To think that 'tolerance' has gone too far

[AKMD]

I am wearing a hard hat ready to be flamed...

I came across an article in a religious magazine and I felt that it really defined my confusion about the line between being tolerant and standing up for morality. This is a quote from it:

"Until recently in our national history, tolerance referred to racial and religious non-discrimination. It meant civility in the political arena; in other words, respecting the right of others to express their views, even if we do not agree with them. It meant treating all people with decency and respect...

Today, however, the world is in danger of abandoning all sense of absolute right or wrong, all morality and virtue, replacing them with an all-encompassing ?tolerance? that no longer means what it once meant. An extreme definition of tolerance is now widespread that implicitly or explicitly endorses the right of every person to choose their own morality, even their own ?truth,? as though morality and truth were mere matters of personal preference. This extreme tolerance culminates in a refusal to recognize any fixed standards or draw moral distinctions of any kind. Few dare say no to the ?almighty self? or suggest that some so-called ?lifestyles? may be destructive, contrary to higher law, or simply wrong.

When tolerance is so inflated out of all proportions, it means the death of virtue, for the essence of morality is to draw clear distinctions between right and wrong. All virtue requires saying no firmly and courageously to all that is morally bankrupt.

Curiously enough, this new modern tolerance is often a one-way street. Those who practice it expect everyone to tolerate them in anything they say or do, but show no tolerance themselves toward those who express differing viewpoints or defend traditional morality. Indeed, their intolerance is often most barbed toward those of religious conviction... Believers of all faiths have every right to participate in and share their convictions in the public arena."

The whole article is here under the article " Defending the Family".

I've really noticed on MN that anyone who suggests that certain lifestyle choices might actually be wrong gets flamed for being judgemental and intolerant, when in fact those choices are root causes of family breakdown and wider negative impacts on wider society. AIBU to think that there is a limit to tolerance in that it should protect the integrity of our society, not seek to make it ok for everyone to do whatever they want?

routinely going out with the intention of getting drunk

who is it hurting?

It is hurting people who need medical assistance due to an accident or emergency as they can't get swift treatment as the above people have a large % that end up going out getting drunk and then clogging up the a&e wards up and down the country on a friday and saturday night

Most single parent households are the result of marriage break down, not sex before marriage.

this type of incident doesn't physically hurt but it hurts mentaly those men that served and who didn't bring there mates home as they where killed

If something becomes the societal norm then it has been decided by the majority that it is acceptable (in developed countries). It doesn't mean that everyone has to do it but that people have the right to autonomy and the minority cannot rule over those they see unfit or not worthy enough to manage their own lives and be afforded the rtight of choice.

You see marriage as an ideal, that is your choice you haven't got the right to inflict it on others. 'Familys' come in all different types and sizes. You can be married and have a very 'broken' family.

the average single parent is 32 and has been married or in a stable relationship which broke down

YABU. The article is setting up a false choice between absolute moral rules and extreme relativism, but hardly anybody makes moral decisions in either of those ways.

Mostly people make moral decisions in the same way they make other decisions.

If I want to cross a road, I base my behaviour on similar contexts I've been in before. I go to the lights and wait for the green man. The light goes green, I then see a car speeding towards me that doesn't look like it is going to stop. Now, I've never been hit by a car, but based on the experiences of others, I know there are analogous situations where people have been hit by cars on pedestrian crossing. So I don't cross the road. I don't follow the normal course of action that you cross when the green man comes on.

It is simply context + analogous situations + your own experiences and your knowledge of other people's experiences.

The same is true of morality. I want to be kind, and somebody asks me for directions. In similar situations I would help this person. They then tell me that they want directions so they can break into a house and kill somebody. The context has now changed, so my behaviour changes. I am no longer helpful towards them.

There are no absolute rules, but there is absolutely a right and wrong way of behaving, but knowing how to behave is based on moral sensitivity, which itself is based on understanding the context, use of analogy and learning from the experiences of yourself and others.

As for intolerance of intolerant people, that can sometimes be the right course of action. Tolerance itself is not an absolute rule. I wouldn't tolerate somebody burning a cross on my neighbour's lawn.

"Sex before marriage - = children being born outside marriage, single parent households, usually with no father, children not knowing who their father is."

If you think your reductive, extremely simple minded equation above encompasses the totality of unmarried sexual encounters then I think you've been more than a little brain washed.

btw I'm not sure your personal unhappy sexual history should really have much influence on what 'society' should find 'intolerable'.

(Wo)Man the Bigot flap!

