Tolerance

Posted on by

Here is what Steve Evans has to say at the very end of this thread at BCC regarding people who still support Bush and Cheney:

“I don’t want such people around my children.”

This is after he says he (jokingly?) says he does not want home teachers to visit his house if they support Bush and Cheney.

For the record: as a conservative, and somebody who does support Pres. Bush and VP Cheney, I would like to say that I could care less about the politics of the people around me. I welcome people of all political beliefs to mingle with me and my children. I tend to judge people based on their actions, not their beliefs or politics. But, then, I’m a judgmental conservative.

This entry was posted in Any by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

62 thoughts on “Tolerance”

  1. I commend you on your eminent superiority. Further congrats on opening up a whole thread that invites personal attacks against me.

  2. Further congrats on opening up a whole thread that invites personal attacks against me.

    Louse. Poltroon. Maggoty swine-failure.

    Seriously, though, I don’t think its Geoff B. who’s inviting the attacks. There’s a reason you closed down your thread, right?

    Maybe a conciliatory gesture would help. Next time I’m up Seattle way I understand you wouldn’t want to welcome me into your home, but maybe you would let me stand on the sidewalk and shout a few pleasantries?

  3. All it takes for the torturers to win is for good people to do nothing.

  4. Steve, how could I possibly be superior to you? You don’t want me around your children or as your home teacher because of my political beliefs.

    You can snark away all you want – you are certainly superior and more witty at that than I am. But humility may make you realize this is a good time to perhaps moderate you position on this issue a bit. Do you really not want me around your kids? I would welcome you with open arms.

  5. BTW, Geoff B., I think its pretty shocking that Steve E. would say something like that in the first place, but I think you need to read his partial amende honorable in the second comment you link as also applying to the first comment you link.

  6. All it takes for the torturers to win is for good people to do nothing.

    Precisely. Those Al-Qaeda types have to be actively fought.

    —————-

    Seriously, are you actually saying that we should try to ostracize Republicans, including church members? Because if its acceptable to ostracize people because of mainstream political beliefs, it won’t be people like me who find themselves shut out of the meeting houses.

  7. My comment was a shocking one in the middle of a thread full of shockers, nothing more. Anyone taking anything in there too seriously (cough) needs some help. Further, I’ve made that clear in my comments, Geoff.

    Adam, sure you’re welcome my house — but if you get called as my home teacher, obviously then we’ll revisit the issue.

  8. I will meet Steve E. and ARJ halfway on this. While in general I think its pretty unchristian and undemocratic to ostracize people for their political views, I wouldn’t want my kids to be around people who were trying to convince them that my political views made me an unfit parent.

  9. This is just a shocked response to a thread full of shockers, Steve E. If you take Geoff B.’s response too seriously, you need some help.

  10. Adam, sure you’re welcome my house — but if you get called as my home teacher, obviously then we’ll revisit the issue.

    Chez Steve–open to revisitors of all stripes since whenever he bought the place.

  13. Adam, if you really do make it to Seattle, I’d love to take you to lunch sometime.

  14. Wait, are you judging me Adam? Oh, we can play this 10-year old’s game all day long.

    Nope, not judging. Just wondering what the point of highlighting someone’s intolerance while in the same breath pointing out your own tolerance is.

  15. With or without your kids, Nick L.? Kidding, kidding.

    ——-

    Right, Rusty. And I was “wondering” if you were making stupid attacks on Geoff B. while hiding behind the pretense of just asking questions.

  16. I read Geoff as speaking about tolerance “as a conservative” rather than about himself per se. The intended irony, I believe, is that traditionally the liberals hold the tolerance card. At the same time, I read Steve as half in jest from the start. I think everyone here deserves a break.

    In any case, there is enough actual political animosity of all sorts in the bloggernacle (and in the world) that I am often reminded of President Hinckley’s words, if only for myself, “Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.”

  17. Oh brother. Now you’ve pulled out the A (“attack”) word. Yes, big, bad Rusty was attacking poor, innocent little Geoff B.

