Tolerance - Part 2
I guess what I'm really thinking over is how tolerance fits in with our beliefs. What religion we have and how that effects the feasibility of tolerance.
Because, it's quite easy to tolerate someone wearing, say, a hat. After a while it seems to come down somewhat to the definition of tolerance.
To allow and/or acknowledge/respect each others practices and/or religion, without actively opposing it.
Hmm. That's basically it, with what I gather from various dictionaries.
Then applying that to everything, it quickly becomes....difficult.
There's the stuff I can tolerate like what car somebody drives, and stuff I can't tolerate, like country music. (just kidding there)
Feasibly, a lot of....stuff people practice we should be able to live with. Mutually exclusive things are what get difficult though.
Namely beliefs. Say two people have beliefs, (which everybody believes in something, even if it's nothing) and they are mutually exclusive, meaning one can't exist with the other. They can tolerate the other, even though they believe each other to be wrong, right? Well that's all good and fine, (yeah, f.i.n.e. see the post "how are you?") but who's belief/viewpoint is being taught in school?
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking evolution, it just works as a good example, ok? Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive beliefs.
I believe I can pretty much safely say evolution is primarily taught in our public schools, probably more so than I know, because I'm home-schooled. That said, even though we tolerate each others views, we both want our beliefs....promoted, for lack of a better word. In essence then, aren't we saying we're tolerant, while being intolerant when we don't allow other beliefs in our school? That's active opposition, which is intolerant.
Why are there so many new religions popping up like, "You are God, God is everything and everyone, there are many ways to God, just choose your own"? These have existed in different forms before. In our tolerance crazed age though, they work great because they aren't mutually exclusive to anything. Never mind that there's hardly anything in them to start with, so there's nothing to be tolerant of in the first place.
From a religious focus point, tolerance just doesn't really apply.
I'm quoting directly from one of Ken Ham's books here. (from which I am unashamedly taking some subjects from, to add too and rewrite with my own words. Hey, it's good stuff)
"You must allow other views and be tolerant of opinions different to yours."
"My view is that the literal interpretation of Genesis is the right view. All other views are wrong. Will you tolerate my view?"
Obviously, the first person can't say no, as he'll be practicing intolerance. If the first person says yes, then he'll be allowing Ken to say that he can't have a viewpoint different than Ken's. That would result in Ken having a viewpoint that says the first person is wrong, and they're back to being intolerant of each other. If they simply say, "we can have our separate views, and tolerate each other, even if our view says the other is wrong," they'll be practicing tolerance. At the same time, which view are they supporting, which view are they wanting as the commonly accepted view? Their own of course. If they take any steps to promote their view, that is active opposition to the other, and thereby intolerant.
Tolerance just doesn't really work when it comes to religion. Either one belief or the other, is going to be taught, and it's going to be intolerant of the others. Even the religions that say their way is not the only way, are intolerant of other beliefs, they're simply saying "these other similar beliefs that we tolerate are the same as ours, so we allow them."
So who's viewpoint, who's belief will everyone else have to tolerate? What will we stick with? Because if we change just one little bit, why doesn't everyone else have the right to say what belief is right?
Because, it's quite easy to tolerate someone wearing, say, a hat. After a while it seems to come down somewhat to the definition of tolerance.
To allow and/or acknowledge/respect each others practices and/or religion, without actively opposing it.
Hmm. That's basically it, with what I gather from various dictionaries.
Then applying that to everything, it quickly becomes....difficult.
There's the stuff I can tolerate like what car somebody drives, and stuff I can't tolerate, like country music. (just kidding there)
Feasibly, a lot of....stuff people practice we should be able to live with. Mutually exclusive things are what get difficult though.
Namely beliefs. Say two people have beliefs, (which everybody believes in something, even if it's nothing) and they are mutually exclusive, meaning one can't exist with the other. They can tolerate the other, even though they believe each other to be wrong, right? Well that's all good and fine, (yeah, f.i.n.e. see the post "how are you?") but who's belief/viewpoint is being taught in school?
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking evolution, it just works as a good example, ok? Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive beliefs.
I believe I can pretty much safely say evolution is primarily taught in our public schools, probably more so than I know, because I'm home-schooled. That said, even though we tolerate each others views, we both want our beliefs....promoted, for lack of a better word. In essence then, aren't we saying we're tolerant, while being intolerant when we don't allow other beliefs in our school? That's active opposition, which is intolerant.
Why are there so many new religions popping up like, "You are God, God is everything and everyone, there are many ways to God, just choose your own"? These have existed in different forms before. In our tolerance crazed age though, they work great because they aren't mutually exclusive to anything. Never mind that there's hardly anything in them to start with, so there's nothing to be tolerant of in the first place.
From a religious focus point, tolerance just doesn't really apply.
I'm quoting directly from one of Ken Ham's books here. (from which I am unashamedly taking some subjects from, to add too and rewrite with my own words. Hey, it's good stuff)
"You must allow other views and be tolerant of opinions different to yours."
"My view is that the literal interpretation of Genesis is the right view. All other views are wrong. Will you tolerate my view?"
Obviously, the first person can't say no, as he'll be practicing intolerance. If the first person says yes, then he'll be allowing Ken to say that he can't have a viewpoint different than Ken's. That would result in Ken having a viewpoint that says the first person is wrong, and they're back to being intolerant of each other. If they simply say, "we can have our separate views, and tolerate each other, even if our view says the other is wrong," they'll be practicing tolerance. At the same time, which view are they supporting, which view are they wanting as the commonly accepted view? Their own of course. If they take any steps to promote their view, that is active opposition to the other, and thereby intolerant.
Tolerance just doesn't really work when it comes to religion. Either one belief or the other, is going to be taught, and it's going to be intolerant of the others. Even the religions that say their way is not the only way, are intolerant of other beliefs, they're simply saying "these other similar beliefs that we tolerate are the same as ours, so we allow them."
So who's viewpoint, who's belief will everyone else have to tolerate? What will we stick with? Because if we change just one little bit, why doesn't everyone else have the right to say what belief is right?
Tolerance and acceptance are two very different ideas, and I believe you have them mixed up.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. I'm trying to just stick with thoughts on tolerance. Acceptance is different, yes. I can see where I'm probably getting them mixed up, especially in the third to last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, if you don't mind a question, don't they seem to share some similarities? They must be at least in the same category.
Thanks for your comment, I think I'll end up writing down my conclusions on the difference between these two in a later post. Once it's up, I hope you can read it sometime.