Tolerance of Intolerance

[Makalakumu]

I had an interesting experience at church today. I am a Unitarian Universalist and we pride ourselves on being openminded and accepting of everyone. However, our service today ran counter to that philosophy.

Here is the story...at our church, our beliefs translate directly into action...and sometimes this action takes means political action. Therefore, every once and a while we have services that explore social issues that correspond with our values.

Todays service was called, "Standing on the Side of Love." And it was about equal rights for the GLBT community. My brother and his wife, who happen to go to an evangelical christian church were guests to our church today.

During the service, words like intolerant, bigot, ignorant, and wrong were used and I found myself in a quandary. Evangelical christians have a set of beliefs that they think are right for whatever reason.

If we were open minded, wouldn't we be able to deliver our message without denigrating those beliefs? Is there a way to change our message so that is respects everyones beliefs and still accomplishes what we want it to?

If we expand the context of this situation to society in general, the question becomes, "should we be tolerant of those we consider to be intolerant?"

upnorthkyosa

 

[Navarre]

This is one of those "belief" questions that I usually stay away from because I feel ppl seldom are willing to modify their belief system regardless of logical or otherwise compelling argument. Nonetheless, I'll have a go at this. I have a huge problem with organized religion in general because they seem to violate their own edicts. They speak of tolerance and love but then condemn all who don't adhere to their own definition of it. Certainly that is not always the case for any given religion nor individuals therein. Personally I believe tolerance is one of the greatest virtues we can exhibit. Does this mean that I must accept the intolerance of others to be tolerant myself? I do not believe so. To focus so strictly on my own tolerance would be to allow intolerance to prevail. My goal is to make the owrld a more tolerant place by example and help others become more tolerant without forcing ideals on them. Certainly I cannot compel someone to be tolerant. That does not mean I have to accept intolerance. I should do all I can to stand against such behavior, so long as it does not violate the safety or spiritual rights of others. I consider this very different from saying something like, "I don't believe in gay marriage so I must work to abolish it." While I have the right to not condone gay marriage I do not have the right to force that view on others. Being gay is not evil. Having gay rights is not evil. The intolerance of gays is evil. Many religions would tell us otherwise. This is why I do not adhere to the organized path. Love and tolerance take precedence over issues of race or sexuality. Variances of race and sexuality can be tolerated; lack of tolerance should not be. To do so is not to be "above" intolerance but to instead promote it, which is never the goal.

 

[Makalakumu]

First off, I appreciate your input in this thread. Many times I feel like you do when discussing various beliefs. Here are a couple of statements that jumped out...

Being gay is not evil.

For many, being gay is a sin. Or I should say, "acting gay" since in order to justify this belief one has to believe that no one really can "be gay." This point is debateable and points can be made on both sides.

Having gay rights is not evil.

Is it possible to make this point without casting down the belief that being gay is a sin? I would be content (for now) to let people believe what they want so long as everyone can be treated equally under the law.

The intolerance of gays is evil.

I wonder if people see this message and absolutely refuse to hear anything else one has to say. I've heard evangelical christians say that this message is intolerant and that it is hypocritical of someone that preaches tolerance to deliver such a message.

Are they right?

 

[Cryozombie]

if you support someones rights to be, whatever they choose to be... you cannot limit that support if people choose to be ignorant bigots... otherwise thats all you are as well.

 

[heretic888]

Upnorthkyosa,

You bring up some interesting issues. In particular, discussion such as this accentuate some of the inherent inconsistenties within moral relativism (the psychological paradigm underlying many calls for 'tolerance').

I would highly recommend reading up on the 'Spiral Dynamics' system developed by Don Beck and Chris Cowan, which itself is a refinement of the developmental system originally formulated by psychologist Clare Graves.

In essence, the system outlines ten or so major 'waves' or 'vMEMEs' of psychosocial development, which themselves are broken down into two general categorizations. The first eight or so are considered 'first-tier' thinking, and reflect a type of rigidly dualistic 'our way' versus 'their way' mentality. The final of these first-tier stages consists of 'relativistic' and 'egalitarian' value systems, which seem very familiar to those involved in the Left.

The last two or so waves, however, are grouped as 'second-tier', and are set apart in that they begin to see that each of the prior waves are not just 'wrong' or 'stupid' or 'biggoted' --- but that each and every one of them has an appropriate place and context within the grand 'spiral of development'. In particular, this markes the beginning of 'holistic' and 'dialectical' thinking, the beginning of viewing things within a truly developmental or evolutionary context.

Just something that you might want to read up on.

Laterz.

 

[Navarre]

The last thing I would want here is for this thread to turn into a discussion of how homosexuality equates to evil, or even tolerance. I was only using it as a prominent example. However, let me briefly respond to your post.

For many, being gay is a sin. Or I should say, "acting gay" since in order to justify this belief one has to believe that no one really can "be gay." This point is debateable and points can be made on both sides.

If you are suggesting that no one is actually gay but only affects such behavior, I'm confounded. Either way, it has no bearing on my statement for I also would not believe the "acting" of homosexual preference to be evil.

