The problem with tolerance

For a secular godless age, there is one virtue we promulgate about ourselves at almost all opportunities: tolerance. Among the British values often celebrated by politicians is our capacity for tolerance. Schools are required to instil values of tolerance into millions of children; Muslims are told to be tolerant by David Cameron. Tolerance has become something of a founding mythology for western developed nations: our tolerance is regarded as a mark of our superiority over many less tolerant, less developed nations around the world. Our tolerance – in contrast to the intolerance of many of our ancestors – is evidence of the concept of historical progress.

Our ancestors may have ripped each other apart over small theological differences, they may have persecuted those with different sexual preferences or ethnic identity, but in this enlightened age, we tolerate diversity. It is the one virtue the state regularly exhorts us to demonstrate.

But far from being the kind of unequivocal virtue the politicians proclaim it to be, take a closer look and the word collapses under the weight of contradicting expectations. A closer look is exactly what Frank Furedi, a sociologist, offers in a new book On Tolerance, which will infuriate and delight in equal measure – and probably leave a lot of confusion in its wake.

The problem is that tolerance – understood in its classical liberal sense as a virtue essential to freedom – has been hijacked and bankrupted, argues Furedi. Dragged into the politicisation of identity, tolerance has become a form of "polite etiquette". Where once it was about the tolerance of individuals and their opinions, it has now been "redeployed to deal with group conflicts". Once it was about opening the mind to competing beliefs, now it is about one that affirms different groups. Along this slippery path, much of the original importance of tolerance has been distorted or lost.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/sep/05/tolerance-frank-furedi

intolerant views. Another word being co-opted by the right wing loons.

The Teabaggers are exactly the kind of people he was talking about with that quote.

The Christian who says that homosexuality is an abomination believes, whole-heartedly, that "tolerance" means people should respect his "Biblical view." It doesn't even occur to him that he is being intolerant.

that Christian being intolerant?

If article is making the point that tolerance is about respecting others opinion even though each person may vehemently disagree with that opinion or view. I am sure the Christian and the homosexual will never agree about the morality of homosexual behavior, and being tolerant means that's OK. Tolerance should mean they get to agree to disagree with no coercion, or threats, or violence done to each other.

As the author points out in today's vernacular tolerance is more about affirming something you disagree with rather than being honest about your position publicly. So in essence what one expresses privately may be very different from what one states publicly for fear of being accused of intolerance. For better or worse I would rather have people speak their minds even if I disagree with them.

Do you truly not understand why "homosexuality is an abomination" is intolerant?

Intolerance can not, dare not, be tolerated. That is the double-edge.

The point of the article is intolerance should be tolerated in a free society. As long as we respect each other rights.

Intolerance should be confronted. Failure to do so means failure to move toward a more understanding society.

(As a side note, even the word "tolerance" is disgusting if you spend a few moments thinking about what it means. Perhaps "acceptance" would be a better idea.)

Intolerance should be confronted as long as it is done so to seek truth.

Labeling someone as intolerant in order to shut them down because their view does not conform to the politically correct meme du jour is not in the interest of a free and open society.

Your generalization is nothing without examples. When has someone been labelled intolerant simply because their view is not in line with the "politically correct meme du jour"? It certainly hasn't happened in this thread.

was more general in nature. We both know political correctness is a tool used to shutdown opinion.

There are far too many people who use accuse the public of being too politically correct as a dog whistle. I want an example to avoid that problem.

the PC that prevents an "out of the closet" atheist from running for a federally elected office. For that matter most elected officials in the land if they are atheist would not likely publicly admit it.

The idea behind "politically correct" would require that no one say anything about that atheist's lack of faith during his election. Socially instilled religious intolerance, on the other hand, guarantees candidates for office have to give lipservice to God or be excoriated on the 6 o'clock news.

So I ask you again, when has a person been labeled intolerant because they didn't conform to the politically correct meme du jour, as you put it? For that matter, what is an example of a "politically correct meme du jour"?

who http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm">doesn't profess belief in God. While they're no longer technically enforceable, many of them are still on the books. "PC" my ass. It's outright religious discrimination and violation of the 1st Amendment.

something that one dislikes; but I would say that 'tolerance' represents the *minimum* that should be expected. As the folk song says, 'If you don't like me, then leave me alone.' It is nicer to be liked than to be grudgingly left alone; but the latter is greatly preferable to being attacked, murdered, imprisoned, or even subjected to 'concerned' people trying to force one to live in their way.

