Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

Lynn Wigglesworth wrote:
> Bev; I disagree that you have to be exposed to something to be tolerant 
> or intolerant. There are intolerant people who condemn/hate/discriminate 
> against people they've never met because of some attribute or behavior 
> of that person. Look at laws that discriminate...anti-gay marriage, Jim 
> Crow laws, church rules against women priests, etc. These have nothing 
> to do with the individuals involved; it is intolerance against entire 
> groups of people. In fact, I'd say that if you know someone and don't 
> like them, it is more of a dislike for THAT person, not intolerance per se.

Right, but there is some contact with those groups or people who 
represent those groups.  If there had been no contact, no exposure, 
there would have been no perceived threat to protect against and 
therefore no 'anti' laws to begin with.  Those laws continue to harm 
future generations of people, strangers, that had nothing to do with the 
original case.
If Joe SixPack<g> lives on the edge of town and has 150 chickens and 
pigs, and doesn't take care of them, then Joe Sixpick becomes maligned 
and eventually, zoning will change or some law or ordinance will address 
him by saying, "no livestock w/i blah blah miles of town" or whatever. 
Ten years later, long after Joe's moved on, the law is now 
discriminatory against those who might want to do animal rescue or have 
some other more lofty purpose.  Even in that case, there was initial 
contact/exposure that became the base for intolerant actions.

> Tolerant to me means accepting someone (or a group of 'someones') as 
> they are without discriminating or trying to change them. You don't have 
> to like or dislike them, just allow them to be/believe/live the way they 
> want. Obviously there are clashes when one groups beliefs come up 
> against the other groups beliefs; that's where negotiation and 
> compromise come in.

So, conversely, intolerance is unacceptance of a person as they are and 
actively discriminating against them or trying to change them.  I think 
for that to happen, there is some dislike there already. You call it 
allowing them to be/believe/live, and I call it neutral acts...I go 
about my business in a way that doesn't encourage or condemn.
So since I used you in my example, and since you have delineated the 
process above, go back and in the example I suggested about the nasty 
gang member who moved in your building and is now threatening you...how 
do you negotiate and compromise there?


> Intolerance isn't always a bad thing. There are lots of things that we, 
> as individuals and a society SHOULDN'T tolerate. Crime, abuse, 
> discrimination, etc. That's where judgment comes in...deciding what is 
> actually a threat to social order (murder, robbery, etc), and what is 
> merely an offense to someone's idea of 'right', but doesn't hurt anyone 
> (homosexuality, different religious views, etc.). And yes, I've known 
> some atheists who were as intolerant of other people's beliefs as those 
> who try to push their religion on others.

I'd have to agree with that, too.  But we all draw the lines at 
different places so if you line is further away than mine, does that 
mean you more more tolerant than me?


> I brought up the past intolerance of the Christian churches to explain 
> why I said that I understood why someone like Khalid al-Mansour might 
> think that Christians are trying to wipe out Islam. 

Oh, _I_ know that..

Bev


--
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from 
the government and I'm here to help.'"  Ronald Reagan