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?

Yanbu - but tbh, a lot of people just pay lip service to certain 'lifestyles' -

The article you linked to is from a Mormon magazine, so presumably you are anti alcohol full stop. And from the 'Mom's commitment to modesty' article I'm guessing that you also don't want married women in skirts that show knees. I wouldn't consider those to be traditional values.

"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."

If all that's under discussion here is some hackneyed "Silent Majority" "it's PC gone mad" "persecuted christians" argument that people are fearful of making moral judgements out loud for fear of being labelled as god botherers or intolerant bigots then I guess there may be a bit of truth in that; I personally stand up for anyones right to make as many bigoted out of touch statements as they like, the right to free speech is a moral imperative imo; it's when people try to insinuate that there is one single 'moral truth' which should dictate what "society" finds tolerable thaty I start to feel queasy.

YABU... Morality is certainly subjective & individual but our society enjoys common laws that apply to all. We define the illegal as what is not tolerated under any circumstances and which is punished. Everything else we apply a degree of tolerance to, some more generously than others. We're a mature enough society that our definition of 'legal' can be challenged and, if the challenge is successful and has popular support, we change the law accordingly.

I find people tend to talk about moral relativism only when something they think is intolerable is acceptable under the law. In other words, when they are out of step.

Going out to get drunk on a Friday is very clearly wrong? Is it? So long as you're not putting yourself or others in the way of harm, why should this bother you?

And sex before marriage doesn't always lead to single mothers and 'the breakdown of society'. In hindsight I wish I'd had lots more sex with other partners before marriage, I might have something to compare DH against (not that he isn't fab, but hey...). As it is, I slept with him before I married him. We're 20 years this year, so your 'logical' progression is deeply, deeply flawed in my example and many others. Some people who have sex before marriage may end up single mothers (and fathers, let's not forget the men here), most won't. It depends on the individual involved and their beliefs/actions.

Being 'less tolerant' (how nasty that sounds!) involves stigmatising people, which pretty much ends us up back in the 1950's. Funnily enough, I'm currently reading Dara O'Briain's book "Tickling the English" , and while it's meant to be a funny book (and it is), it makes the serious point that whenever people talk about things going to the dogs and it's not like it used to be, they always hark back to the 1950's. And the 1950's, historically speaking, was a tiny blip in the British (and English) psyche. As a Nation we've always largely been a bunch of prone-to-violence, sex-crazed drunks - Gin Lane, anyone?

Op, while you've raised an interesting debating point, you can't seek to impose your moral view on everyone else. Morals are a private thing and you should do your best to live according to your own, not say 'This is RIGHT, this is WRONG' and expect people to fall into line. We don't live in a perfect world and everyone must make their own choices accordingly. The last thing I would want to do is to attempt to stigmatise others simply because their beliefs don't accord with mine.

"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."

There is proper debate about this subject daily and this is an example of it. The internet and global communications have widenened the possibilities for debate and knowledge sharing immensely. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that one of the things that the Religious Right dislike the most (and it's evident in that article) is that people have broader and more in depth access to knowledge and information, specifically much that is not embraced by their particular denominations or world views.

The entire aim of any patriarchial religion is to create adherents who are faithful to their ideas above all else. It's not beneficial for them to have to debate with people who may persuade them to an alternative mindset.

People fear being labelled offensive when they know that they are in fact offensive.

People fear being labelled offensive for singing 'Baa Baa Black Sheep'...

Although this article is from a religious magazine, the point isn't a completely religious one. I've lost count of the number of threads on here where someone has been flamed for suggesting that (to give an extreme example ) a single mother with multiple partners who swears at her kids, puts Coke in thier bottles and lives on benefits is possibly not the greatest parent in the world because 'it's her choice' and 'it's none of your business to judge other people' and 'you don't know the full story'. Sometimes, things are just wrong but people can't say so without getting shot down.

SirGinster

often i would agree about religion but I wouldn;t say all of them follow your pattern (as a Quaker I know iotherwise).

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

Define "traditional" and define "stable". Neither are definitive terms that could be rationally studied or proven in any study without definition or being quantified. In order to prove your argument, you'd need to give a list of traditional values that are absolutely successful in a society where a list of measures of stability where met.... and you can't do that, because it's all relative and your interpretation of stability and/or traditional values would differ from someone else's.

The demise (as you wish to interpret it), of traditional values is more the decline of religion in western society.

The church visit is not an intolerant/tolerant argument; it's an atheism versus christianity argument. If that's what you actually mean, then please just say so.

To be moral does not equal being religious. The hypocracy of an article by the mormans re tolerance seems to be lost on you OP.

Re sex outside marriage. Assuming that the best family unit is always a married couple (and a male/female married couple at that) ignores the fact that children can be very well supported and brought up by a)couples who aren't married (like myself and my partner) or by same sex couples.

Well said BornSticky

I do think people are scared to say what they think. I do think the burka should be banned in public. I don't think people should have a child unless they are in a very stable relationship. I don't think people should have breaks at work for prayer unless everyone else has the same number of breaks for whatever they want to do.

