Lately there has been a lot of discussion here on Blogcritics.org about homosesxuality and what is acceptable. Can we have gay people in an authority position in a church? What should Christians believe about homosexuality? Reading those threads made me think about tolerance.
Then a couple of weeks ago I recieved a t-shirt. On the front of it is writen, "BE INTOLERANT". Flip it over and the back side says, "Because Some Things Are Just Stupid!". That, of course, got me thinking even more. What is tolerance? Is it a good thing? When we say we are being tolerant, what does that really mean?
According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, tolerance is "sympathy or indulgance for beliefs or practices differing from one's own." That sounds pretty damn good. Sure, I don't belive what you believe but I'll let you believe what you want to.
And yet, there is a hidden danger here. The word tolerance has a derogatory connotation. It has ties to pain and suffering. Ever been asked what your pain tolerance level is? We think of pain and wince inwardly. And I don't know about you, but there has been more than a few times where, in responce to a not-so-great meal, I've said, "Well, I tolerated it." The wait in the Department Of Transportation line was "tolerable". In other words, "it sucked and will be remembered as a low point in my life, but I lived through it."
So, when the word is used outside of those contexts and used on humans, while the meaning of the word is "sympathy or indulgance for beliefs or practices differing from one's own", the connotation of pain, the wait in line, or the bad meal, remains. This makes us look upon our brothers whom we "tolerate" as one might look upon a Burger King meal. A Burger King meal when compared to a meal at your local fine restaraunt.
Article comments
1 - John Campea
Bang bang bang on the money! Good thoughts. As a side note, I find it interesting that the people who yell the loudest about "tolerance" are often those who show the least of it to people who hold different views from their own. How ironic.
2 - Mac Diva
TT, when I speak of tolerance for gays I don't mean I expect everyone to completely embrace homosexuality. What I am requesting is threshold treatment of gays as human beings -- treating them no worse (or better) than one does heterosexuals. That is hardly a call for perfection.
3 - visualsimplicity
Hah, good point John. The hypocrisy of preachers of "tolerance." Anyway, I think the use of tolerance is not meant to be taken in the-merriam-webster-direct-definition kind of way but more in the way of what Mac Diva is saying. Words are words after all, each has their own definition of it despite "official" definitions. What's the definition of "if?"
4 - Wacky Hermit In Training
I used to have a button that said, "How far can you open your mind before your brains fall out?" There's virtue in keeping an open mind, but it can only open so far.
(Squish, squish) Can somebody pick that brain up before somebody else steps on it?
5 - debbie
Good post, I agree with what you are saying.
To Mac,
I treat people individually based upon their behavior. If someone is doing something disgusting in public, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is, I'm going to treat them with disdain. I don't like public displays of perversion from anybody and I'm not going to pretend it's ok in the name of "tolerance". I don't care who it is.
The word tolerance has grown to mean that "you have to validate other's beliefs and treat them on an equal par with your own".
If you don't believe what they believe how can it be equal to your own beliefs? It can't. However, just because I don't believe it does not mean that you can't believe it. You can, you can believe anything you want to.
I don't know who you hang around with but everybody I know don't treat people differently based on thier sexual orientation. They really don't care.
What I do care about is the "forced" teaching that homosexuality is a perfectly natural life style choice to elementary school age children in the name of "tolerance teaching". Schools should be restricted to teaching reading, writing, math and science and not force their "religious or non-religous" beliefs upon our children. It is not their place to teach values to our children, it is the parents place. It should remain the parents place.
6 - andy
Great post. I think that in our bickering, we lose respect for each other. Natalie for example has said she can't except my church as being of Christ because we believe the Bible is clear in Romans 1 and other passages about homosexual activity, and to be honest, I have a hard time respecting Natalie's views because to me they seem to twist scripture into a socially exceptable version of God's Word. Regardless though, I think it's important that we can at least respect each other and not question each other's faith and core belief in Christ.(even if she sees me as an intolerant hater and I see her as a herotic haha!) But I still respect Natalie, and hopefully she respects me even if we can't respect each other's points of view.
7 - Natalie Davis
I certainly respect you and your right to believe what you will, Andy. I can not respect those who insist, however, that their exclusionist views be codified in civil law.
8 - Natalie Davis
Or rather -- this is tough, and I am struggling mightily to be Gandhian here -- I disrespect their wish, whatever activities they take (such as Falwell's effort to create constistitutional amendment to exclude GLBT people from fairness in legal marriage ), their church institutions, and the civil law as it stands. I must respect the person.
