually right here. Yes, we should not be able to force our standards on her, BUT she also cannot force her standards on anyone else. She has committed to forcing her beliefs on others and that is something we cannot allow, especially as a counselor. This is not about her freedom to religion, it is about her freedom to force her religion on others, a freedom which does not exist. You have a right to free speech, but you also get to deal with the fallout of the ideas you express.
If indeed she is simply saying she will refer gay clients elsewhere, again... isn't that a bit like saying you would not council a minority ethnicity or a poor person? It isn't ethical behavior as a counselor to put your personal beliefs over the needs of your clients. WWJD? I'm sure he'd put his faith over helping the needy right? I doubt it.
Additionally, I am very intolerant of intolerance, hence I am a hypocrite. But, I take solace in knowing and accepting that.
The key here, is that not everything should be tolerable. Intolerance, the word, has come to be understood as something that should be avoided by our culture. However, one should never tolerate certain things.
The key here, is that not everything should be tolerable. Intolerance, the word, has come to be understood as something that should be avoided by our culture. However, one should never tolerate certain things.
Yes, some things should not be tolerated, I agree; however, "intolerance," as a generic term, is not one of those things. I think people get too caught up in saying whole groups of generic things are "bad."
You should evaluate "intolerance of X" on a case by case bases to see if it's 'bad' or not. You should not just blankly state "any and all kinds of intolerance is unacceptable."
Yes, some things should not be tolerated, I agree; however, "intolerance," as a generic term, is not one of those things. I think people get too caught up in saying whole groups of generic things are "bad."
You should evaluate "intolerance of X" on a case by case bases to see if it's 'bad' or not. You should not just blankly state "any and all kinds of intolerance is unacceptable."
That is exactly my point. Intolerance is not automatically a bad thing.
i think that people - including myself - have used the "intolerant of intolerance" line more for its memetic value and understood connotation than for its actual meaning and value. poetic license in posting, we'll say.
anyway, to the point: the problem with intolerance itself comes down to the reality that there are people who expect their intolerance to be forced on others. i can't tell you how many times i've made "pro-life" people realize that they were actually "pro-choice" after a few questions about their opinions. some people, though, really are pro-life, and i'm OK with that insofar as their hopes are never realized. seriously, though, i don't care if one disagrees with another's life choices, but to seek to delegitimize it in the public sphere is, IMHO, an affront to the freedoms we all enjoy.
freedom is for everyone, not just the people whose actions you agree with.
the one freedom we do NOT have, ever, is the freedom from being offended by others. part of what is expected from members of a free society is their willingness to allow others to enjoy their freedom to the same degree as those members enjoy their own freedom. the only rules that are required to be followed are the ones that defend an individual's life, liberty, and possessions from the ill intentions of others.
you want to hate, that's fine and dandy. keep it to your damn self and don't tell me what i can and cannot do because you don't approve of it.
Oddly, a pharmacist can chose not to disperse the day after pill due to convictions yet a student can't chose to not give advise to a person who lifestyle is against their religion.
Quite frankly this is just as wrong. If you don't want to dispense medications based on medical necessity then do not become a pharmacist. Laws like this demonstrate just how willing we are to sacrifice freedoms for the comfort of the religious right. One more example of how they force their belief system on the rest of us.
Still everyone will say "Christians are not under threat." naw. Just don't plan on getting a higher education. Don't plan on speaking about your faith. Don't plan on being able to practice in public. Freedom of religion on goes so far you know. . .
Christian are not under threat, just those that try to force their intolerance on the rest of us. Also, if you want to be intolerant and get a higher education, there are likely institutions with religious affiliations which would be more than happy to take your money.
