Is Tolerance a Good Thing?

[MineralMan]

If you're saying WTF? to this question, perhaps you're thinking too quickly. Let's take a closer look:

The Roman Catholic Church has been quite tolerant of its priests sexually molesting children for decades, or even centuries. It has not condemned nor punished them, even when that behavior was discovered. Instead, it often just moved offending priests to another place, where their behavior was not known. Tolerance of evil deeds is not a good thing.

I tend to criticize religious organizations and people who do things that are not considered to be acceptable. Does that make me intolerant of religion? It does not. It makes me intolerant of bad behavior. So, I openly criticize religious groups which tolerate child sexual abuse or prohibit women from exercising their reproductive rights. I am intolerant of such behaviors. I freely admit that.

I do not criticize religious organizations who do not promote such things. In fact, i don't even mention them, because I don't care what deities people worship or what doctrines they follow, unless such deities and doctrines result in unfair treatment of people who are not part of that faith tradition.

Tolerance, like most characteristics, is not always one thing or always a good thing. I do not tolerate racism. I do not tolerate government officials who use their offices to create profits for themselves. I do not tolerate priests who sexually abuse children, nor their superiors who tolerate such priests.

I am tolerant of most things that do not harm anyone. I am intolerant of things that do harm people unjustly. So, I'm neither tolerant nor intolerant on a general basis. Tolerance is not one thing, nor is it always a positive thing. Intolerance is also not one thing, nor always a negative thing.

I am intolerant of societies which limit the beliefs of their members. I am intolerant of intolerance. I am intolerant of anyone who harms others who are innocent of doing harm. I am intolerant of any organization or group that is intolerant on general principles of people outside of that organization or group.

Everything is relative. We too often forget that.

Before we discuss the nature of words like tolerance, we need to define them quite clearly. Otherwise, we waste a good deal of our time.

[marylandblue]

1. Yes, I agree with that and we also need to pay attention to context

Since this is the religion group, we should look at religious intolerance, where religion becomes the basis for violence or abuse. Topics like political intolerance would be more appropriate in General Discussion.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. Comparing fundamentally dissimilar things wastes time.

While politics and religion sometimes get entangled, that is most often not true.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. I can't think of anything that is universally good.

Ethics, unfortunately, doesn't fit on a bumpersticker.

[MineralMan]

4. 70% Dark Chocolate?

I guess not. Some people hate chocolate and others are allergic to it.

So, you're right, I suppose.

[marylandblue]

5. Chocolate haters are irrational and the allergic need conversion therapy

So chocolate is in fact a universal good. However, although I tolerate dark chocolate, milk chocolate is better

[MineralMan]

6. I must disagree with you, in the most emphatic terms, about dark chocolate.

But, I'll try to do it politely, so as to appear to be tolerant.

[guillaumeb]

10. I must, it seems, agree with you on this matter.

But I tolerate those who like milk chocolate.

[sprinkleeninow]

7. A number of posts in this room of 'religion' I 'tolerate'.

You, I have no need of tolerance.

Ooh. 😍

Miz Googly Smilies

P.S. Milk chawklit also does it for me. 🍫

[Voltaire2]

8. Milk chocolate is an abomination and those

who adhere to that abomination are stained for life.

80% or nothing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Heretic.

I insufflate unsweetened baking chocolate for breakfast, the way god intended.

[guillaumeb]

9. Is unconditional tolerance a good thing?

No. That might explain your apparent confusion.

[MineralMan]

11. What confusion is that?

I'm not in the least confused.

[guillaumeb]

12. The confusion evident in your original post.

And the title itself.

That confusion.

[MineralMan]

13. Which you didn't read, apparently.

Or, perhaps, didn't understand. :shug:

[MineralMan]

15. That is, I believe, the first time you have qualified tolerance or intolerance

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2019, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

in that way. You use the word intolerance, without any qualifying adjectives, very frequently, and appear to consider any type of intolerance as a negative human reaction to things. Clearly, it is not always negative. You might want to consider qualifying your broad-brush statements to paint a clearer picture.

[guillaumeb]

16. If you read the actual posts,

such as the posts about the intolerance exhibited by the Chinese Government toward theists, you might come to the conclusion that the intolerance is a bad thing.

It is always helpful to read the posts, and sometimes the entire article that is linked to.

And considering that most who read the posts exhibit no such confusion, I am confident that the majority understand the point.

[trotsky]

18. Correction.

The factually correct statement would be:

"...the posts about the intolerance exhibited by the Chinese government toward theists AND atheists..."

Please state facts, not your spin that you use to promote your agenda.

Thank you.

[guillaumeb]

20. The intolerance directed at theists is directed against them because they are theists.

Thus your own spin is revealed.

