| [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] |
| [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Author Index] | [Subject Index] |
Two households, both alike in dignity, in fair Moscow, where we lay our scene, from ancient grudge break to new mutiny, where civil verbiage makes civil tongues unclean. From forth the fatal keyboards of these two foes, A fair of star-cross’d writers type their life;
So, on one side we have a group of like minded people who have banded together to celebrate and live according to their like-mindedness and pursue civil discourse and action in accordance to their like-mindedness. On the other side, a group of people, having found themselves opposed to the “like-mindedness” of the first group, have banded together to celebrate and live their version of like-mindedness and pursue civil discourse and action in accordance to their like-mindedness.
And they argue about tolerance?
Since masked horsemen, wearing sheets, have yet to abduct Doug et-al and hang him from an oak in East City Park, and a rabid mob, replete with flaming torches, has yet to drag Joan Opyr from her house to be burned as a witch in Friendship Square, I’d say both groups express a certain level of tolerance.
I fail to see how tolerance must engender support. For example, if Dale wants to run for School District Trustee, I would happily sign his petition. But I would not vote for him. I tolerate his opinions, even to the point of helping him gain a soap box to speak from, but I don’t have to agree.
The fact that both groups exist at all is an example of how our society is tolerant of diversity. To celebrate that diversity is to allow the out-sourcing of opinions without rancor, belittlement, or swearing. Perhaps we all have a long way to go yet before our celebration can truly begin.
John Danahy