Having forgotten the origins of tolerance as a kind of necessary truce, it is instead bandied about today as a 'noble idea', in which guise it doesn't seem to work quite so well.

It works in some places, but I it does require an extremely secular society. It seems to work fairly well in Oz; even at the height of the global anti-Islam push there were only a few incidents.

And just for your edification, you intellectual infant, "pagan" is usually used to define ANY pre-Christian belief system or religion, whether that be ancient Judaism, the Egyptian's worship of Ra, or the Native American's or Hindu's worship of multiple Gods.

Really? That's not common in any variant of English that I'm aware of. Jews are usually excluded as they are a monotheistic faith. Where does pagan include Judaism? Is it a regional US usage?

#45 by Dick Gozinya Monday, April 24, 2006

I knew you would take the bait and respond after you said you wouldn't, little boy. aaaaahahahahahahahahaha.

I won't be engaging you again on this topic

Dear Chak, could you elaborate on this a bit? I fear I am losing your point. Thank you.

Gladly, and I'll try to be clearer. The word tolerance is being used a lot here and it seems to mean at least two different things.

My little historical diversion was to show that tolerance (originally religious tolerance, but with other kinds following in its wake) came about as a kind of truce in an unwinnable struggle. This is a tolerance where you agree to a minimum of civilty and social co-operation towards people whose beliefs, morality and lifestyle you really don't like, but you have (wisely) given up trying to change by force. Although we take this for granted today, it was at the time an immensely original thought; in previous societies almost everyone shared the same beliefs, morality and social ethos - and if they didn't they were in trouble.

Tolerance however is also being used here as a kind of code word for agreeing with the other person's point of view; indeed it is being proposed (unrealistically) as the litmus test of 'tolerance'. The fact remains that, at a political and social level, people still have very strong opinions on what is right for society as a whole and struggle in the political arena to get society to accept those ideas. We are very fortunate that in the contemporary western world that struggle is carried out through a system of free democratic elections and through forums such as this, rather than through armed struggle.

Because it appears that these struggles are winnable (banning or allowing abortion, permitting or not permitting gay marriage, cutting or not cutting taxes etc) through the ballot box with a minimum of blood spilt, it is not clear what the rhetoric of 'tolerance' has to do with this process. 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' (as right and left are called in America) will each try to mould or re-mould society as they believe it ought to be, and sometimes its hard to see what kind of compromise is possible in this process.

It works in some places, but I it does require an extremely secular society

This is a good point, and it is important to remember that a 'secular society' does not have to mean a society whose individual members are without religious belief. Take as a very good example the vision for their new republic of America's Founding Fathers.

The difference between you and I is that I don't give a flying fig whether others follow MY path or not, and as a matter of fact, I'd be the last one to reveal it to them.

Would your path be 'chaos magick' by any chance?

Cactoblasta: Here are the commonly accepted definitions of PAGAN.

1)One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2)One who has no religion.
3)A non-Christian.
4)A hedonist.
5)A Neo-Pagan.
6)A person who does not acknowledge your God.

It seems we are both correct.

Chak:

Would your path be 'chaos magick' by any chance?

Never heard of that, but it does sound intriguing!

My little historical diversion was to show that tolerance (originally religious tolerance, but with other kinds following in its wake) came about as a kind of truce in an unwinnable struggle. This is a tolerance where you agree to a minimum of civilty and social co-operation towards people whose beliefs, morality and lifestyle you really don't like, but you have (wisely) given up trying to change by force. Although we take this for granted today, it was at the time an immensely original thought; in previous societies almost everyone shared the same beliefs, morality and social ethos - and if they didn't they were in trouble. Tolerance however is also being used here as a kind of code word for agreeing with the other person's point of view; indeed it is being proposed (unrealistically) as the litmus test of 'tolerance'. The fact remains that, at a political and social level, people still have very strong opinions on what is right for society as a whole and struggle in the political arena to get society to accept those ideas. We are very fortunate that in the contemporary western world that struggle is carried out through a system of free democratic elections and through forums such as this, rather than through armed struggle.

You're a smart cookie. And this is so true.