Let your freedoms go, they're a burden anyhow. Support the loss of freedoms because you don't like people having an opposing view. Don't worry we'll never let 'bad things' happen. Only good things: like buring all those books that teach hate (starting with the Bible), then we can send those dirty jews, uhm I mean Christians to death camps. We do this because everyone with a half functioning brain knows there is no GOD. And all religion is a sham. We're enlightened now and it's time to end this religion bull ☺☺☺☺. Besides EVERYONE knows they're (those intolerent religious people) the problem behind everything. Oh, and the mentally infirm. Kill them too. And parents who don't do as we say, we must send those parents to Re-education camps and their children to re-education farms. Too bad they died in the fields. Oh, and anyone who doesn't think as I think, walk as I walk, like what I like. They're all enemies of the worker and need to be removed.
I do not mind people having opposing views, it's when they use those views as a bludgeon to get their way. If you do not like gay people, I'm sorry, but you do not have a right to tell other ethical people that your right to hate should be protected at the expense of everyone else. That is what this is about, she refused to accept that in order to be an ethical counselor she would have to set aside all personal prejudice and just focus on helping the client. If you cannot do this because you do not approve of a group of people, whether it be racial, sexual, age, etc. then you are not fit to provide counsel to anyone.
Idiotic ruling. Freedoms are for the individual to keep and not the institution to remove.
Do you like ANY of your freedoms? Then support them all. If you want to change the Constitution, try article V and not the bench.
Supreme Court here we come. After that . . . Con Con II.
The freedom to practice your religion does not entitle you to violate other organizations codes of ethics. Why should someone with one belief set expect they can enter an accredited university and receive a degree from that institution without following the code of ethics? If she is unable to comply with that code of ethics then she should attend a different institution.
No freedoms have been removed, she can still practice her religion anyway she wants. Just like I could get a swastika tattooed on my forehead, but it would cost me some opportunities. You have the freedom of religion, but the responsibility to respect others freedoms.
Quite frankly this is just as wrong. If you don't want to dispense medications based on medical necessity then do not become a pharmacist. Laws like this demonstrate just how willing we are to sacrifice freedoms for the comfort of the religious right. One more example of how they force their belief system on the rest of us.
Nobody. Nobody is taking the morning after pill because of a medical necessity. They are taking it because they want an abortion. In what way is a law allowing a pharmacist the freedom to refrain from enabling a non-medically necessary act a limitation on freedoms?
Forcing someone to do something against their will is a limitation on freedoms.
Nobody. Nobody is taking the morning after pill because of a medical necessity. They are taking it because they want an abortion. In what way is a law allowing a pharmacist the freedom to refrain from enabling a non-medically necessary act a limitation on freedoms?
Forcing someone to do something against their will is a limitation on freedoms.
Should a pharmacist be able to refrain from selling Asprin? I would argue a human in your stomach for 9 months is more painful than a headache. Medical necessity or "medical needs" is about dealing with bodily needs medically.
What about Viagra?? or how about Rogaine?? What is your definition of "medical necessity"? Is it ok for a pharmacist to withhold every medication unless its used to save your life?
You have to either draw a line, or get rid of the line. If you are drawing a line for religious, racial, sexist, or any other "group" specific reasons, you shouldn't be allowed to use that intolerance to directly affect others. Not selling "morning after" pills is obviously for religeous reasons. Therefor, that pharmacist shouldn't be in a position to limit others' freedoms. Period.
You have to either draw a line, or get rid of the line. If you are drawing a line for religious, racial, sexist, or any other "group" specific reasons, you shouldn't be allowed to use that intolerance to directly affect others. Not selling "morning after" pills is obviously for religeous reasons. Therefor, that pharmacist shouldn't be in a position to limit others' freedoms. Period.
There is literally nothing preventing that person from going to another pharmacist and purchasing the morning after pill. Their freedoms are not limited in any way. In the scenario you are positing the only persons who's freedoms are at issue is the pharmacist! We're not talking about a ban on the drugs, we're talking about forcing a person to perform an action.
Edit: as far a what I would call a necessity? Anything that is elective is not a necessity. Yes that includes asprin for a headache (although not for when its the perscribed drug for heart disease). It's not necessary.