[trotsky]

27. The existence of just one non-persecuted theist in China completely disproves your position.

Here's 8:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/22/pope-francis-recognizes-chinese-bishops-ordained-without-papal-approval

Those men are theists, and are tolerated by the Chinese government. You have been humiliated once more. You must enjoy it, is all I can conclude.

[guillaumeb]

32. A failure in logic.

But you are entitled to your opinion that this proves anything.

[trotsky]

42. As you are entitled to your (completely wrong) opinion.

Doesn't make it any less wrong, though. But do keep humiliating yourself - I greatly enjoy it.

[Major Nikon]

40. There's also the fact that non-theists are persecuted for the same reasons

So one can logically disprove it both ways. Meanwhile this blatant error is excused through either ignorance of what “logic” means or gaslighting.

[trotsky]

43. It's all about trying to tie the intolerance of the Chinese government to atheism, of course.

It's his only weapon to try and neutralize discussion of intolerance by religious people.

[Major Nikon]

45. Don't forget how the Boston Atheists blackballed a Trump humper

So the intolerance of atheists is clearly a much bigger problem than you are letting on.

Meanwhile atheists vote D at about the same rate evangelicals vote R, but we have those who want to demonize the former while simultaneously claiming religion has zero to do with the intolerance of the latter. Very telling that.

[marylandblue]

19. So all intolerance is equally bad, but it's universal, so

we can't stop all instances of intolerance? All we can do is complain about it, point out other instances of intolerance and ask other people what we should do about it?

[guillaumeb]

21. No, but by recognizing the universality,

we are not likely to make a logical error and blame religion, or atheism, for what all humans do.

[marylandblue]

22. Either it is all equal, or it is not. If it is all equal, then you have an amoral philosophy.

If it is not all equal, then why is it not?

[guillaumeb]

23. I disagree.

No one here is arguing that tolerance must be the response to any action or we would not be posting here.

What I argue against are reductionistic type arguments that equate theism with violence. Or that blame theism as the major cause of violence. That reveals nothing but an agenda against theism.

[marylandblue]

24. You never actually argue for that position.

Maybe you think you are, but you are actually arguing for an even more reductionist position that reduces all human behavior to just random human behaviors that are caused by a thing called "tribalism" which is said.to be a universal human trait like breathing.

[guillaumeb]

25. All human behavior has a cause.

There are very few random responses.

But recognizing that some behaviors are universal allows one to avoid blaming behavior on any particular subset of humans.

[marylandblue]

26. Not all behaviors are truly universal.

Not all humans are intolerant, and for those that are, they are not all intolerant in equal measures. And not all intolerance has the same negative outcomes. And not all instances of harm can be explained by a single parameter called "intolerance," or by a single human trait called "tribalism."

[guillaumeb]

29. Your opinion.

Followed by arguments against positions that I did not take.

[marylandblue]

31. Are you not taking the opinion that "intolerance" is universal?

And further that, if it is universal, then neither religion nor atheism, can cause or worsen "intolerance?"

[guillaumeb]

33. I am taking the position that intolerance can be found among every group of humans.

And that any assertions as to what causes intolerance are assertions about human behavior and psychology.

[marylandblue]

34. Just be clear, do you think intolerance is also found in all individuals?

And another clarification. Is intolerance found in equal measure in all groups?

[guillaumeb]

36. Yes to the first.

I have no tolerance for Nazis. I am certain that there are very many ideas and behaviors that you do not tolerate.

We all have things that we do not tolerate.

But we can also learn tolerance for others.

As to groups, how do you mean the term?

[marylandblue]

37. You said intolerance is found in all groups. How.did you mean the term?

I'm not trying to be cutesy here. I am trying to understand what you are saying before I comment.

[guillaumeb]

38. It is a confusing term.

I tolerate behaviors as long as the behaviors are not destructive to others. Nazism is a destructive philosophy. Violence directed at others is destructive.

But tribalism implies that we see ourselves as an "us", as opposed to all outside the tribe, who are "them". And intolerance is an aspect of tribalism.

[marylandblue]

39. Well the two types of intolerance are not the same.

One is based on a philosophical objection to violent behavior and the beliefs that lead to violence. That doesn't seem tribal.

The second is based on not tolerating members of other groups simply because they are members of a different group. That seems more tribal.

[guillaumeb]

47. We agree.

On this.

[marylandblue]

48. Yeah, but so what. It's not an endpoint, it's a marker.

If individuals or groups engages in one type of intolerance but not the other, or they have them in different degrees, why do such differences exist?

[trotsky]

44. But that begs the question.

Who defines when a behavior is "destructive to others"?

Fred Phelps' church thinks people are in danger of hell if they are homosexual or if they support LGBTQ+ rights. In other words, it is their *religious belief* based on *faith* (which by your definition is equally as valid as yours) that homosexuality is "destructive to others."

