What Religious/Cultural Tolerance Really Looks Like

[Quintessence]

One of the contributing factors to polarization in the present age is a failure to practice cultural and religious tolerance. Like many important social skills, tolerance is only infrequently taught in a formal capacity in public education systems.

"Tolerance is defined as being able to deal with, put up with or accept the opinions and actions of others, even if you find them unpleasant or annoying. Tolerant people are able to either accept others’ opinions, or disagree with others politely, and in a way that doesn’t offend anyone or lead to any difficulties."​

From - Developing and Improving Tolerance | SkillsYouNeed​

​

Put another way, tolerance is the ability to live and let live. And in particular, to live and let live even when (if not especially when) you believe others are being intolerant.

In culture/religion, we can identify two broad currents of lifeways - progressivism and conservatism. Progressivism takes on new ideas and creates new traditions. Conservatism resists new ideas and preserves old traditions. Both currents are important and both currents have value. However, all too often those who are following one current perceive the other to be a threat. Why? There can be a perception that the other current wants to destroy and subvert the other. Sometimes, it isn't mere perception - it is, unfortunately, actual. That happens because tolerance is not being practiced. There is a failure to live and let live.

Real tolerance is being accepting of human cultural and religious diversity.
Leaving others to their ways of life, and you to yours.

Easier said than done.
But we owe it to ourselves and to others to make the effort.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, there is always Karl Popper on the limit of tolerance, but yes, it would be better if we were all tolerant.

 

[danieldemol]

Tolerance is defined as being able to deal with, put up with or accept the opinions and actions of others, even if you find them unpleasant or annoying. Tolerant people are able to either accept others’ opinions, or disagree with others politely, and in a way that doesn’t offend anyone or lead to any difficulties."From - Developing and Improving Tolerance | SkillsYouNeed

I see tolerance differently. In my view it is about putting up with others you don't like and / or find offensive. But I see no reason to necessarily not offend them in return. The truth hurts sometimes and there will be times when the only way to not be offensive is to be egregiously dishonest as I see it.

 

[Quintessence]

I see tolerance differently. In my view it is about putting up with others you don't like and / or find offensive. But I see no reason to necessarily not offend them in return. The truth hurts sometimes and there will be times when the only way to not be offensive is to be egregiously dishonest as I see it.

That's fair, though it's not my thing.

I think I feel strongly about not doing that because I had the misfortune of knowing a sociopath who deeply hurt those around themselves. They would say stuff like this to excuse their behavior and take no responsibility for their role in hurting others. It was gross and it was abusive. There are degrees of this sort of thing, of course, and on the whole "don't be a jerk" is a good guideline - sociopaths can't help themselves because they lack empathy, unfortunately. They don't think about whether it is their place to do something or what impact their behavior has on others. Can't see past one's own nose, as it were. They would "rile people up" just... because. Like I said, gross.

As I see it, if you are ever going to take any sort of "tough love" approach it should only ever be done where appropriate for the role and relationship. And never for your benefit, but for theirs - which requires an inherent sort of tolerance to understand that person's life from it's own merits rather than yours. Just because something looks dysfunctional to us doesn't mean it actually is for them. It reminds me of a conversation I once had with someone about religious restrictions on clothing. They were avidly for women's rights without regard for cultural context and felt that the clothing women were supposed to wear was an example of oppression and misogyny. But is it? Is it really? Or is that just you projecting your culture's norms (or your personal values) onto another culture? How do they actually feel about it? Again, it shouldn't be about you, but them. If that makes sense as an example.

 

[danieldemol]

That's fair, though it's not my thing.

I think I feel strongly about not doing that because I had the misfortune of knowing a sociopath who deeply hurt those around themselves. They would say stuff like this to excuse their behavior and take no responsibility for their role in hurting others. It was gross and it was abusive. There are degrees of this sort of thing, of course, and on the whole "don't be a jerk" is a good guideline - sociopaths can't help themselves because they lack empathy, unfortunately. They don't think about whether it is their place to do something or what impact their behavior has on others. Can't see past one's own nose, as it were. They would "rile people up" just... because. Like I said, gross.

As I see it, if you are ever going to take any sort of "tough love" approach it should only ever be done where appropriate for the role and relationship. And never for your benefit, but for theirs - which requires an inherent sort of tolerance to understand that person's life from it's own merits rather than yours. Just because something looks dysfunctional to us doesn't mean it actually is for them. It reminds me of a conversation I once had with someone about religious restrictions on clothing. They were avidly for women's rights without regard for cultural context and felt that the clothing women were supposed to wear was an example of oppression and misogyny. But is it? Is it really? Or is that just you projecting your culture's norms (or your personal values) onto another culture? How do they actually feel about it? Again, it shouldn't be about you, but them. If that makes sense as an example.

