I for one am glad you’re finally asking that question.
Well thanks. So what is the answer?
They are not–and the fact that you have not bothered to discover a single actual fact in this situation indicates that you are not interested in a legitimate discussion.
According to the evidence available, the Supervisors (stupidly) issued a condemnation of a rather tiny group of protestors who wandered over to raise hell on the steps of City Hall. (In any other context, you would be criticizing the protestors for being outside agitators, but you are willing to give this group a pass in order to ask a question based on an error of fact.)
The Supervisors do not seem to have offered any criticism of the moderately large group of people gathered at AT&T park.
If a government body condemned as racism when a group holding a rally saying all blacks should be enslaved, would you say that is improper? How about a rally saying all Christians should be forcibly converted to Islam?
AFAIKnow, one of interesting facts about this rally is that most of its attendees were bussed in from far away, and it was held in San Francisco because of the city’s tolerance. So, the rally was to a certain extent an attack on the city and its residents and the Supes, and I don’t see why the Supes could not express what almost certainly is the opinion of the majority of San Franciscans.
It is fairly easy to harrass a rally without stopping it - but this was not done at all, as far as I can tell.
I suspect Updike would condemn moral relativists - how odd he’d attack the Supes for not being moral relativists.
I’d also like to know why he equates Christianity with anti-gayness, so that opposition to a group being anti-gay is the same as opposition to Christianity. If I were a Christian I’d be mightily offended.
I’d say those condemnations were properly intolerant of vile belief systems. You may feel the same way about pro-life beliefs. It’s still being intolerant, perhaps justifiably so from your persepctive.
And, Tom, however many people showed up at the City Hall rally, is it possible not to interpret the resolution as a condemnation of pro-life beliefs in general? And those beliefs are held by a rather large group of people. Is it the BofS’s opinion that pro-life opinions have no legitimate place in the political arena, in the realm of public discussion, that they are equivalent (to use Voyager’s example) to espousing slavery?
They must assume their resolution serves some prohibiting purpose. It is a classic, “Your kind isn’t welcome here” message, it seems to me. For a governing body to make such a statement is not meaningless; it is not simply the expression of an opinion. It carries a certain weight and it has a certain effect–as it was clearly intended to, whether or not it stopped a particular rally from taking place.
So, the vibe I’m getting from Updike et al goes something like this:
If the political agenda of a religious group is informed by its religious beliefs, criticizing the political agenda is intolerant.
Is that accurate?
Updike’s claim, first in the Pit, then here, was that the Board of Supervisors launched an attack on the 25,000 people at the Battle Cry event for their religious beliefs. Throughout these discussions, as evidence has been brought forth, (none of it by Updike) regarding the actual situation, it has come out that the BoS did not condemn the 25,000 people at AT&T park, that the BoS did not condemn anyone for their religious beliefs.
(I do not believe that Updike has dishonestly portrayed the events, he just failed to find out if the snippets of abbreviated news stories he had read were accurate and leaped at the opportunity hurl an accusation of “intolerance” at a group with which he disagrees.)
Throughout these threads, I have maintained that the BoS resolution was a stupid thing to do. However, barring the presentation of the actual text of the resolution, we are left with the incomplete information that the BoS (stupidly) condemned a small group of protestors for expressing a desire to change the laws of this country to a more restrictive position regarding personal freedoms in a city where the majority of voters (as represented by the BoS) appear to desire more personal freedoms, not fewer.
So, we have found no condemnation of religion (as claimed).
We have found no condemnation of a large group of people (as claimed).
We have found some sort of condemnation of a specific event by a small group of protestors. It is possible to do a sort of “logical chain” type exercise in which we work back from some of the beliefs held by some of the protestors to beliefs held by some larger number of people rooted in their religious beliefs and draw a conclusion that there is enmity between the ideals of the BoS and the ideals of some religious groups. However, to pretend that the resolution was an “attack” on religious beliefs one would have to claim that resolutions against racial intolerance were attacks on religious beliefs because several denominations have preached a need to segregate the races and to condemn miscegenation. It’s a pretty long stretch.
