"Tolerance"

[Robinsegg]

Hi!
I'd like to talk about society's definition of "tolerance". From my perspective, it seems that the definition has changed from something along the lines of "putting up with something you don't like" to something more like "accepting and embracing something you don't like".

Here's Webster's: http://www.webster.com/dictionary/tolerance
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : [SIZE=-1]TOLERATION[/SIZE]

Your insight is appreciated!

Rachel

 

[tocis]

Hi!
I'd like to talk about society's definition of "tolerance". From my perspective, it seems that the definition has changed from something along the lines of "putting up with something you don't like" to something more like "accepting and embracing something you don't like".

Here's Webster's: http://www.webster.com/dictionary/tolerance
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : [SIZE=-1]TOLERATION[/SIZE]

Your insight is appreciated!

Rachel

My personal definition goes roughly like this:

If what the other one does and thinks doesn't harm me, he can go ahead. If his thoughts or actions (well... thoughts in and of themselves don't harm anyone, so make that actions exclusively) will mean pain to me without a very good reasoning, then it's time to resist.
The former is tolerance. The latter is the end of it.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Hi!
I'd like to talk about society's definition of "tolerance". From my perspective, it seems that the definition has changed from something along the lines of "putting up with something you don't like" to something more like "accepting and embracing something you don't like".

Here's Webster's: http://www.webster.com/dictionary/tolerance
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : [SIZE=-1]TOLERATION[/SIZE]

Your insight is appreciated!

Rachel

Well, Robinsegg, there's a reason it seems that way. Tolerance does, in fact, mean to just put up with something. It does not in any sense mean to readily accept or endorse it. The reason why the perversity crowd talks about it so much is that it is a way of getting their foot in the door. They start out saying "You don't have to agree with us, just put up with us and let us do our own thing." Once they have a foothold, they start teaching kids 10 and up that perversity is acceptable and moral, like they are in Spain. It's sort of a bait and switch. After this they try and silence those who disagree with them. If people protest, they say "We don't have to tolerate hatred/abuse/bigotry/aka dissent", showing that not only is it a one-way street, but also that it was just a foot in the door to greater, more corrupt things.

My advice is not to listen when they talk of 'tolerance'. Because while you are minding your own business and passively 'tolerating', they are hard at work scheming and working to defeat you. The next time someone asks you for 'tolerance' of corruption imagine the Trojan Horse, which is really what it is.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, Robinsegg, there's a reason it seems that way. Tolerance does, in fact, mean to just put up with something. It does not in any sense mean to readily accept or endorse it. The reason why the perversity crowd talks about it so much is that it is a way of getting their foot in the door. They start out saying "You don't have to agree with us, just put up with us and let us do our own thing." Once they have a foothold, they start teaching kids 10 and up that perversity is acceptable and moral, like they are in Spain. It's sort of a bait and switch. After this they try and silence those who disagree with them. If people protest, they say "We don't have to tolerate hatred/abuse/bigotry/aka dissent", showing that not only is it a one-way street, but also that it was just a foot in the door to greater, more corrupt things.

My advice is not to listen when they talk of 'tolerance'. Because while you are minding your own business and passively 'tolerating', they are hard at work scheming and working to defeat you. The next time someone asks you for 'tolerance' of corruption imagine the Trojan Horse, which is really what it is.

No, I think what the majority wants (and if not majority, then me personanally) is for you to keep your own religious beliefs to yourself, and stop trying to make the rest of us abide by your "rules". I will abide by the state and federal laws, in which religion should have no place.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

Tolerence has been streched so thin it's becoming non-existant.

 

[CSmrw]

And accept the fact that in America you are required to wait until someone actually compells you to accept something before you can do anything but whine about it.

 

[KarateCowboy]

No, I think what the majority wants (and if not majority, then me personanally) is for you to keep your own religious beliefs to yourself, and stop trying to make the rest of us abide by your "rules". I will abide by the state and federal laws, in which religion should have no place.

But you can preach your humanist or whatever you are views all over and force them on us, redefining things?

The very day after the Bill of Rights was passed Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a national Thanksgiving Day Proclomation (passed by the Congress on September 25, 1789), reading:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor — and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be — That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks — for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation — for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed — for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted — for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions — to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually — to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed — to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord — To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us — and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
George Washington

The U.S. has been a nation and culture based on the Judeo-Christian culture, so if anyone is forcing their beliefs on others, it is non-Christians trying to impose their beliefs on a majority that takes its culture and tenets from the Judeo-Christian ethic.

So, why don't you keep your beliefs to yourself, and stop trying to get others to abide by your rules?

 

[selfinflikted]

But you can preach your humanist or whatever you are views all over and force them on us, redefining things?

