How two New Yorkers, fiercely opposed on the bench, found abiding friendship on the U.S. Supreme Court // “What’s not to like…except her views of the law, of course?”
Your point is well taken, but there is a line. Acceptance of the humanity of our fellow humans and democracy as the necessary political order are two standards that must be upheld if we hope to maintain a just society. If someone violates either of those, friendship should be withheld. What opinions and actions violate those two principles is up for interpretation in many cases, but history can certainly help us understand certain clear cut cases where people should not be accepted as they are.
Your point is well taken, but there is a line. Acceptance of the humanity of our fellow humans and democracy as the necessary political order are two standards that must be upheld if we hope to maintain a just society. If someone violates either of those, friendship should be withheld. What opinions and actions violate those two principles is up for interpretation in many cases, but history can certainly help us understand certain clear cut cases where people should not be accepted as they are.
I agree there is a line! As I say:
"'But Daniel—the other side wants to destroy everything we love! We can’t tolerate that, you have to draw a line somewhere.'
Of course you have to draw a line somewhere—the paradox of tolerance is that, at some point, you would tolerate your own destruction."