Tolerance

[evangelicalhumanist]

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance along with them.

Karl Popper
The Open Society and Its Enemies
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971

An interesting notion. Can we be too tolerant, tolerant enough to eventually destroy tolerance?

How should we think about that in the context of Muslim threats against the lives of Salman Rushdie or Danish newspaper editors who print cartoons? How should we think about that in the context of Christian fundamentalists willing to stamp out the hard-won rights of those they don't happen to agree with?

[arthra]

To me tolerance could mean being willing to put up with something or someone but not really loving them or accepting them..

- Art

[metis]

Yes, I agree that it's possible to be too tolerant. Right now, the French are very paranoid about not agitating their 10% Muslem population, but there are some signs that many have had enough of this. Unfortunately, the counter reaction is often right-wing xenophobia, which is also very much a threat, and we're seeing an increase of this element on the increase in Europe.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by metis

Yes, I agree that it's possible to be too tolerant. Right now, the French are very paranoid about not agitating their 10% Muslem population, but there are some signs that many have had enough of this. Unfortunately, the counter reaction is often right-wing xenophobia, which is also very much a threat, and we're seeing an increase of this element on the increase in Europe.

Yes, we humans do tend to react like a pendulum -- having swung all the one to one side and found it not to our liking, we swing all the way to the other. It takes an awful lot of swings back and forth before we finally settle down in the middle!

But note, we don't have to go there if we don't want to. I think what Popper is saying is that we must not tolerate intolerance. I do not need to hate Muslims or Islam in order to demand -- by legal means, if necessary -- that they cease and desist from threatening the lives of citizens. Most countries have laws that are sufficiently tough to jail someone who incites others to murder. Similarly, I don't have to hate Christians who say that "God hates fags" in order to tell them that such behaviour is intolerant and we won't put up with it. One very effective way to do that is to deny them any press or media time whatever. If absolutely nobody on earth is paying attention to them, they usually get tired of the charade and just go home.

[vivamis123]

I am not a fan of the word tolerance. It feels to me as if something is "missing". It's not agreeing nor resisting. A better way in my opinion is to understand.

[sendy47]

hmm...I may just be to tired tonight to be reading this...i see the word missing...that seems to be me on this post tonight...many times i think we have tolerance...because of a lack of understanding... or am i missing something...well i will look in the am to see if i better understand with a rested mind... happy posting...happy reading...and for me good night...

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

I am not a fan of the word tolerance. It feels to me as if something is "missing". It's not agreeing nor resisting. A better way in my opinion is to understand.

But what if one "understands" quite well, but with all the understanding in the world cannot approve, cannot be tolerant?

Let me give just one example: that of Salman Rushdie. A fatwa has been issued calling for the death of Rushdie, because somebody thinks his book "The Satanic Verses" insults Islam. Muslims around the world have a religious duty to kill him.

I do understand what it feels like to have something that I consider important insulted. It feels like crap. I can only imagine (because I'm not religious) how much worse that might be if the insult was to something I considered sacred. And yet, for all my understanding, I cannot and will not tolerate the idea that somebody therefore has the right to kill someone else. And if they do succeed in that offense, all my understanding of their motives would not stop me, as a judge, finding them guilty and tossing them into prison for it.

And this is Popper's point, really. If I tolerate such an execrable act, on the basis of religious freedom, then it will not be very long before religious freedom and tolerance disappear.

[arthra]

"Let me give just one example: that of Salman Rushdie. A fatwa has been issued calling for the death of Rushdie, because somebody thinks his book "The Satanic Verses" insults Islam. Muslims around the world have a religious duty to kill him."

Rushdie responded to that "fatwa":

'' 'The Satanic Verses' is, in part, a secular man's reckoning with the religious spirit,'' he wrote. ''It is by no means always hostile to faith. . . . Yet the novel does contain doubts, uncertainties, even shocks that may well not be to the liking of the devout.''

and

''I want to say to the great mass of ordinary, decent, fair-minded Muslims, of the sort I have known all my life, and who have provided much of the inspiration for my work: to be rejected and reviled by, so to speak, one's own characters is a shocking and painful experience for any writer,'' Mr. Rushdie wrote. ''I recognize that many Muslims have felt shocked and pained, too. Perhaps a way forward might be found through the mutual recognition of that mutual pain.''

[sendy47]

Ok fresh start am hours...trying this again...my first issue was a made a wrong turn...was focusing on reply and not the origianl post...slow learner...but lol...i think i may be teachable...

An interesting notion. Can we be too tolerant, tolerant enough to eventually destroy tolerance?

anything is possible...

How should we think about that in the context of Muslim threats against the lives of Salman Rushdie or Danish newspaper editors who print cartoons?

i so am not familiar with this ...but am aware of cartoonists being bashed for there bashing...and for my self i dont like much of anything with negative direction toward anything or anyone...yet i tend to depersonalize and understand we all handle things in our own way and for some there outlet is wow where does that crap come from...how can so much ugly and pain and and and be in the human brain to put it for another to see or read or act out..what ever be the case...my guess is that the statement from you above is far deeper and i dont wish to in any way make light of it...for as i said..i am not familiar and what i have done is just share generalizing...

How should we think about that in the context of Christian fundamentalists willing to stamp out the hard-won rights of those they don't happen to agree with?

I would think that anyone.. anywhere.. would not be to happy about some group of what ever type.. trying to take away anothers rights based on there personal belief....

If absolutely nobody on earth is paying attention to them, they usually get tired of the charade and just go home.
__________________

you feed anything or anyone they hang around.....No one does anything for nothing...no gain...new plan....

now..for as much as my human being..has thoughts and opinons ...idea's etcetra on the communicating level...i feel all is as it should be in the big picture....

[angeleyes]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

An interesting notion. Can we be too tolerant, tolerant enough to eventually destroy tolerance?

How should we think about that in the context of Muslim threats against the lives of Salman Rushdie or Danish newspaper editors who print cartoons? How should we think about that in the context of Christian fundamentalists willing to stamp out the hard-won rights of those they don't happen to agree with?

Obviously, the issue of human rights is a work in progress and can only reflect a change of consciousness in society as a whole. There is a lag time between people changing their consciousness and seeing new freedoms in the "laws of the land."

New issue comes up all the time and it takes time to figure out how to protect the rights of all parties involved. Sometimes it takes a while for society to come around. People who find a need to speak out on issues are often ahead of the curve. To me "tolerance" is trying to understand and have compassion for those who disagree (because they don't want to give up a traditional point of view). It's not that one should give up their ideas or accept any kind of abuse.... it's more like understanding that some are unable to change a point of view at this time. If they were able to think differently, they would.