Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
-William Jennings Bryant
Funny that 100 years ago, if you wanted to find any capital P progressives, you’d go out to the countryside.
For reals? I shouldn’t be surprised that people who profess tolerance look down their respective noses at people not like them, but…
For reals. Although I don’t necessarily “profess tolerance”, certainly not toward my enemies. I also break, f’rinstance, with my fellow progressives on tolerance of Islam, which I see as profoundly anti-progressive and the natural enemy of women and gay men, not to mention atheists, artists, creative iconoclasts, etc.
That’s bunk. There were certainly rural Progressives, but the party was bankrolled by U.S. Steel, fer chrissakes; and per Wiki: “In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the local Republican boss, at odds with state party leaders, joined Roosevelt’s cause.”
At least you’re honest about it.
He does have a great podcast that I highly suggest everyone to check out and subscribe (the man’s witty and funny).
I don’t think anyone here said “ALL”. I asked where the stereotype came from. That’s not the same thing as asking “why are all blah blahs blah blah blah?”
Well…the difference is you don’t have a choice in being born black or Jewish or Muslim. You do have a choice in whether you want to be uneducated and racist.
You do have a choice, at least if you live in a Western country, as to whether you want to stay in a religion. I just want to point out that race/ethnicity is not the same as religion, which is a belief system. It may well be hard to go against your kinship group and break out of such a belief system (as my wife, who was raised by devout Christians but became an atheist in her teens, knows all too well), but the same is true if you are one of Bundy’s kids. I doubt you will be too welcome at the next Thanksgiving dinner on the Bundy ranch if you start professing liberal cosmopolitan beliefs.
ETA:
Cool, I will have to check that out–thanks.
Fair enough. However, I was making a point regarding persecuting someone because of their religion. You (as in “people”, not “you” specifically) have a right to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Presbylutherarian or whatever and practice that religion in whatever way suits you, provided you don’t impose those beliefs or persecute others who don’t share in them.
Sure, you also have a right to be an angry racist. It doesn’t mean I have to respect either belief system.
And what of the untold millions of Muslims who don’t live in the West? You know, the places where apostasy is a capital offense, if not de jure then at least de facto.
Yeah, that’s a different kettle of fish. It certainly doesn’t improve my overall impression of Islam, but it does prevent me from holding any given individual “guilty” unless they are pushing things beyond just keeping their head down and avoiding trouble.
Also, I have to think that out of the 1.5 billion practicing Muslims in the world, at least a couple aren’t looking to commit Jihad against the Infidels from the Great Satan.
You made an unwarranted assumption there. There could be no documented cases of Islamic terrorism in human history and I’d still dislike the religion just as strongly.
That’s part of this that truly baffles me. Do you not really see a difference between passively holding an objectionable opinion and resorting to violence due to objectionable opinions?
In my view, anybody can hold any nasty worldview he or she chooses, and while I may not like it, I’ll manage as long as that person is not hurting others. When you start killing folks, THAT is a different kettle of fish, IMHO.
In fact, I find the idea of unanimity of thought inherently objectionable.
It’s not about views that are not acted on, either. It’s stuff like this: