Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is heard questioning whether compromise between the left and right is possible in a conversation posted on social media Monday. The conservative justice is also heard agreeing with a woman who says the United States should return “to a place of godliness.”
The audio was posted on X by liberal filmmaker Lauren Windsor. She said it was recorded at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner last week.
“One side or the other is going to win,” Alito said. “There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”
Windsor then told Alito: “I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument. Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you,” Alito responded.
Again freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. And these nut jobs. The big difference is that sane people are willing to allow these people to believe what they want but they (religious extremists) are intolerant of others thinking differently from them.
Removed by mod
The solution to the paradox of tolerance is looking at it as a social contract. If one person tries to use your tolerance to violate your, or others rights, they are no longer protected by the agreement and do not get to benefit from it.
I wish I could find the article about it, but I can’t seem to find it now. Sorry.
It’s simple to answer “Do you owe respect to someone else’s beliefs?”
Just ask, “Do they respect my beliefs?”. There’s your answer.
Removed by mod
Well, you do also have what you could call atheist extrimists. Richard Dawkins is pretty well known for his lack of tolerance towards religion that in my opinion isn’t much different in its intensity from religious extrimists’ opposition to non-their religion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an atheist myself, I’m just saying that I don’t think that the complete lack of tolerance to the opposing world view is a problem confined to the religious right.
Not sure I’ve ever heard Dawkins say religious people shouldn’t be allowed to get married or have kids… Let alone imprisoned or stoned to death
Atheists don’t want Christians jailed, or tortured, or killed for being Christian the way Christians want to do to us.
Atheists don’t want to change the laws making it a crime to be a believer the way Christians want to change the laws to make America’s official enforced religion to be Christianity.
Atheists don’t have a broze age set of arbitrary rules that they demand all of society obey under threat of violence. They don’t tell their neighbors that they deserve external hellfire for disobedience to mystical authority.
We may be loud and cantankerous at times, but we don’t want to hurt you, or take away your rights and freedoms.
Atheists just disagree with Christians (and other faiths) on their steadfast belief in magic / the supernatural that is required to believe in skydaddy.
You can believe in whatever stupid thing you want. We don’t want to take that from you. Just let us have the freedom of speech to say how fucking stupid you are, and stay the fuck out of our way with your occult nonsense.
Religious extremists: everyone should follow my religion, beliefs, morals, and rules or be punished
Atheistic extremists: religion is dumb and should not have their beliefs taught as facts (creationism not evolution, etc), but people can believe what they want. Also, don’t give religious people preferential treatment (tax-free churches, absolved of crimes for being a “good Christian”, etc)
I think “you must believe only my stuff” is intolerant, but “believe what you want, just don’t push it on others” is only intolerant because religion wants to be pushed on everyone else