Tolerance: an right American virtue and attribute – unless you’re liberal!

I find it so sad to see the number of liberal groups and individuals who are threatening violence at Donald Trump’s inauguration this week. Observe how the people demanding that others tolerate their opinions, practices, etc. have absolutely no todisruptj20-640x480lerance for anyone who disagrees with them and some groups have actually been formed to disrupt the inauguration and damage public property! read the story here. I know the election was extremely contentious and anyone who didn’t like Donald Trump will not be happy on Friday. But look: I was very upset when Barack Obama won the election twice in a row. But the American people had spoken and our political process had run its course legitimately. I didn’t start screaming that he was “not my president” nor did I threaten to destroy anyone’s property; I just accepted it and prayed that he wouldn’t make any bad decisions or policies as president. If Hillary Clinton had won the election I would have been very upset and fearful for our nation’s future, but I would have begrudgingly accepted the outcome as I did with Obama and would never have threatened violence against anyone.

Those who are carrying on, refusing to accept the results of the election, and threatening violence, are showing themselves to be immature sore-losers. They have lost any semblance of credibility in my eyes.  Apparently there is no such thing as a true liberal. Liberals always pontificate to people with more traditional views that we have to be open and accepting of people who don’t see things our way. But they can’t do the same.  Liberals love to call anyone who disagrees with them “hate-filled.” But who is actually doing the hating and threatening the violence? It is not the people with traditional Christian values; it is the liberals who aren’t getting their way.

All of this threatened violence could be quelled by one word from Obama or Hillary condemning it. But you don’t hear a peep out of the White House or Chappaqua. Why are they so silent?

What liberals are really saying is that we all have to have respect only for liberal opinions. Traditional conservative values have no grounds for respect according to them. But that does  not represent the values of our founding fathers and the Constitution, who valued the free exchange of ideas and in the long run cooperated for the well-being of our new nation even if they disagreed vehemently with each other (cf. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson). Rather, this new liberalism reeks of totalitarianism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and every other malicious “ism” that threatened freedom during the 20th century. The more these sore losers carry on, the more glad I become that Hillary didn’t win, as her minions are becoming increasingly the people of “my way only”. It’s amazing that the party that accused Donald Trump of wanting to divide America is doing far more to divide us than he ever could. They are advocating violence and are threatening destruction in order to get their way. Sounds a lot like Kristallnacht to me!

I didn’t vote for Barack Obama and I disagreed vehemently with many of his policies, but he WAS my President, whether I liked it or not. Whether or not you like Donald Trump, as of Friday he IS your President. Deal with it!

9 thoughts on “Tolerance: an right American virtue and attribute – unless you’re liberal!

  1. Joan spano says:

    HOORAY! I was so upset this past weekend listening to the liberals as they displayed so much hate and in such a disgusting manor. I agree with everything you wrote. I will pray that things improve and not continue to erode.

  2. Hello again Donna!

    Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree as to whether or not I was using the “broad brush”. I still maintain that it should have been able to be inferred from the context that I meant those who espouse violence and hate speech and not everyone with a liberal opinion; you see it differently. Perhaps this is why in literature classes there are always differences of opinion as to what the author meant.

    Peace and God bless!

  3. Donna Marie Santoro says:

    In the interest of ending this debate, I looked to send this reply via a personal email, but was not able to find an alternate means of contacting you. Feel free to keep or delete any of what I have written, but before you do, kindly consider the following:
    At no point did I engage in name calling. I did not refer to anyone as immature or a sore loser or a minion (not to mention every other malicious “ism”) . I agree with you when you say that, “Name calling is the avenue to which those who cannot make a viable response resort. It is childish bullying and I lose all respect for anyone who goes that avenue or who does not condemn it for the inappropriate approach that it is.” When I tried to condemn name calling for the inappropriate approach that it is, I was called sanctimonious (furthest thing from reality).

    Nowhere did I make any accusations (blind or otherwise) of hatred; nor did I suggest that you were threatening violence. While I did know you, albeit a long time ago, I maintain that I did not infer, imply, suggest or even flat out state that hatred or violence should be attributed to you in any way.

    I made no commitment to my political convictions. One cannot read my comment and make any educated inferences as to where I stand, politically, on this issue. Whether or not I am a liberal, or pleased with Mr. Trump, is, well, irrelevant!

    I appreciate your education regarding inferred reference. As you suggested and as I stated, I re-read your article. I am not going to ask you to do the samet, but I think if you did you would see the same broad generalizations that I do. For example, “Liberals always pontificate to people with more traditional views that we have to be open and accepting of people who don’t see things our way. But they can’t do the same. Liberals love to call anyone who disagrees with them “hate-filled.” But who is actually doing the hating and threatening the violence? It is not the people with traditional Christian values; it is the liberals who aren’t getting their way.” OR “What liberals are really saying is that we all have to have respect only for liberal opinions. Traditional conservative values have no grounds for respect according to them.” OR “It’s amazing that the party that accused Donald Trump of wanting to divide America is doing far more to divide us than he ever could. They are advocating violence and are threatening destruction in order to get their way. Sounds a lot like Kristallnacht to me!” These statements are a crystal clear. No inferences necessary!