Ah, having done more reading apparently it's girls generally who shouldn't be flashing flesh. Like shoulders

As for people jumping on those being judgey, surely there's something about that in the bible? Along the lines of 'judge not lest ye be judged for the chocolate buttons you handed out last Thursday to shut up DD2. Yes, I saw you, omnipresent me...' I paraphrase.

Oh dear! Morality as defined by the mormons? Which part of society are you talking about - is it just the bit that follows your rules?

Believers of all faiths have every right to participate in and share their convictions in the public arena - I totally agree, but they must expect to have their beliefs discussed and challenged, just like the rest of us.

The so-called traditional values have not been around forever; humans evolve as do our ways of living with each other. People should have the freedom to live how they wish without fearing punishment from some imaginary friend, or believers in such.

Yabu.

AKMD - the whole "baa baa white sheep" was an urban myth. No-one really fears being offensive by singing "baa baa black sheep"

Although I think that morality is subjective and a personal thing at the same time I believe that "society" or comunities have their inherent beliefs in terms of what is inherently wrong.

Quite. Getting drunk does not equal drinking to the point of incapacity, therefore invoking the use of healthcare and law enforcement services.

I'm having an unheard of night down town with DH, and yes quantities of alcohol will be consumed. Should I call the police and a&e to get them to deal with me because actually that won't be necessary.

We're hurting nobody.

Two of my children were born pre marriage. If I become a single parent it won't be because I wasn't married.

"People fear being labelled offensive for singing 'Baa Baa Black Sheep'...

Although this article is from a religious magazine, the point isn't a completely religious one. I've lost count of the number of threads on here where someone has been flamed for suggesting that (to give an extreme example ) a single mother with multiple partners who swears at her kids, puts Coke in thier bottles and lives on benefits is possibly not the greatest parent in the world because 'it's her choice' and 'it's none of your business to judge other people' and 'you don't know the full story'. Sometimes, things are just wrong but people can't say so without getting shot down."

what ever

tbh the above his reads quite a bit like some kind of mealy mouthed passive aggressive disingenous nonsense tbh

I doubt you could find one thread that was quite like the one you mention above, never mind "countless" examples.

and just who fears being lablled as offensive for singing baa baa black sheep?

some random far left idiot maybe, but to try and paint any rare examples of over the top knee jerk PC reactionary idiocy as part of a wider malaise affecting UK society is Daily Mail bollocks imo.

You could just as well point to some fundamentalist christian nutjob as indicative of all christians thought processes, that's equally feeble minded.

it's a bit dreary that whenever tolerance is discussed the thing that everyone talks about is homosexuality (to be fair to the OP, this wasn't on her list, which consisted of behaviours rather than identities - BUT given that, for example, gay people can't get married, does that mean then that they shouldn't have sex? I know this isn't what was meant, just pointing out an inconsistency). Some homosexuals are immoral people, completing lacking in virtue. By definition, as they are a minority, there are probably more unvirtuous heterosexual people! Virtue is an interesting word - we tend to use it sloppily and in trivial contexts (I have been virtuous because I did not eat that cake etc). I've no problem with it, but don't see virtue as in any sense antithetical to tolerance (which in Biblical old money might be covered by caritas or charity). Surely the teachings of Christ (and subsequently St Paul) are grounded in tolerance of difference which recognises the intrinsic virtue of all human beings? so I don't get the opposition, is what I am saying.

There are so many other things that demand tolerance, both locally (I am tolerant of my toddler's obsession with In the Night Garden, recognising that whilst I don't like it, it doesn't cause any harm and will pass) and more globally. For me the key thing is the distinction between identity (racial, social, sexual, religious etc) and behaviour. It is not ok for me to stereotype an individual on the basis of their identity, but it is OK for me (within reason and the terms will always be open to debate) to be intolerant of a refusal to educate girls, or parents who fail to to do their best to provide for their children, or people who park their cars on pavements so that a wheelchair is unable to pass...

"People fear being labelled offensive for singing 'Baa Baa Black Sheep'..."

Rubbish. No-one seriously thinks that. People have far too much commonsense. If you're going to base your definitions of tolerance and intolerance on the 'Christmas cancelled' type fairy stories that appear in certain right-wing press, you're not starting from a position of reality.

The things that i consider wrong are the lies told from the begining of Christianity. I am not critising Christianity just the way that it was delivered to the masses. I would like some of the programmes on BBC2 about Mary Magdelene and the real story of women's posistion in all societies and how it was removed deliberatly etc to be part of the religous and wider curriculum.

What time period do you want to take us back to for 'traditional values'? there are tolerent religions that are older than Christianity just unfortunatly their followers were slaughtered. I would like some of their values adopted not the 1950's rubbish often spouted out as being 'traditional values'.

The council refused to empty my bins because I sang 'This little piuggy went to market'. Fact.

Birmingham City Council actually issued guidance to nurseries advising that Baa Baa Black Sheep could be offensive here, although they later scrapped that advice, so it's not the left-wing press.

I think drivingmisscrazy has a good point about the distinction between identity and behaviour.

Only the Daily Mail believes the baa baa black sheep drivel. Oh and its readers.