    Why don’t we just come out and call a spade a spade…Geoff B was highlighting Steve’s intolerance and at the same time pointing out his own tolerance. I find that repulsive. So I asked him why he would do that. So I’m asking Geoff again, why would you make it a point to show everyone someone else’s intolerance while highlighting your own tolerance?

  18. In my opinion the familiar polls that ask “Would you vote for a…” are BS. People are just thinking of a caricature while answering, when confronted with three-dimensional reality their prior assessment will be thrown out the window.

    I think this is the same. There were a few people on the mentioned thread that stated, more or less, that they would not want their kids taught by Latter Day Saints that hold certain political beliefs. But I tend to think that in reality it’s a caricature once again that they are responding to. When face to face with a real Ward member, with all their ups and downs, strengths and weaknesses, I find it difficult to believe that they’d actually feel the same way.

  19. You have nothing to say about Steve E.’s intolerance but find it “repulsive” that Geoff B. decided to preempt accusations that he would do or does the same thing. Suit yourself. Its clear where you’re coming from.

  20. Aluwid,
    In Steve E.’s case, he’s all but admitted that you’re right. I still think it shows shocking bad judgment that he decided to blow off steam that way in the first place, and that he hasn’t apologized for it, but I know very well that he would be happy to have me over if I were his hometeacher.

  22. Rusty, to answer your question directly, I think the answer is obvious: to drive up readership of this blog, which is pathetic compared to BCC. So far, my plan is working marvelously.

  23. Hmmm, as far as I can tell, I’m still not welcome at Steve Evans’ house. I’m trying not to take this personally.

  24. ARJ, now I know why you call yourself “random.”. I still don’t get the purpose for your #3.

  25. I don’t want anyone on the bloggernacle as my home teacher.

    My wife says I don’t need the encouragement. I’m bad enough, but having that much hot air in one room… Must be murder on the paint job…

  26. In context, the BCC thread was initially about two Mormon individuals who developed the “interrogation” protocols currently used by the CIA to extract information from suspected terrorists.

    Knowing what I do about those protocols, I would be concerned about having either of those two gentlemen home teach my family or serve as bishop of my ward.

    I tend to judge people based on their actions, not their beliefs or politics.

    I’m curious, Geoff: Would you accept as a home teacher a member who was virulently racist?

  27. “Would you accept as a home teacher a member who was virulently racist?”

    You probably need to be careful with that question, Mike. Many of our church leaders from the 40s and 50s would qualify as racists today.

    I’m curious – do you consider waterboarding to be worse than the aversion therapy that was done on gay people at BYU up into the 70s? Showing a subject gay pr0n, then administering an emitic that causes him to vomit appears to me to be just as bad as the interrogation techniques the CIA uses, and just as useless. Those practices were considered barbaric at the time, but were OKed by BYU’s administration, including Dallin H. Oaks and many of the apostles.

  28. Mike, I’m really surprised at your comment and that you don’t get the distinction between action and beliefs. I don’t know enough about the two gentlemen you mention to comment on them, but let’s say they are aiding and abetting t-rture. Then, they are ACTING in a way that you find objectionable.

    The whole issue of beliefs vs. actions is why the ACLU correctly decided to defend the KKK’s right to march through Skokie, IL (a Jewish area). The KKK has a right to believe that Jews are inferior, etc, even though such thoughts are offensive to almost everybody else. But if they ever ACT on those beliefs by harming a Jew, they should be thrown in jail for a long time, imho.

    So, if I am assigned by my HPGL a guy whom I know to be a racist, and he comes to my house and starts spouting off rac-st theories, I will ask that he not be assigned as my HT anymore. But if he comes to my house and discusses his faith in Jesus Christ, I could care less what his other beliefs are (even though I may find them objectionable). Again, it’s his actions and whether or not they are appropriate, not his beliefs, that we need to worry about.

    The only belief that I can think of now that I would not accept in my house is some guy who believes and promotes abuse of children/child p-rnography, p-derasty, etc. Because the chances are high that if somebody like that believes it, he may act soon.

