The word "intolerance" gets thrown around a lot. Christians are cast in a bad light for being intolerant. Admittedly, they are not the only ones, but this is the Christian forum so I will try and keep it related to Christianity. So, let's take an issue that is morally charged. Divorce, homosexuality, drug use... it doesn't really matter. Let's call it "Behavior X". The Christian says that Behavior X is immoral. People that participate in Behavior X are actively choosing to engage in said behavior. Therefore, we choose not to support, accept, or tolerate Behavior X, nor do we support, condone, or embrace those that continue to engage in it. This is the Christian position that gets them in so much trouble. However, what happens if we substitute a less morally charged issue. Let's say child abuse, rape, or murder. Please note that I am *not* equating homosexuality or drug use with child abuse, rape, or murder. I am simply moving from a morally grey area into a less gray area. So, would anyone disagree with the Christian that said that they wouldn't tolerate rape? Would anyone blast the Christian for being intolerant of murder or child abuse? I certainly hope not. And this is my point: I don't think that the issue is "intolerance", it is that they choose to say that Behavior X is immoral. So, before anyone starts throwing the "I" word at the Christians, perhaps we should all take a moment and reflect. It isn't that they are intolerant, it is that they are intolerant when we don't think they should be. So maybe, just maybe, we should start thinking about whether these issues really are moral/immoral and why or why not. Implying that intolerance is, in and of itself, an immoral act is self-contradictory. We are all intolerant of something or another (I, personally cannot tolerate seafood... am I immoral in my decision?). Where do we go with this? With charity (in terms of the arguments) and with respect. And that goes *both* ways for both sides of the issue.
Great post and without a doubt one of the most abused/misused terms in all of western society. Example: My understanding is that drinking alcohol, routinely and in excess is a bad idea. I dont think people ought to do it for their own sakes. So far, no 'Intolerance' though. Ok. Now I have to tell you something, I dont tolerate myself doing it and I also have a low tolerance for being in the presense of it. I dont accomadate it in my own house and I dont stay in houses where its happening. Ok. So I think the question might be - whats the problem with my 'intolerance'? Why cant I be intolerant? Now someone might come along and suggest that Im way wrong on this, that drinking lots of alcohol is great stuff, healthy and fun. That I have it backwards. Ok? Getting closer to why 'Intolerance' is a problem but why? As near as I can tell this is the 'thinking' behind intolerance of intolerance: - If you happen to be in the camp who believes getting drunk is 'good' then you might decide that 'intolerance' by anyone else is a threat to your worldview. After all, you know drinking heavy is good and fun and doesnt hurt anyone. So, The Intolerant are 'in effect' hindering drunkeness. Simply by not condoning it they are 'not supporting it'. Therefore, They are an 'attack' and therefore should not be tolerated. Im just trying to work out the mentality of these people who have zero tolerance for 'intolerance'. Great post. I think Portalguy will have some good insights on this too.
But it's not always like that. I get major hatred from Christians just because I'm Muslim, they assume I'm some terror-promoting, Jesus-hating demon. It's not like they are saying, "I don't support terrorism." What they are saying is "All Muslims are automatically terrorists so I will continue to throw hate at every Muslim I come in contact with." What's worse is they try to justify their claims; they act as if they are an expert in my own religion. They try to tell me what my religion is really saying. They use the biased media and anti-Islamic websites as proof. Not only is this insulting, it's ignorant. You can't honestly tell me this isn't intolerance.
Christians most certainly can be and are intolerant and ignorant; I should know--I grew up in Texas . I believe that what Alsharad was trying to say is that everyone is intolerant of something, so people shouldn't try and label only religious people as being intolerant. Also, it is not inherently wrong for someone to be intolerant, so long as they do not let their feelings of the issue being immoral surpass the act itself in immorality...did that make any sense? For example: Let's pretend I think that premarital sex is wrong. When I find out my neighbors are having premarital sex, I freak out, start throwing bibles through their window, yell at them, hold vigils in front of their house, and all-around make them hate me and my cause. This would be a completely unproductive way of communicating that premarital sex is wrong. Not only would I be trying to "fight fire with fire" so to speak, but it would probably cause them to discredit anything I say regarding the bible or god. So yes, in short, those christians are wrong for treating you that way, and I apologize to you on behalf of those of us christians who do NOT harass people for their religious beliefs (or lack of them). If god intended for us to judge another person's soul, he would of made us omnipotent.