I agree up to a point. But suppose hypothetically you meet one of those types who says, "Pagans invite the wrath of God upon our cities and should be run out of town. Do you think Im paganphobic?" I would be the one to tell them"yes i think you are", and it wouldn't bother me one little bit if that was because of my own interests and not about how they see things.

You could insert any other minority where I used the term "pagans", for example it could have been atheists or gay folk. In my view it simply looks like an ethical failure not to let a person with such a bad scheme in mind know they are going to recieve push back if it is safe enough to let them know. And that little bit of word confrontation may even prevent a physical confrontation down the line.

 

[Heyo]

One of the contributing factors to polarization in the present age is a failure to practice cultural and religious tolerance. Like many important social skills, tolerance is only infrequently taught in a formal capacity in public education systems.

"Tolerance is defined as being able to deal with, put up with or accept the opinions and actions of others, even if you find them unpleasant or annoying. Tolerant people are able to either accept others’ opinions, or disagree with others politely, and in a way that doesn’t offend anyone or lead to any difficulties."​

From - Developing and Improving Tolerance | SkillsYouNeed​

​

Put another way, tolerance is the ability to live and let live. And in particular, to live and let live even when (if not especially when) you believe others are being intolerant.

In culture/religion, we can identify two broad currents of lifeways - progressivism and conservatism. Progressivism takes on new ideas and creates new traditions. Conservatism resists new ideas and preserves old traditions. Both currents are important and both currents have value. However, all too often those who are following one current perceive the other to be a threat. Why? There can be a perception that the other current wants to destroy and subvert the other. Sometimes, it isn't mere perception - it is, unfortunately, actual. That happens because tolerance is not being practiced. There is a failure to live and let live.

Real tolerance is being accepting of human cultural and religious diversity.
Leaving others to their ways of life, and you to yours.

Easier said than done.
But we owe it to ourselves and to others to make the effort.

Religious freedom/tolerance: I can't do that, it's against my religion.
Religious oppression: You can't do that, it's against my religion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But I see no reason to necessarily not offend them in return.

I do. I see this as mere retaliation. In fact, I called this behavior out in a thread just yesterday. It's essentially taking the low road.

What productive comes of offending someone who has offended you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do. I see this as mere retaliation. In fact, I called this behavior out in a thread just yesterday. It's essentially taking the low road.

What productive comes of offending someone who has offended you?

Nothing positive productive, but at least for me, if I am low, I go low. Now that it justifies it, but rather if I can't catch I am low, then I act low.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One of the contributing factors to polarization in the present age is a failure to practice cultural and religious tolerance. Like many important social skills, tolerance is only infrequently taught in a formal capacity in public education systems.

"Tolerance is defined as being able to deal with, put up with or accept the opinions and actions of others, even if you find them unpleasant or annoying. Tolerant people are able to either accept others’ opinions, or disagree with others politely, and in a way that doesn’t offend anyone or lead to any difficulties."​

From - Developing and Improving Tolerance | SkillsYouNeed​

​

Put another way, tolerance is the ability to live and let live. And in particular, to live and let live even when (if not especially when) you believe others are being intolerant.

In culture/religion, we can identify two broad currents of lifeways - progressivism and conservatism. Progressivism takes on new ideas and creates new traditions. Conservatism resists new ideas and preserves old traditions. Both currents are important and both currents have value. However, all too often those who are following one current perceive the other to be a threat. Why? There can be a perception that the other current wants to destroy and subvert the other. Sometimes, it isn't mere perception - it is, unfortunately, actual. That happens because tolerance is not being practiced. There is a failure to live and let live.

Real tolerance is being accepting of human cultural and religious diversity.
Leaving others to their ways of life, and you to yours.

Easier said than done.
But we owe it to ourselves and to others to make the effort.

I think tolerance only works when respective parties work only within their group without undue interference into the affairs of others outside the group.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think tolerance only works when respective parties work only within their group without undue interference into the affairs of others outside the group.

Yeah, nuke the USA. They are not in my group and I don't tolerate them as humans. And I don't tolerate your understanding of undue interference, because you are in an out-group and I don't have to tolerate you at all.
So stop claiming what I must do or not.

