Tolerance vs Intolerance

[AdamB]

This post is not intended to be a re-hash of the Eich thread, but more a discussion on tolerance vs intolerance in a general sense. The argument about tolerance and intolerance has become a big talking point for all sides and groups, and mostly alot of finger pointing, without much discussion in media or whatever about what these words mean within the context of our society, when one ends and one begins, and so forth. And it is a discussion that honestly might not have a nice, clear-cut result which can be accepted by the majority.

 

I think one of the big problems is that we do not see a difference between tolerating opposing points of view, taking a stand for our own point of view, and fighting against what we see as injustice or prejudice no matter what point of view we hold. Nor do we create a difference between being tolerant of thoughts or beliefs, and being tolerant of behaviors when they effect others. We desperately try and paint every issue as black or white, right or wrong because it is easier for a society to understand or accept it (and hey, sometimes it is). And while the idea of tolerance can be black or white, its application rarely is.

 

Was it right for the Women's Political Council and the AME Zion Church to boycott the Montgomery bus services? Today, most would say yes. However, go back to 1955 and place yourself in the role of the typical segregation-era Southerner. To them, because of their world view, it was completely justifiable and reasonable to segregate buses.

 

So, within the current argument of tolerance vs. intolerance, were the civil rights groups being intolerant? Were they not being hypocrites for calling supporters of segregation intolerant, while they themselves were being intolerant of the segregationist actions?

 

Would we be as a quick to yell "intolerance" if a CEO donated money to a white supremecist group pushing to create laws that took rights away from Latinos or African Americans? Does the discussion about tolerance vs intolerance only come into play when it is an issue that society is divided on?

 

Is it intolerant if the owner of a company donates money to a group and I disagree with that group so I decide to boycott that company? If the money for those donations come from profits made by the company, do I have to essentially help that company make those donations just to remain tolerant?

 

It is tolerant for me to say that it is fine that an indiviuals holds the view that the Wiccan bookstore in town is "bad", or to not like the local Muslims building a mosque in a community. They are free to hold their personal viewpoints, and I encourage them to be vocal as it is their right to do so.

 

However, is it "intolerant" of me to fight against these groups who use the courts and government agencies (city councils in this case) to try and carve their prejudices into the book of law simply because they "do not like these people"? To use the courts to try and block a group of Muslims, Muslims who had been part of their community for decades, who had reached out and helped those in their community in times of trouble, from building a house of worship? To force a city council to shut down a Wiccan bookstore because it offended their Christian sensibilities? To essentially try and take away the rights of others for no reason other than because they do not like them?

 

In my opinion, there is a difference between tolerating thoughts and beliefs of others, and condoning the actions based on those beliefs when they negatively effect others. Tolerance for another's beliefs or opinions does not mean that I have to surrender my own, nor does it mean one has to stand by and watch as individuals are denied legal rights, participation in government, and so forth simply based upon another's beliefs or opinions unless there is just cause beyond "'cause I said so".

 

Going back a few years, if I boycott Chik-Fil-A because Dan Cathy at that time donated money to groups that I do not support, I am not being intolerant of Dan Cathy's beliefs - I am refusing to condone the actions of the groups he was supporting. As an individual, my personal boycott (which pre-dated the big national blowup by a few years) cut into the profits (albeit in a very small way) that were then used to fund the donations that these groups used to pay for their behaviors. At the same time, I fully support Dan Cathy having the views that he does (and honestly he sounds like a good guy despite my disagreement on his views on particular issues). However, according to some, I was being intolerant.

 

Of course, maybe "tolerance" and "intolerance" is just an easy way of setting up a circular firing squad: "You are intolerant. You are intolerant of my intolerance. You are intolerant of my intolerance of your intoler..." Bang! "Nevermind"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[alexey]

Our society came to view tolerance as good and intolerance as bad.

Then somebody says: wait a second, tolerance of bad things is bad and intolerance of bad things is good.

And everybody gets confused.

[Rocket442Olds]

 

In my opinion, there is a difference between tolerating thoughts and beliefs of others, and condoning the actions based on those beliefs when they negatively effect others. Tolerance for another's beliefs or opinions does not mean that I have to surrender my own, nor does it mean one has to stand by and watch as individuals are denied legal rights, participation in government, and so forth simply based upon another's beliefs or opinions unless there is just cause beyond "'cause I said so".

 

Great topic and I think this above is a great way to think about it.

 

To simplify it myself I do something similar. You can be tolerant of something, yet still not agree with it. When we use these terms we're typically talking about personal life choices, or choices for/against a group of people or activities.

 

You become intolerant when you are looking to not allow this thing you're speaking out against to be done by others for reasons personal to your or your thoughts/beliefs.