I dont want to go off topic Paint so maybe this deserves a topic unto itself regarding what I see as an acute 'inferiority complex' issue among Muslims. This in my experience leads to alot of this projected 'hatred' you seem to be describing. Myself, I am busy throughout many different denominations throughout my city and I never see anything but charity and even sometimes a sort of 'emphathy' towards Muslims. Because of this 'complex' I see a lot of Muslims resent it, abuse the charity and scorn that 'oh you think your better than me huh.. well screw you' type attitude. Now, I myself think Islam is a black religion based on what Im studying about Muhammed and his version of the Bible. Frankly it disgusted me, but, I find a lot of Muslims themselves (particularly the moderate ones) to be exceptionally good people. One of the kindest, most peaceful and almost 'guru-like' human beings I ever knew was a Sunni Muslim. He rejected the bloodshed, conquering and torture that Muhammed promoted. Anyways, Sorry, but yeah maybe this should be its own topic. Intolerance. Whats always interesting to me is how intolerance of intolerance is so picky and choosy. Example: In our Ladies Ice Hockey League, they have zero tolerance for 'checking' into the boards. Its an official rule and you get penalised if you do it. Ok. So if you want to join you know you cant do that. If you want to anyways - you know not to join that league then. Nobody in our society even questions that intolerance. Versus, In our Church, a Pastor is not 'tolerated' to have a willful homosexual relationship. Its against the rules of our congregation. So? For some particular reason our 'intolerance' is not tolerated by some in society. They dont think we should be allowed to have that intolerance anymore. They wont tolerate that. Just begging the questions... why and how to pick and choose the intolerance to tolerate. Is it by majority opinion of that day?
I'm conservative and more-or-less agree with the Christian positions on many types of personal behavior. I also consider most aspects of Christian theological structure to be irrational and/or mythical. The first point I generally regard as a positive, the second, if kept on a personal level, is no problem...it's a free country...believe what you want. Where I see intolerance is in aggressive Christian proselytization approaches, the attitude that all other faiths are intrinsically wrong, invalid, or even satanically-inspired, and the attitude that it's a Christian's duty to convert everyone else. It's like an evangelical friend told me..."I don't have any use for interfaith dialogue or anything like that; spreading the Word is all that's important". Regarding the HF Christianity forum, everyone here is cool, including Mr.C. I don't expect Christians to easily bow to arguments that sharply question their theology, anymore than I would expect Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or whoever to do the same.
it is ignorance....I am a Christian, and I am ashamed of how my faith is portrayed....not just by "non-Christians" but by the members of my faith in general. I am an outcast in my own faith(by these people). They make a mockery out of everything I believe, and the teachings of Christ, and for this reason, I have been unable to find a place of worship that I feel reflects the true message.
I am certain that it is both insulting and ignorant. It is also intolerance. The point I was making was "so what if it is intolerant"? Condemn them for speaking from bigotry (not the same as intolerance, BTW) and ignorance. Feel free. Just don't condemn them for being "intolerant". Then you are being just as intolerant as they are. You condemn them based on their thoughts and actions. That is *exactly* what intolerance is.
I think there are many of us there and a new church would be great but they all end up corrupt God bless
If you were dragged off by the FBI and stuck in Gitmo for years, forced to endure torture and no rights, not because of any evidence just the fact that you believe certain concepts, you wouldn't condemn them?
Intolerance: The unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of another person, group, or idea that differs from one's own. It may result in an effort to get rid of the "objectionable" person or idea, or it may simply result in treating them in a subservient way, as occurs when people of certain racial or ethnic groups are discriminated against by the dominant group in a society. The reason that child abuse, rape, or murder are less charged topics, is because they inflict damage on other people. They have to do with affecting other people's bodies, rights. Even the individuals commiting such crimes, would likely not want those crimes commited against them. As individuals, they would likely not advocate that it's okay to abuse, rape, or murder them...that others should have the right to do what they want, with an individual's body. Drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, fall into the category of whether, or not, it's right to tell people what they can, or can't, do, with their own bodies. Quite different, than the above...many indivduals would advocate that they should be allowed to do what they want, with their own bodies. Whether you think it's immoral, or not...what gives people the right to dictate to someone that they can't act immorally, if that act isn't hurting anyone else, infringing on another's rights, in the process? If Christianity wants to seperate itself from intolerance, it should also start denouncing these "Christians" that spew so much hatred and intolerance. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/quotes.html http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/quotes.htm http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/diatribe.html http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061030/blumenthal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bB2rt3IKJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNDBf4PXw0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CgvgjfwyPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIYsGVyg8M&NR Instead, the majority of Christians have quietly allowed extremist Christianity, to grow. Southern Baptists are supporting Christian terrorists, in India. Christian Identity and anti-abortionists have commited terrorism, in North America. Peace
Fair enough. No arguments here. The topics are all categorically different. This is one of the defining differences between the two, but is, in the scope of my original post, irrelevant. And others would disagree with them. You are drawing a line in the sand that is irrelevant to the topic of intolerance. Those that argue "it isn't hurting anyone else" might or might not be intolerant of those that see differently. You see, Behavior X could be ANYTHING. I am sure that I could substitute a behavior that those that fly the "tolerance" banner would agree with completely. The thing is, that no matter what Behavior X is, if there is any behavior that can be substituted into the statement which would cause you to agree with the statement, then you are being intolerant of those that practice Behavior X. For example, what if I substitue "Preach Intolerance" as Behavior X. Well, there are a couple of ways to answer that question. Here's a few (I don't believe all of them, but they are answers to your question): 1) If the behavior is immoral, then it is destructive at some level. Since few people are truly an island, then any destructive behavior will hurt not just the person engaged in the behavior, but those around them as well. We, as people, have an obligation to prevent destructive behavior for the betterment of society and for those innocents that will be harmed by it. 2) I have the right to prevent immoral behavior simply on the grounds that it is immoral. Furthermore, no one has the "right" to immorality. If there is no right to immorality, then I am not violating any of your rights by dictating moral code. 3) God said so. He has outlined His divine moral code and specified what actions are permissible and what are not. It is our moral and divine obligation to do what we can to stop immoral behavior. That seems kind of... arbitrary, don't you think? What is the logical grounds for this? Why do you draw that line? Is it okay to hurt yourself, but not hurt others? Further, can you show that self-destructive acts do not hurt others? Meh... this is off topic anyway. The idea of intolerance being bad smacks of hypocrisy. It's like saying "I hate all bigots." You are being bigotted against bigots. So, what is wrong with being intolerant if you really believe it? I would argue that there is nothing wrong with being intolerant in and of itself. It is the thing is the focus of your intolerance that determines the moral rightness or wrongness of your actions.