    If some guy came to my house and started spouting leftist anti-Bush propaganda while he was home teaching, I would also ask that he be reassigned. But again it would be based on his ACTIONS, not his beliefs. If he held those beliefs and we discussed them after Sacrament meeting, and he spent his time home teaching discussing his faith in Joseph Smith, I could care less about his political beliefs.

    This is why I found Steve’s two comments so offensive and, frankly, bigoted: the implication is that he has enough knowledge about the overall goodness and badness of Church members to prejudge ALL people with whom he disagrees politically. It is really an astoundingly arrogant stance to take. This is exactly what Jesus is talking about in the Sermon on the Mount in terms of unrighteous judgment. None of us has enough information about anybody else to make sweeping judgments about others. But yet because I have certain beliefs I am not good enough to go to Steve Evans’ house. He has pre-judged me and others based on our beliefs, not our actions.

  29. And, yes, I know you are not the Angry Left. You are the kind-of-angry Ron Paul (wacky) Libertarian guy. I still would love to see some evidence that you support free markets, free trade, lower taxes, etc. Then you and I could be on the same side for a change. šŸ™‚

  30. Speaking of racists, Mike, please tell us who said these things:

    “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

    “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”

  31. Mark IV:

    I’m well aware of such statements made by general authorities in the recent past. Beliefs about race change from generation to generation. My question is about what is considered acceptable today.

    Waterboarding is worse than aversion therapy in that waterboarding is performed on prisoners who are unwilling subjects and who have certain specific civil and human rights guaranteed them. Aversion therapy subjects are willing participants whose rights are not being violated.

    (Having said that, though, my understanding is that aversion therapy is ineffective and therefore not practiced by modern ethical therapists.)

  32. Well, I not sure I agree with you about the willing participant part. They were given the option to submit to the therapy or be expelled from school and ex’ed from the church and their homosexuality made known publicly. There a six documented suicides from people who participated.

    I really don’t want to split hairs with you, Mike. You seem like a reasonable guy. My only point this question is very, very difficult to uncouple from the question of politics. I raised the issue of questionable and horrifying tactics at BYU just to give a different perspective.

  33. Geoff #28: Then we largely agree.

    Geoff #29: What evidence would you suggest I produce? A screenshot of the Cato.org website in my browser? šŸ™‚

    Mark IV #30: Every candidate has said and done stupid things. Paul’s campaign is not based on those ideas. I support his political platform, not everything he’s ever written. Heaven knows I’ve personally heard Mormons — including relatives of mine — say similar things.

  35. I’ve always found Steve Evans to be very tolerant of my viewpoints. He’s always been willing to listen to my thoughts and concerns. Other than banning me from posting at BCC, I’ve never had any problems with Steve.

  36. Steve Evans is a very holy person who has such high standards of personal purity that evil people must not be allowed into his or his family’s presence. Speaking ill of Steve Evans is blasphemy. Contradicting him is impious.

    Geoff, you shopuld be cast into outer darkeness where you may not post anywhere in the blogosphere for all eternity.

  37. I would like to point out that this post is not intended to beat up Steve Evans personally. Brent, I have no clue why Steve banned you from BCC or even if he really did, but he may have had his reasons, and they may have been good ones. Georged, your #36 is unnecessary. Any further personal attacks on Steve will be deleted. I will further explain the purpose of this post in my next comment, which will probably be long.

  38. I find it strangely ironic that, on a thread entitled “tolerance”, name-calling has been directed toward both Ron Paul (“moonbat”) and his supporters ‘(“wacky”).

  39. As Eric Russell rightly noticed in #16, this post is not intended as a personal attack on Steve Evans but instead an attack on the ideas he espoused. I would hope that after this comment Steve will find the humility to apologize for such ideas.

    There are several reasons that I as a conservative and a Church member was appalled at Steve’s two comments (linked above). I think Adam caught on immediately and shared my sentiments. If he had made the first comment and said, “sorry folks, only joking,” I would have never written this post. But he followed up with “”I don’t want such people around my children,” and then stopped all comments. I would have posted my thoughts on his thread, but there was no place to post them because he stopped comments.