Is it possible to make this point without casting down the belief that being gay is a sin? I would be content (for now) to let people believe what they want so long as everyone can be treated equally under the law.

Well, if everyone were treated equally under the law then gays would indeed have the same rights as homosexuals. I think this is how the law was intended to be. However, we shouldn't confuse the law with spiritual virtue. We aren't discussing if gay marriage should be legal but instead if it is required we tolerate it.

I wonder if people see this message and absolutely refuse to hear anything else one has to say. I've heard evangelical christians say that this message is intolerant and that it is hypocritical of someone that preaches tolerance to deliver such a message. Are they right?

I don't think so, for the reason previously stated.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

If we expand the context of this situation to society in general, the question becomes, "should we be tolerant of those we consider to be intolerant?"

Yes.

Toleration is allowing a person to say and do what they wish, provided it doesn't harm another. This doesn't forbid censure.

Elsewhere I've mentioned a Fundamentalist preacher who lambasted students on the Indiana University campus. His nickname was "Mad Max." He was all hellfire and brimstone...and they allowed him his freedom to preach, though his rhetoric was hateful. I approve of the University's policy...and rather wish more campuses had guys like him. Call it aversion therapy.

Political and religious beliefs must be allowed free reign within the constraints I've described. To provide a sense of a spectrum--I submiit that communists and Christians alike must be left unmolested and allowed their beliefs and the free expression thereof. Both those groups have been somewhat intolerant themselves, we should note. Note too the irony of their being allowed such protections in a free society.

The problem arises when we consider a standard of harm. Prudes would have us think masturbation, non-marital sex, and lusting in one's heart is foul and damaging to those who do it. Robert Bork would have us think that such behavior harms the individual who knows it is taking place.

A general rule of thumb in defining harm...if it doesn't harm another, and if it involves consensual activity between adults, then it ought be allowed. Harm, however, doesn't include a person being emotionally upset by another's expression, either spoken, artistic, or written.

If it offends...well, tough. The person offended has the same recourse we all have: The power of the frown.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Navarre]

if it doesn't harm another, and if it involves consensual activity between adults, then it ought be allowed.

Yes, I agree with this. If I failed to be clear on my stance, I am not saying that we should censure, occlude, or otherwise infringe upon someone else's rights simply because their views are intolerant.

If someone disagrees with my stance, or the majority stance, that's fine. I respect and even appreciate their right to spew their intolerant views.

My point was that if we find another's views to be intolerant we should take it upon ourselves to represent a more tolerant view as opposed to idly standing by. We should only interfere with the intolerant person if such intolerance has compelled that person to take harmful action upon another.

 

[mantis]

unfortunately the only realistic solution is to take off the word "tolerance" from any sentence that contains the word "religion"
this returns a warning which becomes a run-time error for sure
it's grammatically wrong. sadly!
i came to realize that long time ago, but i figured one should keep his faith to himself.
unfortunately the way our society is does not allow tolerance. we tend to label people, we like to prove others are wrong or inferior and so on. it's hard to get rid of a long history of intolerance.

 

[Navarre]

Humans absolutely label each other, sometimes with labels that are inappropriate. However, the fact that we are placed under labels isn't the same as whether or not our views are tolerated. ... and I agree that defending one's religion is a momumental waste of time.

 

[mantis]

Humans absolutely label each other, sometimes with labels that are inappropriate. However, the fact that we are placed under labels isn't the same as whether or not our views are tolerated. ... and I agree that defending one's religion is a momumental waste of time.

well i like to hear about other cultures, and other religions but absolutely dont like it when im chased to be converted. I also like it when people ask about my culture and my religion, and i hate it if they think im trying to convert them too.
labeling people is more dangerous than you think. when you label a person, say communist, black, jewish, muslim and so forth you automatically close your ears and dont listen to them, and most of the people have the sense of superiority instead of just feeling "different" and in ONLY SOME aspects.
if i go to the "The bible, hell..." thread and say where i come from and from what background i dont think anyone would listen to me EVEN if i say the right thing. correct?
not only that. you are an educated man, so you either clog your ears off and not listen, or you could listen KNOWING that what you hear MUST not change you. but there are people out there who have no education. instead, they have guns. and those are willing to even KILL those who are "different". the US history has a lot to say about that. sadly, again!

 

[Marginal]

If we were open minded, wouldn't we be able to deliver our message without denigrating those beliefs? Is there a way to change our message so that is respects everyones beliefs and still accomplishes what we want it to?

If we expand the context of this situation to society in general, the question becomes, "should we be tolerant of those we consider to be intolerant?"

Dumb is dumb.

 

[DngrRuss]

If the question is "should we tolerate the intolerant?", I have to wonder how we define "tolerate". If by tolerate we mean "ignore", then my answer is no. Contrary to popular belief, ignoring a problem does not make it go away. Intolerance should be exposed, and yes, labled. It is not hypocritical to call someone on their intolerance. I think that it is black and white. If you are being a jerk, and I'm being nice, calling you on your attitude doesn't make me the same as you. If I, on the other hand, turn into a jerk in the process of calling a spade a spade, then it does smack of hypocracy. If by tolerate, we mean allow them to say what they want; acknowledging their right to speech and opinion, and even allowing someone to be, in our opinion, wrong, then I say yes. This does not mean that we cannot censure or reply, but we should not attempt to shut them down just because we do not agree with them. This is why government should always be secular rather than religously based. Secularism allows for free thought both inside and outside the government- while theocracy isn't very good at that.

