Should the tolerant, tolerate the intolerant?

Should the tolerant, tolerate the intolerant?
Rypcord
PF Addict

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 1860
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 5, 2010 - 11:28 PM:

lphillips87 wrote:
Hi new memeber here, looking to see what other peoples views were on the topic title.

I was just likened to a nazi for aggressively saying I won't sit by and tolerate religious groups treatment of homosexuals.

So my question to you: should we tolerate other peoples religious views, even if they come accross as disgustingly intolerant to ones self?

Should christians and muslims be allowed to condemn homosexuality (and various other forms of so called "sin"), whilst we stand by and do or say nothing, because of their entitlement to freedom of speech?

Is not the onus on them, and not us?

I would like to know other people's view, because I feel on my own right now!


By definition; you have your answer in your question.
BitterCrank
PF Addict

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis

Total Topics: 182
Total Posts: 7612
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 5, 2010 - 11:34 PM:

Verbal extremism is one thing: One can denounce someone to the lowest circle of Hell, but one's denunciation doesn't put them there. Suppose one goes further and decides that force, even extreme force, is an appropriate response to unjust, illiberal, and oppressive law, policy, and action. Ditterich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran minister in Nazi Germany, decided that it was just for him to use force against not merely the Nazi state, but the highest Nazi of them all. He was a participant in one of the attempts to kill Hitler by placing a bomb in a meeting room where Hitler would be. The bomb went off, some people were killed, but Hitler survived -- not uninjured, however. Bonhoeffer (among others) was hanged.

The extreme right has bombed family planning clinics and assassinated doctors who performed abortions. Perhaps they also thought that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Suppose The Family began campaigning for passage of a law in the various states that would make homosexual acts a capital crime, and suppose they were successful in one state where only a signature by a sympathetic governor remained. Would a homosexual in that state be justified in shooting the governor before he could sign the bill and/or shoot the head of The Family?

(There are several reasons for not doing it: first, the homosexual assassin would then surely be hanged; the assassination might tip the balance in favor of the law in some other state; getting rid of personnel is not always effective in changing policy; etc -- all pragmatic. But in all honored revolutions and uprisings people who were deemed heroes have shot people who carried out tyranny.)
unenlightened
How many cows? 0, 1, 2?
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 90
Total Posts: 10322
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2010 - 12:07 AM:

BitterCrank wrote:
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" So said Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention.


And bob Dylan sang:

I'm liberal, to a degree
I want everybody to be free.
But if you think I'd let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door or marry my daughter,
you must think I'm crazy!
ecspose
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 4
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2010 - 12:07 AM:

Perhaps a better question is whether we can be intolerant of intolerance without being intolerant ourselves? Any prescriptive belief system includes things we should and should not do, if the only thing your belief system requires is you should not tell people what they should or should not do, then it's not much of a belief system (and it violates its own law). You telling people that they should not tell people that they should not be gay, is no different than telling people that they should not be gay. Should not = should not. There is no practical difference.
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 466
Total Posts: 10012
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 6, 2010 - 12:36 AM:

Tolerance is an odd term in this context. I remember first hearing it in the mouth of a C of E bishop in reference to "tolerating" islamic folk in our community. He thought this was a good thing.

My near-to-hand dictionary gives "Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference"; but then "accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance". It shouldn't be there, but we ought put up with it.

I'd sugest "celebrate" rather than "tolerate"; mark the differences as a part of the "rich tapestry" of human habitus.

Few things show the flexibility of the human mind so well as religious bigotry. Let's celebrate it! When an example of bigotry occurs, let's make sure everyone knows about it! Let's pursue this idiocy to the end, marking it out for what it is; laughing all the way.
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 466
Total Posts: 10012
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 8, 2010 - 4:03 AM:

The thread died. Was it me? sad
ecspose
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 4
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 8, 2010 - 4:30 PM:

Banno wrote:
The thread died. Was it me? sad


Since you explained everything, there's nothing left to say.
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 466
Total Posts: 10012
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 8, 2010 - 4:48 PM:

ecspose wrote:


Since you explained everything, there's nothing left to say.

OH. That's OK, then. grin
transfinite
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 25, 2010

Total Topics: 159
Total Posts: 1757
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 8, 2010 - 5:38 PM:

I believe we should be tolerant of people who express disagreeable ideas with which we reject. On the other hand, we do not have to tolerate people who are promoting and recruiting members to engage in acts of terrorism, e.g., encouraging people to blowup commercial airplanes.

Mordwyrhta
Heathen
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 01, 2010
Location: Nowhere

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 140
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 8, 2010 - 5:47 PM:

transfinite wrote:
I believe we should be tolerant of people who express disagreeable ideas with which we reject. On the other hand, we do not have to tolerate people who are promoting and recruiting members to engage in acts of terrorism, e.g., encouraging people to blowup commercial airplanes.


I think the best way to put it is that we can, and maybe should, be tolerant to almost any idea but not necessarily the actions those ideas may incite.

If someone hates on gays, that's fine, if someone does directs hate speach or violence towards them, then it's not fine.

Replace gays with "the west" and change the rest to "terrorist acts" for your own analogy.

And tolerance shouldn't mean we don't vocally disagree with them, we just don't punch them in the face for saying it.
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.