    Now, the first thing that some people may say is, “Steve was jesting.” Well, fine. Everybody knows there is a kernal of truth in every jest, but I haven’t heard from Steve yet saying that.

    This is an extremely serious matter for conservatives in the Bloggernacle, where we are a minority, and conservatives in general in society today, where we feel we are a minority in many areas, such as academia, the media, the “educated elite.” I happen to live in an area of Miami that is overwhelmingly liberal. Of course my car with a George Bush sticker was keyed in 2004, as were the cars of literally dozens of other Bush supporters I know personally. I have more liberal friends than conservative friends, yet not a single one of their cars with Kerry stickers was keyed. Why is that?

    It is that many liberals (not all) are today’s McCarthyists. Now before you liberals start rolling your eyes, hear me out. What was the primary problem with McCarthyism, something that Truman rightly discovered immediately and condemned immediately? If there really had been hundreds or thousands of Soviet Communist spies inside the U.S. government planning the overthrow of the American system in 1948-1952, then we probably can all agree it would have been a good thing to root them out of the government. But there were only a handful of actual spies.

    The problem with McCarthyism is that it took advantage of angry, mass hysteria about Soviet intentions, the “loss of China” and the Korean war to stir up anger about people’s political beliefs. The First Amendment is very clear that people are free to believe what they want. The issue is if they act to deliberately try to overthrow the government or commit treason — then we have a problem.

    Liberals (or “progressives”) are doing the exact same thing today. It is simply unacceptable for them to have views with which they disagree. There must be something wrong with you. You are not good enough to be around their children or to be their home teacher.

    Now, if I were Steve’s home teacher and I came to his house handing out Bush stickers and Romney stickers and fighting with Steve about politics, then he is completely right that my actions are inappropriate. But if I happened to disagree with him politically and came to his house to talk about the First Presidency message as his home teacher, then it seems to me we should have no problems.

    But that is not what Steve wants. I am only acceptable to him if I agree with him politically.

    One other point: the Church’s position on homosexuality is relevant here. The Church clearly recognizes the difference between inclinations and actions. It is not a sin to be born with same-sex attraction. It is a sin to act on it.

    So, in the same way, it should not be a sin, or a cause for shunning, for me to have different political beliefs than another person. But it would be a sin if I picked fights with Steve about these beliefs all the time and stirred up contention.

    So, Steve, I am ready for your apology any time. I will graciously accept it and honor your humility in recognizing that you made a small, but important, error in your post. I hope you now understand why this issue is so important.

    I would also encourage any liberals who understand the difference between beliefs and actions to post their thoughts as well.

  40. Mike, I deleted the moonbat comment because it also had some other ugly words in it. I stand by my right to think and express the fact that Ron Paul is wacky. That comment was not aimed at you, but at your candidate. Sorry, he is wacky (although I agree with him on many issues).

  41. # 38

    What was the intent of your post, Geoff? Just to point out Steve’s bigoted, judgmental, and offensive comments? (#28)

    As to why I was banned from BCC, that was entirely my fault. I expressed my beliefs in the teachings of dead prophets, and I quoted scripture. Two things that will quickly get you removed from the church, or the majority of LDS blogs. Steve was just trying to preserve his belief structure by not allowing anything into his presence that might cause him to question those things, which he believes to be true. This is one reason why he doesn’t want neo-cons as hometeachers, and why others can’t have a good discussion with those who support Ron Paul.

    Please have some patience and compassion for those whose beliefs are based on such tenuous foundations that they can’t tolerate the least amount of opposition. To those whose beliefs are so shaky that they must remove from their presence all those who don’t support their core beliefs, or resort to calling them names, such as “moonbat”.

  42. Brent, you may want to read our comment policy before commenting on Church-related subjects here. I hope you can understand that blogs try to create a certain space and have certain themes. I can’t speak for BCC, but this blog is for believing Latter-day Saints. There are plenty of other places to express your beliefs if you are not a believing Latter-day Saint.