 

[qizmoduis]

I had an interesting experience at church today. I am a Unitarian Universalist and we pride ourselves on being openminded and accepting of everyone. However, our service today ran counter to that philosophy.

Here is the story...at our church, our beliefs translate directly into action...and sometimes this action takes means political action. Therefore, every once and a while we have services that explore social issues that correspond with our values.

Todays service was called, "Standing on the Side of Love." And it was about equal rights for the GLBT community. My brother and his wife, who happen to go to an evangelical christian church were guests to our church today.

During the service, words like intolerant, bigot, ignorant, and wrong were used and I found myself in a quandary. Evangelical christians have a set of beliefs that they think are right for whatever reason.

If we were open minded, wouldn't we be able to deliver our message without denigrating those beliefs? Is there a way to change our message so that is respects everyones beliefs and still accomplishes what we want it to?

If we expand the context of this situation to society in general, the question becomes, "should we be tolerant of those we consider to be intolerant?"

upnorthkyosa

Beliefs, by themselves, are not worthy of respect. Some beliefs are never worthy. Tolerance is a separate question. One need not respect a belief to show tolerance.

 

[The Kai]

Here's a odd question, is it a "easy mark" for churchs to blast away at the gay community due to the fact that most guys get the "willies" when the gay thing comes up?

 

[Navarre]

I think that the fact that most churches are run by males and that homosexuality has always been a difficult topic for them does in fact have some bearing on it. Religion, like politics, has always been used to advance the beliefs of the people within it as much as their god's beliefs. ... Homosexuality doesn't make me uneasy. Maybe I shouldn't go to church.

 

[Loki]

gizmoduis makes a good point when he says you don't have to respect a belief to tolerate it. I think you can hold whatever opinion you like so long as you don't force it on others, like moving a to legislate a ban on same-sex marriages. I think intolerance should be tolerated only when it moves to act against others.

 

[arnisador]

It's a sign of an intelligent mind to be able to have two conflicting beliefs in it at the same time. (Who said this? I can't recall.) For example, "I think X is wrong" and "I don't believe X should be banned" are in conflict--not fully contradictory, but in conflict--yet, holding both in one's mind is the essence of tolerance. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it (or believe it, as the case may be).

 

[FearlessFreep]

For what it's worth, I once read a pretty good article that said that tolerance is not really believing that everyone is right, but simply being willing to accept a person for who they are even if you think that what they think is wrong.

A perfect example is Mr Upnorthkyosa himself. After following some of the political debates, I disagree with some of his politcal positions. Being a born-again Christian, I think unitarianism is wrong. However, from other conversations I think Upnorth has some good ideas in terms of martial arts, etc..and in politics even if I disagree I see that he is at least thoughtful in coming to his beliefs. I accept him, I respect him, as a person, even if I think some of what he believes is wrong.

That, to me, is tolerance.

I guess too many times I see tolerance defined,or as acted out, as a willingness to think anything is Ok, but then if you don't think anything is Ok, you must be bigoted or predjudiced, so your rejected. I don't really think that is tolerance. I think it would be stupid of me to say that upnorth's beliefs are 'ok' because they plainly conflict with my beliefs and it would be a sortof cognitive dissonance on my part to say "hey that's great for you", to acept his beliefs, but that doesn't mean I can't accept him as a person, regardless of what I feel about his beliefs

 

[mantis]

For what it's worth, I once read a pretty good article that said that tolerance is not really believing that everyone is right, but simply being willing to accept a person for who they are even if you think that what they think is wrong.

A perfect example is Mr Upnorthkyosa himself. After following some of the political debates, I disagree with some of his politcal positions. Being a born-again Christian, I think unitarianism is wrong. However, from other conversations I think Upnorth has some good ideas in terms of martial arts, etc..and in politics even if I disagree I see that he is at least thoughtful in coming to his beliefs. I accept him, I respect him, as a person, even if I think some of what he believes is wrong.

That, to me, is tolerance.

I guess too many times I see tolerance defined,or as acted out, as a willingness to think anything is Ok, but then if you don't think anything is Ok, you must be bigoted or predjudiced, so your rejected. I don't really think that is tolerance. I think it would be stupid of me to say that upnorth's beliefs are 'ok' because they plainly conflict with my beliefs and it would be a sortof cognitive dissonance on my part to say "hey that's great for you", to acept his beliefs, but that doesn't mean I can't accept him as a person, regardless of what I feel about his beliefs

that is a good definition
i think tolerance is basically not having the will to change other people's beliefs. although it's okay to have the desire to.
meaning it's okay to think someone is wrong, and you wish you can change the person's opinion, but you dont consistently try
"no compultion in religion" is another simple, but very good statement i found in some holy book. i like it.