Tolerance

[Hope]

I know in this day and age "tolerance" is a key issue, especially when discussing religion. I've noticed, though, that often an attitude of "intolerance" is leveled by those who consider themselves "tolerant", at those who are considered "intolerant." (Hope that's not too confusing!) My question is, how do we define tolerance, and where do we draw the line in being tolerant? In my humble opinion, tolerance can be both a good and a bad thing. Why is it ok to be tolerant of some things, but not of others?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing others' opinions on this.

 

[MaddLlama]

I don't have an answer, but I do have a quote on the subject that's one my favorites (and I've also quoted it more than once =))

"There are people out there that do not love thier fellow man, and I hate people like that!" - Tom Lehrer

 

[Green Gaia]

I've posted this several times, but it's my best answer.

UUs are not tolerant of all religious philosophies, nor should we be. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
We believe the theology that you hold is good for you when it gives you peace and a purpose and causes you to live in harmony with your neighbors and the universe. But if your theology causes you or others harm, or causes enmity to others, or damages the world we live in, then it is not a good and acceptable religion for you or anyone else, and we will oppose it.

The Reverend Cliff Reed, a British Unitarian minister has written,

“Human beings are infinitely varied. So too are their cultures and the conditions in which these evolved. … …. Unitarians recognize the inevitability of many diverse expressions of faith. Unitarians do not say that all religions are the same. Nor do we say they are of equal worth. What we do say is that no honest and sincere expression of belief should be discounted out of hand. …. All true expressions of the religious impulse come from our encounter with the wonder and mystery of the universe. All result from the joy and pain, the highs and lows of our life-experiences in this world.

Thus Unitarians afford respect to all sincere believers of whatever faith. We seek to learn from the witness of all spiritual traditions, but we do not do so uncritically.”
​

UUs need only to look at our principles to find what is unacceptable in some religious theologies.

We believe in the search for truth. Therefore we cannot accept for ourselves theologies that tell us not to search, theologies that claim to have a lock on the truth.

We believe in the democratic principle. Therefore we cannot accept the denigration of women or minorities, or by leaving them out of the democratic process, or the imposition of hierarchical decrees that are not subject to questioning.

We believe in the interdependent web of existence. Therefore we cannot accept animal torture or the destruction of our environment.

We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all. Therefore we cannot accept a religion that teaches that unbelievers be put to death. We cannot believe in original sin. We cannot accept the abuse of children.

I believe there is much good to be found in most religions. But when a theology or belief is harmful to others, society, the world or goes against our UU principles then I feel I must actively oppose it and cannot accept or tolerate it. As a Unitarian Universalist, I am not only called upon by our principles to give honor to beliefs and religious practices of others, but to also oppose them if they cause harm.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not believe in tolerating intolerance. To do so would be self defeating.

 

[Yerda]

UUs need only to look at our principles to find what is unacceptable in some religious theologies.

We believe in the search for truth. Therefore we cannot accept for ourselves theologies that tell us not to search, theologies that claim to have a lock on the truth.

We believe in the democratic principle. Therefore we cannot accept the denigration of women or minorities, or by leaving them out of the democratic process, or the imposition of hierarchical decrees that are not subject to questioning.

We believe in the interdependent web of existence. Therefore we cannot accept animal torture or the destruction of our environment.

We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all. Therefore we cannot accept a religion that teaches that unbelievers be put to death. We cannot believe in original sin. We cannot accept the abuse of children.

I believe there is much good to be found in most religions. But when a theology or belief is harmful to others, society, the world or goes against our UU principles then I feel I must actively oppose it and cannot accept or tolerate it. As a Unitarian Universalist, I am not only called upon by our principles to give honor to beliefs and religious practices of others, but to also oppose them if they cause harm.

Very nice.

 

[michel]

I know in this day and age "tolerance" is a key issue, especially when discussing religion. I've noticed, though, that often an attitude of "intolerance" is leveled by those who consider themselves "tolerant", at those who are considered "intolerant." (Hope that's not too confusing!) My question is, how do we define tolerance, and where do we draw the line in being tolerant? In my humble opinion, tolerance can be both a good and a bad thing. Why is it ok to be tolerant of some things, but not of others?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing others' opinions on this.

I am (outwardly) very tollerant; I can excuse others for most anything - even if (inwardly) whatever it is may be chewing me up.

I guess that comes as a result of doing my very best never to try to never forget the "Hate the sin, not the sinner".

I guess the bad part is that my intollerance is kept inside me and not expressed - which may not be too "good" for me.........

 

[troyjsmalley]

The trick is to know what should be tolerated and what shouldn't.
This is a matter concerning morality, and people's concept of morality is not uniform throughout. ie, some people support capital punishment, while others contend that it is barbaric. People will always differ in their toleration of things unless we can come to an agreement on what is 'tolerable' and what should not be tolerated.

