Acceptance and Tolerance

pg_13-06-04_homosexualityaccept_620

I went hiking with a new friend yesterday. We ended up hiking four miles while getting temporarily lost on part of the trail that was closed down. As one could imagine, we survived. One of the many things we discussed on the hike was gay and lesbian rights. Luckily, we agree and share a very similar point of view. I wanted to share that point of view because there is a lot of intolerance, prejudice, and hate in the world.

Human beings will always be human beings, no matter their preference in partners. It shouldn’t matter who you fall in love with nor what gender they happen to be. We all have our rights, no matter who we are, and as long as we have not murdered, stolen, or done something along the lines of that, we will always have our basic rights. That is the beauty of countries like the United States, Canada, Israel, etc.

If you find someone who you can fall in love with, and the emotion can be returned, then by all means, love! Not everyone gets that chance; not everyone is able to find a partner in life. If you find someone who makes you a better person, then be that better person because the world needs better people. There are so many awful people that there seem to be no good people left. If you were  good person, then you would accept all for who they are and what they believe in, as long as what they believe in is not hate.

There is so much cruelty and hate in the world that is irrational. For some reason, many bibles have deemed homosexuality as being evil. Some bibles have deemed homosexual people as being messengers of the devil (or something along the lines of that). Why? In the biblical days, the human race did not understand people who were different. No wonder my people, the Jewish people, have been slaughtered by the millions throughout the millennium. The human race fears what is different, so naturally homosexuality was deemed as bad. No-one understood how it worked nor why some had different preferences in partners.

We don’t live in the biblical world anymore. Wake up and smell the roses! What is the difference if you have made love to a female or a male? It’s no one’s business! It’s only yours and your partner’s business.

Should you still believe in the bible? That is your choice, but you may want to choose which sections or portions you choose to follow. Try to understand why certain rules are in place. It usually has to do with geographic locations and history. There are certain aspects of Judaism that I cannot accept, but that doesn’t make me any less Jewish. It might make me a better person because I can see some of the things that are wrong and that might be harmful to some of my classmates.

We Jews constantly question god’s teachings and why he said what he did. Our questioning is our form of understanding and making our selves better people. You can not blindly follow a faith. You must understand the bible, the meaning behind the words, and why the worlds were written because otherwise you will wander through life without understanding the world around you.

My friend is not Jewish, and he isn’t exactly Christian either, but he is accepting and kind towards others. If having a world without religion means that we have a world without hate and intolerance towards others, then I will forsake my faith for the good of the world. I would willingly give up my religion and the faith of my ancestors if it meant that I would have no prejudice upon my gay and lesbian friends. My ancestors have fought, killed, did some illegal things, and died for  me to be alive and exist. They did all of that to continue the Jewish faith and to have me live as a Jew. If Czarist Russia had its way, I would not exist. Rabbi Crinsky illegally gave his son away to another Rabbi, and now here I am! I would be willing to give all of that up and no longer have a religion if it meant having less intolerance in the world. Would you do the same?

Please vote in the poll to show if the image attached to this article is true or false.

Humans are humans. Love is love. It should not matter if you are homosexual or not. All that matters is that you found someone who you are willing to spend the rest of your life with. All that matters is that you are happy, and you are willing to spread the happiness around.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Acceptance and Tolerance