See, that was easy. The problem is that all groups are not objective facts, rather they are social constructs, so if you stop consider other humans as parts of other groups, they stop being that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah, nuke the USA. They are not in my group and I don't tolerate them as humans. And I don't tolerate your understanding of undue interference, because you are in an out-group and I don't have to tolerate you at all.
So stop claiming what I must do or not.

See, that was easy. The problem is that all groups are not objective facts, rather they are social constructs, so if you stop consider other humans as parts of other groups, they stop being that.

Thank you for proving intolerance by way of my statement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for proving intolerance by way of my statement.

Well, I also explained one way to avoid it.

 

[Quintessence]

Religious freedom/tolerance: I can't do that, it's against my religion.
Religious oppression: You can't do that, it's against my religion.

This is a very nice and simple way of looking at it, thanks!

 

[Quintessence]

I think tolerance only works when respective parties work only within their group without undue interference into the affairs of others outside the group.

Maybe. I suppose I'm not so hard line about it because I see everything as interconnected; it is more or less impossible for everything to "stay in its lane" as it were. What is and isn't "undue interference" is likewise a bit complicated. Or maybe it's just a lot more complicated for me as a Druid because I don't just consider humans, but everything else too and I see tons of undue interference of humans in the affairs of non-humans.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Put another way, tolerance is the ability to live and let live. And in particular, to live and let live even when (if not especially when) you believe others are being intolerant.

In my opinion, sometimes certain forms of intolerance erode rights or freedoms in such a way as to make the above (highlighting mine) either actively harmful or entirely impractical.

Should MLK, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela have "lived and let live" when the intolerance they faced disenfranchised and abused them and their people? They had to speak up and act against it, because the intolerance of others actively and maliciously interfered in their ability to have their basic rights and live in peace.

That said, if you're talking about intolerant beliefs rather than intolerant actions that directly affect others, then I largely agree. The world is diverse and will never be homogeneous in terms of beliefs, worldviews, etc., and I believe any attempts to make it so would be both unrealistic and damaging.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That said, if you're talking about intolerant beliefs rather than intolerant actions that directly affect others, then I agree.

I would amend this to intolerant actions that harm or oppress others.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would amend this to intolerant actions that harm or oppress others.

Agreed; I think that's a more precise way of putting it.

I think I should clarify the backdrop against which I made my comment, though: I spent almost two decades in an ultra-fundamentalist theocracy that still practiced flogging and capital punishment for "blasphemy" and "apostasy," in addition to even having crucifixion as a possible punishment in its legal system. Intolerant beliefs underpinned all of that, and you could easily find otherwise normal, decent people supporting such things. Someone would talk to me in the most mundane and friendly manner when I knew that if they found out about my "apostasy" (from their perspective), they would support at least one of those punishments against me.

When I think of the subject of tolerating intolerance, my mind often recalls the above, and I find the subject much more complicated and nuanced than either "tolerate intolerance" or "never tolerate intolerance." Sometimes the only difference between a tolerant person and a raging extremist is merely the accident of where each was born and raised.

I see a lot of truth in @Quintessence's OP, however.

 

[idea]

...." Sometimes the only difference between a tolerant person and a raging extremist is merely the accident of where each was born and raised.

It is useful to study the stories of those who change beliefs I think:

Like I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church. Here's why I left

Kindness is so powerful.

Cheers to everyone out there who has changed their beliefs.

 

[danieldemol]

I do. I see this as mere retaliation. In fact, I called this behavior out in a thread just yesterday. It's essentially taking the low road.

What productive comes of offending someone who has offended you?

That it's not done with retaliation in mind in my view.

I don't tell the truth because it is going to burn a person and I get high off the retaliation. I tell the truth because it's the correct course of action and because as I said - letting them know they are going to recieve push back on their intolerance will dissuade some of them from physically trying to enforce their intolerance.

But kudos to you for pointing out when it was just done out of revenge and not for any productive purpose in my view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That it's not done with retaliation in mind in my view.

I don't tell the truth because it is going to burn a person and I get high off the retaliation. I tell the truth because it's the correct course of action and because as I said - letting them know they are going to recieve push back on their intolerance will dissuade some of them from physically trying to enforce their intolerance.

But kudos to you for pointing out when it was just done out of revenge and not for any productive purpose in my view.

Well, in the subjective part of professional caring for other humans that is not that simple in some schools of caring, but yes. I get you.