SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0
WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren't conservatives. Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We're fine with people who don't look like us, as long as they think like us.
O.K., that's a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical. "Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black," he told me. "But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close."
I've been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.
"Much of the 'conservative' worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false," said Carmi. "The truth has a liberal slant," wrote Michelle. "Why stop there?" asked Steven. "How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?"
To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don't have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.
The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren't at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday August 29 2016, @09:37AM
"Gay marriage" is a bit of a misnomer, as the issue isn't whether gays can marry, but restrictions on partner selection
The issue is precisely about marriage, as few few of the people who object to it would make gay couples illegal entirely. The issue is that we conflate a religious notion of marriage with a legal definition encompassing inheritance rights, power of attorney in case of incapacitation, visiting rights in hospital, income tax breaks, and so on. Gay people are objecting that there are a bunch of legal rights that they are only available to heterosexual couples. The solution to this should be:
If a church wants to refuse to marry gay couple's, that's fine, as long as they're not able to do so while also benefiting from tax exemption for services that they offer.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 29 2016, @11:27AM
Your numbers are off. The people with firmly held religious beliefs against gay marriage do not precisely coincide with those objecting to gay marriage. There are plenty who simply hate you and everything you stand for as a default position. There are also people who disapprove of homosexuality simply because it is a deviant* lifestyle and thus at odds with their own. There are also plenty of people who disapprove simply because it was culturally unacceptable when they were growing up to be gay at all. Yeah, lots of reasons that don't involve a bible at all.
I, for example, used to have a purely pedantic beef with it back in my 20s. I don't like definitions of words being changed to suit a political agenda. I decided that was a stupid reason to tell people what they could do and changed my position but you angrily telling me it was a stupid reason would have been about as counterproductive as it was possible to be.
* Yes, it by definition is. Look up the word "deviant" in the dictionary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.