In short, it is no ethic at all. It amounts to a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid what would otherwise be an obvious charge of hypocrisy. For those on the other side, be they Catholics or political conservatives or anyone who does not subscribe to the new liberal orthodoxy, they are no longer expected merely to tolerate those views with which they disagree, but to affirm and celebrate them - anything less is seen as bigotry or any one of a hundred categories of phobia.
Meanwhile, secular liberals can be as intolerant as they like, verbally attacking people and their characters while almost never engaging with and debating their ideas.
Otherwise they are no better than that trope to which they frequently have recourse: the hypocritical priest who refuses to practise what he preaches.
Tolerance is not and never has been a Christian virtue. But what it does require is that one act towards him out of love, and treat him with dignity and respect. This counts most of all when dealing with someone with whom you do not agree, and even one who hates you. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?
Do not even the tax collectors do the same? This provides a real and significant constraint on the way in which Christians are permitted to behave towards their political opponents. In contrast, what was notable about the newspaper and social media responses to the conference attendance was their complete lack of engagement with any ideas that may have been advanced at the conference. They were, rather, about the asserted wrong-headedness of the young people who attended it, seeking to ruin them politically, professionally and even personally.
So next time, before you reach for your keyboard to name-call or shout abuse about a person whose views you do not like, why not exercise some tolerance and critique the viewpoint, not the person? Rising infection rates in central and eastern Europe suggest a correlation between vaccine scepticism and populist politics. The plan for the capital looks too much like another aspirational plan, not the inspirational one it should be.
Please update your payment details to keep enjoying your Irish Times subscription. Liberals fail to practise what they preach about tolerance Tolerance means liberals must put up with speech they regard as intolerant Sat, Aug 24, , Maria Steen.
Written by: Christopher A. What one faction today considers anti-racism in defense of the marginalized, another denounces as intolerant liberal mobs of cancel culture. In all of this we find there is a paradox to tolerance: even the most supposedly inclusive of movements are inevitably intolerant of certain things. No matter how cosmopolitan or pluralistic a society might wish to become, it will inescapably involve intolerance. This suggests our challenge in democratic societies today is not whether or not to be intolerant, but how should we be intolerant?
My book, Monotheism, Intolerance, and the Path to Pluralistic Politics , explores these challenging mechanics of exclusion by grappling with one the deepest and most misunderstood symbols of intolerance: monotheism, the exclusive belief in only one God. This belief, laced with a combative sense that the other gods are somehow false, dates back into even the first millennium B. And it has often been regarded as a source of intolerance, violence, and a threat to plurality and diversity.
It is a turf with a fence beyond which you do not carry your tools of objectivity and reasoning as they cannot resolve logical contradictions. Therefore, everything looks green on the turf with the fences intact. However, the law is not in the letter per se, but the spirit behind the letter and the reasoning behind its formulation.
These protests fight the spirit and not the verse, they doubt not the actions but the intentions behind the law. The same objective reasoning that the author seems to demand is selective and is not extended beyond the turf and fences of legal vocabulary to justify the classification itself and the motivations that shaped these classifications. This is the reason why the CAA fails to hold rational ground and is arbitrary at best. These are the questions that move people on ground to reject the CAA, and this reality is countered by the right-wing elite with repetitive tautological letters of the law; or worse by dismissing it as misinformation.
Likewise, with regard to the NRC, protesters are deemed ignorant and their demonstration of objections premature without the rules being determined by the government. However, it is the lack of clarity that is the primary motivation for the current outcry. Moreover, the excuse that rules for the NRC have not been created is a matter of procedural law and cannot be sought as a defence for the substantive intent of the law. Also, extending reasoning beyond the fences of the turf, it follows the residue of the NRC is bound to be screened through the eyes of the CAA.
Hence, any delinking rhetoric can be objectively termed as misinformed myopia. They also think differently. No one should make the assumption that everyone grew up in a PC bubble like the Bay Area. Stanford strives to have a heterogeneous student body, and that should include politics.
Diversity and tolerance are important, but must also be afforded to political minorities on campus. We should be celebrating diversity of thought in the same way we celebrate all other forms of diversity. Sharing unique experiences and offering varying viewpoints can only strengthen a community more. Who wants to go to a politically homogeneous school, where everyone accepts one ideology?
Apparently, some of our liberal peers do. I hope that as a student body, we can break down the barriers preventing civil discourse in our classrooms.
0コメント