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?

That article was merely yet another version of the same, tired old clap-trap that some such people spout. It boils down to "Those without religion are amoral and that's why the world's going to hell in a handbasket. If only everyone was like us, everything would be marvellous!"

And it's nothing to do with "Defending the Family", it's about reinforcing the LDS Church's long-held patriarchy and misogynism.

By LDNmummy Fri 17-Jun-11 14:03:49

"In my book, my actions are only wrong if they infringe on the basic human rights of another person, including my own friends, family and children. Then someone can tell me I am wrong. Otherwise, I like being free (relatively speaking) to make my own choices and live my life in the way I choose."

That is what I wanted to say as well LDN but I couldn't get the words out right.

I think the thing that bugs me with articles and probably posts like this is well is that it takes the humanity out of being human. We all are different from one another with different attitudes, tastes, viewpoints, moral standpoints and yet we are all supposed to think in one way and if we don't we must self-flagellate because there is something wrong with us. Imho, as long as we are not hurting other people then we should be left to get on with our own lives.

And I also can't stand the women-bashing stuff either like women are resposible for single parent families or women who work when their children are young are obviously setting their children up for horrible lives - I really hate all that crap - and can give you multiple examples of people in my own life to disprove those theories.

chen23 well I was only responding to your comment about it being 11 years old. It did happen. It wasn't scaremongering.

"Unfortunately, there are people who aren't quite sure what is and isn't allowed and BCC saying that they are no longer going to tell people not to, isn't quite the same as them telling people they can/should."

my point here was only that, when the council issued their original guidelines, they were forwarded to all schools/nurseries so that no one would sing it. When they reversed the decision, they didn't issue a widespread guidelines saying that it could be sung, they only decided that they would no longer tell people they couldn't.

The result was that it got round on a bit of a grapevine that the ban had been lifted but even as recently as last year, I heard it being discussed in a nursery. Not in a "I can't believe you can't sing Baa Baa black sheep" way, but in a "such and such says you can, can you?" "I think so, but I will have to find out" sort of way.

Not even really sure how that relates to the OP's point but there you go.

What about staying in with the intention of getting drunk, which is what DH and I will be doing tonight? Is the getting drunk bit still a problem, or is it just the 'going out' bit?

There are certainly a few 'Clare in the Community' types that go around trying to second-guess what other people might find offensive and reaching some very silly conclusions. With the exception of certain newspapers that love anything that allows them to run the headling 'PC GORN MAD!!!', no-one else takes any notice of them...

There used to be one morality, supported by the law and backed up by public approbation and life was bloody miserable for a lot of people as a result. There are now multiple moralities & more liberal laws. There will still be plenty of people hankering after the old days when they could throw tomatoes at people and shout 'SINNER!!!!' .... and life is still bloody miserable for many... but at least we don't lock up pregnant young girls in mental asylums or force them to give away their babies just because they're not married any more.

Lunabelly I entirely agree with you, even as a Christian. I studied RE and have yet to find anything that persuades me oherwise wrt your post.

'Stephen M Cahn:-

To act morally is not to act out of fear of punishment; it is not to act as one is commanded to act. Rather, it is to act as one ought to act. And how one ought to act is not dependent upon anyone's power, even if the power be "God".
'

fab, will go on my FB now.

Inpossible to distinguish wher religion and common sense are distinct. After all even if you saw Jesus rise yourself so know it to be true you still ahve to sell it to a lot of other people who are pretty damned sure they know that dead people rot. And as time gos on that will magnify..... come missionaries then people are only going to accept what seems logial anyhow. You can sell them that 'do unto other what you would have done unto you' is the way to go as it just summarises basic common sense: much better bet.

Oh only the going out because then other people might see you and be offended.

You can get drunk in your own home. Which is what me and my DH will be doing tonight (well nicely tipsy) whilst my 2 DCs (both conceived out of wedlock ) are sleeping upstairs.

Bramshott, I think that the opinion is that it is only evil and smashing up society if you are a single woman and/or showing your knees. If your DH is supervising you then I think it's ok

imbibing alcohol in general Bramshott. Mormons don't like alcohol... tis officially the work of the devil, as is tea and coffee

I can't function without coffee, so that's me done for.

"At the risk of being over-simplistic, here are some behviours that I would call traditional values: a 2-parent household with a married couple as the head of the home, ..... mothers staying at home with young children being a viable financial option for the majority of all families"

AKMD, With all due respect I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the 1950s model that you have just described has ALWAYS been the "traditional" way of doing things. If you look back in history you will see many types of households were common, and that mothers DID work outside the home. The 1950s was in many ways a blip, and the ideal household of which you speak, was often a media image projected by governments who needed women to go back into the home after the war. The flaws of this model was demonstrated by the popularity of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. If you are interested in this topic I recommend a really good book "The way we never were" by Stephanie Coontz.