 

Like alexey has said above, there are things that being intolerant of are likely good. Being intolerant of rape for example. I'd prefer to be intolerant vs tolerant of it. 

 

I get told I'm intolerant of religion by folks who discuss it with me. That isn't the case in my opinion at all. I think everyone has the right to the free exercise of religion, as long as they don't use that religion to then cripple other peoples free exercise of other things. I would never say "you're not allowed to go to church", or "religious establishments should not be allowed to organize under our government". I disagree with a lot of what is taught by religions but I think its important to let others listen to what they'd like. Now when 10+ states have parts of their law stating a non-believer can't hold public office; that is what I call "intolerance".

 

This will eventually turn into a morality debate.

[Zguy28]

Societal tolerance or intolerance is mostly decided by majority rule and whoever has the best propaganda.

[twa]

Our society came to view tolerance as good and intolerance as bad.

Then somebody says: wait a second, tolerance of bad things is bad and intolerance of bad things is good.

And everybody gets confused.

 

You don't think there were people saying tolerance of bad things was bad before it became good?

 

the ability to work together or communicate is enhanced by tolerance.

 

adamB....some people obviously prefer a circular firing squad

 

add

to use a walking dead reference....Hershel just got beheaded

[AdamB]

adamB....some people obviously prefer a circular firing squad

 

add

to use a walking dead reference....Hershel just got beheaded

 

Yup, I agree (though I do not get the Walking Dead reference...burned out on "zombie" anything so never got into it).

 

It is like the cartoon Larry has posted several times with the Christian beating the homosexual with a stick (which I used to have saved and cannot find now).

 

Or, another example would be some of the posts I have seen on various boards:

 

1. Christian group calls for a law banning homosexuality

2. Atheist calls out Christian group for being intolerant and hateful

3. Atheist proclaims the only way to solve this is to pass a law banning religion

4. Christian reads post by atheist and calls it intolerant, and explains that gay law is "right thing to do"

5. Atheist calls out Christian for being a bigot, and law banning religion will help mankind

[twa]

yeah Larry's cartoon starts and ends biased...good for the sheeple

[AdamB]

yeah Larry's cartoon starts and ends biased...good for the sheeple

 

No, its a pretty good encapsulation of the issue of tolerance (simplistic, but still gets the basic point across).

 

Group A constantly attacks Group B

Group B finally says stop attacking

Group A yells intolerance and persecution.

[twa]

simplistic is rather accurate

[AdamB]

simplistic is rather accurate

 

Ya, its a bit hard to condense the idea of tolerance into a small number of frames. It is still accurate when compared to what is going on with the religious far right, but since it was drawn there has also developed a backlash from the gay community. Hence why I used it as an example of circular.

[twa]

Should we do a Eich cartoon of him being beheaded?

 

or would you draw it as him falling on the blade?

[AdamB]

Is there anything inaccurate about the cartoon Larry posted in the past? Did or did not religious groups regularly attack homosexuals, and then cry persecution when called on it? Are people like the AFA not going on their radio shows and spending one day cheering on laws that at one point called for the death penalty for homosexuals and the next day crying that homosexuals are "Nazis" out to persecute Christians?

 

Did you not notice that I mentioned the backlash from the homosexual activist community that has developed since the cartoon was drawn, thus the reason I discussed in a post about "circular firing squad"?

 

Have you decided that since I will not play your typical "let's twist words or attribute thoughts to a poster's response just so I can make a snarky comment" game in the Eich thread, you would just start playing it here?

[twa]

Larry's toon is certainly accurate at times,certainly not all

 

I asked....Was Eich snapping his fingers?.....whacking with a stick?

 

 

before he got beheaded that is?....hard to play the victim in that strip

 

 

[s0crates]

Tolerance either has a limit or it is contradictory. Otherwise we would have to tolerate intolerance.

[AdamB]

I would agree that it is not accurate in all cases for all Christians, including those on this board who are very vocal about their faith - they might not agree with homosexuality, but they also do not actively try to persecute them either which is cool. That cartoon is primarily aimed at a group of Christians, a very vocal and visable group, that do not show the level of intellectual or emotional maturity that Christians on this board do.

 

However, that does not invalidate the cartoon as an example of of an individual or group that shows intolerance towards others, and then yells "Intolerance!" when called on it.

 

And yes, it can be argued that Eich "whacked with a stick" in his support of Prop 8. However, to be fair to Eich, I personally never saw him claim others were being intolerant because of his views, only that some were being rude or hateful in how they expressed their opinions (swearing, etc). Thus the intent of the cartoon in question does not apply to Eich as an individual - he did not try to paint himself as a victim of intolerance (rudeness, but not intolerance) after displaying intolerance through his Prop 8 support.

