What do "tolerance" and "persecution" really mean?

A friend of mine recently posted a link to an article by an openly gay latter-day-saint man, click here to read the article. Now, some of you may not know, I am a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. I also have friends who are gay. I believe the "gay issue" is and will become one of the most divisive issues in the Church's history, it already is in the world at large. For those who do not know, LDS members' views run the entire gamut from one end to the other.
I'd like to just discuss some of the points Mitch Mayne brings up in his article and just air my thoughts on the matter. I am NOT a spokesperson for the Church, but I would like to express my perspective.
On the whole, Mr. Mayne's article is refreshingly free of exaggerated denouncements, of mean spiritedness, and I appreciate that. His article got me thinking about some things, though, and I hope my thoughts can be expressed in the same level headed and noninflammatory way.
Mr. Mayne pointed to the shared history of the LDS church and the homosexual communities having severe persecution resulting from narrowminded negative publicity. That those outside the community then based their opinion of said community on misinformed propaganda loosely based on a fringe percentage of participants. Up to this point, I agree with Mr. Mayne - and the atrocities committed in the name of defense against the "evilness" portrayed by those communities' antagonists are tragic. The church spokesman pointed this out here in response to an HRC petition. None of the church's doctrines are ever meant to be used (and SHOULD NEVER BE USED) as grounds for bullying or mean spiritedness towards anyone else! Any member doing this is NOT in line with the teachings of the church.
But, Mr. Mayne says that the LDS church "deserved the black eye it got" for its involvement in the Prop 8 debate in California. That it was among the "most un-Christlike" things we've done as a church. If you want to see what the church's official response was to the controversy surrounding its involvement, click here.  You'll read in that article that the Church is NOT against same-sex couples having hospitalization rights and other rights as well. You may well scoff at us wanting to defend marriage, you might even point out that heterosexual marriages are not exactly doing well, on the whole, in reaffirming marriage as sacred. It is unfortunate that marriage, as an institution, is taken so lightly by some and is ruined by selfishness in many - but the Church speaks out against those issues as well in its meetings and conferences.
The question here is: did the Church's involvement in Prop 8 constitute persecution of the homosexual community? The answer to that lies somewhat in what you believe.
Obviously, if you believe the Church is NOT true in any way, the Church's stance is at best misguided by out of touch elderly men who are clearly stuck in another time, and at worst,  a bigoted attempt to withhold something that doesn't personally affect them.
If you are a believing member of the Church, it might feel a little more complicated, but it again comes down to what you believe regarding a different question:
Do you believe the Church's doctrines and its stance on moral and ethical questions stem, or should stem, from the opinions and viewpoints of, not the majority of the world, but the majority of the Church's membership?
Or, do you believe the doctrines and stances of the Church are revealed by revelation from God to its appointed leaders? Basically, do you sustain the General Authorities as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Now, I do not mean the comments of any one General Authority on its own. We know from our own history that even those in "higher" callings in the church are subject to anything from apostacy to just being wrong about something. (I personally have serious disagreements with some of the stuff said by Bruce R McKonkie in "Mormon Doctrine.")  But, when the governing officials of the Church come out with an OFFICIAL stance, united as a whole, where do you believe that stance originates?
Let's say that you don't believe in the Church, or as a member you disagreed, is it still considered PERSECUTION? Persecutions endured by the early LDS members were: being driven out of their homes in the dead of winter, killed by mobs, illegally thrown in jail, raped, beaten, tarred and feathered, all while those elected to uphold the law and constitution remained silent or actively encouraged and participated in these activities.
Homosexuals most assuredly have a shared history of persecution by that definition! Again, such conduct is unequivocally and strongly condemned by the Church! The marriage debate is not about kicking homosexuals out, or encouraging bullying and violence in any degree, it is not about ostracizing them - it is about protecting the ideal of marriage. Whatever your thoughts on the validity of that viewpoint, I think it important to understand the motivation is NOT bigotry or narrowmindedness.
Which brings me to my last point - what does "tolerance" mean. I have long thought the meaning of "tolerance" today to mean something very different from what it used to mean. The actual definition of tolerate is:

1. permit something: to be willing to allow something to happen or exist
2. endure something: to withstand the unpleasant effects of something
3. accept existence of different views: to recognize other people's right to have different beliefs or practices without attempting to suppress them

Applied in these terms, I think it means that we are tolerant of people having differing viewpoints and perspectives, that we are still capable of being friends, or at least being civil, to that other person.
However, it seems the word has a different connotation, it has become a word that means "acceptance." It isn't possible to live in a world that everyone "accepts" different viewpoints to be valid, okay, or unharmful. Many also seem to think that being "tolerant" means that there shouldn't be a debate about that person's beliefs. It means you don't try to suppress or eliminate their voice, not that you don't raise your own. (Edit: Please note I am, of course, talking about acceptance of ideas and beliefs of other people. That's where I believe "tolerance" comes to play. When it comes to people, I don't just "tolerate" them. I care very deeply about all of my friends and my family despite disagreeing with all of them about one thing or another!)
I believe both sides are trying to affect a society that they think will create the best environment and opportunities for individuals as well as best serve our society as a whole. They just disagree on how to get there.
I firmly believe that no matter the viewpoint, everyone's voice deserves to be heard. NO ONE should feel pressured to remain silent. And that all of us are obligated and best served when we ARE tolerant of differing viewpoints, and we refrain from name-calling and definitely refrain from any violence or illegal acts against those of opposing views.
So, there's my two cents.
I welcome thoughts and questions, as long as they are devoid of mean spiritedness :)

Thank-you Mr. D.S. for the topic of a blog post rant :)

One of the things I enjoy about facebook is the opportunity it affords to have interesting conversations with people of differing views regarding current events, politics, hot-button issues in general, etc. Maybe a friend posts a link to an article such as this one, which starts a little bit of a debate amongst the FB friends. Now, most of them, despite very different opinions, are able to present their arguments in a level-headed and perhaps slightly teasing manner. I enjoy these and find it refreshing to see smart people of different ideologies debate what they think about certain subjects and why.
Then you come across a comment from someone (referenced in the title as DS) that says " I just like the unbiased news sources like KSL and the desert news. They report about democrats all day, but when sh** that the republicans pull every second of everyday they commend the b*****ds. People like Gary Herbert can pull every disgusting deal under the sun but you won't hear about it from the mormon news media. Or Chris Butters, lets give the racist a**hole a standing ovation. The list goes on and on. That's the problem with the tithing funded conservative nonsense that goes on in this state and the mindless "followers of Christ" eat it up like the deseret news is preaching the word of god. What a load of sh**. Not only is the deseret news clearly biased and insulting to anyone's intelligence, its also poorly written." (* added by yours truly).
Okay, whatever. Some people get a little hot headed - especially when it comes to politics and religion where there is a predominant religion.
My comment, verbatim right below his was "That is more than disturbing! To try to use a fictitious pen name is one thing, but to use a picture of a real person! And, the fact that he hasn't even apologized is soooooooo typical of politicians! Republican and Democrat. I understand that he was trying to do something good, but that is at the top of a very slippery slope of comprimising ethics for the "greater good" that should be left untraveled. And, Mr. DS, let's face it, herd-minded mentality is found in any and all religious and secular groups, not just LDS. We don't come close to holding a monopoly on that corner!"
I was tempted to add a disparaging comment, but chose to refrain (*pats herself on the back*) :)
Within minutes he replied (to my very restrained rebuff):
"haha, that's laughable! I guess you are justifying your lack of decision making capabilities as an lds person then Ms. Aroura Wench Sh**(Clever play on my last name, no?)? At least you admit that you are unable to think on your own. Which I can't understand, because Joseph Smith said that God gave us brains to use for a reason? Mayor winder who I think is poor representative anyway, couldn't be tried for any criminal offense. Identity theft as a crime would require him to have stolen and used his identity for financial gain. He could be charged with libel, but unless some one is going to go after every fake profile in the social media universe, I highly doubt its worth the time, money and energy of the legal system."
Where's my lack of decision? I never said he should be criminally prosecuted, I said it was typical of politicians to not take responsibility for their own actions. And I never admitted I couldn't think on my own, I only conceded that though there are some LDS who follow the strongest voice, those kinds of people exist everywhere.
Now, let me say, this post would not exist if the personal attacks had ended here. I am not one for mocking others, but this previous comment was deleted by our mutual FB friend with a comment that rudeness and swearing would not be tolerated on her wall, though DS was more than welcome to repost his thoughts minus the personal attack.
Within A MINUTE of this occurence, I received the following message sent to me personally:
"Somebody must have stolen your husbands identity. hope you get an apology.




"

Seriously? I felt it necessary to post a reply and with it I'll end, because I feel like it sums up my personal views on being able to have civil discussions with those of opposing views:

"Wow. The fact that you can't handle a very cordial disagreement with your philosophies in life shows a complete lack of intillectual integrity. Do you even believe in the validity of your own word vomit? Because I can see no other reason to be so incredibly hostile to a complete stranger who never insulted you. I wasn't implying you were of a herd-minded mentality. But, is this clarification wasted on someone who is looking for opportunity to take offense? I didn't know if this mayor was R or D. And YOU don't even know if I'm one or the other, either. Your arguments will never be given credence if you can't control your emotional diarrhea."

Obama's arrogant overriding of the constitution

No, I do not think President Bush was a perfect President, nor do I agree with every decision he made; I do, however think that he was brutilized by the media, who even flat out lied sometimes, and yet, Obama's anti-American-I-wish-we-were-still-ruled-by-Britain attitude and decisions get a free pass. Not that they are endorsed by the media - they're NOT EVEN MENTIONED. I'm an independent pretty much disgusted with the extremist-run parties on both sides. Will America's politicians ever be able to actually do the right thing? Or, heaven forbid, fix some problems at the root cause, instead of sticking a band-aid over it and patting themselves on the back for avoiding the worst-case-scenario?