The very day after the Bill of Rights was passed Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a national Thanksgiving Day Proclomation (passed by the Congress on September 25, 1789), reading:

The U.S. has been a nation and culture based on the Judeo-Christian culture, so if anyone is forcing their beliefs on others, it is non-Christians trying to impose their beliefs on a majority that takes its culture and tenets from the Judeo-Christian ethic.

So, why don't you keep your beliefs to yourself, and stop trying to get others to abide by your rules?

1. You need to go back and read some quotes from our founding fathers to see just how "christian" these guys were. There are a million posts in various threads, just take a look.

2. I'm not trying to impose rules, I'm trying to make you understand that your "rules" are taking away MY choices that are supposed to be guaranteed to me by the government.

 

[CSmrw]

1. You need to go back and read some quotes from our founding fathers to see just how "christian" these guys were. There are a million posts in various threads, just take a look.

2. I'm not trying to impose rules, I'm trying to make you understand that your "rules" are taking away MY choices that are supposed to be guaranteed to me by the government.

Do you truly suppose he cares about anyone else's rights?

 

[JGG]

My advice is not to listen when they talk of 'tolerance'. Because while you are minding your own business and passively 'tolerating', they are hard at work scheming and working to defeat you. The next time someone asks you for 'tolerance' of corruption imagine the Trojan Horse, which is really what it is.

Sounds like something said by the Phelps family...

 

[selfinflikted]

Do you truly suppose he cares about anyone else's rights?

I thought that was plainly obvious, but he's clearly trying to point a finger at me, when indeed the finger should be pointed at his narrow, fascist view. Whoah, that's a lot of commas for one sentence. Next, he'll point out how my grammar is horrible. lawl

 

[CSmrw]

I thought that was plainly obvious, but he's clearly trying to point a finger at me, when indeed the finger should be pointed at his narrow, fascist view. Whoah, that's a lot of commas for one sentence. Next, he'll point out how my grammar is horrible. lawl

Let me assure you, anyone possessing any kind of reasoning ability understood that. As a liberty minded human being I would kill nad die for his right to say that stuff - as I would ofr a member of NAMBLA, the Identity movement or Rush Limbaugh, but if anyone ever tried to get it codified into law I would spin that muzzle around faster than you can say patriot. He has the right to hate America.

 

[selfinflikted]

Let me assure you, anyone possessing any kind of reasoning ability understood that. As a liberty minded human being I would kill nad die for his right to say that stuff - as I would ofr a member of NAMBLA, the Identity movement or Rush Limbaugh, but if anyone ever tried to get it codified into law I would spin that muzzle around faster than you can say patriot. He has the right to hate America.

Indeed, you'll get no argument from me there

 

[CSmrw]

I am very much in Grizzly's camp, though. I said that I wish Anti American Christians (as opposed to those majority of Christians who understand that liberty trumps theology in the public forum) would shut up already. That was fluster talking. I don't wish they would shut up. I wish they would become America lovers. But I would never compell them to shut up. I would never compell them to stop getting marriage benifits from the governemnt if we, as we ought to do, change the official monogamous commitment protocal from Marriage to a Social Contract. I would invite them to join into a contract and enjoy all that a free society can offer monogamous commitments. I wouldn't kick a group of Christians out of my business if I saw them doing something I didn't like as long as that thing was otherwise legal. Come into my coffee house and read your bible. Bring some friends and talk about your Jesus. Hold hands round the table and pray. Not my problem.

And as much as it pains me I would not force Christians to keep their faith from their children untl those children were old enough to be reccognised as legal adults, dispite how much damage I think their religion causes young minds. Because they are free to do these things in a liberty based society. If I were to talk about and treat Christians the way some of them talk about and treat gays or atheists I would expect to be hated and called unamerican, and frankly in good conscience I wouldn't even try to defend myself.

 

[selfinflikted]

I am very much in Grizzly's camp, though. I said that I wish Anti American Christians (as opposed to those majority of Christians who understand that liberty trumps theology in the public forum) would shut up already. That was fluster talking. I don't wish they would shut up. I wish they would become America lovers. But I would never compell them to shut up. I would never compell them to stop getting marriage benifits from the governemnt if we, as we ought to do, change the official monogamous commitment protocal from Marriage to a Social Contract. I would invite them to join into a contract and enjoy all that a free society can offer monogamous commitments. I wouldn't kick a group of Christians out of my business if I saw them doing something I didn't like as long as that thing was otherwise legal. Come into my coffee house and read your bible. Bring some friends and talk about your Jesus. Hold hands round the table and pray. Not my problem.