 

It can be argued that many of those who were upset at him did display what is described in the cartoon, but it requires changing one aspect of the cartoon - instead of saying "Please stop doing that", they would have to grab the stick and use it themselves. I can perfectly understand why some would argue that some among these individuals and groups did so in this case.  

 

However, it also goes back to the original point of the thread which is when does tolerance become intolerance. Does being tolerant mean that individuals have to surrender their right to voice disagreement with a person's actions. Is there a difference between voicing an opinion about a group, and trying to enforce that opinion about that group through rule of law? How do we determine if someone crosses the line when our own points of view determine where and under what

circumstances that line is drawn?

[twa]

Tolerance either has a limit or it is contradictory. Otherwise we would have to tolerate intolerance.

 

quite so, but tolerance should certainly permit difference of opinion in vote and donation at a minimum.

 

to do less seems compulsion

[twa]

 

However, it also goes back to the original point of the thread which is when does tolerance become intolerance. Does being tolerant mean that individuals have to surrender their right to voice disagreement with a person's actions. Is there a difference between voicing an opinion about a group, and trying to enforce that opinion about that group through rule of law? How do we determine if someone crosses the line when our own points of view determine where and under what

circumstances that line is drawn?

 

you seem willing to label opposition/support on a ballot issue as gross intolerance and bigotry.

it is a handy trick to marginalize by saying having a opinion is tolerable as long as you don't act on it.

 

it's kinda like saying it is tolerable to be gay as long as you don't have gay sex

[Burgold]

To me tolerant and intolerant is tied to inclusive vs. exclusive.  For example, as many hear know I am Jewish yet I love Christmas music, decorations, and many of the traditions.  Likewise, I've gone to Buhudist New Year's ceremonies and Eid events in the past and found them inspiring and interesting in a positive way.  So, I would argue that I am tolerant of beliefs or religions different than my own.  Part of that hinges on the idea of inclusion though.  If you tell me I can not celebrate my beliefs and traditions and only you get to celebrate yours my feelings change.

 

In simpler terms, if in your government holiday display there is room for a nativity, a Christmas tree, and Santa, but you can't find room for a menorah your intolerance tresspasses on my tolerance making me a suspicious and potentially unhappy.  Likewise, I am very tolerant of different social views as long as it isn't forcibly projected into my sphere.  Why should I be against a gay wedding?  It harms me in no way if two men or two women fall in love and want to cherish each other and have tax breaks.  I can accept a NeoNazism parade and even the handing out of literature, but if you demand that everyone join the party or incite and act violently on your supremacy beliefs you strain my tolerance.

 

So, I think ultimately tolerance is a two way street.  We should be tolerant of each other's differences as long as those tolerances are not ones which cause harm to another.  The definition of harm sometimes being very difficult.

[AdamB]

you seem willing to label opposition/support on a ballot issue as gross intolerance and bigotry.

it is a handy trick to marginalize by saying having a opinion is tolerable as long as you don't act on it.

 

it's kinda like saying it is tolerable to be gay as long as you don't have gay sex

 

I did not say having an opinion is tolerable if you do not act on it.

 

I stated tolerance is when one understands and respects viewpoints that are other than one's own, but that it does not mean you surrender your right to speak out against it.

 

I stated that in my opinion it is intolerant to create and support a law that is based on the lack of tolerance of another group, a law that has no rational, legal, or measurable reasons or justifications beyond  not liking it. I also think it is intolerant to pass laws banning inter-racial marriage, preventing women from voting, or forcing a baker to cater a same-sex marriage.

 

edit: Hey...did you notice that last one? The one where I said it was intolerant to force an individual, BY LAW, to violate their religious views by catering a same-sex marriage, despite the fact that I disagree with their views?  

 

I did not state that those who have different viewpoints on gun control than I do are intolerant if they try to pass stricter gun control laws. Why? Because they at least have facts, such as statistics and research, to support their view....not just because they think guns are icky.

[twa]

any law or reg that restricts is intolerant

 

maybe I took your branding of those opposed to SSM as intolerant and bigoted wrong, but free to speak w/o vote or supporting is a hollow shell.

"no rational, legal, or measurable reasons or justifications beyond  not liking it"......does not seem tolerant either

 

the level of tolerance and inclusiveness naturally clash at times

[AdamB]

any law or reg that restricts is intolerant

 

Yes and no. In an extremely broad sense, I agree with you. However, I would argue that there is a difference between between:

 

a. A law or restriction which is designed to protect the rights, health, and safety of a general population based upon observable data and research

 

b. A law or restriction which targets a specific group while not targeting the general population for reasons which are not based on observable data or research

 

In the case of A, there is a measurable and rational reason for the law. For example, setting the speed limit on a two-lane road that goes through a neighborhood past a school and park. At the same time it restricts my ability to go as fast as I want.