My mum, who is very wise BTW, always says "in the olden days you could die in an unhappy marriage and no-one would know". I say things today are going in the right direction. Devoid of guilt people are finding the kind of family structures that work for them, be it two parent, one parent, blended, extended, whatever! The most important ingredients are love and respect and those are the only two "traditional values" that we need.

Your thread topic is an interesting one, AKMD, and some of your replies though-provoking. However, you lost me with your post at 12:34, where you apply your own values to what "shouldn't" be tolerated. Those things don't hurt other people (so, in my view, are tolerable) and you have no right to tell people what to do with their sexuality, their digestive tracts or any other personal matter.

What I hoped you wanted to discuss was the issue of rights coming with responsibilities.

But you didn't. So YABU.

Okay then - I'm doomed!

Fantastic post, joaninha. I've ordered the Coontz book - I keep trying to TELL people but they don't want to hear it!

(Was born in the Fifities, it didn't look that idyllic from where I sat.)

Oooh thanks strawberries - I'll have a good look at that!

FWIW - I think AKMD is a mormon; the tone and content of her posts, along with the wooly logic and desire to impose her brand of morality on others seems to point that way, especially as the mormons have been stuck in a 1950's 'life is best OUR way' vibe for the last few years.

LDNMummy

Who exactly are you talking about when you say "Society is moving forward, away from conformism" and "We are moving away from that, why would we want to go back exactly?"

Agree with MillyR Hester Peachy and Snorbs on here.

Snorbs said: "And it's nothing to do with "Defending the Family", it's about reinforcing the LDS Church's long-held patriarchy and misogynism."

Precisely.

And connecting Snorb's comment with Johanina's" reflection on your preference for a 'traditional/1950s' model of family conflicts means with your OP AKMD , it is possible you are being distinctly intolerant of the Mormon's originally held belief in polygamous marriages Wikipedia article which is still practised albeit illegally.

So maybe, with your views on absentee fathers and all these immoral single mothers cluttering up society you would prefer the Mormon's original views that there were far too few 'decent' family men to go round and that therefore each man should be able to marry and impregnate several wives?

What a load of boswollox.

You'd be in a stronger position to debate and defend your position AKMD (however much I disagree with it) if you hadn't picked such a ridiculously biased and misogynist publication (and authorial organisation) on which to base it!

Pendeen, to answer your earlier question (and I think to partly answer your later one): it won't surprise you to learn that I leave in the Guardian-reading affluent London suburbs. I am fully aware that the UK is made up of many different communities, with diverse attitudes. However, I think it is undeniable that the UK as a whole has become markedly more tolerant of homosexuality and of interracial relationships than it was just after WW2, when my family were getting up to those things and frankly having a shit time because of it.

AKMD, reading your posts, I agree that seagoing minimize unwanted pregnancy. Can we agree then to support sex education and distribution of contraception, which have been consistently shown to reduce teenage pregnancy, compared with abstinence education which has not ?

I agree we should try to minimize anti-social behavior. Can we agree to support outreach programs and youth activity centers which have the best effect on getting young people to direct their energy in positive ways?

I agree that vulnerable elderly people should be protected. I am not so familiar with programs that best benefit them but perhaps other MNers can.

I suggest that if we agree on the changes we want to see, we can also agree to support the ways most likely to achieve those changes - regardless of our religious beliefs.

""At the risk of being over-simplistic, here are some behviours that I would call traditional values: a 2-parent household with a married couple as the head of the home, ..... mothers staying at home with young children being a viable financial option for the majority of all families"

' I agree that seagoing minimize unwanted pregnancy'

I love autocorrect

What are those men in the white dresses doing to that man's hair?

' However, I think it is undeniable that the UK as a whole has become markedly more tolerant of homosexuality and of interracial relationships than it was just after WW2, when my family were getting up to those things and frankly having a shit time because of it.

Yep or when my Dad wasn't spoken to at work becuase shock horror he accepted lifts from his gay mate. Funnily enough around the time I was born (1970's) so I would suggest that was evidence against being gay, though of course bi ws always an possibility (at elast, if being in a car with a gay person could make you bi / gay / anything other than carsick).

EvenLess might be autocorrect but so very true nonetheless! never were there less conceptions than when men kept in male only seagoing environments

And YY to the myths of the past. Nan G was the school caretaken in the 1950's. Nan- oh hang on, also G, that didn;t work did it? other-Nan-G- was a SAHM- and despised, beaten and kept in misery by her shite of a husband, at times unable to feed kids as he pissed the wage away (in the house). Fab trad lifestyle that

Has no one else noticed the men in white frocks?