I think we need a clearer understanding of “tolerance”. Tolerance does not equal agreeance. I can not agree with the ideologies of a particular group, and even work to increase the ideologies of my chosen group, while remaining tolerant of the opposing group’s right to defend and promote their position. Does that make sense?
Now lets put it to the test. I am a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin. For my convictions I vote against all legalization of gay marriage and occasionally speak out against it as well to try and educate my fellow Christians on what I feel is their compromised position on the matter. What I do not do is go to a gay pride parade and bomb it. I am tolerant of their freedom to lobby for their position. Why should I not have the same freedom to lobby for my position?
Some tell me it is because I would be pushing my beliefs on others. So, let me get this straight. Do those who tell me this believe that people do not have the right to “push their beliefs on others”? See the following role-play to show how that post-modern mind frame does not hold up…
ATHEIST: There’s no such thing as absolute truths other than those derived from science and math. When it comes to morality and ethics, there are multiple paths to truth and no one has any right to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn’t do.
CHRISTIAN: Alright, but didn’t I see you at the Ban-Religion protest? Why do you now have the right to tell me what I should or shouldn’t do?
Apparently the atheist is not consistent in his belief of no absolutes in morality. I believe we can be tolerant of others positions while still defending our right to voice our positions. This proves that there is an absolute truth when it comes to morals. Without it, there would be no point to debating anything moral.