Richard Dougherty wrote:
I happen to agree with Ed Brayton that tolerance does not mean immunity from
criticism, but I'm guessing many or most people would not.
But what does one call lecturing the Church on its own teachings? Or the assertion that
its theology, grounded in 2000 years of teaching, is simply an "ugly political
agenda"? Or telling the Church what is a matter of faith and what is not?
I call it criticism, of the same sort that would be aimed at any other
set of ideas with which one disagrees. No idea is immune from criticism
and it is simply absurd to pretend that criticism is equivalent to
intolerance, particularly when the person making the criticism is also
making an argument for exempting the behavior they are criticizing from
the reach of a particular law. I am all for legally tolerating the
Church's right to make this decision and, as I said, I would have no
problem with allowing them to continue to so discriminate despite the
state law in question. But I still think their decision is wrong and it
isn't the least bit intolerant to state why I think that.
Ed Brayton
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
