September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Chopra & Koukl Debate | Main | 24: Self-sacrifice »

February 13, 2007

Comments

I couldn't agree with you more. This article was one of the least inspired and most backward pieces that I have ever read, even on the sports page. The Inquirer should be embarrassed for even having printed it.

Amen! I actually wrote an article similar to this in the Kansas City Star in February of '06...and got a LOT of flack about it in the Letters to the Editor over the following week. It's amazing how adamant the "tolerance police" can be in trying to assert that everyone is right (even if it means YOU'RE wrong.)

My favorite response is:

“Are you tolerant of the KKK?”

The major flaw here is ‘tolerance’ is not the highest ideal, state of mind, or character quality. Dr. John Patrick rights about it beautifully if anyone is interested.

'rights'--'writes'

"Zimmerman's comments exemplify the twisted modern notion of tolerance."

The problem isn't the modern or any other notion of tolerance; it's that many, including Mr. Zimmerman, don't recognize when they are projecting.

>>"The problem isn't the modern or any other notion of tolerance;"

I agree with that Alan. The definition is fine and unchanging; although many use the word as a synonym for ‘acceptance.’ To tolerate is something totally different.

A mother may ‘tolerate’ a screaming child in the store; but she hardly accepts or condones it.

The comments to this entry are closed.