# Does 'tolerance' extend to keeping one's yap shut? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2006, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886 "2006-04-01T21:42:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/21 "2006-04-01T23:12:17Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > If they still allowed both rallies to happen? Well, they can’t legally stop them. They did the only thing they could do and voted to condemn them. The vote was an attempt to show dissaproval by the city. Not individual boardmembers. It equates an official act by the city, so the city should be held accountable. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/22 "2006-04-01T23:15:06Z")
I didn’t move the goalposts, **Updike** did, when he brought the first amendment into it in post #10. As far as your definition of tolerance: > [@](#): > > Where I sit, tolerance not only makes room for extreme bias, disapproval, even hate, but those are necessary conditions for the idea to have the opportunity to kick in. Unless there are strong negative feelings toward whatever the issue or group might be, there’s no need for someone to have the discipline to acknowledge that his views do not give him the right to impose his views on others. In what way was what the supes did any different? They acknowledged that they disapproved of the actions of the group and still allowed them to have their concert inside the city. Why is it necessary they pretend to agree with them as well? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/23 "2006-04-01T23:15:50Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > And I guess I’m being intolerant of **Updike**. I won’t stand for such behaviour! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/24 "2006-04-01T23:17:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Just because the Boards’s action may not have run afoul of the constitution doesn’t mean their action was proper. We’re talking abou the concept of “tolerance” not legality. But feel free to move the goal posts wherever you’d like. Except the only goalpost shifting here is on behalf of the people who are trying to redefine “tolerance” to mean “inability to publically disagree with other viewpoints.” Nothing the city council did was intolerant. They tolerated this rally being held in their city. Being tolerant doesn’t mean being quiet. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/25 "2006-04-01T23:21:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Except the only goalpost shifting here is on behalf of the people who are trying to redefine “tolerance” to mean “inability to publically disagree with other viewpoints.” Nothing the city council did was intolerant. They tolerated this rally being held in their city. Being tolerant doesn’t mean being quiet. Allowing the group to protest is what made them tolerant? So I guess any city that doesn’t break the law and surpress citizens first amendment rights is a bastion of tolerance? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/26 "2006-04-01T23:26:11Z")
All civil rights, really. For any and every group. Even if it happens to be a group bent on depriving any other group of _its_ civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/27 "2006-04-01T23:29:49Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > Allowing the group to protest is what made them tolerant? Sorry, you lost me. Who protested what now? > [@](#): > > So I guess any city that doesn’t break the law and surpress citizens first amendment rights is a bastion of tolerance? Nice guess, but you haven’t quite got it. Any city that breaks the law and suppresses its citizen’s first ammendment rights is, of course, being _in_tolerant. Since the city council of San Francisco didn’t do that in this particular case, then it’s not accurate to use this case to highlight the intolerance of the San Francisco city council. There are any number of other actions they could take, that have no relation to the first ammendment, that would make them intolerant. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/28 "2006-04-01T23:35:14Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Sorry, you lost me. Who protested what now?[//QUOTE] FWIU the Christian group was there to protest SF’s attempts to marry gays. > [@](#): > > ,Nice guess, but you haven’t quite got it. Any city that breaks the law and suppresses its citizen’s first ammendment rights is, of course, being _in_tolerant. Since the city council of San Francisco didn’t do that in this particular case, then it’s not accurate to use this case to highlight the intolerance of the San Francisco city council. There are any number of other actions they could take, that have no relation to the first ammendment, that would make them intolerant. If they did anything to stop them because they disagreed with them then how would that not be against their first amendment rights? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/29 "2006-04-01T23:36:56Z")
Having surfed several web sites of the Christian Right that support Battle Cry, I would have to say I have been struck by how little God or religion plays a part in their message. Several sites reported the group that split off from the main event to stand in front of San Francisco City Hall and chant condemnations of “secular” influences, but none of them seem to have mentioned any prayers for a reform of San Francisco attitudes or any appeals to Christian theology to support their position. So, barring any actual evidence of intolerance toward religion, I would have to say that the Supervisors showed a stupid overreaction to an event, but that claims of religious intolerance have simply been manufactured for the purpose of discussion, here. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/30 "2006-04-01T23:38:21Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > If they did anything to stop them because they disagreed with them then how would that not be against their first amendment rights? But they didn’t! They condemned certain actions and views taken by the group. How did that stop the christian youth group from going forward with the concert? It didn’t. There were 25K people in attendance. ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/31 "2006-04-01T23:46:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > A distinction without a difference when the matter is one of a non-binding resolution. > > You also continue to claim that the condemnation was of religious belief. Do you have any evidence (as in their actual wortds) that they condemned religious belief? In their own words: > [@](#): > > act of provocation by an anti-gay, anti-choice organization that aimed to negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city. The 25,000 Christian Youth that rallied have certain religious beliefs, that’s true. Calling those beliefs “provactive” “anti-gay” and “anti-choice” sounds like a condemnation of those beliefs to me. Do you support this government interference in religious freedom? ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/32 "2006-04-01T23:47:40Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > But they didn’t! They condemned certain actions and views taken by the group. How did that stop the christian youth group from going forward with the concert? It didn’t. There were 25K people in attendance. Whoa, slow down, you are the one that said they could stop them without violating their rights. I asked how. I said they did what they could to condemn people for trying to ‘‘_negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city_.’’ Anything else would be illegal. Just because they allowed it does not make them tolerant, it makes them law abiding. How dare they try to influence the politics in San Francisco? Because it is their rights as citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/33 "2006-04-01T23:50:52Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > The 25,000 Christian Youth that rallied have certain religious beliefs, that’s true. Calling those beliefs “provactive” “anti-gay” and “anti-choice” sounds like a condemnation of those beliefs to me. Saying [this](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/BATTLE.TMP): > [@](#): > > A Battle Cry invitation to teenagers made plain the symbolism of gathering in San Francisco for a pre-event rally at “the very City Hall steps where several months ago, gay marriages were celebrated for all the world to see.” > > Gay marriage “is another sign of the end of times,” said Sherilyn David, referring to the apocalypse that some fundamentalist Christians believe is foretold in Scripture. The 22-year-old San Jose administrative assistant came to Battle Cry with 15 other young Christians on Friday and will be joined by 60 other friends Saturday. In the middle of downtown San Francisco could very easily be termed “provocative” and it’s most definitely “anti-gay.” Would you characterize it otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/34 "2006-04-01T23:52:08Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > Whoa, slow down, you are the one that said they could stop them without violating their rights. I asked how. I said they did what they could to condemn people for trying to ‘‘_negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city_.’’ Anything else would be illegal. Just because they allowed it does not make them tolerant, it makes them law abiding. How dare they try to influence the politics in San Francisco? Because it is their rights as citizens. Um…where did I say that? I said allowing all groups to say whatever they wanted, even when that group (christian youth) was bent on taking other groups’ civil liberties away. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/35 "2006-04-01T23:55:59Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Um…where did I say that? I said allowing all groups to say whatever they wanted, even when that group (christian youth) was bent on taking other groups’ civil liberties away. Sorry, it was **Miller**. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/36 "2006-04-02T00:00:23Z")
Oh, good, I thought I was having major TIA’s. But I don’t think that’s what **Miller** was saying, either. He said the BofS _could_ have done many things which would’ve been intolerant, but chose to do this instead. **Miller** , please correct me if that isn’t what you meant. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/37 "2006-04-02T00:02:26Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > The 25,000 Christian Youth that rallied have certain religious beliefs, that’s true. Calling those beliefs “provactive” “anti-gay” and “anti-choice” sounds like a condemnation of those beliefs to me. Actually, I also seem to have found a bit of bait-and-switch going on, here. Everyone (pro and con) has a list of quoted words from the resolution, but the only place I have found a synopsis of the resolution (despite my requests for someone here to provide evidence of what was said), indicates that the rally in AT&T park was never condemned. The reference to the resolution only condemns the minor rally held on the steps of the City Hall–the one which has no religious referents that anyone (including multiple Religious Right web sites) has provided. [060371 [Condemning upcoming rally to be held by anti-abortion groups in front of City Hall on Friday, March 24, 2006] Resolution condemning upcoming rally to be held by anti-abortion groups in front of City Hall on Friday, March 24, 2006. Supervisors Ammiano, Ma, Maxwell, Daly, Peskin, Mirkarimi presented. ADOPTED.](http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=38330) As long as the condemnation was limited to a small group of people calling for political changes, divorced from theology, this whole issue is even sillier than first claimed. (Any **evidence** of actual condemnation of religious belief is welcome.) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/38 "2006-04-02T01:25:16Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > In their own words: > > The 25,000 Christian Youth that rallied have certain religious beliefs, that’s true. Calling those beliefs “provactive” “anti-gay” and “anti-choice” sounds like a condemnation of those beliefs to me. > > Do you support this government interference in religious freedom? I don’t call this government interference in religious freedom. I’m not sure you can call being anti gay and anti abortion religious beliefs. They may believe these things are immoral and bad for society based on their interpretation of the Bible but regardless of the source of their opinion when they actively campaign to influence the laws of this country it becomes a _political_ issue not a religious one. That means anyone has a right to express an opinion. I agree with the poster that said it should have been done by an individual or individuals rather than a statement by the board. If the KKK was holding a march could city officials say “Although we find their views morally repugnant we must support the first amendment and allow them to rally?” Would that be intolerant? Would it be interfering with their religious freedom? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/39 "2006-04-02T01:37:46Z")
I think the OP makes a good point. IS it intolerant simply to express disagreement or disapproval? I don’t think so. I’m thinking it may be a matter of degrees. Disagreeing without being hateful, sarcastic, dismissive, can still be tolerant. If you have little self control and call people or groups names and spit venom at them, then I would say that crosses into intolerant. “I strongly disagree with their position” is still tolerant “I find them morally repugnant” stronger but still on the line. " They’re a bunch of hypocritical ignorant whack job assholes" pretty intolerant ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886/40 "2006-04-02T06:16:42Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] As long as the condemnation was limited to a small group of people calling for political changes, divorced from theology, this whole issue is even sillier than first claimed. [QUOTE] Again, I must ask, why is the government issuing condemnations of large groups of people, at all? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-tolerance-extend-to-keeping-ones-yap-shut/350886.md?page=3)