I am both a tolerant and an intolerant person. That is precisely what makes me a progressive!

[Pacifist Patriot]

Tolerance is defined as:

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

This is an issue that is fraught for political and religious liberals/progressives. We generally believe tolerance is an admirable trait and something to value. In fact, we are known for toleration and that is often used as a weapon against us.

I am a Unitarian Universalist, and while the word 'tolerance' is not explicitly in our statement of principles, it is certainly present as a governing value. Which is why we are often subject to scorn and disdain as hyprocits if we so much as utter a critical syllable about something. I have long considered this an unfair response and one that indicates the very same misunderstanding of tolerance I have seen in abundance here at DU because of the Rev. Warren issue.

Toleration is indeed about respecting differences, and in my opinion is a critical viewpoint necessary for peace, love and understanding. We must have tolerance for different beliefs, opinions and practices for humanity to experience healthy progress.

However, it is a disasterous mistake to adopt an extreme position when it comes to toleration. And a rather silly one to expect any individual to possess 100% toleration. If that were the case we would have no values, principles and convictions by which to form opinions, make judgments, and reach decisions.

I do consider myself a tolerant person. I love to learn about new ideas and adore the vast array of cultural differences I have had the pleasure to experience in my travels. However, in no way does my high estimation of tolerance translate into a stance that prohibits me from criticizing opinions, beliefs and actions my other values and convictions tell me are wrong.

Exactly how are we to promote justice if we cannot decry injustice?

I make absolutely no apologies for my intolerance for words and actions I believe demonize any segment of humanity. I make absolutely no apologies for my intolerance of practices that I believe dehumanize any individual. If that makes me a hypocrit, I've been called worse and survived.

There is a middle path between relativism and absolutism, permissiveness and dogmatism. Committed Relativist Ethics accepts that there is a range of healthy beliefs, cultural mores, and actions within which diversity can be celebrated and encouraged. Yet it also accepts that there are beliefs, cultural mores and actions that are unhealthy and therefore must be resisted.

Clearly we are still left with the problem of who determines the boundaries of that range. I would challenge anyone to include female genital mutilation or the belief that black skin makes you subhuman within the range of healthy actions and beliefs, but obviously we have situations where even political and religious progressives disagree. For example, I place the death penalty outside the range, while others might not. Without a definitive authority upon which to rely, which is the case with absolutism / dogmatism, we are left with areas that will inevitably result in conflict. It is here where our tolerance is tested most.

[B o d i]

1. Your post reminds me of a Rush song, from Test For Echo

Resist


I can learn to resist
Anything but temptation
I can learn to co-exist
With anything but pain

I can learn to compromise
Anything but my desires
I can learn to get along
With all the things I cant explain

I can learn to resist
Anything but frustration
I can learn to persist
With anything but aiming low

I can learn to close my eyes
To anything but injustice
I can learn to get along
With all the things I dont know

You can surrender
Without a prayer
But never really pray
Pray without surrender

You can fight
Without ever winning
But never ever win
Without a fight

[bemildred]

2. Live and let live is not a new idea, and it's always been a good one. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. Live and let live is a good idea?

Tell that to the 8 year old in Saudi Arabia married off to a 58 year old man.
Tell that to the girl in Somalia having her clitoris sawed off with a broken piece of glass.
Tell that to the gay teenager being thrown out of his house for coming out of the closet.

Live and let live is cowardice.

[bemildred]

4. Are you drunk?

Live and let live is tolerance. Tolerance does not mean abuse, it means leaving people alone to work out their own lives, respecting human rights, etc.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
:puke::puke:

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Not drunk, but certainly distracted.

Your single line response came across as disagreeing with what I had to say and advocating moral relativism. My apologies for making that assumption. I have seen such a surprising number of people essentially taking that position with respect to the Warren debacle I thought I was seeing it yet again.

[bemildred]

6. I do advocate moral relativism.

But not when it comes to snipping off little pieces of people involuntarily or meddling with their human rights. It is certainly true that people do get confused and do use these issues for propaganda purposes.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. Moral relativism with principled limits is committed relativism.

Which is the entire point of my post.

I once had a woman in my congregation who brushed aside human rights abuses with the argument that only then could she be truly tolerant. That's moral relativism at it's worst. Granted, I'm pretty sure she was a borderline personality.