It's funny how the "live and let live" crowd villainizes people who dislike their interests.
8 comments
“It's funny how the "live and let live" crowd villainizes people who dislike their interests.”
How so? You clearly don’t want to allow anybody else to live, long as you do…
Let’s respond to this statement seriously.
It don’t think it’s entirely accurate to call the average liberal “live and let live”, though I admit that it might simply be a different perception as to what that phrase implies, or a different baseline as to what counts as relaxed acceptance. So let’s grant that it’s true, at least relative to the OP’s perspective and/or standards. There’s still a limit to how far that goes. Virtually nobody is going to say “You like murdering people for fun? Eh, it’s fine, I won’t even resist if you want to kill me, you do you.” Likewise, most people are going to draw a line at anything with is pretty obviously harmful to others. This isn’t hypocrisy; “not causing harm to others” is very much baked into most people’s “live and let live” framework.
Now some religious fundies are going to say “but what about the soul? Isn’t it important to keep people from harming their soul, or at least not coercing others into doing it?” No, because it’s not an obvious harm. Not everyone believes in souls, not everyone believes in souls follows the same doctrines or conceives of “harm to the soul” in the same fashion, and most people with a “live and let live” attitude who also believe in souls usually believe that the only true way to harm one’s soul is to do material harm to others. Also, coercion is indeed bad because it conflicts with the sort of personal freedom that the “live and let live” attitude tries to promote, and boy do the practices of religious fundies look coercive…
(You’ll note that I didn’t address the subject of self-harm; that’s a complicated issue which would take up too much space to address here.)
“It's funny how the "live and let live" crowd villainizes people who dislike their interests.”
You mean like, for examle, Kim Davis? The thrice-married woman whose religion forbade divorce? I’d be perfectly willing to let her live her best hypocritical, judgmental life.
So what does it avail us to be ‘live and let unconstitutionally discriminate’ about her ideology?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
