Quote:
|
There is a difference between acknowledging and accepting someone's right to feel a certain way and bending over backwards to let them get their way. I am tolerant of the evangelican need to condemn to hell, but i would never support public policy based on that need. I don't read my horospcope either, but that doesn't mean that i am intolerant of everyone else who does.
|
You seem to have misunderstood me.
What I was implying is that we should not dismiss someone's complaint simply because their reasoning involves religious argument, or is otherwise seemingly illogical to us. To dismiss in such a fashion is close-minded. Even if we think (or perhaps is obvious) that some people's religious decisions are not reasonable or irrational, if we're going to adopt a generic stance of tolerance, then we cannot tell them to shut up, because to do so is hypocritical. I didn't mean to imply that we should bend over backwards to let people have their way. Tolerance does not mean I have to agree with you, but it does mean that I have to listen to you and allow you to express yourself regardless of whether or not I think it's just or fair or even lawful. The very presence of government and law in a society shows that such a society is not willing to tolerate certain acts or behaviors. (ie. be intolerant in at least certain ways)
This is why I say tolerance in its ideal, Platonic form, is all-or-none. (not ideal as in the most appealing) People who espouse the benefits of tolerance can do much good for our society, but those people should keep in mind that when put into practice, you can't have complete tolerance because to tolerate everything would result in anarchy. Thus, we have to watch out for people who use tolerance only as a mask for a beating stick against ideas and viewpoints that those people don't agree with, rather than promoting tolerance in its ideal form.