    Wow, you can get removed from the Church for quoting scripture and dead prophets? I had better tell my bishop. I’m sure you were quoting these things with your own personal spin and commentary.

    That is not an invitation to quote such things here. You are welcome to hang around here as long as you abide by the comments policy and build up the Church, not try to bring it down. I can be pretty quick with the delete button.

    But I will agree with you that there are many people who cannot stand to hear opposing viewpoints, and sometimes it is because their beliefs are on a shaky foundation.

    I have heard it all — I have friends who are Communists, liberals, Libertarians and a few conservatives. I was a liberal for two decades before I saw the light. I was skeptic and opponent of the Church before my conversion. I’ve ready just about every anti-Mormon and questioning Mormon book or pamphlet out there and yet I still know it is true.

  43. This is an extremely serious matter for conservatives in the Bloggernacle, where we are a minority, and conservatives in general in society today, where we feel we are a minority in many areas, such as academia, the media, the “educated elite.” I happen to live in an area of Miami that is overwhelmingly liberal. Of course my car with a George Bush sticker was keyed in 2004, as were the cars of literally dozens of other Bush supporters I know personally. I have more liberal friends than conservative friends, yet not a single one of their cars with Kerry stickers was keyed. Why is that?

    What is a conservative in the bloggernacle, and how do you know what ever they are constitute a minority? Do I have to agree with you Geoff B. in order to be a conservative? And, if I disagree am I a liberal? Finally, what is it that is so serious? For crying out loud, we’re talking about posts in the bloggernacle–not eternal salvation.

    I probably agree with you about gay marriage; but, I am certain we disagree about the morality of the war in Iraq. You probably support Mitt Romney, where I do not. So, am I a liberal or a conservative?

    I’m pretty certain Steve Evans despite all his eccentricities is a pretty decent guy. How would you like it if someone made you the subject of a post in the bloggernacle and went about judging you as you are doing with Steve?

    Take the post down. It’s ridiculous.

  44. The issue is if they act to deliberately try to overthrow the government or commit treason — then we have a problem.

    Liberals (or “progressives”) are doing the exact same thing today.

    Liberals are trying to overthrow the government? We’re a bunch of traitors?

    Read Coulter much, do you?

    Anyway, my Clinton/Gore-bumper-sticker-sporting vehicle got keyed plenty back in the day. I always figured the perps for run-of-the-mill jerks, not traitors.

    But, then again, with the country being awash in traitors these days, you gotta figure there’s gonna be the random juvenile deliquent traitor out there making the other traitors look bad, or at least making those patriotic torturers look good.

  45. Chino Blanco, I will be charitable and assume you misread my comment rather than are trying to deliberately twist my words. In context, it is pretty obvious that the thing I am accusing Liberals (or progressives) of doing today is to shun the people with whom they disagree politically.

    Don’t like Coulter much and don’t read her.

    Fascinating. 45 comments so far and no self-described liberal can bring him or herself to defend the right of others to have beliefs with which they disagree. I’m starting to see how dictatorships begin — when people refuse to stick up for the rights of people to have unpopular beliefs.

  46. I rephrase the comment for tender sensibilities. If a home teacher wants to spew out their bile on Bush/Cheney or wants to go on about mentally unstable candidates for president then I will forcibly remove their posteriors from my premises.

    Is that better?

  47. EVERYONE, EVERYONE, EVERYONE,
    Stop trying to take away Geoff’s right to have a differing opinion! We are all citizens of the United States and that means we have the right to disagree! We’re not a dictatorship, we’re not Big Brother, we’re AMERICANS!! (now imagine me standing in front of Geoff and his fellow conservatives with my arms spread to protect them, braving your dictatorial slings and arrows) I WILL NOT BACK DOWN!! I defy you!!

    How was that Geoff? Because that’s how I surely feel right now, so angry and offended that our fellow bloggernacle citizens aren’t defending your rights.