    I absolutely do condemn the acts of violence, but I am desperately trying not to condemn the people who are threatening the violence, or worse, carrying it out. I have shared my feelings as to I why I think they are acting in such a way. And how we might be able to see them in a different light. And for that, I was called sanctimonious.

    And if the statement I made, regarding what I would have expected from my priest, was at all insulting, disrespectful or worse, hurtful, then for that I sincerely apologize.

    Thank you for your blessing! I really do appreciate it!

    Please do not feel compelled to reply. However, if you insist on carrying on this engagement, you have my email address… (it is required in order to post, no?)

  4. Pammy says:

    There are some people bitching and moaning, threatening violence, etc. about the Trump disaster. There are countless others who are completely disgusted with Trump and who are offering intelligent, respectful criticism and who are working peacefully to prevent the worst of what may happen from happening.

    Put the broad brush away, it helps no one.

    • Thank you Pammy, but what broad brush are you talking about? I was only talking about people threatening violence. I made no mention whatsoever about people offering intelligent, respectful criticism. That is in fact what I want to see.

      • Donna Marie Santoro says:

        I think the broad brush refers to your statements that a Liberal who practices traditional Christian values cannot express disappointment. Furthermore, that brush lumps the entire Liberal state as one massive group of violent protesters, when those ‘threatening violence’ represent only a minute percentage of the world’s population and include Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, left, right, multiple faiths, nations and cultures.
        I have read and re-read your piece and found no mention of wanting to see intelligent, respectful criticism. Unfortunately, you used a lot of name calling and chose to indiscriminately lump together everyone who does not support Mr. Trump, and label “immature sore losers”. You state that an entire party of “minions” is “advocating violence and are threatening destruction in order to get their way.”. You further state that today’s Liberals “reek of totalitarianism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and every other malicious “ism” that threatened freedom during the 20th century.” My how that brush gets broader with each stroke.
        This kind of rhetoric is beneath you, Father. I am disappointed that you chose to glamorize the picture of ‘American Carnage’. Maybe consider the fact that the words you wrote might do more harm by contributing to the divisive messages rather than unification, and in the end, inciting the same violence that you condemn.
        Maybe instead of denouncing this group of justifiably angry and scared people, consider offering guidance and support to help them manage their grief and overcome their fear. Maybe take this public opportunity to send a message of hope and promise. Maybe remind them that we are all brothers and sister and children of God, so they don’t feel so alone and maybe share your confidence in the path that our country is taking, so that they don’t feel so threatened.
        I guess that is what I would have expected from my priest.

      • Thank you, Donna, but you’re reading a lot into my column that simply isn’t there. I was only talking about those who threaten violence. You and Pammy added the other aspects.

        I can understand that you are not pleased with Donald Trump’s election. If you read one of my earlier blogs, I too said that I personally did not like him and that he wasn’t my first choice for President. But when it came to a choice between him and Hillary Clinton, I had to choose him, as he is more in line with my vision for the future of America than she is. If Hillary had won, I would have been greatly disappointed, but I would NEVER have threatened violence, as that is beneath my dignity. I was ONLY talking about those who threatened violence.

        If you are liberal and are not violent, then why are you not getting angry at the violent protesters rather than calling me names for calling them out?

        Name-calling is the avenue to which those who cannot make a viable response resort. It is childish bullying and I lose all respect for anyone who goes that avenue or who does not condemn it for the inappropriate approach that it is. If you wanted Hillary Clinton to win we could respectfully debate our differences over her vs. Trump, but kindly refrain from name-calling and blind accusations such as the ones you made against me.

        There is something in writing called the inferred reference. It is not necessary for me to repeat in every paragraph that I was only talking about those who threaten violence; that is understood from the context. If you reread my article with this understanding of standard composition, you will realize that my argument is consistent. Nowhere did I use a broad brush to paint ALL liberals as intolerant. You inferred that and then used the same broad brush to accuse me of hatred, etc., which was precisely the approach I was condemning in my argument.

        Can we not simply debate a point without name-calling and personal insults? You know me Donna, and you know I am not that type of person. The moment you found yourself or this other person inferring that about me you should have realized that something was being misread and not gone down the path of “what you would have expected from [your] priest.” That is sanctimonious and is an aversion from the issue at hand.

        Please condemn violence and not the ones who call it out.

        God bless you.

        P.S. I hope the children are well.

  5. Jean Blair says:

    I totally agree. I find all of this very depressing. People have some much hatred. They won’t give him a chance. My son heard Hannity on the radio today saying they have proof the people were going to cause trouble at the inaugural balls. Sickening! I’m afraid there will be a civil war. During the campaign, the Democrats made a big stink because Trump wasn’t sure if he would accept the outcome of the election. They said he insulted the fabric of our country and our democracy. How hypocritical! My husband was a police captain and my son a sergeant. They both got hurt doing their job. My son has been out disabled over 2 years because of a lunatic at St. John’s Church and he’s always in pain. Obama and Hillary both applaud Black Lives Matter. It’s so hard to believe!

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s