Look, I'll be honest with you: I consider your position to be absolutely wrong headed. You're position claims it is about enforcing freedoms but all it does is limit one persons freedoms and provides literally no increase in any other persons freedoms. It's not one persons freedoms being limited to protect anthers more iportant freedoms. Its one persons freedoms being restricted and eliminated to protect one persons convenience. They could go to another pharmacy, or come back when a different pharmacist is there.
There is literally nothing preventing that person from going to another pharmacist and purchasing the morning after pill. Their freedoms are not limited in any way. In the scenario you are positing the only persons who's freedoms are at issue is the pharmacist! We're not talking about a ban on the drugs, we're talking about forcing a person to perform an action.
So what if all the pharmacists in a deeply Christian county decided to get together and stop selling morning-after pills. Let's say there were only 4 pharmacies in a 100 mile radius area, so this scenerio is not that unlikely. Would this be ok?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The second one has been fairly much settled I believe in that a private institution has more leeway in dealing with beliefs. However, for a student I feel that it should be something that should have been let go by the institution itself and just reinforced on its hiring process. A student that's "supposed to shut up" isn't a good idea as it just makes other students restless, faculty that knows ahead of time during the hiring process should know what they're getting into.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The health sciences and helping professions are held to a slightly different standard. In the case of counseling, it is ordinarily not ethical for the counselor to openly promote his or her religious beliefs or chastise the client for his or her own religious beliefs. Doing so goes against the principle of patient autonomy and focuses undue attention in the counselor-client relationship, back onto the counselor.
(Exceptions are made if the client's religious beliefs are causing or might cause immediate danger to self or others, i.e. honour killing, suicide, lynching of a gay neighbour, etc. These are reportable to the authorities.)
As for whether it is right to dismiss students from training programs, vs. allow them to graduate and let the market sort them out, remember that students in the allied health professions are often placed in patient or client confidence long before they graduate, as part of their training and assessment. If a student demonstrates an inability to adhere to ethical guidelines per the professional regulatory agency of that state, the training program has a duty to either remove the student for remediation, or risk losing accreditation by the professional regulatory agency. This often means choosing the minor annoyance of a student's lawsuit over the major and dire situation of having all your graduates no longer be able to qualify for jobs or sit for their certification exams. Not to mention that public funding of an accredited program is much higher than for a program that cannot be accredited because it does not comply with ethical standards of patient or client care.
It's not about First Amendment rights or about the negative fallout from urging a student to be silent about her personal beliefs. It is about a different standard of conduct we expect from our providers in all fields. One that is not judgmental, but will protect the patient's autonomy and individuality first. This standard of conduct is implicitly and explicitly stated in nearly every regulatory college Code of Conduct, at the top or very near the top of the list. It is part of the universal Patient Bill of Rights and the cornerstone of building rapport with every client. The law has provided for religious conscience by allowing providers to recuse themselves entirely, without explanation, as long as they provide continuity of care. It is a difficult choice but there are alternatives for people whose religious beliefs disagree with the nonjudgmental approach to client care.
It's not like these potential immigrants wouldn't have other options of where to live. And it seems like something like this would be greatly conducive to a productive and peaceful community. It seems like it'd be bad for both the immigrant and the community if he just hated everything his community stood for and was pissed off all the time about it.
Additionally, I am very intolerant of intolerance, hence I am a hypocrite. But, I take solace in knowing and accepting that.
I'm pretty much on the same page here.
I think the real question that sparks debates and heated arguments is more the question of: Can you think that someones actions / behaviors are wrong and still be a "tolerant" person.
A lot of people think thats a definitive no. I'm pretty entrenched in the "its 100% possible to be tolerant and still think a behavior is wrong." Example: I think its wrong to live with someone before you're married, but I'm not going around trying to make it illegal, or yelling at people who do (several of my really close friends had that type of relationship).