(As noted earlier: evidence regarding the actual words of the resolution may change my perspective, here, but so far I am the only one digging up evidence and it does not support the claims of religious hostility that have been advanced.)
Tolerance doesn’t mean you can’t condemn intolerance. The attempts by people like Updike to define the condemnation of bigotry as a form of “intolerance” pretty much render the term insensible.
There is also a difference between respecting the right to an opinion and respecting the opinion itself. This extends even to religious beliefs. A lot of the same people who think that homophobia is a “religious belief” deserving of respect have no problem at all attacking the Nation of Islam for its racial beliefs.
. Spot on, as far as (in)tolerance from one individual to another (group of) individuals go.
Governments, local or national, however, have to take a different stand in such matters. They have to balance between respecting all viewpoints of their citizens, and keeping the peace, by preventing conflicts to escalate.
One could debate if prevention of escalation really is the governments job.
Usually such attempts are rather random (why try to censor pro-lifers and nazi’sm but not extreme leftists?) patronizing (issuing campaigns with Miss World-esque messages like “we should all get along”) and, quite often, laughable.
As tommanddebb pointed out, such an condemnation of a general viewpoint by a local government wasn’t happening here, although that subtle distinction got lost. In this case, IMHO government condemnation was out of order; if the protesters had broken a law, fine 'em, if not, don’t give them prissy lectures.
But being a government official myself, I understand perfectly: issuing a prissy lecture to the general public is just so much easier then spending publice resources and valuable police-time on tracking down the actual protestors and getting them convicted to pay a fine. And even if you got them fined, that would just make them heroes in their own circle.
Bottom line: it is the government’s job to condemn intolerance. And they’re bad at it and no-one takes them seriously when they do.
ITA. Tolerance does not mean approval. It means to accept the right to differing points of view–it says nothing about supporting or approving those POVs. I will defend the right of Neo-Nazi’s to march through Skokie, for one nasty example, but by no means do I support or advocate or even respect their views.
Believing in free speech can be difficult and distressing. But without that tolerance, we are on a slippery slope. I see no reason why the SF supervisors should come out and approve of such an event. Perhaps it would have been better if nothing was said or a resolution passed. But I see no infringement on free speech here–I see disapproval, which is also a right allowed by societal mores.
Why should the Sups be silent here, anyway? If such a thing were to occur in my town, I would think better of the town administrators if they came out and said something along the lines of “this is a free speech issue, but we essentially think these guys are jerks.” I don’t see an issue with that–if that distresses you, vote 'em out of office, if possible. What other avenue is open to them? Say nothing and it looks like tacit approval. They can’t legislate against it, so the best thing is to condemn it, publicly.
Agreed.
Here’s where I’m less convinced. Does the resolution only condemn this particular group of pro-life proponents? That seems illogical to me. Why just these guys? More likely, I think, is that this represents an embracing of a particular political position and a repudiation of another, whoever holds it. I don’t think it takes a particularly tortured syllogism to conclude this.
And if that’s the case, then the BofS have indeed used their position to set an intolerant tone, one that presumably seeks to send a message to anyone else seeking such a medium of expression. Some may think this is justifiable intolerance, the way it’s acceptable to be intolerant of racism, as an example. But it’s intolerance nonetheless.
And from my perspective, it seeks to marginalize a political opinion that rightly belongs in the public arena. You and I are in agreement as far as this goes–it was not a wise move. I would take it a step farther (perhaps you would, too). It was completely inappropriate and a disservice to a large portion of their constituency.
I agree, but I note that holding a particular political position that is at odds with some religious beliefs does not rise (or sink) to the level of actually displaying intolerance toward those religious beliefs and particularly does not demonstrate intolerance toward the believers who hold those beliefs. Disagreement is not, in and of itself, intolerance.
(I’d still like to see the actual text of the BoS resolution.)
Yep, I agree. The claim of religious intolerance originally made was overstated.
Me too.
Yes, as I said before, it’s simply a seedy debate tactic.
