Is tolerance intolerant?

[Amarok]

No if it's left I would agree it's left it's not left however thus I point out that it is not left . You will make a comment wither you address what was actually said regardless if I agree will be the determiner. It's not left and you didn't address it .

Can we just get past all the nonsense already?  What specifically would you like me to respond to and I'll give you an "official" response.  Sound okay?

It's nonsense that you didn't answer what he wrote ? It's not my job to tell you what to write . An official response would be one that actually addresses what he wrote .

[bennyboy]

I'm all for having a holiday celebration, so long as the religious ideas of all the students are represented. I mean-- 5 different kinds of cookies? A Santa with black thugs who beat the shit out of bad children? Come on! Who's not gonna be down with that?

Seriously, though, if I were a school principle, and anyone started whining, I'd just drop the whole thing. You don't need some family suing the school district because someone's kid was pressured to sing Christmas songs.

As for instrumental performances-- were they mandatory? If so, then students should have the right to opt out of playing-- or hearing-- them. If some student wants to express herself in a talent show by singing a Christian song-- rock on! But if it comes from any part of the school staff or teachers-- nonono, can't do that anymore.

It's quite the problem, culturally. We might ban all masses, including famous ones by Mozart, huge chunks of the work of Bach and Handel, and so on. The way things are going, we might even ban ALL their music just because they were Christian. That would be going too far.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Can we just get past all the nonsense already?  What specifically would you like me to respond to and I'll give you an "official" response.  Sound okay?

It's nonsense that you didn't answer what he wrote ? It's not my job to tell you what to write . An official response would be one that actually addresses what he wrote .

Sure, well I tolerate your religion just like anybody else's. It doesn't matter what version you subscribe to. If you treat others well, you're okay in my book.  If people choose to be ignorant because others disagree with them, or think that their version is the only possible correct one, then it seems a bit silly, because everybody can't always be expected to agree.

[Amarok]

It's nonsense that you didn't answer what he wrote ? It's not my job to tell you what to write . An official response would be one that actually addresses what he wrote .

Sure, well I tolerate your religion just like anybody else's. It doesn't matter what version you subscribe to. If you treat others well, you're okay in my book.  If people choose to be ignorant because others disagree with them, or think that their version is the only possible correct one, then it seems a bit silly, because everybody can't always be expected to agree.

Atheism not a religion thus your not tolerating my religion because it isn't one. their are no version to subscribe too . I do too bad that has nothing to do with atheism . It neither here nor their if anyone agrees that fact atheism is what it is . Is apart from any opinion or disagreement . Thus there are versions to agree disagree on .

[brewer]

OK So banning AC/DC in schools isn't OK but instrumental music because it conjures religious thoughts and words in children's head is ok?

It's not meant to be a loaded question. I do agree that there's a connotation with the word tolerate. I should rephrase the sacred statement for clarity purposes, Boru. You gave a great list of sancrosanct beliefs that you care nothing about like religious belief, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender identity. Things we politically call unalieanable rights. Things a society can agree on are poor discriminators to personhood.

I completely agree that you have the right to call bull shit on something you disagree with, especially if it's being forced upon you. My question is not whether it's ok to question that belief, but whether it should be tolerated. I think a lot of people, a lot of Christians I know for example, are operating in reaction mode out of fear. They believe to conflagrate tolerance of something with acceptance of something. Some Christians I know spend a lot of time judging who someone is by what they say or do. I suppose we all do this because our brains are classifying machines. The question then I guess is if you can separate and respect the person and not respect the belief? Can you agree to disagree and leave it at that or is society just a pendulum that is never at rest because everyone is judgy and having to prove someone wrong or themselves right? My thoughts are like a race. The runner who comes in first doesn't need to prove to everyone he's first, he just is. I've never seen a competition where the winner is trying to convince everyone else they won. Not that society is a competition, but dialogue can end up that way sometimes.

Fear of what exactly? No longer having christian songs the conjures christian religious thoughts in public schools? Not having their/your christian religion retain it's ubiquitous  place in US society? 

I might be a little slow on the uptake tonight.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Sure, well I tolerate your religion just like anybody else's. It doesn't matter what version you subscribe to. If you treat others well, you're okay in my book.  If people choose to be ignorant because others disagree with them, or think that their version is the only possible correct one, then it seems a bit silly, because everybody can't always be expected to agree.

