More on Gay Orthodoxy

link back

Intolerance is usually a Republican issue. But, there is all kinds of intolerance and the Obama cmapign is, perhaps inevitably, revealing some of the issues on the left.

Reverend McClurkin At Obama Event: "God Delivered Me From Homosexuality"

Is HE intolerant for changing his sexual preferance AND wanting others to do so? Why is this any different form all the rest of evangelism. Is it WRONG to know that the Deity does nto accept anal intercourse or gay relations? How can it be worng unless YOU know what the Deity wants?

It seems to me that this is a terrific. if difficult, lesson in the scope of tolerance. Is it not intolerant when gay men make a parody of femininity or even dress as nuns?

To me the line of tolerance was defined by Hillel 2000 years ago, "Do not do unto others what you would not have then do unto you." If Rev. McClurkin believes gays are convertibles and better off for being so, then he is in the same boat with Ann Coulter who wants Jews to become perfected. As long as these folks do not bother me, what right sdo I have to be intolerant of THEIR perverted beliefs?

I think I see the answer in Hillel. Coulter and MCClurkin's beliefs do intrude n my rights ot be gay or Jewish or anything else that is humanistically OK because, as part of the majority, their BELIEFS themselves "do not" those of us under the shadow of these ethical and moral judgments. OTOH, is it OK to be intolerant of Romney because his Mormonism includes beleifs that I consider blasphemous .. that contradict history? Or intolerant of Dino Rossi for believing in the Resurrection?

As I see it there is a resolution. Tolerance should stop at the border defined by Hillel, that is I should tolerant anyone else's beliefs as long as they do not intrude on me. The latter phrase is the problem. Mit Romney's religion worries me because it is based in a false conception of history. That would be OK IF I were reassured that nothing in his fantasy system would effect me or the country. However, suppose, just suppose, as President he rules that the public schools must offer the Mormon version of pre-Columbian history as an alternative reality? That would not be OK. The same issues are on both sides of the issue raised by Rev. McClurkin. His beliefs are his business, but what if he enocurages followers to act as if gay people are evil? What if he simply does aggressive evangeloims in the gay community ... these arem issues all Jews know about all to well. So, I think it is OK to to be intolerant of the Rev. At the same time, however, I think he3 also has the right to be intolerant of gay people who want "Johnh has Two Mommies" taight in the schools. Certainloy this teaching effects the Rev.

How do we find a middle ground when people's realities may not connect?