So what about tolerance and broadmindedness?
Last week, I asked the question: Is it okay to intolerate Newt? The broader question is, of course, when does useful tolerance and broadmindedness become dysfunctional facilitation of bad practice or passive acceptance of nonsense?
I loosely defined tolerance as our ability to be fearlessly curious about everything and everyone we come up against; broadmindedness as an ability to change one’s mind when presented with compelling evidence that what one has been thinking is either wrong or based on incomplete information. I see both as essential characteristics of a life lived in partnership with God — one’s working faith — for they are our access to reality.
Furthermore, I see intolerance and narrow-mindedness as the devil*’s minions, for they weaken our grasp on reality and so our relationship with God.
One’s educational level or IQ appears to offer scant protection from their inroads. . . . (more of Martha’s thoughts, if you’re interested)
*Again, I’m not referring to an entity living somewhere hot, but rather to whatever force works to weaken my grasp on what is in favor of what I’d, personally, be more comfortable with.
Recognition of differences is not the same as tolerating to the perceived point of acceptance, then approval then given right circumstances, engagement in that which was once abhorred.
Well, Martha, I don’t believe in the devil any more than I believe in god. Tolerance is essential. Who knows the truth if there is one? I don’t believe what you believe, but you may be right and I may be wrong.
Interesting debate. The hysterical screams for “banning” because of “hate speech” is interesting but totally irrational: if it’s banned then it doesn’t exist is the mindset for those folks. The Ostrich logic of frightened bullies is what a long-ago high school teacher termed it.
I would draw the line for tolerance and and broadmindedness at harm to others. Or, in my humble bid for living a good life, trying to follow the teachings of Christ as set forth in Matthew–in particular the Golden Rule. Of course I don’t put up with sillliness and nonsense in my personal life–unless I am forced to it, by governmental actions. And it is this lastl which directs my final thought: It is those who wish to control others who engage in repressive government and the most repressive governments are typically those where toleration and broadmindedness have been eliminated from the public discourse for religious reasons, i.e., the nonprovable authority arguments. Governments which use as a definitional source for tolerance and broadmindedness in their laws (e.g., right to citizenship and decent treatment as human being) the Talamud, Koran, or Bible sometimes are racist and repressive, not so much because the religion itself teaches racism or repression, but rather because those who use those teachings do so to callously promote their own non-religious agendas–we have seen many an American politician do this within the last 25 years, and we will see them do it more and more as the economy staggers and people are worried about basics like food and housing.