David Spangler [“Who Defines Dialogue?”, March 7] voiced concern regarding those who would endeavor to censor others who disagree with them regarding the eating of meat. Well said, David! I have recently been the victim of one who has even gone so far as to withdraw relationship because we are on opposite sides of an issue. By the way, it had nothing to do with animal rights. Many folks are adopting this mindset about various issues these days.
This is basically a tolerance issue. Tolerance doesn’t imply approval. [Tolerance] is allowing others to have opinions with which we don’t agree, and respecting their right to do so. Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
It seems today that there is a modern definition of tolerance specifying that what I think, believe and do are not divided from who I am—that my culture is my identity. If that is true, what follows is that if you disagree with someone’s beliefs, you are disrespecting them. This definition is totally incorrect. I can respect someone and treat them with kindness without accepting their values or their chosen lifestyle. My opposition to their beliefs doesn’t mean that I am therefore intolerant. It means simply that I don’t agree. If, because of zeal, individuals/groups wish to silence opposition, they are inherently taking a walk on the dark side.
Before you comment
The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.