Everywhere you turn on the news, blogs, chatrooms, whereever, you hear about Tolerance. It is a hot button topic. Now I'm not talking about tolerance of alcohol or medications or anything like that. I mean tolerance in social/philosophical/religious arenas. One of the definitions for tolerance put forth by Websters is "a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something" (that quote was taken from here http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tolerance)
Now I am a Bible-believing Christian, i.e. Jesus is the only way to heaven, I don't believe other religions to be true, however I do believe it is every persons right to choose what they believe. I believe there are consequences for each choice according to scripture, but it is your right to choose. In fact I have a number of friends with whom I disagree on this topic, but we are still friends because it is their right to choose what they believe and the subsequent consequences. But because of my stand on belief in scripture, many people would call me intolerant, because I don't see their view as valid. On the other hand, I am a supporter of Chief Illiniwek. (If you don't know who that is, it is the indian mascot for the University of Illinois. The university is retiring the symbol causing much debate and national headlines.) It is my belief that the symbol is not degrading, but respectful. However, others who DO NOT SEE MY VIEW AS VALID, have said that I, and others like me, are intolerant of their feelings. I find myself on opposite sides of the coin but still "intolerant" in the end.
My question is what is your definition of tolerance, whether it pertain to religion, race, political views, etc.? Where is the line drawn between tolerant and intolerant, or do we need to be completely tolerant of others views? Is it even possible to be completely tolerant of others views?
Respectfully submitted,
The IR Herald
"600 years of God-forsaken debauchery... THE DARK AGES! only on the History Channel"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I define tollerant as allowing a co-existance. Zero tolerance would be your efforts are focused on putting an end to the matter. I.e. there zero tollerance rule on drinking. When someone is caught with alcohol under the age of 21 in Illinois the cops and the law do not go easy on them. This is because they are trying to put an end to this behavior. Now I know for a fact part of both the Christian and Islam religions is to convert all those who dont believe in that particular religion. Does this mean that they are trying to put an end to all other religions? In my opinion yes. So to a degree I believe these religions that have this philosophy are intolerant religions. Now if you practice them that way you also inherent that intolerance. If you dont...then you dont.
I think tolerance as far as the christian belief goes is a bit more complicated than that. Yes their goal is to convert everyone into christianity and believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but they still respect other peoples' religions. You won't see a Christian disassociate themself from a buddhist just because their belief system is different. I am extremely tolerant yet I would really like to see some agnostic people become christians, because I believe Jesus really is a true identity. I guess some christian's believe you aren't doing your job if you don't succeed in changing someone over to "the good side" but I am against that idea. Trying is all that matters but tolerance must be allowed.
Ah, what a sweet word tolerance is. I am a big fan. All over the world toleration between religion and ideologies have torn the world apart. It is an unfortunate side affect of believeing oneself to be completely correct. There is a quote that I am probably misattributing to Thomas Jefferson that said "The only thing we cannot tolerate, is intolerance". By far this is how I try to live my life. It upsets me to see people hate each other simply because they disagree on which old man/woman/creature/group in the sky should be worshipped.
Yes, but how do you define intolerance? That is the question.
Ahah, must have grazed over the actual question. No matter, I believe tolerance is easily described as that of allowing people do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others to do as they want. For example, a group of people getting together to discuss ideas is fine, though a group of people getting together to suppress ideas i.e. the Klu Klux Klan infringes upon those rights and as such is intolerant.
Ugh the computer deleted my post before this one so I don't feel like typing the long one again lol. So let me sum it up. Where do you think our rights came from? Do any of you think they were God-given or do you guys think they were clearly defined in the constitution and we don't have any outside of them?
Legal rights are defined in the constitution and limited through other laws. Man has no true limitations except what he gives himself and as such rights are the things that we allow society to say that we have, not the other way round.
Ah yes, well then that brings me to my next question. Why did the rights given to the social community slowly become more open as the years progress instead of start with the adapted form that we go by today? One reason I could think of is the population as a whole becoming less literate, which calls for the obscene language and nudity in movies on television but that is only a thought, I'm not sure how valid it is.
If you consider the evolution of civilization as a whole, then it is easy to see why we must give our rights back to ourselves. In the early days of civilization before tribal hierarchy, the largest and most powerful male would be the dominant one. This male would get the best food, the best mate, and chose whether to accept another into their group. Follow this up and you can see how monarchies with kingships arose. With the invention of equality through God brought upon mainly by Luther people began to believe that kings weren't mandated any more than others were. This created oligarchies and that has continued to spread until present day with our own oligarchy, known as congress. Before restrictions placed upon us by ourselves we enjoyed true freedom, anarchy, now we must rediscover what it means to be free.