  1. You say you do not agree with all Jewish teachings, but that makes you no less Jewish? That in and of itself is self-contradictory and, quite frankly, a falsehood. Either you’re Jewish or a non-Jew who thinks Judaism has a few points, but is overall flawed. Don’t treat religion like it’s a cafeteria line: in other words, don’t diminish it’s authority for people who actually DO believe God is wiser than a humanity.
    As for homosexuality, the truth about it is that it is often the side effect of a deeper, harder problem rooted in the past. Furthermore, I don’t know what Christian denomination you use as a source or that you hear from, but homosexuals are held up to the SAME moral standard as anyone else: chastity outside of marriage, fidelity within it; dating is like a period of discernment for whether or not you should marry the one you’re dating; marriage is God’s beautiful means to allowing us to participate in creating life through union of man and woman, who will then raise children who will follow their own vocations aided by the balanced and COMPLETE view of the world and of life by example of their mother and father.
    Homosexuality is not a sin; however, the same Christian rules of morality apply to them, and if you look at them carefully, you’ll see why letting homosexuality dictate your “love-life” simply goes against it.
    One last thing: you say we’re free to follow religious beliefs if we think they’re true…however, your definition of discrimination would inevitably force someone, somewhere, to make a decision between religion (which they are “free” to follow) and not “discriminating against” (allowing/enabling) actions (not people, mind you) which directly contradict the actual right (listed in the Bill of Rights, which is deemed “beautiful”) of religion.
    On top of all that, you seem to be operating on the mindset that a gay/lesbian lifestyle somehow brings satisfaction the way a natural romantic love does. That is statistically untrue: do the proper research and you’d find out that the opposite case is true.
    Remember how I said homosexual attraction is a side effect? Well, it’s often a side effect of either trauma, depravity of love, or simply not knowing/being able to tell the difference between different KINDS of love. Essentially, the same reasons that would lead to incest.
    How would I think this? I have three siblings, and both of my parents had siblings, as well: I understand the wide range of relationships that siblings/friends/family members can have, and I’ve noticed that these relationships–whether in real life or in fiction–are all too often seen and then labeled as romantic and even homosexual or incestuous by nearly everyone aside from A: the people IN the relationship itself and B: those who have had or understand such a relationship without it being romantic. Then, I take a look at these homosexual “romances”, and I notice that either they’re ridiculous, lustful, and/or immature, or they’re exactly like any friends and/or family members I had ever seen or even heard of.
    Like it or not, Elia, we’re all still young and inexperienced. Sometimes, personal revelations don’t reveal all about an issue of this complexity. Murder, violence, etc…these injustices are–in the grand scheme of all things–rather simple moral issues, and even then some aspects require more logicale to be understood beyond the standard extreme cases. Try following your chains of thought, senses of logic, to where they lead in all their minute details instead of just going skin-deep, like you did in the whole “not agreeing with Judaism in some points makes me no less Jewish” (either you’re part of one religion, or you just think the religion has some good points), “most things in the Bible were only so at the time for geographical or cultural reasons” (some truths are objective and timeless, Elia), “as long as they don’t commit murder or acts of violence, it’s not hurting anyone” (ahem, STDs and feeling empty/used once the pleasure’s gone), “you have a right to believe your Bible if you want to, but you shouldn’t discriminate” (I would agree, but I seem to remember a conversation we had about what discrimination actually means).
    Of course, we shouldn’t follow faith blindly, and we must always seek the Truth, but what happens when we acknowledge a power and wisdom above our own but continue to just do our own thing whenever we don’t agree with it?
    Doesn’t that just place us above religion, thus putting ourselves in God’s place? Once we do that, are we really worshipping Him…or are we worshipping ourselves? That’s exactly what every dictator or tyrant in history has ever done: discard religion “for the good of the world”.
    Don’t think they just automatically got a notion into their heads that they wanted to kill/torture a specific group out of nowhere: to commit an act so heinous, many fooled themselves into reasoning through on how they were morally/logically right to the point of being OBLIGATED to do such terrible things.
    Take communism, for example: it sure sounds nice, until it’s implemented. Then, it inevitably follows itself to its own roots…everyone must contribute, so why keep around those who cannot contribute? Why not push the population to beyond its limits, so the whole nation can reap the benefits? The individual does not matter, so help the greater good by treating the individual like the tool that it is. Far more efficient that way, for the greater good of the community as a whole.
    I hope you found my (rather long) reply to be of service to you, Elia. Please, don’t be offended by it: whether you agree or not IS still up to you, but such an agreement goes both ways. I just wanted to get you to consider what it is you’re teaching in this post. After all, relativism is the death of morality itself, and I don’t want anyone falling into such a trap.

    Like

    • With all religions, Jema, there are different types and levels of beliefs. You can see that within Christianity. Some people go to church every Sunday but don’t believe in Jesus and some people pray to Jesus but don’t go to church. When it comes to Judaism, I can’t believe in the afterlife (and you know why) because you don’t exist once you die. There is no soul, as is proven with anyone who has Alzheimer or something along the lines of that. I am the descendent of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebeca, Rachel, and Leah. I am the decedent of Aaron, the elder brother of Moses because I am a Cohen. I am Jewish by blood and by belief.