The issue is some people take the mere statement "I think action X is wrong" as intolerance of "action X". People who take it that way are misunderstanding what "tolerance" means and using it when they mean to say "acceptance" or "approval".
Intolerance of intolerance makes for an amusing joke, but the context of both intolerance is different and so the joke falls apart under further scrutiny.
If I am intolerant of crime for example, that is not a type of tolerance I am expected to have, so not having it is not really intolerant behavior. "Intolerance" as defined in the one context is not tolerating generally socially acceptable behavior. To be intolerant of that type of "intolerance" is not possible in the sense of the word in its context. How can one tolerate "intolerant" behavior without being themselves "intolerant".
In effect, Tolerance of "intolerance" is intolerant. Intolerance of "intolerance" is tolerant behavior. Put more clearly, Individual nonacceptance of socially acceptable behavior is unacceptable. Individual nonacceptance of socially unacceptable behavior is socially acceptable.
What the OP attempts to construe is that "Individual nonacceptance of socially nonacceptance behavior is socially nonacceptance." This is a falsity with guise in the language used to appear valid.
A valid way to pose the question at hand would be, "Is it right to filter immigration based on social norms?"
Yes it is. This is not something you can even argue.
intolerance = intolerance
It's simply a Tautology. As my uncle once said, "Never argue about a fact."
Then you might want to remove this from the OP:
I would not have responded like I did had I not read that part.
The correct answer is all of them (in my mind). The instant you or I start saying "I am not tolerant of you because you aren't tolerant of X" is the instant you or I have just made the exact same argument you or I are complaining about!
Really it DOES boil down to "tolerance" and "acceptance" not being the same thing. I can tolerate people who do stuff / say stuff I disagree with. I cannot accept that the stuff they are doing / advocating is OK.
In order to tolerate someone I don't have to "like" them. I don't have to agree with them. Hell, I can vehemently and vocally disagree with them, and still "tolerate" them.
Further with my example: I, as a person who opposes cohabitation before marriage am free to speak, yell, and tell people about my viewpoint. None of that is intolerant. As soon as I start trying to force others to agree with it, or behave in accordance with my viewpoint is when I start being intolerant.
Of course you can defend that what we call intolerance and what we call "reasonable" is a matter of historic moment and social rules. It's true if you go into heavy philosophy, but truth is, anyone that preaches that someone ELSE should not be allowed to live their own lives in their own way (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or disseminate the idea of hurting other groups) is simply bad to life in society.
You want to live by some group of erratic rules and that makes you feel better? You pray to some cardial point, only take cold showera, don't eat some kind of animal, give up about your sex life? Good for you, as long as you do it and don't prejudice on people who don't. As long as you start to attack people that don't do what you do, you should be suppressed for the good of the society.
The inquisitoin, crusades, the islamic Jihad, persetution and death of homossexuals, black people, immigrants, etc. There's plenty of base (all around the globe) to say it's something we need to do before things get out of hand in any given society at any time.
I'm a Spike Vorthos - I love lore and flavor, but only if the cards are competition worthy.
As for targeting Muslims... not so much. Just targeting those who hate/dislike others on the basis of homosexuality or prudery. My very Christian neighbors hate gays and refer to girls in mini skirts as ☺☺☺☺s. Same thing.
As for the second... I'm intolerant of intolerance. Happy to be so. Want your homophobic/sexist/racist opinions? Sure, fine. Keep them to yourself and don't ***** if they get you fired or expelled. I wouldn't want someone like her working as a consuler... just imagine the harm she could do.
Flavour-Deckbuilder of the Flittering Clique
The [Pack] My Trade List
Cardshark IS AWESOME!
Trade me Crusaders?
GWREnchanted Eve (building) ~ BPoxy Pox
Standard
WUMeow-Go~BU Infection
Casual
BWAngel Doom ~ GRWWarpride ~ WGUStoic Control (ARG)
EDH
BRGWUScion of the Ur-Dragon ~ BSiezan, The Perverter of Truth ~ W 8.5 Tails (needs work)
All my Decks.