Atheism not a religion thus your not tolerating my religion because it isn't one. their are no version to subscribe too . I do too bad that has nothing to do with atheism . It neither here nor their if anyone agrees that fact atheism is what it is . Is apart from any opinion or disagreement . Thus there are versions to agree disagree on .

Yesterday you were saying the atheists from Arizona State University were a cult.   So today are they authentic atheists or not?  I would say "yes" 100 percent because tolerance is important.

[Amarok]

Atheism not a religion thus your not tolerating my religion because it isn't one. their are no version to subscribe too . I do too bad that has nothing to do with atheism . It neither here nor their if anyone agrees that fact atheism is what it is . Is apart from any opinion or disagreement . Thus there are versions to agree disagree on .

Yesterday you were saying the atheists from Arizona State University were a cult.   So today are they authentic atheists or not?  I would say "yes" 100 percent because tolerance is important.

Yup they acted like a cult . Were did I say they were not atheists I said they were imposing stuff on atheism that has nothing to do with it. Once again there is nothing to tolerate .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Yesterday you were saying the atheists from Arizona State University were a cult.   So today are they authentic atheists or not?  I would say "yes" 100 percent because tolerance is important.

Yup they acted like a cult . Were did I say they were not atheists I said they were imposing stuff on atheism that has nothing to do with it. Once again there is nothing to tolerate .

They were singing.  That made them a cult?  You're version sounds more like a cult if it discriminates against other atheists for silly reasons. Heck, I would hang out with them if they were friendly.  I might not agree on their specific atheistic ideology, but that doesn't mean they're not nice people.

[Brian37]

Yup they acted like a cult . Were did I say they were not atheists I said they were imposing stuff on atheism that has nothing to do with it. Once again there is nothing to tolerate .

They were singing.  That made them a cult?  You're version sounds more like a cult if it discriminates against other atheists for silly reasons. Heck, I would hang out with them if they were friendly.  I might not agree on their specific atheistic ideology, but that doesn't mean they're not nice people.

I fail to understand what part of "Public" gives one sect of society special treatment. Because if you think American history has never given favoritism to Christianity, you must not be studying the same history I have.

Keeping government neutral is not a denial of Christian rights. Now, seriously, if you stupidly think Christians in America have it as bad as say Koptic or Kurdish Christians living in the middle east, you have your head up your ass.

FYI "Atheist " is not an "ideology". It isn't a "religion" or "political party" or "economic view"  or a "Belief system" either. 

"Atheist" merely means "off" on god claims. Outside that we are as politically and economically and nationally diverse as any other label. We are not a gang.

[Rev. Rye]

A couple of thoughts I had and wanted opinions on.

Are you really tolerant in your beliefs? Is tolerance something to strive for? Should we strive to be more tolerant as a society? Is it even worth it?

Pluralization ought to be the case and it is beneficial. I don't agree with pluralization extrapolated to relativism though.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0...51839.html

Even instrumental carols have been banned in some schools. Are people so weak in their beliefs that they can't accommodate someone else's belief?
I've told a muslim I hope your Ramadan goes well. I'd have no problem telling a Wiccan that I hope their Yule festival is well. It doesn't mean I support those beliefs.

I just don't know when "being tolerant" or "politically correct" became so much about what we don't want to see or believe or have, and less about respecting the sacredness of other people's beliefs?

I mean if we're truly an autonomous culture or striving for one, do we really respect the autonomy of the individual?

In 1945, Karl Popper wrote a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies, about the basic contradiction inherent in tolerance, and this is what he ended up concluding:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

In practice, I think there is one important limit to where the line should go: To quote the old adage, "“My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.” Admittedly, things have to be judged by several factors (mostly the basis of your concerns and whether or not they're rooted in facts and/or observable reality, and their effects on the world around you) for them to mean anything [especially since the phrase in question seems to have originated in Prohibitionist circles and their definition of where one person's nose begins is kind of nebulous and the effects were/are not all that helpful], but, without taking all that into account, not only tolerance, but ethics in general, just ends up boiling down to the question of "How dare you worry about your selfish desires when you should be worrying about my selfish desires?"

That said, as strongly as I believe in a separation of church and state, the example of instrumental carols being banned from holiday concerts really seems to be taking things a bit far, not in a dangerous way, but in a really pointless one.