  48. Rusty, thank you. It’s nice to know there’s one of you out there, and you are a unique and special individual, no matter what everybody else says.

  50. Geoff B’s perceived offense by Steve:

    So, Steve, I am ready for your apology any time. I will graciously accept it and honor your humility in recognizing that you made a small, but important, error in your post. I hope you now understand why this issue is so important.

    Elder Bednar on taking offense, General Conference October 2006:

    When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

    Who am I to believe? What’s a bloggernite to do?

  52. Mike, you can call W an idiot after you graduate from Yale undergrad and get a Harvard MBA.

  53. Sorry, you’re right about my sloppy reading of that passage. It was more fun to respond to it the way I read it the first time, but I’ll not let that discourage me from having another go.

    Generally speaking, I don’t have a problem with folks stirring up anger about political beliefs when/if those beliefs run contrary to my own notions about how the country ought to be run.

    Point taken that taking advantage of mass hysteria to further political goals is bad. Drives me nuts when I see these demagogues always playing the hysteria card.

    Anyway, I defend anyone’s right to hold beliefs with which I disagree, a real card-carrying ACLU-defending-the-KKK-right-to-march liberal am I …

    I also defend Steve’s right to feel the way he does and to express it here over the Internets. I am hereby sticking up for his right to hold his unpopular belief and thereby saving the world from dictatorship, yippee me!

  55. Guy, #50, I agree with Elder Bednar’s quotation, and I have used it several times. I think it is timely, well-expressed and extremely important.

    Having said that, in this case I choose to be offended. It’s a lot more fun that way.

    Mike, I’m not sure what W’s alcohol problems have to do with anything. Talk about non sequiters. Look, he is probably our most inarticulate president since the 1800s. But people who are calling him an idiot are simply not looking at the entire picture and are falling into an elitist trap. For today’s elites, all Republicans are idiots and all Democrats are intellectuals, regardless of their IQ. (Remember when Reagan was an idiot? History has not borne that out). I remember stories during 2004 indicating Bush’s IQ is higher than Kerry’s. How does his IQ compare to Ron Paul’s? Are you willing to bet the farm that it’s lower? (I don’t know the answer, but you could google it if you’d like).

    OK folks, I’m going to spend the rest of the weekend with my family. I’m ready to take more slings and arrows Monday morning.
    Will Steve Evans weigh in again? Only the Shadow knows….

  56. One last thing and then I’m gone until Monday: Chino Blanco, thanks for your #53. It’s nice to see a liberal who understands the point of this post.

  57. Geoff:

    Bush’s intellectual problems go far beyond his lack of articulation. But this is turning into a threadjack, so I’ll forbear.

    And for the record, I’m not a Democrat and I despise the eliteness I see coming from both them and Republicans. (You want to see a perfect example of someone who looks down his nose at anyone who disagrees with him, just turn on Bill O’Reilly.)

  58. Geoff #45:

    Fascinating. 45 comments so far and no self-described liberal can bring him or herself to defend the right of others to have beliefs with which they disagree. I’m starting to see how dictatorships begin — when people refuse to stick up for the rights of people to have unpopular beliefs.

    I consider myself a liberal in the classical, Jeffersonian sense, and I will fully agree that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, and to disagree with me.

    But as you yourself said, Geoff, this is not about beliefs, it’s about actions. A man who creates methods of abuse and torture is not a man I want in my home or shepherding my ward.

    As far as “refus[ing] to stick up for the rights of people to have unpopular beliefs,” tell it to the Republican leadership and elites, who have been calling people who disagree with the Iraq war traitors and questioning their patriotism since before the war began. If anyone’s the thought police these days, it’s the conservatives.

  60. Geoff that was a bolt from heaven. Shame on you for offending holiness and purity.

  62. I guess it’s time to close comments on this thread. Steve, I am truly sorry you did not get the point of this thread. I feel terrible that I provoked you to such anger and language.

    If you would like to e-mail me, it’s geoff at millennialstar.org

Comments are closed.