Jan. 21, 2008
That nasty word - TOLERANCE

There's been a lot of talk of "tolerance" lately.  I truly hate that word.  I really do.  Not because I want to go throw rocks at everyone I disagree with - I don't.  But rather, I hate how misconstrued the word is.

• Post A Comment!

Comments

Jan. 22, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Anonymous

Count me as intolerant, too. :)

Liz humpty at HSB

• Permanent Link

Jan. 22, 2008 - Me too!

Posted by Anonymous

I'm intolerant! Whooopppeee!:)

• Permanent Link

Jan. 23, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Cailyn

I am really unsure what you mean by calling yourself intolerant. Do you really mean that you are not willing to accept that other people have different beliefs, and want to repress and restrict them, or do you mean that you are not willing to be quiet about your own? Because that is quite different.

Being tolerant doesn’t mean you have to agree with or like someone else’s beliefs, and it doesn’t mean you have to be quiet about your own either. It simply means being willing to accept the fact that other people will have different beliefs, and respecting them enough not to chastise or harass them for it. It certainly doesn’t mean you can’t be open about your own beliefs, or the fact that you disagree with theirs, but it’s all about how you express it. If you open discussion and debate, to let your voice be heard in an intelligent and respectful way, that is certainly not intolerant; but if you try to shove your beliefs down other’s throat, continually criticize others for having different beliefs, etc, that is.

The reason, I think, tolerance is being pushed like a social movement, is because when two parties can’t put their differences aside and cooperate, it creates conflict. People who push tolerance want to end this conflict. It’s important to realize that even though you believe your truth is objective, people with completely different beliefs think theirs is too. It carries huge potential for conflict (which has exploded numerous times throughout history), which is why it is important for people to accept those differences, realizing they can get along even if they don’t agree (it’s called compromise – even people with similar beliefs have to do it) so society can flourish and everyone can live in harmony, and all that cliché stuff. It is annoying how “tolerance” gets thrown around and pushed in our faces, presented as a “accept everybody and like everybody and no one is wrong” sort of thing. But the reality is, cooperation is necessary for society to function, and it really doesn’t mean you have to agree with or like other beliefs. It just means being willing to get along.

• Permanent Link

Jan. 24, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Pattycake

Cailyn -

I think I explain that in the first paragraph - what I mean by tolerance and intolerance. When I clearly believe something is wrong (like abortion, for instance) I can use my voting power. In America we have free speech, so I could write editorials, or speak at colleges, etc.

Unfortunately, in doing just that, the label "intolerant" gets slapped on, and that is what I'm bothered with.

It seems that you and I disagree on what tolerance means, which is exactly what this post was about. I believe the word has become misconstrued in our society.

Many were tolerant in WWII about what was happening to millions of Jews. They should have been intolerant. There, you could not stand up on a street corner and make a speech, nor write an editorial. You would be thrown into prison.

Here, in America, we still have freedom (it is threatened around every corner). When we disagree, it is called intolerant and that is just not a good use of the word.

I am intolerant of murdering innocent babies, but I'm not out there throwing rocks at anyone or breaking our laws in America. Those of us who are intolerant in this regard will never give up though, in trying to get our laws changed or voting in people who believe the same.

Do you now better understand what I mean by tolerance - intolerance?

Deb

• Permanent Link

Jan. 24, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Cailyn

Thank you for your reply.

I'm sorry to say, but I am still unsure how you understand the term 'intolerance'. The reason is, your use of it seems to differ from the dictionary definition (which was the source of my confusion to begin with), and from the ways you've used it, I cannot derive a consistent definition.

Firstly, you say that calling someone "intolerant" for expressing their beliefs is a misuse of the word.

You explain why when you define intolerance in your original post:
"If anyone really wants to know what intolerance is like, visit the Holocaust. Or the Christian Martyrs. Intolerance is when someone truly will not let you live due to your ideals or beliefs."

But then you call -yourself- intolerant. However, you make the distinction that you are not an intolerant person who kills or oppresses, but an intolerant person who works to advance their beliefs through voting, writing, and speaking.

This, I think, is where we disagree on the meaning of 'intolerance'. I see intolerance in the first part (killing and oppressing), but not in the second (voting, writing, speaking). You have equated being intolerant with standing up for your beliefs, which contradicts the basis of your claim that the word is being misused. Because I agree that calling someone "intolerant" for expressing their beliefs makes no sense, I can't understand how you call yourself intolerant.

I think, though, that maybe this is how you see yourself as intolerant: Because you will not settle, will not stop working to further your beliefs in influence and law, and will continue to work in opposition of those beliefs which conflict with your own. You could say that by working to advance your beliefs, if you are successful, it will in a way oppress those who disagree. Maybe this is how you see your intolerance. However, working to advance your beliefs and oppressing other beliefs are different, because in voting, writing, and speaking, everyone has a fair chance to further their beliefs. If you were to deny others that freedom of expression, -then- you would be intolerant.

This is why I come to the conclusion that intolerance involves physical conflict and intellectual restriction. Form is the distinction. If you work peacefully to advance your beliefs, then in the mean time, you are enduring the opposing beliefs; you are tolerating them. If, however, you were so unsettled that you could no longer allow them to exist - then you would be intolerant. Tolerance is co-existing. If you are willing to co-exist, you are being tolerant. Instead of saying you're tolerant though, you said that you love people and believe in being good to them, but it is really the same thing.

You used the example of Jesus, who loves everyone, but was intolerant of the Pharisees. But he didn't just vote, write, and speak. He also chastised them, and was moved to physical action (if my memory serves me correctly, there was an incident with upturning tables used by gamblers in a temple?) Jesus moved to action, he created conflict, he -was- intolerant of those people. But you have said you use voting, writing, and speaking - not physical conflict.