If they don’t condem these people, they’re hypocrites for supposingly being tolerant but not speaking against bigotry. If they do condemn them, they they’re hypocrites for not “tolerating” them.
I think you’re begging the question. Is everyone pro-life guilty of bigotry? If so (which is ridiculous), then the BofS ought to condemn them in no uncertain terms. If not, then they are indeed intolerant.
If all demonstrators were given tickets, that would be okay. But if only some demonstrations were made to respect the strict letter of the law, then an argument that enforcement was violating the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights could be made. This being San Francisco, giving the demonstrators tickets would be wrong, and I’m glad no such thing happened.
I see that the latest posts have been concentrating on the anti-choice aspect of the rally. I think the anti-gay aspect is more important. In the minds of the BoS, the rally was intolerant by its nature, and perhaps they felt that not speaking out would send a message that they were not opposed to this intolerance. Supporting the right of an intolerant group to speak while condemning their intolerance seems to me to be just the right mix. Perhaps the motion was directed to the City Hall demonstration, but seeing it as also directed to the larger rally is not much of a stretch. So, I don’t think the exact wording is very important.
While I was certainly surprised to see that, as I quoted in Post #37, the BoS mentioned abortion and failed to mention sexual orientation in their brief synopsis on the city’s web site.
(Perhaps this was prompted by a little more political maneuvering, where they were “defending” a current legal right according to U.S. law while avoiding the controversy of less well-defined rights relating to orientation?)
(We’re still waiting for them to post or some publication to present the actual text of the resolution.)
Agreed. Ideally, the condemnation of the government should have been targeted at the method of demonstrating, not at the content of the protest. It is the method of demonstrating that should respect the strict letter of the law.
So, asking a permit to demonstrate (which is obligatory in the Netherlands, mainly because protests dusrupt the already strained traffic in the larger Dutch cities) and then adhering to the rules in that permit, even while chanting neo-nazi songs = okay.
Not asking a permit and demonstrating spontaneously, harassing ladies in fur coats by animal-rights-activists = not okay, and resulting in tickets or being arrested.
The Netherlands used to be a paradise to demonstrators and protests. But leftists’ demonstrants were given much more leeway. A fascist demosntration would meet with disapproval, and be given a permit and police protection, but extremely grudgingly.
While on the “left”-side, protestors were allowed to intimidate national politicians in many ways, from publicly throwing cream-pies in their faces to insulting them on the Internet, to, one time, bombing the house of a politician enforcing a strict closed-borders to refugees-policy. This was reagarded, even by the government, like youthful idealism gone just a little overboard.
Ever since the murder on Pim Fortuyn by an animal activist, this attitude has changed. There is now a strict zero-tolerance policy for protests both on the left and the right side of the political spectrum. As a matter of principle, I feel that is more just. Back to the OP, the argument could be made that everybody has to adhere to the law, even the local law regarding time, place, duration and manner of demonstration. And that the government should enforce that and nothing more.
When it comes to content, the officials can try and see if a political message can be regarded as " hate-speech", or as “inciting violence”, or if it is insulting to other parties. But that can hardly be done overnight, so a condemnation would always happen months after the demonstration. But those two things are, IMHO, about all a government can and should do.
Unless I’m missing something, the cites Tom provided indicate that the resolution condemns “the anti-abortion group” and makes no mention of “anti-gay” anything.
Huh? Who the condemnation was directed at and the specifics of the condemnation aren’t important?
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was trying to say that being intolerant, in general, does not mean necessarily have anything to do with the first ammendment. In this case, I can’t think of any specific action the city council could have taken that would have been intolerant of the group without violating that group’s rights.
Okay, maybe in their heart of hearts, the city council secretly wanted to round up these Christians and feed them to lions. But they didn’t do that. They did something that was both within the bounds of law and the principle of tolerance: they allowed the other group to state their piece, and then responded with their own point of view. They reacted to a legal attempt to influence the politics of San Francisco in one direction, by making a statement designed to influence it in the other. I don’t see the problem here.