Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?

8/9/2007 10:59:19 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
starlightnight Lebanon, KY age: 30	- Do you believe it is possible for an individual to be completely tolerant? - Is tolerance more than a matter of respect/acceptance? - How would *you* define tolerance? - Should there be limits to what we are willing to tolerate? If not, how do we defend against beliefs/actions that are themselves intolerant or promote discrimination, hate, or violence? If so, how do we decide what these limits should be? (and what are some examples of these limits?) Although I'm placing this thread in the Religion Forum, I'm asking these questions in a much broader social context.
8/10/2007 3:22:43 AM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
swcw25 Woonsocket, RI age: 48	Yes,I know people who can tolerate just about anything.I believe it has to do w/ them being educated,openminded,patient and comfortable w/ themselves.I so admire their strengths! I struggle w/ and work on my tolerance level daily.There are things that I pray I will be more accepting of as I learn and grow emotionally and spiritually. Peace
8/10/2007 4:50:36 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
queenofhearts61 Seymour, IN age: 61	No to be completely tolerant would mean that anything goes and I do not think that would work in a society that is trying to get along.
8/10/2007 7:09:40 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
swcw25 Woonsocket, RI age: 48	This is why I hope that you and i can Always agree to disagree but Never not be tolerant of each other....I couldnt agree more w/ how you answered this question.You are wiser than most and I admire you for that quality! Peace
8/11/2007 8:49:31 AM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
chinatown_girl Oyster Bay, NY age: 18	whenever we discussed tolerance in school it made me uncomfortable. when i tolerate something its more like i'm putting up with it. like if im camping and there are mosquitos i will tolerate it as a something i have to go through sometimes if i want to camp. if i have to tolerate someone it means i dont really care for them but i have to put up with them. i'd feel sad if i found out people around me were just tolerating me. i try to like something about everyone until they do something out of line, and if it can't be resolved then i dont want to be around them. if i have to be around them after that, then i would tolerate them. but i wouldn't "tolerate" someone in the sense that the teacher was telling us, "be tolerant towards people who are different". i don't know why i always seem to get different meanings out of what people say. men are from mars women are from venus i must be from jupiter, lol.
8/11/2007 1:51:17 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
queenofhearts61 Seymour, IN age: 61	I guess we were neighbors China.
8/11/2007 8:49:13 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
starlightnight Lebanon, KY age: 30	I know what you mean SWCF25. I agree QueenofHearts, a society where "anything goes," probably wouldn't last very long. Chinatowngirl, I'm thinking more in terms of your definition rather than your teachers', "people (you) don't want to be around...but have to be." Sometimes called the 'paradox of tolerance,' philosopher Karl Popper posed the difficulty this way: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." --'The Open Society and Its Enemies.' Of course that's just one opinion. Moving on down the spectrum (or up it, depending on how one defines it), are those that advocate intolerance. For example, English High Court Judge, Sir Patrick Devlin held the belief that: "No society can do without intolerance, indignation and disgust, they are the forces behind the moral law, and indeed it can be argued that if they or something like them are not present, the feelings of society cannot be weighty enough to deprive the individual of freedom of choice." --'The Enforcement of Morals.' Rev. Jerry Falwell in a sermon aired on March 5, 2006 urged his "people to be the most intolerant in the world" if necessary to convince others of Christianity's superiority. In contrast to this, are individuals like Jurgen Habermas, who advocates: "universally acceptable limits of toleration. This consensual limitation can arise only through the mode of deliberation in which those involved are obliged to engage in mutual perspective-taking...While religious toleration is basic to a democratic constitutional state, in this way religious consciousness itself undergoes a learning process. With the introduction of a right to freedom of religious expression, all religious communities must adopt the constitutional principle of the equal inclusion of everyone. They cannot merely benefit from the toleration of the others, but must themselves face up to the generalized expectation of tolerance, with all the consequences this entails." --'Intolerance and Discrimination,' (http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/1/1/2.pdf) The political philosopher John Rawls also felt that the intolerant should be tolerated as long as "they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions." --'A Theory of Justice' These are just some ideas. Personally, I like Habermas' argument in theory, although putting it into practice demands universalizing the need for tolerance and making it an essential part of an open and free society. This would enable all it's members to pursue their own beliefs and practices as long as these beliefs and practices don't undermine the society itself. I guess (and this is just my opinion, and it may not be a very thoughtful one) a major problem emerges when people who are intolerant due to some moral/ethical principles based solely on subjective value-judgments refuse to acknowledge a need to tolerate others that don't abide by their principles. OR That those who are tolerant due to the social benefits it promotes, cannot objectively define what does or does not undermine a free society...For example, take the right of freedom of speech, which allows hate mongers to promote their ideas in a public forum, but when the practice of such a hate group becomes violent, we claim the right to suppress that practice. But what if the belief and practice are integrated? For instance, the Nazis party in Germany, which is still illegal, started as an ideology, and due to being tolerated overthrew the previous social institutions. What was the real danger: the belief or the practice? To me, the distinctions seem blurred, so how do we delineate what to tolerate? Maybe I'm just reading too much into this problem???
8/12/2007 3:06:33 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
mtnhiker1000 Tacoma, WA age: 50	Star – Habermas has an interesting advocacy IF everyone has the same belief system. Name one universally accepted belief. It is sort of like true communism – in theory it works great – as long as there is no emotion. Just a thought
8/12/2007 4:34:34 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
swcw25 Woonsocket, RI age: 48	Very wise men above me it seems! It really is a tough call. In my opinion,I truly believe that so much of intolerance is based on the ignorance and refusal of people to just use "common sense","common courtesy"and respect. With all due respect to Mr.Falwell and others who justify intolerance,in the name of their "beliefs"...well...their the ones that "get my blood boiling"and are the ones who are a big part of why theres so much hatred in the world! Im not suggesting that all people should agree or even like one another,theres ways to get "your" message out there without hurting or insulting "others",its called"common consideration"! Peace
8/12/2007 5:44:30 PM	Tolerance/Intolerance, How do we decide?
mtnhiker1000 Tacoma, WA age: 50	Tolerance is kind of like rights: When we say one is not allowed to murder, we are taking that right away form some one who likes to commit murder - this seems logical to those of us who would not like to be murdered. So we are intollerant of murderers - is this bad? Most people would agree it is not. Except maybe murderers and those dictators or dictator wannabees that are consolidating thier power. Pick a subject: How tolerant are you of: People arming themselves and self defense by any means? Black rioters taking farms away form white farmers in Zimbabwe and killing all the animals? Abortion on Demand? Christians having the right to talk aobut thier religion at work? People talking on their cell phones? Loud Motorcycles? Amimal Rights? Plant rights? Judicial over rides of our constitution? Group (Christian, Muslim, Gay, Arian, Athiest, NAMBLA) rights? Just Curious

rubmaps con

megapersonsls