Therefore, you have now justified the intolerance of Westboro Baptist Church.

Way to go, g. Doing the lord's work for sure.

[Major Nikon]

41. If your religious doctrine commands intolerance and you follow it...

there is no logical error in blaming the religion itself. Pretending otherwise is just as foolish as pretending atheism has doctrine.

[guillaumeb]

46. And if 100% of theists agreed with this interpretation,

and followed it, I would agree with you.

[Major Nikon]

49. The assertion doesn't require you agree with it in order to be true

Just as those who use religion to promote hate don't require your acknowledgement.

[guillaumeb]

55. Your assertion is simply that.

Evidence only of your personal opinion.

[Major Nikon]

56. It's a statement of fact

If you don't like it, tough shit.

[guillaumeb]

57. You have a unique defintion of the word "fact". eom

[Major Nikon]

58. Your assertion is evidence of a personal opinion

...and nothing more.

Everyone has an opinion, but some are more relevant than others. How relevant yours are greatly depends on your personal credibility. Given your propensity for logical fallacies and holding on to bad ideas even after your errors have been pointed out, your personal credibility suffers greatly. Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

59. Once again, you reveal yourself.

And nothing more.

[Major Nikon]

60. The whole idea behind posting is revealing something, Gil

I get you feel the need to insert one of your trademark canned replies, but this one is even more lame than most of the rest which for you is saying something. But yeah, you do reveal something by repeating gibberish, even if it's only your propensity to do so.

[marylandblue]

50. Does a church doctrine require 100% agreement to be harmful?

If only 80% of Southern Baptists believe LGBTs should be denied jobs, is it still a discriminatory idea with harmful effects?

[hunter]

14. Tolerance is work. You'd have to pay me to do that and I wouldn't be happy.

Same with intolerance. What a grind.

If something doesn't spark joy it's just cluttering up your life. Think of this as an expansion of the Marie Kondo method beyond mere stuff.

:evil grin:

More useful words are "acceptance" and "celebration."

Do I celebrate gay marriage? Yes, I do.

Do I accept anti-gay marriage religious bullshit? No, I do not.

Do I celebrate separation of Church and State? Yes, I do.

Do I accept prayer in public schools or at public meetings? No, I do not.

It works on matters of less importance also.

Do I accept obnoxious television advertising as a means of paying for certain kinds of programming? No, I do not. My television plays DVDs and Netflix. That's all it does.

[real Cannabis calm]

28. When I practiced Catholicism, I never met or heard about priests molesting children...

I am sure sexual abuse is not isolated to only the Catholic Church. Other religious and social organizations are just as guilty; but sensational sexually provocative scandal about perhaps the world's largest, organized Christian organization presents an easy target that sells newspapers and other media. The early Roman Catholic Church was a political war-machine and actually deserves more criticism than the modern Church.

[guillaumeb]

30. Welcome to DU.

The abuse scandal deals with a small number of priests, but compounding the scandal was the subsequent cover-up.

[Voltaire2]

53. Pathetic.

[MineralMan]

35. The Southern Baptists have their own

Child sexual abuse problems.

[MineralMan]

51. Well, it's not like such priests were advertising what they were doing.

How would you have met any of them, or heard about them? Child sexual abuse by priests was carefully covered up and hidden for decades and even centuries. The victims didn't tell, for the most part, and those who did were hushed up or not believed. Now, we know better.

Of course there has been child sexual abuse by ministers of other denominations. We're hearing about that, too, and some of us knew about it long ago, just as some Catholics knew about it in their church.

Here's the question: Does it matter whether it was just in one church or something that happened on others, too? The abuse was bad enough, but the cover-up by church leadership was even worse, since it allowed such things to continue over a long period of time. We're only now learning just how widespread the problem was and how well it was hidden.

[Voltaire2]

52. Seriously?

There is now an astounding mass of evidence that the RCC has been systematically protecting its pederast priests around the world for decades, probably centuries. The numbers of victims are staggering. This is not about an easy target or newspaper sales. This is about a huge institution, by far the largest religious institution in the world, with a history that goes back 1800 years, that has been routinely engaged in almost incomprehensible depravity.

[marylandblue]

54. I think what makes the RCC scandal is that it was a well organized network

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2019, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Bishops would send offending priests to other bishops when both bishops knew they were child abusers. It's not that they just fired a priest and let him quietly find another job, they deliberately sent him to another place which knew they were getting a problem. The priests themselves networked with each other, giving vulnerable children gold crosses as gifts to let others know the child has already been groomed. The church operated its own treatment centers that themselves became hangouts for abusers to continue their activities, and again with knowledge of the bishops.

So while other denominations and institutions have their individual abusers and coverups, none we know of so far had these highly active extended networks.