Persecution

[slipstrike0159]

We all know of the many persecutions people set against other people based on many different aspects about their life. My question is, when does it become appropriate to chastise someone, or a group, because of certain aspects of their life, if at all?

I will start off by talking about how i arrived at this question and proceed from there.

The subject of gay marriage has been opened and closed and argued to death by many people on opposing sides. Some people say that the other side is ignorant while others say their opponents are just plain wrong, but both have a common connection; they both cling to their beliefs so strongly that they cannot be convinced otherwise and thus they believe themselves on the 'right' side.
Well proposition 8 in California was passed and many people were severely angered by this and some more than others were even more outraged by HOW it was passed. Many believe that proposition 8 was only passed because it was largely supported by the Mormon church that in one way or another contributed millions of dollars in commercials and campaigning to get it to pass. This is where we approach another slippery slope; religion. These actions made through the church drove many people to see it as taking away rights from a minority and other such injustices because of bigotry as well as 'ignorant' personal beliefs; in other words a form of persecution. From there, people assumed the role of chastising and particularly hating the church because of their actions on this topic while the church assumed its defensive stance. Protests and arguments arose from both sides aimed at their opposition, and some even aimed particularly towards punishment against their opposition which is shown here http://www.facebook.com/s.php?init=q...0c88#topic_top . Reading through some of the comments i noticed the word persecution thrown around whether in regards to the gay minority in california or even in regards to the history of African Americans in this country. I thought it was quite interesting that while the gay marriage supporters looked down on Mormon beliefs because they seemed to persecute the gay community they themselves in a fashion were persecuting the religion because they stood up for what they believed in as well. It opened my eyes more towards the subject of persecution or rather the idea of looking down on someone because you believe them to be wrong for what who they are or what they do. This brought me to my question. Can a religion really use the cope out that they are being persecuted because of their beliefs simply because they ARE a religion, and in contrast, can a minority group claim another group to be intolerant while they themselves do not tolerate what they believe to be wrong? The answer is yes, they both can. However in all practicality and for the sake of rational debating towards a productive end, where do you draw the line in why and how to criticize someone for what they believe is right?

[NFD]

Paragraph structure = 5-10 sentences.

Today in my Speech class were talking about PETA, and how they can just be stupid. My teacher Mr. Lampl made a good point:

"Say a PETA member is walking around the streets of New York City and there's a half frozen homeless person on the ground. Then the PETA person sees a puppy. They'd go straight for the puppy and cuddle it, while telling the homeless person to do something with their life."

Mr. Lampl argued that the PETA member would try to justify what it did, which doesn't make sense. PETA members believe that animals have the same rights as humans, but all in all, a person should at least come first if they're before the puppy.

[dore]

A religion can have whatever standards of belief it wants, but it should not be able to impose its beliefs on others; that is, a religion's stance on an issue should be contained within itself. Two men marrying is against the policy of many religions, but these religions shouldn't be able to say that the men's marriage restricts their rights because somebody outside of the religion is going against its policy. It's persecution when someone restricts someone else from doing something harmless, it's just that the word harmless is open to interpretation making the democratic process come into play and thus allowing people to legally discriminate.

[Cavernio]

So, a few years back in my University paper (classy, I know) the issue of homosexuality was hotly debated for a few months. One article or editorial was a person counter-arguing a previous statement that people who are against homosexuality are "intolerant". This article said that it was homosexuals who were being intolerant of that person's religion. When I thought about this further, I came to a conclusion that I use now: You cannot be tolerant of intolerance. The statement might not help much, but if we ask the question who's being more intolerant of the other, we see the answer clearly. If you are forcing your viewpoint onto things like laws, and what someone can and can't do, you are being intolerant of that view. If you simply hold something to be true, but that belief does not negatively affect others, they're not being intolerant. Homosexuals who marry aren't preventing religious (or non-religious people) from marrying, having sex, having children. They are intolerant of hate against them, and in this case, against religion that says they are immoral. The religious side in this case is being more intolerant of homosexuality because they are dictating what people can and cannot do. Homosexuals however, are only dictating that they not have these rules imposed on them.

"However in all practicality and for the sake of rational debating towards a productive end, where do you draw the line in why and how to criticize someone for what they believe is right?"
You draw it when oppression happens, directly or indirectly.

NFD: Ok, this is off topic, but I can't help it. Firstly, someone who goes and helps a puppy instead of a homeless person and who feels bad for the puppy but not the homeless makes sense to me. Most people believe that animals don't have free will, or at least have very little of it, and as such, can't help themselves. People, however, have free will, and because of that, they aren't pitied as much because we perceive that they can do something for themselves. This has nothing to do with devaluing human life. Also, the homeless person has the opportunity to ask for help if they want it, and in this hypothetical scenario, if they don't ask for it, there's a reason, whatever it is.
Also, I hate it when people make people justify doing something good by telling them that they should be something better, which is basically what you're saying this person should be doing. If you do this, then you're always going to be riding a circle of guilt. If they were most people, they wouldn't help either the puppy or the person.