Tolerance is certainly a hard thing to define and almost impossible to practice in all aspects of life. Webster's dictionary defines tolerance as a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. I would have to agree with this definition but somethings are easier said than actually practiced. Personally, I would believe myself to a fairly tolerant person but I know that in certain aspects of my life I'm not as tolerant as I should be. Case in point, I'm generally intolerant of, forgive me for a lack of a better word, "stupid" people. People who express an opinion with no basis for their belief or any evidence to support it. This applies not only to religion and philosophy but every aspect of life. But does this make me a truly intolerant person? According to Webster yes but when it comes to the world as we see it today does this just make me a regular average joe?
Ok... It's been awhile for me here so I'm going to address a number of posts in this one... plus I'm not sure if I can type, I'm still recovering from the shock of seeing Psychopomp acctually make a statement... perhaps the Cubs really will win this year, it seems anything is possible. :D
1.) Ok, first I like Watchmaker's defn. of intolerance in that not infringing on other's rights to do as they see fit as long as it does not hurt anyone else. I do believe it is your right to choose what you believe. As a Christian, some might say I'm being hypocritical, but God gave free will, which is your right to choose. There are consequences for those decisions, but it is still your right to choose. Anyway, does that mean I should vote in favor of something I do not believe in? For instance, abortion. I can't vote in good concious for it. Does that make me intolerant? An Atheist cannot vote in good concious in favor of a law demanding the posting of the "ten commandments" because of their belief. Are we each intolerant? Christians tend to catch the heat on these issues, but I think it's the same for everyone. I don't hate those people, I just disagree with them.
2.) I think certain rights are God given and others are determined by society. (I won't list examples unless asked to do so.) But I disagree that man has no limitations except what he gives himself. There are spiritual and physical principles that can't be changed. Man cannot fly without exterior help. This is a physical principle. The wages of sin is death. Also a spiritual principle. We can rail and scream against them, but they don't change.
3.) Got a question for Watchmaker... what is your defn. of anarchy and are you saying we should go to the idea that the "biggest and strongest" rule? Because I think we can agree that none of the admins would then do so, as we aren't the most imposing physical specimen. Just curious
4.) Finally, I greatly agree with psychopomp... according to the defn. of tolerance, I probably would be considered intolerant. But I think anyone who knows me well would say I'm a pretty tolerant person. (If you disagree, feel free to tell me so)
Ok, I'm done.... NEXT! :D
Okay now to address both Watchmaker's and Psycho's posts...I agree with both definitions, but there enlies the problem. Watchmaker's definition is much broader than Psycho's, which creates a little enigma that I think should be addressed. I prefer Watchmaker's definition over Psycho's for the sole purpose of I don't believe one is being intolerant by saying they disagree with an opinion someone has such as the Anarchist disagreeing with the 10 commandments being brought into law. By psycho's definition, if the anarchist did not agree with that ruling, he would be intolerant, but I think it should just be left at opinionated, which would be supported by Watchmaker's definition. We would all be the same person if even one person could say they were tolerant by Webster's definition provided by Psycho, which obviously can't be true seeing as we all have individual "souls" or life spirits or whatever one's religion calls it. I know this didn't pertain to much, but I am one to seek a common definition for the whole so we do not get confused when using the same word but with a different twist to the definition :)
Make no mistake in my wording of limitations, we are most definately limited by physical properties of the world around us. In regards to what we are allowed or not allowed to do is what I meant. The biggest and strongest being right is natural, but thankfully we have surpassed that stage of evolution in which intelligence can prevail over brawn. Anarchy, by my definition, is truly just a minarchism. The ability to have all the civil liberties we can want with no interference with the government. As a rational individual I understand that certain things must be regulated and rights must be enforced so I am not against government. I am against the idea of government as a father figure telling me that I am allowed to do something or not within the bounds of not infringing upon the rights of others.
To me, there is a built in negative connotation to the word tolerate. The problem with it is that it means only to allow, but falls short of understanding, and far short of celebrating any difference of opinion. It therefore suggests a certain type of judgement. I also seeks to categorize everyone thereby reducing them to a label or an icon, rather than a completely unique individual.
I see someone who believes differently than me, and I am joyful at the opportunity to see the world through strange eyes.
I understand that every individual has thier own understanding of the world around them, that is based on thier experience, and is therefore every bit as valid as mine.
When I meet someone willing to talk about thier beliefs, I am very excited, because I get to see a completely valid opinion that differs from mine, learn through that about the person who feels that way, and learn at the same time why I am different.