My presumption was the person went to gay rights rallies or something, then went to the campus and argued or debated with people over it, but when in the "professional environment" the person followed the rules.
The basis I was using was similar to a case that Fox aired with a conservative
social worker in his master's thesis applying conservative principles to what is generally a government based profession. A sort of renegade "bad ass" that had stern beliefs and tried to prove through research that it was effective, but when it came to the job he did what he had to do.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Her suit has to do with upholding her First Amendment right to her religious conviction. The university (and the regulatory college of counseling) are pointing only to her insistence on imposing those religious convictions on others as the reason for her being dropped from the training program. I don't think the school cares what the particular religious belief is. The code of conduct is fairly clear on this.
Do you have additional articles you read? the extent of the linked article that is relating to what she actually DID is this:
""Jennifer Keeton has not been accused of mistreating a client," said David French, senior counsel for ADF, a legal alliance that supports religious freedom. "She's being told, 'You must change your beliefs or we'll deny you a degree.' "
Keeton claims that she has voiced her Christian beliefs inside and outside the classroom on homosexuality and other biblical teachings. ASU faculty has ordered her to undergo a remediation plan, which would include diversity sensitivity workshops, she says."
it seems pretty clear that she hasn't been enforcing her beliefs on clients, but that she has been asserting her beliefs in class discussions, and in her own free time outside of class/work. Neither of which would violate anything. The article at no point includes her saying she would "not refrain from expressing her beliefs about gays in counseling the client." -- Did you make that up?
Edit: One of the things brought up in the comments to the article is someone claiming to konw her, and claiming that she has said that she would need to refer homosexual clients to other counselors because she would be unable to provide un-conflicted care. To me this seems like a reasonable position to have as it is recognizing her inability to provide adequate care and sending them to someone else who can. I'm not an expert (or even an ametuer!) on medical / counseling ethics so I don't know if thats true, its jsut the way it strikes me.
If she can obtain this degree while holding that she will not treat gay clients or keep her views on their behavior to herself, in violation of the institutions code of ethics... then how can any institution withhold certification based on codes of ethics? Lawyers could not be disbarred due to ethics violations for example. Would we tolerate a doctor who stated they would not treat gay patients or would only treat them if they submitted themselves to his proselytizing?
We need to take a step back and think about what is actually right here. Yes, we should not be able to force our standards on her, BUT she also cannot force her standards on anyone else. She has committed to forcing her beliefs on others and that is something we cannot allow, especially as a counselor. This is not about her freedom to religion, it is about her freedom to force her religion on others, a freedom which does not exist. You have a right to free speech, but you also get to deal with the fallout of the ideas you express.
If indeed she is simply saying she will refer gay clients elsewhere, again... isn't that a bit like saying you would not council a minority ethnicity or a poor person? It isn't ethical behavior as a counselor to put your personal beliefs over the needs of your clients. WWJD? I'm sure he'd put his faith over helping the needy right? I doubt it.
The key here, is that not everything should be tolerable. Intolerance, the word, has come to be understood as something that should be avoided by our culture. However, one should never tolerate certain things.
You should evaluate "intolerance of X" on a case by case bases to see if it's 'bad' or not. You should not just blankly state "any and all kinds of intolerance is unacceptable."
