Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Intolerance, was Christian faith

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Intolerance, was Christian faith
  • Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:49:16 -0400



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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page