Orson Scott Card, a moderate Democrat and enthusiastically detailed history buff, wrote this excellent article on Obama's handling of the bombing of Lybia:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2011-04-07-1.html

545 people

This has some very valid points. Politicians make my skin crawl - they are probably the most duplicitous people (just as much or moreso than con artists). This is correctly attributed to the purported author.(I checked it out at Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp) It's pretty short and totally worth it. The question is even if we vote in all new people, will those new people really be any different? I hope there's hope for some much needed change (and NOT the Obama psuedo change)

"Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.

It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE--By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it
is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits... . The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power..

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it........ Is up to you.

Sales Tax
School Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Excise Taxes
Property Tax
Cigarette Tax
Medicare Tax
Inventory Tax
Real Estate Tax
Well Permit Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Inheritance Tax
Road Usage Tax
CDL license Tax
Dog License Tax
State Income Tax
Food License Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Social Security Tax
Service Charge Tax
Fishing License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Building Permit Tax
IRS Interest Charges
Hunting License Tax
Marriage License Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Personal Property Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax


Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids."

"Israel vs. Iran vs. Obama" by OSC

One of the most haunting points Card makes is that "After the Holocaust, we said, 'Never again' to genocidal attacks against Jews. Most of us meant it then. I think most Americans mean it now, even if much of Europe has gone back to its ancient habit of blaming Jews for everything. The world is rightfully ashamed of its inaction when Hitler persecuted and then murdered the Jews of Europe. We vowed that we would never stand by and let such a thing happen again. But Obama is poised to do exactly that."
To look at the facts is to see that Israel is not nor has ever been the aggressor. They retaliate when attacked by terrorists for crying out loud - how on Earth is it that anyone can place the blame on them. I think it's because people actually realize that Palestine and Iran are the bad guys but are too cowardly to piss them off. They figure Israel's been the nice one, the one to make concession after concession after concession. Well, if Israel was willing to be the "bigger person" then, perhaps they should be the "bigger person" yet again and just cease to exist. Maybe they can all immigrate to another country and set up shop there. "Because, of course, once Iran has Israel's land they'll be completely satisfied and will leave the rest of us alone. Even if they are nuclear capable, that was only to get back land they think is theirs."
I was unaware (maybe I shouldn't admit this) that the UN voted to recognize Israel as a state. They have every legal (if not ethical!) right to defend their own borders! I like that Card cites historical facts, instead of living in a dream world where things work as we think they should, let's wake up to how things actually work!

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2010-08-15-1.html

Cause of Housing Crisis

Please e-mail this link to everyone you know. This is an article written by Orson Scott Card about the cause of the housing crisis and who is truly responsible for it and who is covering it up. Keep in mind, OSC is an admitted Democrat. Also know that he is the kind of person to look at all the facts available before presenting any accusations.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-05-1.html

"Barack Obama, Spinmeister"

Obama obviously beleives the majority of America is stupid and has no capacity for actually listening to what he's saying. The other day on the Michael Medved show (which is one of the most balanced radio talk shows I've heard), they were talking about the interview Sunday night on 60 minutes with the candidates. Obama was questioned about his policies raising taxes. He claimed that 95% of Americans would get a tax break, while only those making above $250,000 would have an increase in taxes (a substantial one at that!). Then he went on to say that the tax break would be given to the small business owners who are more likely to put the money back into the economy. See any problems with that? Small business owners claim their business revenues as part of their own income - what small business makes LESS than $250,000 a year?
For a slightly more in depth look at the lying, two-face, hypocritical, and cowardly acts of Obama you can check out this article titled "Barack Obama, Spinmeister":

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-09-07-1.html

A really quick rundown of candidates' policies

This is really simple, so just take a minute to look through. This scares me:

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS ISSUE


Favors new drilling offshore US
McCain: Yes
Obama: No

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
McCain: Yes
Obama: No


Served in the US Armed Forces
McCain: Yes
Obama: No

Amount of time served in the US Senate
McCain: 22 YEARS
Obama: 173 DAYS

Will institute a socialized national health care plan
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Supports gun ownership rights
McCain: Yes
Obama: No

Supports homosexual marriage
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Voted against making English the official language
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN
15% (no change)

OBAMA
39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN
(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN
- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA
Restore the inheritance tax

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

You can verify the above at the following web sites:


http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

Also, p.s. Ethan told me that Obama voted AGAINST a ban on leaving failed abortion attempts in a room to die. Basically when they tried to abort the baby with a drug, if the baby was born, but the drug hadn't taken affect yet, they would then leave the baby in a room while the drug took affect (sometimes up to 45 minutes). Obama voted against a law that would ban that practice.

"Nobody was Listening"

So, I just had to link up to this incredibly insightful article about truth and how people react to it. Well, more specifically how the intellectual elite react to it. I find it disturbing that a lot of people will be voting off of an emotional reaction this November, not saying everyone, just a lot. It seems irresponsible to me and in my opinion, will only help to defeat the democracy of this country. Anyway, give the article a read, I found it fascinating. (And p.s. This was written by an extremely intelligent person who also happens to be my favorite author, OSC)

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-08-10-1.html