      All in all, I understand the message you are trying to convey. There are a few lines in your comment that seem to contradict other statements. You can reread and see if I’m mistaken.

      I am not homosexual and therefore I cannot make a proper judgement on the matter. I have quite a few friends who are homosexual and are perfectly happy with their boyfriends and girlfriends.

      The overall message in this post is this:
      If you find happiness, then go and be happy. If you are able to find a mate in life who loves you back, then congratulations.

      When I see you next, I need to explain something to you that I can’t type out on a public domain. There are things I have come to accept from life that you don’t have to accept, but given who I am, my reality is not the same as yours.

      Like

      • @GEMA AND ELIA RE: VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
        Paradigmatic views in the natural law tradition starting with Aquinas hold both that the laws of morality have their source in God, and that these laws constitute the principles of human practical rationality (Finnis 1980; MacIntyre 1999). Views in this tradition may be seen as using the basic schema for definitions of morality in the normative sense, understanding endorsement as acceptance. Members of this tradition typically hold that all rational persons know what kinds of actions morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows. It is central to Aquinas’s view that morality is known to all those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment, even if they do not know of the revelations of Christianity. This is why Aquinas holds that knowing what morality prohibits and requires does not involve knowing why morality prohibits and requires what it does.

        Those who belong to the natural law tradition also hold that reason endorses acting morally. This sort of endorsement of course has a cognitive component. But it is also motivational. Aquinas does not hold that knowledge of morality is always effective: it can be blotted out by evil persuasions or corrupt habits. But if reason is not opposed by such forces, any rational person would not only know what was prohibited and required by morality, but would follow those hitler did nothing wrong prohibitions and requirements. So, for natural law theorists, endorsement amounts to acceptance.

        3.4 Morality as linked to justification to others
        The lack of an explicit and widely accepted definition of morality may partially explain the resilience of act-consequentialist accounts of morality. Without an explicit definition, it may be easier to ignore the fact that act-consequentialist theories are not particularly concerned with interpersonal interactions, but typically apply just as well to desert island scenarios as to individuals who live in societies. In any case, it has been recognized that in order to combat consequentialism, it would be helpful to have something more like a plausible definition of morality that made it clear that the subject matter of morality is something different from simply the goodness and badness of consequences. T.M. Scanlon (1982, 1998), applying this strategy, suggests that the subject matter of morality—what we are talking about, when we talk about morality—is a system of rules for the regulation of behavior that is not reasonably rejectable based on a desire for informed unforced general agreement.

        Scanlon’s suggestion regarding the subject matter of morality can easily be seen as an instance of the general schema given above. His “system of rules” is a specific kind of informal public system; he understands endorsement by all rational people as non-rejection by all reasonable people; and he offers a specific account of the conditions under which moral agents would reach the relevant agreement. But Scanlon also places very heavy emphasis on the fact that if he is right about the subject matter of morality, then what compliance with moral norms allows us to do is to justify our behavior to others in ways that they cannot reasonably reject. Indeed, the ability to justify ourselves to reasonable people is a primary source of moral motivation for Scanlon (see also Sprigge 1964: 319). This might seem to suggest a somewhat different definitional claim about morality: that morality consists in the most basic norms in terms of which we justify ourselves to others. But it is plausible that this purportedly definitional claim is better thought of as a corollary of Scanlon’s particular version of the general schema, with endorsement understood as non-rejection. For, if morality is the system of norms that would be endorsed in this way, we can justify our actions to others by pointing out that even they, were they reasonable, would have endorsed rules that allowed our behavior.

        Like

    • Your piont of view is your piont of view. I know someone who is gay/lesbian who has a really nice and wealthy family. It’s your point of view because you think in a specific way and you should try to understand the gay/lesbian point of view. So, imagine you are one of them. You are nice, you’re happy, but you don’t like the opposite gender. You really like people who are your own gender. That’s what I feel when I put myself in their shoes and think like people who are gay or lesbian (…temporarily. I’m not gay.) You can take my piont of view, and reject it, but if not, just think about their point of view for a little bit.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s