Tolerance however is also being used here as a kind of code word for agreeing with the other person's point of view; indeed it is being proposed (unrealistically) as the litmus test of 'tolerance'. The fact remains that, at a political and social level, people still have very strong opinions on what is right for society as a whole and struggle in the political arena to get society to accept those ideas. We are very fortunate that in the contemporary western world that struggle is carried out through a system of free democratic elections and through forums such as this, rather than through armed struggle.

Thank you. I admit I have never seen this use of the term. My understanding of tolerance has always been of the sort originally understood. It would seem to me that a pluralistic society would require a certain level of tolerance or otherwise would tear itself apart. That we have the systemic tools to struggle with, though because of them, no solution is ultimately "winable." Therefore it would seem, we are left to nurish the practical reality of tolerance as a solution for civil society. I do not wish to convert, only to freely co-exist and co-exist with some level of acceptance of my right to do so by my neighbors. Some might argue I have no such right. It is to them lessons on tolerance might well be directed. Yet those being corrected are often left with the feeling they are being attacked. Hence the main point of the question which initiated this particular forum dialogue.

Be well.

This is good, but there is still a problem. I might not like, for various intellectual and philosophical reasons the religious 'style' of, for example, fundamentalist christians - in fact reading what I write here regularly it is clear that I don't - and yet, if I were to expect them to 'give up' their biblical literalism for something that I consider more intellectually respectable, it is more than possible that they would also lose in the process that religious fire which, at its best, makes their religion a living thing and not just a dry Sunday observance.

Of course, if my feelings are easily hurt - which sometimes they are - I might not like the fact that they consider that my religious path will inevitably end in the fires of hell. But at the end of the day so what? If they truly follow their religion - and remember truly following it also includes holding fast to those doctrines that you and I find objectionable - then they should be doing their utmost to live up to the extremely demanding standards of loving kindness that are to be found in their scripture.

If they are doing this but stumbling, well at least they are trying. If they are doing this and actually succeeding, then not only will their harsh theology be tempered by their religious practice, but I would have to say that their 'spirituality' is probably superior to mine, regardless of whether or not it is as intellectually cogent. As the good book says "Love covers a multitude of sins" and that probably goes for 'intellectual errors' also.

Also I don't think I've yet said how nice it has been to (virtually) meet you, so I also wish for you to be well

This is good, but there is still a problem. I might not like, for various intellectual and philosophical reasons the religious 'style' of, for example, fundamentalist christians - in fact reading what I write here regularly it is clear that I don't - and yet, if I were to expect them to 'give up' their biblical literalism for something that I consider more intellectually respectable, it is more than possible that they would also lose in the process that religious fire which, at its best, makes their religion a living thing and not just a dry Sunday observance

Absolutely. More than possible, I'd say probable and that would be a loss. The thing about tolerance, as I see it is that we do not have to like another's point of view, but we should attempt to co-exist with it. I do not think it much to ask the same in return. But perhaps it is. Sunday blue laws are an example. My sabbath is Saturday. Yet, Sunday is the sabbath as Christians have it (I guess they think God changed his mind or something ) and have democraticly enacted laws that essentially force others to follow. A truely pluralist society would not allow a religiously based legistlation to occur. If I should attempt to challenge such a law, Christians get up in arms suggesting I am attacking their faith.

Of course, if my feelings are easily hurt - which sometimes they are - I might not like the fact that they consider that my religious path will inevitably end in the fires of hell. But at the end of the day so what? If they truly follow their religion - and remember truly following it also includes holding fast to those doctrines that you and I find objectionable - then they should be doing their utmost to live up to the extremely demanding standards of loving kindness that are to be found in their scripture.

Quite so.

If they are doing this but stumbling, well at least they are trying. If they are doing this and actually succeeding, then not only will their harsh theology be tempered by their religious practice, but I would have to say that their 'spirituality' is probably superior to mine, regardless of whether or not it is as intellectually cogent. As the good book says "Love covers a multitude of sins" and that probably goes for 'intellectual errors' also.

Yes, this is faith itself, I think. We each strugglet o make sense of the forest amidst the trees.

Also I don't think I've yet said how nice it has been to (virtually) meet you, so I also wish for you to be well

A deep bow to you.

Be well.

"And the love of many will grow cold." Perhaps the sifting of the wheat from the chaf?

"And the love of many will grow cold." Perhaps the sifting of the wheat from the chaf?

Could be. But which are you and how do you know?