Go ahead and substitute "Preach Intolerance", as Behavior X. Tolerance is about accepting someone's rights. They have the right to preach their intolerance. Tolerance, doesn't mean I can't disagree with them. And, tolerance, doesn't mean I can't call them what they are...intolerant. e.g. The ACLU defending the free speech rights of the Ku Klux Klan. The ACLU is tolerant of their rights, but I'm sure you'd have a hard time finding an ACLU member who actually agrees with the Ku Klux Klan. I disagree with your premise. I think Christianity (and other religions) is seen as intolerant, because it has many very loud, absolutely intolerant, members. And, I pointed out a few. "Immoral" doesn't imply destructiveness. It implies some kind of "wrong" behaviour, according to some standard. Homosexuality mainly destroys families, because of intolerant family members. Pot smoking and prostitution mainly destroy families, because they're illegal and the individuals get into legal trouble, or in trouble with the shady underground, caused by the illegality of it. Or, likewise because of intolerant family members. They are all legal, and accepted, in a number of countries, where society continues to function, just fine. Greed and adultry have destroyed countless more families, than any homosexual, prostitute, or pot smoker ever has, or ever will. Yet, I see countless rich and adulterous "Christians" out there. The Bible even says that the rich won't be going to heaven. Many Christians don't seem to mind skipping that part. Better buy yourself a ticket to Vegas, or Denver...and quick...there's a lot of immorality going on, that you seem to believe people don't have the right to it. Why do you believe there's no right to immorality? Prove it's the word of God. Or, drop that arguement. Take your pick. They do not directly hurt others. Countless choices, in life, can indirectly hurt others. Can you show why certain ones should be centred out? LOL. A bigot can be as bigotted as he wants, for all I care. I'd hope he has the balls to stand up and accept that he's a bigot, however. Go ahead, if you like. Just don't try and dodge the fact, that certain beliefs are intolerant. Which, trying to broadly brush everyone as intolerant, is trying to do. Peace
Jesus was unconditional love though and not a judge so I don't see how we are to be judging anyone else in any matter and all have the right to live as they please. You don't have to accept it thats anyones choice too but it just comes back to loving and accepting all and not as a holy favor of our 'goodness' but equals always peace, God bless
Hold on. I don’t think you’re a terrorist. Terrorism is not restricted to one religion, country, race, gender, or sexual orientation. There is a definite line between doing what the Bible commands and going about things in our own way. It is not so much that it is a narrow line, as that it can be difficult to walk. I say this from my own experience. Personally a verse that I think to keep in mind is: “Do not judge others and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.” – Matthew 7:1-5 However, I also believe what the Bible says in it’s entirety, therefore this command is also something I believe Christians should follow: “And then He told them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone.’” But in doing this, the rest of the Bible must also be obeyed, including the first verse I mentioned, as well as these: “Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”—John 13:35 (which I have also seen translated as “They will know you by your love.” This is made even more explicit by this verse: “Remember, it is a sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it.”—James 4:17 In conclusion, people may be motivated by love and trying to follow scripture—as in trying to convert people who believe in other religions. And they may succeed in this by doing so without judging, or fail, by judging. Or they may be motivated by fear – saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Peace.
Unfortunately, it is in today's society. Thanks to the media and ignorance of Bush and his group of clowns, "Muslim" and "terrorist" are interchangeable. Honestly, I really doubt they are acting out of love for the Bible. Hell, I don't believe half of Christians have even read the Bible. They're motivation is ignorant. It's the same thing today as it was with the Japanese internment camps in WWII, or McCarthy-ism in the Cold War; now it's the War in Iraq and Git'mo. It's a wonder why the outside world hates the Christian United States. Regardless, if the Bible condones trying to remove people of their own religion and trying to impose Christianity upon them, that is intolerant by definition. The Church imposed Christianity upon Anglo-Saxon England, and look what that got us. Now the Spring equinox is called Easter and the Winter solstice became Christmas. It was intolerant of Pagan religions, now the Church's intolerance has led to a change in Christianity completely, the dates of its holidays are now that of Pagan celebrations.