 

[troyjsmalley]

After reading the previous posts, I notice that there is an underlying assumption that we have basically the same values. I don;t believe this is an accurate portrayal of the world.
Many people cherish and hold firmly to beliefs which I see some of us are, ie. communism, the 'imposition of hierarchical decrees that are not subject to questioning' and so on.

 

[Flappycat]

My question is, how do we define tolerance, and where do we draw the line in being tolerant?

Well, if they don't bother anybody, they mow their lawn, and they pay their taxes, we don't mess with them. That's pretty much how tolerance goes.

 

[Djamila]

I'm a little too red-blooded to score a perfect 10/10 on my tolerance exam.

I can say I have no hatred or intolerance towards any race. You can take a Bosnian woman and paint her whatever color you like, I'm fine with it. So, obviously, cultural differences sometimes get to me.

I think you just have to make a conscious decision to rise above the silly, prejudicial things you've picked up over the course of your life.

I've very rarely felt... "No, I shouldn't be tolerant of this person".

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think tolerance is rather like the "curates egg" Good in parts.

I can respect most religions... but not all their details.
This has never been a problem for me.
But for someone looking in the other direction, I am sure they see things in my beliefs they can not swallow as well.

The important thing is to know when something you disagree with, is critical to the structure of a faith. If it is, then the 'Faith as a whole' can fail your tolerance test.

 

[jacquie4000]

Tolerance is different for everyone. Some people feel threat at the littlest of things. Others can be more open minded and allow all types of views. I tend to not let things said get me to emotional. Everyone has their own views and we should try to be tolerant of them, but not all people have this capibility.

 

[lunamoth]

I think tolerance is a spectrum. There are lots and lots of things I might disagree with but since they have no impact on me or the rest of the world it's not worth it for me to even voice my criticisms; I'd just be adding to the clamor. For other things I might feel strongly enough to speak out against them, either when they come up in private conversation or publically, such as in a letter to the newspaper or my representatives in government. Immediate threats to the well-being of myself and others requires more than speaking out...it might require action. I'd never call for general tolerance of every view or ideology; that's how someone like Hitler can gain a substantial following!

 

[Hope]

Thanks for some great replies, everyone. So, basically, it seems what most people are saying is that tolerance all depends on one's point of view----it is therefore very subjective.

 

[Ciscokid]

Well for me it depends on what the topic is. I'm very tolerant of other peoples bad driving habits. I've had people pull out in front of me, causing me to slam on my breaks and I wasn't even annoyed.

Now.....hearing that some murderer feels pain during his lethal injection? I don't really care, I'm not real tolerant to criminals and murderers.

 

[s2a]

I know in this day and age "tolerance" is a key issue, especially when discussing religion. I've noticed, though, that often an attitude of "intolerance" is leveled by those who consider themselves "tolerant", at those who are considered "intolerant." (Hope that's not too confusing!) My question is, how do we define tolerance, and where do we draw the line in being tolerant? In my humble opinion, tolerance can be both a good and a bad thing. Why is it ok to be tolerant of some things, but not of others?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing others' opinions on this.

OK then...just my "opinion"...

I readily tolerate those who espouse faith-based beliefs. Such beliefs are so predominant as be the "norm" in our present culture, that "intolerance" of myth, superstition, and wishful thinking would place oneself in an, um...intolerable minority position. ;-)

I would define (in most facile terms) "tolerance" as the capacity to agreeably disagree about presentations of (otherwise acceptably evidence-based) "fact" or "truth".

Tolerance is a willful act of conscious forbearance lacking either concession or agreement. I may readily "tolerate" your earnest belief that the Chicago Bears are the best team in the NFL, tho' I may strongly disagree with that conclusion).

Where does one draw the line in "tolerance"? That's an individual's responsibility to establish and maintain within their own standards of morality and ethics. Typically for me, some forceful element of applied stupidity stretches my forbearance of evinced opinions. When someone opines that "all black people are stupid", or "all latinos are lazy", or "all atheists hare god"--well, my good nature and generous tolerance end. Ignorance, race/gender/ethnic/class/creed/sexual preference hatred, and irrational fears that lay the foundations of rationalized bias and exercised discrimination, are--by my manner of thinking--"intolerable"

How often is silence to bigotry, bias, and prejudice construed by such behavioral proponents as lending silent tacit approval and/or consensus of opinion? Too often. Most folks "go along, to get along".

Typically, the most strident and ardent advocates of extreme or "fringe" views/ideologies sow the most discomfiting and unpleasant rationales in full knowledge that "most" people would prefer themselves as being regarded (at least superficially) as "tolerant". Pure provocation, answered only with silence or ambivalence, is the ripe fodder that feeds the fire of ignorance, fear, and intolerance of others itself.

Edmund Burke once wisely observed:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Even common dullards can discern the distinctions between wisdom and stupidity.