And as much as it pains me I would not force Christians to keep their faith from their children untl those children were old enough to be reccognised as legal adults, dispite how much damage I think their religion causes young minds. Because they are free to do these things in a liberty based society. If I were to talk about and treat Christians the way some of them talk about and treat gays or atheists I would expect to be hated and called unamerican, and frankly in good conscience I wouldn't even try to defend myself.

Hey, don't worry about the kids. If when they reach maturity they have an ounce of, umm.. intelligence they will realise religion for what it is. I was one of those kids, and I grew out of it. I just dont see how anyone with a speck of formal education can still believe some of this stuff, ya know? Don't get me wrong, organized religion has its strong points, it's just the fanatics that ruin it for everyone else.

 

[KarateCowboy]

1. You need to go back and read some quotes from our founding fathers to see just how "christian" these guys were. There are a million posts in various threads, just take a look.

I've been on these forums a lot longer than you have, and I know better their contents. You need to crack open a history book and read what these guys actually wrote.

2. I'm not trying to impose rules, I'm trying to make you understand that your "rules" are taking away MY choices that are supposed to be guaranteed to me by the government.

You are trying to impose rules. For example, marriage in this nation has long been defined as an institution between one man and one woman. You work to have that changed. I work to have it enforced.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Hey, don't worry about the kids. If when they reach maturity they have an ounce of, umm.. intelligence they will realise religion for what it is. I was one of those kids, and I grew out of it. I just dont see how anyone with a speck of formal education can still believe some of this stuff, ya know? Don't get me wrong, organized religion has its strong points, it's just the fanatics that ruin it for everyone else.

This post is what it boils down to. We're all a bunch of uneducated hicks (despite, personally, having a bachelors of science and pursuing an under-grad in biology) and you're a superior, educated, enlightened breed of humanity, meant to ween us from our cretinous belief in the fairy in the sky(that, or an ancient book that is cave-man in nature). If someone holds a belief that you disagree with and actually acts upon it they are a fanatic, and we're all a bunch of nutcases because we aren't led by the nose by the ever-changing intellectual fads of a secular society.

 

[selfinflikted]

KarateCowboy,

I'm not trying to impose rules, Im merely advocating that the "rules" be changed to be more inclusive. Im sorry you see it that way. As for the history of this country, everyone is knows that these lands were settled to flee from the umbrella of religious oppression. Certainly some of the ideas had a basis in christianity, but what else was there to base it from? The idea however was not to impose religion, and it was most certainly not to base its laws on the morality of a religion.

And please, don't insult me. You are not the only one with a bachelor of sciences degree and I certainly do not consider myself an "uneducated hick". By no means do I think I know everything, but I do know what is right for me. If you consider yourself a nutcase, I'm sure any local psychiatrist will be glad to take your money. And one other thing, I sure would hate to think where our society might be if we weren't "led by the nose by the ever-changing intellectual fads of secular society" as you put it. Still burning witches at the stake I suppose.

 

[Robinsegg]

This post is what it boils down to. We're all a bunch of uneducated hicks (despite, personally, having a bachelors of science and pursuing an under-grad in biology) and you're a superior, educated, enlightened breed of humanity, meant to ween us from our cretinous belief in the fairy in the sky(that, or an ancient book that is cave-man in nature). If someone holds a belief that you disagree with and actually acts upon it they are a fanatic, and we're all a bunch of nutcases because we aren't led by the nose by the ever-changing intellectual fads of a secular society.

Actually, I don't think selfinflikted feels this way about all those who follow organized religion. He seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) to think that those extremists that feel they must show hate in order to love need some help in the "intellectual" area.

I feel sure selfinflikted wasn't lumping me, personally, in the group of fanatics (though I do follow and act upon the tennets of Christianity). I read it as he sees illogic in the Bible (as the Bible itself proclaims it will seem to those wise in the ways of the world) and, more specifically, in the actions (hypocrisy) of many Christians.

However, none of this gets to the central point of this thread: What does tolerance mean?

Rachel

 

[selfinflikted]

Actually, I don't think selfinflikted feels this way about all those who follow organized religion. He seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) to think that those extremists that feel they must show hate in order to love need some help in the "intellectual" area.

I feel sure selfinflikted wasn't lumping me, personally, in the group of fanatics (though I do follow and act upon the tennets of Christianity). I read it as he sees illogic in the Bible (as the Bible itself proclaims it will seem to those wise in the ways of the world) and, more specifically, in the actions (hypocrisy) of many Christians.

However, none of this gets to the central point of this thread: What does tolerance mean?

Rachel

Ding! You win the intarweb, Robbinsegg. Thanks for putting into words my feelings more eloquently than I could... you hit the nail on the head.

EDIT: Back to your regularly scheduled programming...