That is exactly my point. Intolerance is not automatically a bad thing.
anyway, to the point: the problem with intolerance itself comes down to the reality that there are people who expect their intolerance to be forced on others. i can't tell you how many times i've made "pro-life" people realize that they were actually "pro-choice" after a few questions about their opinions. some people, though, really are pro-life, and i'm OK with that insofar as their hopes are never realized. seriously, though, i don't care if one disagrees with another's life choices, but to seek to delegitimize it in the public sphere is, IMHO, an affront to the freedoms we all enjoy.
freedom is for everyone, not just the people whose actions you agree with.
the one freedom we do NOT have, ever, is the freedom from being offended by others. part of what is expected from members of a free society is their willingness to allow others to enjoy their freedom to the same degree as those members enjoy their own freedom. the only rules that are required to be followed are the ones that defend an individual's life, liberty, and possessions from the ill intentions of others.
you want to hate, that's fine and dandy. keep it to your damn self and don't tell me what i can and cannot do because you don't approve of it.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Quite frankly this is just as wrong. If you don't want to dispense medications based on medical necessity then do not become a pharmacist. Laws like this demonstrate just how willing we are to sacrifice freedoms for the comfort of the religious right. One more example of how they force their belief system on the rest of us.
Christian are not under threat, just those that try to force their intolerance on the rest of us. Also, if you want to be intolerant and get a higher education, there are likely institutions with religious affiliations which would be more than happy to take your money.
I do not mind people having opposing views, it's when they use those views as a bludgeon to get their way. If you do not like gay people, I'm sorry, but you do not have a right to tell other ethical people that your right to hate should be protected at the expense of everyone else. That is what this is about, she refused to accept that in order to be an ethical counselor she would have to set aside all personal prejudice and just focus on helping the client. If you cannot do this because you do not approve of a group of people, whether it be racial, sexual, age, etc. then you are not fit to provide counsel to anyone.
The freedom to practice your religion does not entitle you to violate other organizations codes of ethics. Why should someone with one belief set expect they can enter an accredited university and receive a degree from that institution without following the code of ethics? If she is unable to comply with that code of ethics then she should attend a different institution.
No freedoms have been removed, she can still practice her religion anyway she wants. Just like I could get a swastika tattooed on my forehead, but it would cost me some opportunities. You have the freedom of religion, but the responsibility to respect others freedoms.
Nobody. Nobody is taking the morning after pill because of a medical necessity. They are taking it because they want an abortion. In what way is a law allowing a pharmacist the freedom to refrain from enabling a non-medically necessary act a limitation on freedoms?
Forcing someone to do something against their will is a limitation on freedoms.
Should a pharmacist be able to refrain from selling Asprin? I would argue a human in your stomach for 9 months is more painful than a headache. Medical necessity or "medical needs" is about dealing with bodily needs medically.
What about Viagra?? or how about Rogaine?? What is your definition of "medical necessity"? Is it ok for a pharmacist to withhold every medication unless its used to save your life?
You have to either draw a line, or get rid of the line. If you are drawing a line for religious, racial, sexist, or any other "group" specific reasons, you shouldn't be allowed to use that intolerance to directly affect others. Not selling "morning after" pills is obviously for religeous reasons. Therefor, that pharmacist shouldn't be in a position to limit others' freedoms. Period.
There is literally nothing preventing that person from going to another pharmacist and purchasing the morning after pill. Their freedoms are not limited in any way. In the scenario you are positing the only persons who's freedoms are at issue is the pharmacist! We're not talking about a ban on the drugs, we're talking about forcing a person to perform an action.
Edit: as far a what I would call a necessity? Anything that is elective is not a necessity. Yes that includes asprin for a headache (although not for when its the perscribed drug for heart disease). It's not necessary.
Look, I'll be honest with you: I consider your position to be absolutely wrong headed. You're position claims it is about enforcing freedoms but all it does is limit one persons freedoms and provides literally no increase in any other persons freedoms. It's not one persons freedoms being limited to protect anthers more iportant freedoms. Its one persons freedoms being restricted and eliminated to protect one persons convenience. They could go to another pharmacy, or come back when a different pharmacist is there.
So what if all the pharmacists in a deeply Christian county decided to get together and stop selling morning-after pills. Let's say there were only 4 pharmacies in a 100 mile radius area, so this scenerio is not that unlikely. Would this be ok?