I;ve yet to have any problem with either being tolerant of diverse lifestyles 9actually tolerant is a word I dislike- accepting much better. I don't tolerate people, I accept them for who they are) and making moral judgements.

I don't accept the root causes of family breakdown are in any way linked to what is more accepted these days- homesexuality, disabled people, standing up against DV.........

DS1 born before we married, we've been married 11 years and are happy- failing to see the issue? heck otehr was pg when she amrried in the 60's and still holds dad's hand.

'I'm not racist, but the country's going to the dogs
'

Woof frigging woof.

AKMD, in the past we had a society where divorce and single parenthood were stigmatised, and gay people had to keep their sexuality secret if they didn't want to go to prison/get attacked in the street and as a result we had people in abusive marriages and some very, very unhappy people who couldn't live freely because of a 'morality' imposed by others.

If that has changed, then surely it's a good thing.

It is not wrong to go out and get drunk either. Imo, it is wrong to drink so much that you cannot protect yourself or control your own behaviour, but drinking in itself is rather enjoyable!

Op have you watched the 'Magdelene Laundries'?, is that a system you approve of?

I agree that we should be focusing on the 'quality of relationships' but tbh that would also end a few marriages, because somestimes relationships come to an end.

We do need to question the increase in the drinking culture, i agree on that one. Drug use rose about fifteen years ago and that is ignored at present.

Strawberries both.

The traditional family model is not a purely religious ideal. The standard 2-parent family model has been shown by study after study to be the most stable and the foundation of the best outcomes for children. Not all marriages work, true, but that doesn't disprove the rule.

Going out to get drunk on a Friday night is something that is widely accepted in society but it is very clearly wrong.

It has got to the point that anyone, religious or secular, who promotes traditional values, is ridiculed. 'Tyranny of the majority' comes to mind here.

"Sex before marriage - = children being born outside marriage, single parent households, usually with no father, children not knowing who their father is. See the boards for how much heartache and hardship problems between ex's cause families and various news reports and studies for the poorer outcomes for children brought up in one-parent households with no father figure, especially for boys. Also, I did have sex before marriage as a teenager with a number of men who I thought I was in a 'long-term, stable relationship' with and it really affected my self-image and self-worth."

Hmm. I think SAS is right and it's actually bemoaning the decline of the 'traditional' family. Which is usually a stick to beat women with for wanting things like jobs, and rights to divorce and so on. Not the men who are failing to be father figures, which I always think is odd.

I'm sorry that your pre-marital relationships affected your self-esteem but I don't think a personal experience is something we should base policy on.

Sorry, but if there any body/s that has consistently shown intolerance through history it's the religious ones.

"as though morality and truth were mere matters of personal preference"

Each religion has it's own morality and truth does it not ?

We should be abandoning any sense of "absolute right and wrong", since their is no such thing. Morals are relative, and assuming your morals are the right ones is a very dangerous thing.

You're welcome. I feel that when I'm on DH's iPad and it keeps correcting my words as I type - wish I could turn that particular feature off!

Morality is clearly something that is very subjective, however there are so many areas now where people feel they can't pass comment or criticism for fear of being labelled intolerant and offensive, but which actually need proper debate.

AKMD Not all marriages work, but that doesn't mean it is always the fault of the mother, which is what the article writer is trying to claim.

Why is getting drunk on a Friday clearly wrong? It's completely traditional in the UK to end the working week by imbibing alcohol down the pub... Factory Fridays? What you might find unsavoury or even immoral is the perceived rising relationship between violence and alcohol in public places.

and finally, no, it's not "ridicule" to debate whether there's any value in "traditional" values.

What if you look at the cause of a lot of the social 'ills' and took a theme such as selfishness. You could blame a lot of ills on us being encouraged by media and advertisers and things about putting ourselves first, screw the rest.
I would agree that tollerence with people being 'out for themselves' could be critisized, but I think that it already is in general. Some people do think that its ok to put their own happiness above their children, or their career above their relationship with their partner, their need for 'stuff' above the emotional needs of others in their communities. I don't think that the general consensus is that this is acceptable though

BornSicky - there should be debate on traditional values and the research shows over and over that they are the best for a stable society.

See above for alcohol debate.

See AIBU post on here today about atheist mothers starting a petition to stop a school visit to a church to see an example of intolerance by the tolerant.

sex before marriage is a lifestyle choice that leads to the breakdown of society? Considering gay people can't get married, that gives a convenient black-ball for the pesky gays doesn't it, and you can pretend not to be homophobic too! Nice one.