Ideas that promote enlightenment, erudition, and elucidation...are generally deemed as wise and thoughtful.

Ideas and concepts that discourage or discount discovery, civil dialogue, or reasoned debate are...at best, oppressive. At their worst, they are thoughtlessly stupid, and purposefully "intolerant".

I do not suffer fools gladly, nor for any extended periods of time. Stupidity (most especially), and fears born of ignorance and ingrained prejudice earn no "tolerance" from myself, nor should they within any society that deems itself both just and purposed to higher ideals.

It may be rude to say, or unpleasant to suggest, but those that choose to "tolerate" any and/or all viewpoints/opinions as "valid" are in fact, stupid people themselves. Wisdom is the experienced capacity of discernment, and integrity is the personal accountability of insistence upon estimable fact and persistent truths.

ANY idea, philosophy, dogma, or policy that seeks to: deny; suppress; eradicate; or destroy, any discomfiting estimable fact or persistent truth--only serves the ultimate purposes of the ignorant, the fearful, or opportunistic power-mongers of exercised oppression and greed.

It saddens me most when folks say they avoid topics that indulge discussions of religion, politics, or sex...because such engagements make them feel uncomfortable, or otherwise concerned in avoiding injury to the concerns/opinions/"feelings" of others.

Indeed, "tolerance can be both a good and a bad thing". Unquestionably so. What we accountably choose to "tolerate" is the measure of our own capacities for reason, and personal insistence upon promoting veritable facts/truths over spurious claims, accusations, inane innuendo, or fallacious rationales.

Psst. Just my opinion on this...

 

[Yerda]

How often is silence to bigotry, bias, and prejudice construed by such behavioral proponents as lending silent tacit approval and/or consensus of opinion? Too often. Most folks "go along, to get along".

You should try hanging out in a council estate in Scotland. I grew up in one. Statement like, "all pakis are perverts" are common, and are met with approval or embarrassed silence far too regularly.

I'm not sure what would constitute intolerance to clear racism though. I never hold my tongue, because by nature I'm quite big-mouthed, but I wouldn't punch someone for being a bigot. I wouldn't get up and walk out. I wouldn't throw a fit. I wouldn't throw someone from my house for saying something sexist, or sectarian, unless they refused to shut up when told.

 

[s2a]

You should try hanging out in a council estate in Scotland. I grew up in one. Statement like, "all pakis are perverts" are common, and are met with approval or embarrassed silence far too regularly.

Some day...I hope to travel to the "homeland"...;-)

I'm not sure what would constitute intolerance to clear racism though. I never hold my tongue, because by nature I'm quite big-mouthed, but I wouldn't punch someone for being a bigot. I wouldn't get up and walk out. I wouldn't throw a fit. I wouldn't throw someone from my house for saying something sexist, or sectarian, unless they refused to shut up when told.

As I am a practioner of non-violence, I too would be unlikely to purposefully rearrange someone's facial features just to make a point. Besides, I find it much more effective (and ultimately withering) to publically ridicule a person providing superficially stupid "opinions" (which doesn't guarantee that I won't receive a punch in the nose myself).

It has been my continued experience to learn that wanton ignorance and fear-based prejudices rapidly retreat in the face of scrutiny, ridicule, reason, and our better natures. Silence always emboldens the ignoramous, the idiot, and the intolerant.

Racism thrives on fear, and the tacit complicity conferred by the timidly "tolerant", or accepting of "differing opinions".

Ask some geriatric germans whether or not their willful ignorance (self-denial) and complicit silence made a difference in the wanton slaughter of ethnic Jews (and others) during WW2. Some Southereners (even today) argue that our Civil War was a disputed matter of "state's rights", and not a just "moral issue" as to whether or not human slavery was "right or wrong".

Like a stick of dynamite, stupidity is neither "good" nor "evil". Both remain ambivalent to thir very ons natures. Th stivk can remain harmless, or cause great havoc and destruction. What "matters" is what people do (or don't do) once the explosive stick of stupidity is lit at fuse end. One can either conclude that the fuse is lit, and nothing can prevent the inevitable blast; or one can simply reach over, and pinch/sever the burning fuse to avoid/defer a more deliberate destruction for another day.

*pinch*

And ya know what? I always feel better about pointing out the idiot that lights that stick...regardless of the outcome,

 

[Josie]

Tolerance is different for everyone. Some people feel threat at the littlest of things. Others can be more open minded and allow all types of views. I tend to not let things said get me to emotional. Everyone has their own views and we should try to be tolerant of them, but not all people have this capibility.

I agree with you it really is not up to us to judge someones else level of tolerance or intolerance.:no:
I may not agree with someones view but I may be able to learn from them regardless.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I really don't know enough about this subject yet to effectively debate it, but my hunch is that it all comes down to properly defining the word "tolerance." Screw up there and all the rest breaks down.