Does this make sense? I realize it’s entirely possible that I have misinterpreted the meaning of your post, and if I have done so, I apologize. I hope that you are still willing to clarify to me the concept you are tying to convey, so I can understand. Thank you for your time.

• Permanent Link

Jan. 24, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Pattycake

Cailyn -

I don't have the luxury of time here, so I can't answer point by point - perhaps in the morning. I just wanted to quickly point out (per your words);

"This is why I come to the conclusion that intolerance involves physical conflict and intellectual restriction."

My issue is with those who call others intolerant for their opinions (which can equal their vote). I see it happening all of the time, which is why I feel the word has become misconstrued. I can surely point out comments right here on HWTB where opinions were called intolerant.

That's my brief response.

• Permanent Link

Jan. 25, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Pattycake

I wanted to add here, (then I have a boatload of stuff to take care of before a very big weekend) a few things.

Jesus Christ was a law unto Himself. When He overturned the tables in the temple, He stated "You have turned My house into a den of thieves." It was, in the truest sense, His house. Interestingly, that is about the only place of actual physical action in conflict that you will find, that Jesus did.

Jesus Christ is very intolerant to all other religions, as He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Why be so intolerant? Because all have sinned, and God cannot look upon sin. The only way to righteousness is the shed blood of Jesus Christ, as we stand forgiven in His righteousness. He certainly does love all, but will not tolerate in His Kingdom, those who have not come through the only way provided. Why should I believe that He is the only way, just because some book says so? Because exclusive to the Bible is prophecy, spoken - fulfilled - and recorded in history. Take for example, Psalm 22 where the effect of the crucifixian, and specifically the crucifixian of Christ is spoken of hundreds of years before it was even invented. Or Isaiah 53 - amazing prophecy concerning the coming Messiah. A very great deal of prophecy concerns Israel, and sure enough, history has recorded those prophecies coming true. In fact, Israel is one of the greatest, and longest standing stories in our news today. It just does not stop.

Some might question the intolerance Jesus has for those who do not come through Him, and His provision on the cross. But He has provided truth for those who are truly seeking. As is stated in Hebrews 2:3 "how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?"

Perhaps others have written much better articles concerning the misconstrued tolerance I spoke of. I found a few, and a link to a book, that may have better stated what I was trying to say.

I'll share the links here:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/13397793.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/editorial.asp

http://tinyurl.com/3d55xp


Now perhaps I'm only clear as mud - but it's going to have to do for now. Thanks -

Deb

• Permanent Link

Jan. 25, 2008 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Cailyn

Thank you again for your reply.

Firstly, about Jesus, I do realize that there are different rules for the Son of God =)

The articles you gave links to were very helpful (and very interesting). I understand much better now how you base your claim about this. (I also put The New Tolerance on hold at the library; should be interesting to read.)

Both articles talk about a shift in the definition of tolerance from "bearing or putting up with someone or something not especially liked" to "all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims are equal." So then by not finding them all equal, one gets labeled "intolerant," and that is the application of it you disagree with. This I've got correct, yes?

If I have, then we do agree on the definition of tolerance and the misapplication of intolerance, and I understand what you mean.

The part that confuses me still though, is, by what definition do you consider yourself intolerant? In the way that you do not consider all beleifs, values, etc to be equal? Because if that is the way you see yourself as intolerant, you are using the same definition you claim is a misuse of the word. I imagine you see a distinction between the two, but if you do, it was not made clear (or obvious enough for me). Could you clear this bit up for me? How -do- you consider yourself intolerant?

Assuming by above that we do agree on the meaning and misapplication, then I completely agree with your point, which I think the second article best explained in the tolerance double-standard that is often used against Christians and/or conservatives. It is completely illogical, and I hate seeing liberal PC snobs trash-talk religion while bragging about how they are accepting of minorities, of the persecuted and repressed. That's just the thing - it's those are in the minority, those who have been historically repressed (which doesn't include Christians because apparently liberals like to omit periods of history) that get all the sympathy from liberals who tend to support the "underdog." I think the tolerance thing started out with a well-meaning intent, but got carried off by the crazies.
*Also, I realize I'm generalizing with the term "liberal," but it tends to run true.

Thanks again for your time, and take all the time you need getting back to me. Hope you have a wonderful weekend!

• Permanent Link

Jan. 25, 2008 - Hi Cailyn

Posted by sagerats

Wow! This topic almost has me confused! I am not tolerant of today's definition of tolerance. Today's tolerance says you may feel differently but you will not oppose us or you will be accused of a hate crime. Today even saying that you don't like homosexuality means you are spreading hate. It doesn't give me a choice, I must be tolerant.

Today's definition confuses verbs with the nouns. I don't hate homosexuals, but I am often accused of that and called intolerant when I say that I hate homosexuality and will not tolerate the actions of others who try to undermine my beliefs.

For instance lets say that I had my child in public school in California and they implemented a rule that homosexuals can go to the locker room they identify with. If I pull my child out of school I am intolerant of that rule. I would not stand idly by and be "tolerant" of it. They aren't going to make a locker room for girls, one for boys, one for boys who think they are girls, and one for girls who think they are boys. They would keep only the two locker rooms. I couldn't ask that my child change in the bathroom or be excused from gym. I must tolerate it or take my child and go home. On the way out the door I would rightly be accused of being intolerant but I would be falsly accused of hating/intoleraing transgender students.

Interestingly we can't be intolerant but those who hate Christians and what they believe can.

Tia Linschied
HWTB Team Leader









Edited by sagerats on Jan. 25, 2008 at 10:25 PM

• Permanent Link

Entry 243 of 1291
Last Page • Next Page