9 - debbie
Natalie,
Church institutions should never base their teachings on public opinion, or on political correctness. If they do then they can fall into "false teachings". (IMHO) I don't believe that the Bible's moral teachings change over time. I don't believe that we can "put our wishful thinking between the lines of scripture" and change the meaning to be what we want it to.
If the church beieves that something is a sin it should not be celebrated or embraced as a godly lifestyle.
If the church believes that it is not a sin then they can embrace it and promote it.
But leave the political crap at the door, it has no place in the church. The Bible is what it is, take it or leave it. If we truly believe it is the word of God, then we should be trying to change it.
10 - debbie
That last line should read:
If we truly believe it is the word of God, then we "shouldn't" be trying to change it.
Sorry about that typo.
11 - andy
Natalie, I agree. I am against a law that doesn't allow homosexual marriages, and I understand that I have no right to push my Biblical sets of morals on a secular society.
12 - Eric Olsen
Very profound thinking young man, you continue to surprise and impress with your wisdom.
13 - Mac Diva
I may have an advantage here because I'm not religious. I am coming at the issue from a humanist perspective only.
Debbie, I am not saying gay people should be treated better than breeders. For example, I agree with you that public sex, too often the province of gay men, should be fully prosecuted. Society should not alter a beneficial standard such as the laws against that to please any group. But, I believe people who assault folks for being homosexual should be fully prosecuted, too. That is where I would part ways with folks who are basically anti-gay.
Believe it or not, in the discussion among bloggers of the all gay Harvey Milk high school in NYC, my perspective of skepticism was seen as conservative. Goes to show there is a greater array of stances than simple political labels take into account, I guess.
14 - Phillip Winn
#13 (Mac Diva) There are people who don't agree that people who assaults folks (for any reason) should be fully prosecuted? I find that hard to believe, but if it is true, those people aren't just anti-gay, they're nonsensical.
On the whole subject, even while it is clear that the Bible instructs against homosexual acts, it instructs against a lot of things, including things that I do every day. That's the whole idea - we're all sinners, you know?
So yeah, respect for all, regardless of what I think of their actions, should be a no-brainer. It is sad indeed that it isn't.
A semi-related point is that respect is a basic attitude and on controversial topics like this one, it is easy for people to quickly go off the rails and argue that (for example) a reluctance to redefine existing words to mean something new somehow translates as a lack of respect. Huh? Some actions are clearly disrespectful, and assault is beyond that - it's clearly criminal, but true respect means that we can all agree to disagree and go out for beers afterwards. Er, twice, I guess. Once at a gay bar, once at a straight bar? :)
15 - The Theory
A couple of responces...
John C.: While I come off a bit sharp online at times, I do try and respect everyone. However, I think often the people who loudly preach against stuff are the ones who struggle most with it. I think I am rather easy going and this article is just some thoughts which have been tumbling in my mind a while.
Mac Diva: I wasn't addressing anything you were talking about in any of the gay threads. This is merely a look into the word tolerance and whether the use of the word is a good thing.
Debbie: I agree. I think that when it comes to actual acts, we obviously can't put up with public displays of perversion.
peace.
16 - BRICKLAYER
I think it's a hoot when gay people call hets "breeders". It makes me feel like we're a bunch of cows and bulls standing around in the field. Have you heard the joke about the father and son bulls standing at the top of the hill looking down on the herd of cows? Anyway, The Breeders were a great band. I say "were" because their latest and much delayed release was a real drop off from previous work. But "Last Splash" was one of the greatest pop records of the nineties, and on this, there can be no debate! I must say, though, that I resent the fact that homosexuals have appropriated the term "gay" for themselves. I would humbly request that they give it back, so I can begin using the expression "we had a gay old time" again.
17 - The Theory
I agree, Bricklayer. Hahaha... on both points.
18 - Al Barger
Bricklayer,huh? It does sound like you're auditioning for an open spot as a Village Person. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
19 - Eric Olsen
Yes, with a lexicological reversal, we could then have gay breeders.
20 - Natalie Davis
What a person believes the bible says is clear to that persons and those who share that view. Those who see the bible as being anti-gay can not expect those who believe differently to lay down and accept what is clear to you as being similarly transparent. What I see is quite clear, thank you, and it is the diametric opposite of what anti-gays see.
This is certainly clear: No one is going to be convinced of the other's position.
21 - Al Barger
That is totally cool, Natalie. I only further request that those of us who interpret the Bible differently than the socially convenient way be allowed to hold and express our views without being condemned as hateful or homophobic.
For starters, please grant me that believing that the Bible presents homosexual behavior as sinful does NOT mean that someone is "anti-gay," particularly when the person is not a Bible-believer to start with.
22 - Natalie Davis
I'm entitled to state my beliefs as well, hon.