Learning about the beliefs of others, always has the effect of teaching me about my own.
These interactions are what I love most. They remind me that the moment I am living in has never happened before in all of the vast amount of time that has passed in this universe, and that it will never happen again. It reminds me that each and every moment is holy and sacred.
I could therefore never say that I "tolerate" other religions, or people, or opinions. I would rather say that I celebrate them.
-Jammo
I don't even like to use the word "tolerance," because I tend to think of myself as having a lot of tolerance, but not the kind of tolerance that most people mean. For instance, the other day at a party at my church, I sat down with two boys from a local school, one of whom is a druid, and we talked about life and love and abstinence and homosexuality and abortion and religion and the Bible and pretty much every controversial topic you can think of. I listened to what they had to say and asked them questions about what they believed, and I didn't freak out and tell them how they were wrong or any of that. I did talk about what I believe, and I did it confidently. But I didn't hit them in the face with the Bible. It turned out to be a very interesting conversation, and I learned a lot. I think that that's how "tolerance" (I don't even like to use that word) is supposed to work--you listen, and you take a stand for what you believe, too. Now when it's something like, oh, say, terrorism, I don't think there's any room for tolerance. That's when you have to take the intiative and decide to take action, since it's now not just ideas at stake, but human life, the most precious thing God ever gave us. And as far as a social setting goes, there IS a time when it's your duty as a good friend to confront someone. But it's also important that, even if the other person is misguided, to at least try to see what's going on in their head.
I'm excited to see non-admin comments. So thanks to Jammo and Emily. I loved what you both had to say, but I did have a question for Jammo. How can all views be valid if they contradict. If one view states that it is the only true opinion, how can it be valid with others? or maybe I should ask how you define "valid".
I personally believe many ideas in this world contractict eachother, but that is the only way the world goes around. Enigma's are only made when two opposing forces intersect yet stand alone fairly strong, such as saying A rocket will always fly if it is sunny yet not if it rains. When you have a sunny day that is also rainy an Enigma is set in place. You simply can't live without them.
Well, I think your example is a bit faulty. Actually, "sunny day" and "rainy day" while most accept as opposites aren't really even related. A "sunny day" is a day the sun is visibly shining. A "rainy day" is one where rain falls. A night when the sun is visibly shining would be contradictory. And if something is seemingly true but contradictory it becomes a paradox. An enigma is simply a mystery or something mysterious. (According to webster's online dictionary) If person A says "I believe my view is the only true one." And person B says "I disagree with your view, but I believe it is just as true as mine." That to me seems paradoxical, and that was what I was seeking clarification on.
Contradictory views are able to be held easily as long as they do not foster hostility, as they are wont to do. It is fine if you think your world view is the only truth and nothing else matters, but when your truth is being forced upon my own then we have problems. As I have said already the only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance and as such, we must abolish those who create hostilities and bring destruction upon those that don't agree.
That was why I was asking about the definition of "valid". I agree contradictory views can be easily held and that is completely allowed and fine. But I see "valid" the same as "truth" and don't consider "truth" to be relative. So I don't believe two completely contradictory views can be valid, they are certainly allowed, but not valid. That is just where I was coming from.
It is hard not to believe truth is relative, we need a new topic about truth...then I can rant.
To answer the ir Herald, about how all views can be valid, I submit this:
Debating meanings of words, like valid, can become a study in futility. Words change meanings over time, and often have meanings far different from when they were created. I think it would be more helpful for the purpose of expressing my opinion if I redefine valid, srictly for the purposes of this debate. So, in this instance, I would say I am using the word valid to express the opinion that your opinion, or Jeff down the street, or anyone else's opinion has been formed through thier own experiences alone, and satisfies some set of circumstances that they hold value to. They have chosen what has value, how a virtuous man conducts himself, and defined a set of acts that are right and those that are wrong.
Every person has what I call "the inner eye" (see the latest blog on my myspace page) or what you might call a conscience, more or less. That defines what is valid or invalid to that person, but does not necesarily match anyone else's opinion of what is valid or invalid.
So, in conclusion, I cannot say that if opinions contradict that makes any of them invalid. To do so would suggest that there is one valid opinion, virtuous above all others. That would be a nice thought, but who gets to define it?
-peace
Jammo
Ah Jammo... I'm remembering how much I enjoy conversing with you and realizing how much I've missed it. This is what I thought you meant by "valid" but I figured I'd ask for clarification anyway. And having spoken with a number of admins and knowing that a blog on "truth" will happen in the not too distant future, I'll leave it alone. But again I say I am so glad you've decided to come aboard our little project.
Post a Comment