Europe during the Protestant Reformation. :crazy:

He has moved from being a Revolutionary Communist Party member to being something of a libertarian, in both the positive and negative sense. He has some good points (e.g. with regard to our having become something of a culture of paranoia and fear, with bad consequences); but on the other hand he has become something of an advocate of the idea that welfare dependency as such, rather than its causes, is a corrupting influence - and I am afraid that I am most INtolerant of those who have this view:

'Perhaps there is a link between Europe’s debt crisis and rioting in England, but it isn’t what critics of austerity measures suspect. Decades of wasteful and totally purposeless expenditure on bureaucracy-led welfare programs have had the perverse effect of demoralising their target population. Billions have been spent on measures that foster irresponsibility. So the riots are not so much about the cuts but about corrupting community life through promiscuous spending.

The normalisation of welfare dependency has been actively promoted by advocates working inside and outside the public sector. There are numerous institutions that assist people to claim the maximum amount. Claiming has become a term that connotes the possession of an awareness of “rights” as well as negotiating skills. The principal outcome of the advocacy of claiming is the legitimation of a way of life. From this perspective, improvements to one’s quality of life depend on enhancing one’s claiming skills rather than through work and effort.

Some conservative critics of the welfare state object to the dependence that those living on benefits have on public institutions.

However, such dependence is only a part of the problem. A far more important consequence of the normalisation of welfarism is that it undermines the everyday social and cultural bonds that link members of a community. Historically, those suffering from poverty would develop institutions of self-help and organisations of solidarity. Today, such organisations are conspicuous by their absence. Why? If people are encouraged to rely on state assistance in a one-dimensional manner, they have little incentive to help one another. As far as the people of Tottenham or Liverpool’s Toxteth are concerned, their communities’ effort has little to do with the quality of their lives. Despite their common experience of poverty and marginalisation, people have little incentive to improve their circumstances through joint effort.

The British culture of welfarism has had the perverse effect of eroding community life. Its most disturbing effect is the unusual degree of social fragmentation. Typically the breakdown of community is most striking in relation to the loss of authority that older people have towards the younger generation. '

This gets things IMO completely the wrong way round. People are increasingly dependent on welfare BECAUSE economic circumstances have (a, and most crucially) ended the full-employment state; and (b) fragmented communities, especially with the breakdown of former industries and the expectation that people should 'get on their bikes' and go wherever the work is. Welfare dependency is an effect, not a cause, of economic problems.

Perhaps all this is a diversion from the point of the article in the OP; but I see a similar oversimplification in that article. It's true that tolerance is more *valued* by many than in the past; but I think that tolerance has always referred to an approach to group conflict, with the toleration of individuals' views as a secondary consequence. For example, the Toleration Act of 1689 provided freedom of worship and removal of criminal penalties for *some* groups of non-Anglican Protestants - though certainly not for Catholics. In Voltaire's 'Treatise on Toleraton', in the 18th century, he wrote "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God". Note, once again, that it is different ethnic and religious *groups* that are treated as primarily in need of tolerance.

And the concept of whether, and to what extent, we should tolerate the intolerant is a frequent theme of moral philosophy and of politics; it is not a new topic.

It should be noted, though, that the RCP in the UK, which was Trotskyist, is not the same as Avakian's RCP in the US, which is Maoist.

I mentioned it in this context, because the RCP in the UK metamorphized from a far-left splinter group in the late 70s and 80s (I knew people in my student days who were members) to something much more akin to Libertarianism in the 90s.

Nowadays you can ignore facts by saying "that's just YOUR opinion", and then imply anyone who criticizes your own beliefs is intolerant.

"Intolerant" has become a "Godwin Word" used to shut down rational discussion.

In the bolded part of the excerpt, the only thing I see as possibly being intolerant is the outlawing of hate speech; and whether or not that is intolerant depends upon the actual law we're talking about. Is Furedi arguing that in the name of tolerance, we should not vehemently speak out against climate deniers (or vice versa), or that New Atheists should not be allowed to lambast religious believers? My thoughts on tolerance is that this behavior is tolerable, even if we find it impolite. IOW, tolerance tells us to allow impolite speaking; yet it leaves us free to speak out against this impoliteness.

I'm not sure what Furedi is getting at.