tolerance, a nice example

  • Thread starter DeletedUser1121
  • Start date

DeletedUser1121

I would like to start a thread about tolerance. Should you be tolerant to people who don't share your views on life? Should you even be tolerant to people who don't share your views of life, but force you to be tolerant about theirs?

To prevent major discussions about the definition of tolerance, let me put one up for you.

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

A while ago about something happened in my beautiful country. In Holland it is legal to marry someone of the same sex. By law is determined that this marriage has the same rights as a marriage between a man and woman. A marriage is performed by someone who is appointed by the local goverment to do so. Ever since the gay marriage was made legal, there have been officiants who refused to perfom a marriage between a gay couple based on their religious beliefs. This never was an issue since they have the freedom to choose their religion and there always is an officiant available who doesn't have any issues to perform the ceremony.

But now the gay community feels discriminated by these persons and feel that they are entitled to get married by whoever is appointed to do so. So, what is happening here is that gay people force others to marry them because if they don't they aren't tolerant about their different sexual preference. But they don't show any form of tolerance towards other people's religion. Or are the officiants just not tolerant towards the gay community? I personally didn't really care until people actually didn't get their contracts renewed because they refused to marry gay people. This basically comes down to a collision between two fundamental rights: discrimination and freedom of religion. But it all comes down to tolerance.

Who is not being tolerant according to you and why?

The gay community because they are entitled to marry according to the law. Or the officiants, who have been officiants before the law was changed, who feel that their religion forbids them to perform such a marriage. The minister (Christian party) said that she feels that officiants could refuse to marry gay couples based on the freedom of religion, which caused a wave of protests (mainly from the COC, the Dutch association of integration of homosexuality).
 

DeletedUser

The officiants can chose who they marry, as easy as that. They cannot be forced to marry gays. And gays are not the only ones they refuse. As far as I know, they meet with the couple and they can refuse to marry them for several reasons, not just for being gay. So forcing them to marry gay would be like taking their right to chose who they marry.
Next thing you know people will force them to officiate the burial of those who committed suicide. It is against their religion to bury a suicidal, just as marrying a person of the same sex is.
So if it comes down to tolerance, then is the gay community who should be tolerant of their belief.
 

DeletedUser

I don't see why gay couples would want to be married by someone who has beliefs that are divergent with their own.
 

DeletedUser28032

well with the officials i'd say it all boils down to whether or not they are refusing to marry people because they genuinly feel it is against their beliefs or if they are merely using their religion as an excuse to be homophobic
 

DeletedUser

The answer is rather simple, in my book. If the "officiant" is a civil servant, working for the government, they must perform the ceremony. The revised Constitution (1983), along with previous Constitutional status, makes in clear the separation of Church and State. Article 1 does not permit discrimination based on religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, or any other grounds whatsoever. No exceptions.

As officiants are State officials, they cannot discriminate. And to clarify, the Constitution of Holland does not provide protection to "freedom of conscience." So if you are forced, by the Constitution, to act against your conscience, too bad.

They are in violation of the nation's constitution.
 

DeletedUser

Wait now, I am confused. I need more details about this tradition in Holland.
There's a difference between the US and Romanian marriage ceremonies for example and it would be good to know which way it is in Holland.
In the US you have one ceremony, 1 preacher (civil servant) who can be anybody certified for it, who performs the union in front of God (if the couple chooses to) and then files the papers with the court.
In Romania one basically has either one or two ceremonies. One is called the civil marriage and is performed by a civil servant who basically prepares the papers and the whole thing, except this is done in his office and not in a church or in front on God. It is the only ceremony required by law. But religious people go to their preacher (minister) and ask him to marry them as well. The religious ceremony is not required by law, is only preferred by people. The preacher can refuse to marry whichever couple on different religious grounds.
Now what I said above was based on the preachers point of view. They can refuse to marry gays based on religious beliefs. But a civil servant in Romania for example has nothing to do with religion in performing his duty, thus he would have to officiate it.
If the ceremony is like in the US, then it is a bit more tricky. A preacher who is also an officiant would struggle between his legal duty and his religion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Duduie said:
In the US you have one ceremony, 1 preacher (civil servant) who can be anybody certified for it, who performs the union in front of God (if the couple chooses to) and then files the papers with the court.
Click to expand...
A correction. In the U.S., you have officiants. A minister is not a civil servant, he is a leading member of a non-profit organization (a minister). An officiant (a civil servant - a judge) certifies a marriage. Ministers who perform religious ceremonies and file the marriage with the court are only able to do so because of State authorization, which differs from State to State. You can, however, go directly to the County Clerk's office and get married there via an officiant. Essentially, ministers are allowed to marry people "by permission of the State." They are not officiants.

If the ceremony is like in the US, then it is a bit more tricky. A preacher who is also an officiant would struggle between his legal duty and his religion.
Click to expand...
A minister, in the U.S., has only one official act they may perform, which is marriage. However, they perform this not as an officiant, but as a servant of their church and with the authorization of their respective State. Unless it was misrepresented above, Desi was not referring to ministers.
 

DeletedUser

Religion would only come into discussion in the case of a religious ceremony, or am I hit in the head? That is why I said they cannot be forced. Legally they can do whatever they want, religiously, now that's a different subject. If in fact we are talking about the civil marriage, then yeah, the officiants are just plain idiots. If they do not perform a religious ceremony, they they cannot use religion as an excuse. But if we are talking about religious marriage, then no minister can be forced to marry them. They have the right to chose.
 

DeletedUser

Desi Boukerse said:
A marriage is performed by someone who is appointed by the local goverment to do so. Ever since the gay marriage was made legal, there have been officiants who refused to perfom a marriage between a gay couple based on their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
By all accounts, Desi is referring to those in employ of the government. As it is, the vast majority of marriages performed in Holland is done via the courts, not through a church.
 

DeletedUser1121

rice farmer said:
I don't see why gay couples would want to be married by someone who has beliefs that are divergent with their own.
Click to expand...

Nice point. I have thought about that one. That would be the tolerant thing to do. Accept that others don't share your views on life and select another officiant (you are free to choose an officiant in Holland). And that is the easy way out that has been taken by the national government. Instead of making decent rules, the have delegated the issue to local governments (who appoint officiants) and basically told them that is allright for officiants to refuse as long as the local government provides an alternative.


Hellstromm said:
By all accounts, Desi is referring to those in employ of the government. As it is, the vast majority of marriages performed in Holland is done via the courts, not through a church.
Click to expand...

Hell is right. In Holland your official marriage is done in front of someone of the goverment.
People who are religious often go to the church the same day, to marry in front of God, But that is not the one i was referring to.
 

DeletedUser

argh, just caught that, "is done" "are done" grammatical error. Damn, I hate it when I'm tired...
 

DeletedUser

"Je n'aime pas vos idées, mais je me batterai jusqu'à la mort pour que vous puissiez les exprimer"

Tolerance must have a measure and some rules must be respected. How much influence the evolution of life and people is an important criteria. Who decides this?

Tolerance is a problem of perception of reality. But when our ideas are shaped by society, media, television, radio, internet can appear problems of manipulation.

First for me freedom of expression is the most important human right.

I was impressed by the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., a great personality.

Today I live in Romania and I can say that many personalities who have had significant contributions in the history of Romanians are forbidden by law.

I'm tolerant with new avatar of my friend Desi.;)
 

DeletedUser

Although your English was a bit hard to understand, the gist of your presentation was sound. I agree.
 

DeletedUser

Utinam populus liber patiens

May the tolerance of people be free

Meaning, tolerating something is one thing, but discrimination is another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top