LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Tolerance is a two-way street (Ganked from _snn_- thanks, seshen!)

One of the great joys of language is ambiguity. When I read the headline on Henry M. Bowles III's column Monday, "Intolerance of religion is tragedy" I thought, "Yeah, the way so many religious zealots are intolerant is indeed tragic." Then Bowles proceeded to argue that the intolerance in question is directed toward people of faith. As one Southern Baptist of my acquaintance used to put it, I didn't know whether to shit or go blind. Bowles's claim that "the most intransigent atheist to the most Roman of Catholics ... deserve respect, not derision" is sheer nonsense.

I do not have to respect anyone's religious beliefs. You believe that wives should be subservient to their husbands? Or that menstruating women are spiritually unclean? Or that women should be veiled head-to-toe in burqas and should neither vote nor drive a car? Or that eating pork is against God's law? Or that the end of the world will come when the Fenris Wolf is unleashed? Fine, believe it -- but I don't have to respect your beliefs.

As a citizen of a pluralistic democracy, however, I do have to tolerate you and your religion.

To tolerate does not mean to respect. It means "to endure," or "to put up with." I do not and will not "respect" religion as widely practiced in contemporary American politics.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ordos45)

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/10877880.htm

Rep. Joel Dykstra, R-Canton, the bill's prime sponsor, said it is designed to protect the rights of fetuses in case states are given the right to regulate abortion.

Rachel Hansen of the South Dakota Right to Life Committee, which helped draft the bill, said abortion rights supporters are gearing up for a fight in case the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.


Now Constitutional Scholars among you, correct me if I'm wrong, but would the Full Faith and Credit clause apply here? Where it would actually overturn Roe v. Wade, or would it take a quite possible slew of Dominionist appointments to the Supreme Court?