 

In the case of B, the reason for the law is based almost every time solely upon the like or dislike of a particular group (I say almost because, for everything, one can usually find an exception). I would argue anti-same-sex marriage laws falls under this category (tho I understand that others would disagree). Another example would be segregation laws - is there any research or observable data that says that having the races interacting on an equal basis is harmful for the general population?

 

There is a grey area though between A and B.

 

Most would agree that slavery is wrong. However, slaveholders did have what was at the time a non-race based argument in favor of slavery which was that the Southern economy being reliant to a degree upon the use of slaves. So, a law banning slavery sides on the argument that the rights of individuals to not be kept in bondage, abused, and killed outweighed the economic rights of the slaveholder, and the slaveholder would deem the law intolerant.

 

It gets even murkier when one considers something like the current immigration debate. Is it intolerant of Hispanics and Latinos who are breaking the current immigration laws to support much tougher laws and enforcement because one has legitimate concerns about "rewarding" illegal behavior which is independent of race, religion, or heritage? How about if the individual supports tougher laws and enforcement because they are trying to maintain whites as the majority of country or based upon a prejudiced view of Latinos?

 

In my opinion, one is not intolerant and one is, yet the both ultimately support the same immigration laws. And, going back to my original post, we as a society really like trying to paint complex issues in black and white. 

 

maybe I took your branding of those opposed to SSM as intolerant and bigoted wrong, but free to speak w/o vote or supporting is a hollow shell.

 

 

I agree actually, which is why I never said that individuals did not have the right to support or vote based on personal beliefs or opinion, or that they should have that right taken from them. What the discussion is about is tolerance and intolerance, how we define it or create its boundaries.

 

In my opinion, if one supports a law that falls into category B above, they are displaying intolerance. That does not mean that I think they should not be allowed to support said law, only how I as an individual perceive their actions. That perception is going to be different based on the individual.

 

Going off topic a little -

 

All decisions and behaviors have consequences. Those consequences can either be positive or negative, and part of what determines the consequences is how others perceive them. And when large groups share the same perceptions, they will act in unison to bring about the consequences they deem required.

 

Eich supported a law that many perceived as intolerant, so they used the right to express their displeasure through the use of internet speech and a sort-of-boycott.

 

Disney decided to have same-sex parents in one of their shows. Groups like One Million Moms perceive this as wrong, so they organized a boycott.

 

If one strongly holds an opinion or belief, holds it so strong that they are willing to act upon it such as voting to codify it into law (Eich) or risk losing business (Disney), then how others perceive it as tolerant or intolerant should not matter, and they should be willing to face the consequences of the decision to do so.

 

 

"no rational, legal, or measurable reasons or justifications beyond  not liking it"......does not seem tolerant either

 

 

See above comments about perception

 

My opinions in regards to the above statement is in regard to law. You can insert a specific religious group, sexual orientation, political ideology, etc. and 95% of the time I am going to side with the specific group (allowing for the fact that we will always have that time when we create exceptions to our own rules...its human) even if I disagree with that group, when it comes to enacting laws against them unless you can show justification beyond personal opinion or belief.

 

Or, in other words, I can and do show tolerance of others intolerance until that intolerance is used to harm in some way the group they are intolerant against unless you can convince me it is the right thing to do. Personal opinions without support is rarely enough to convince me when it comes to law.

[twa]

 perception would also apply to a law or legal status benefiting a group that is perceived as exclusionary by those not benefiting.

 

one sees it as addressing a need,another as exclusion/discrimination.

 

framing the window changes the view

[AdamB]

 perception would also apply to a law or legal status benefiting a group that is perceived as exclusionary by those not benefiting.

 

one sees it as addressing a need,another as exclusion/discrimination.

 

framing the window changes the view

 

 

Correct.

 

Which is why I oppose bans on same-sex marriage as it is excluding a group from the same rights and benefits that other groups enjoy. The group opposed to same-sex marriage lose no rights by homosexuals gaining the same rights. Nor do homosexuals gain special rights since technically those against same-sex marriage would also gain those rights even if they never exercise them while still receiving the benefits society grants to marriage. 

 

I also oppose laws supporting same-sex marriage that do not include exceptions for religious organizations. In this instance, one group would be receiving equal rights in regards to marriage, but another would lose the legal rights they currently enjoy under the Constitution. 

 

In this way, a need is addressed while not excluding or discriminating against another group.

[twa]

Allowing SSM still bans groups, the perception from those excluded is no different.

 

circular

 

welcome to the exclusive bigot club 

[AdamB]

Allowing SSM still bans groups, the perception from those excluded is no different.

 

circular

 

welcome to the exclusive bigot club 

 

False, allowing same-sex marriage does not ban groups.

 

Allowing same-sex marriage removes a ban from one group.