Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that 'tolerance' has gone too far

191 replies

AKMD · 17/06/2011 12:20

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?

OP posts:
HellAtWork · 17/06/2011 17:23

How on earth did I not know that Lulu married two, not one, but TWO Gibbs bros? Is this FACT garlic? What prevented her from the hat trick? Did she not marry the non-hairy one with the receding chin?

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 17/06/2011 17:26

I hope that dress covers your knees. Hussy.

Hullygully · 17/06/2011 17:26

Two? Who knew ol Lulu was a mormon.

shock horror probe

Hullygully · 17/06/2011 17:27

It's grazing the bloddy meadow flowers. Either it's covering my knees or I've been at George's Marvellous Medicine

Lunabelly · 17/06/2011 17:28

TWO Gibbs bothers is just plain greedy. She'll no doubt go to hell for it. That and the immodest clothing. Tut tut.

HellAtWork · 17/06/2011 17:30
EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 17/06/2011 17:32

I thought your hair was grazing the meadow flowers? Does Timotei make your hair very long or just make you very bendy?

Hullygully · 17/06/2011 17:33

Bit of both, Puffin. Damn good stuff.

garlicnutter · 17/06/2011 17:34

Nope. Lulu's first husband was Maurice Gibb. They were married from 1969 to 1973. Her last husband was John Frieda, married from 1975 to 1995. She also had an affair with David Bowie, proving that she's not limited to partners who look like Mormons Bee Gees.

It is unknown whether Lulu uses Timotei shampoo.

Hullygully · 17/06/2011 17:35

So she wasn't married to two of them?

Let's just pretned she was anyway

HellAtWork · 17/06/2011 17:36

Well this is very strange. I cannot find that Lulu married TWO Beegees (only Maurice is mentioned on Wikipedia) but she did marry John Frieda and has a son with him. Did you already know this garlic? Hence why I missed your JF reference earlier?

HellAtWork · 17/06/2011 17:37

x-post! If we're going to pretend TWO then I think we should stretch our imaginations to all three. The full set. It just makes it all neater.

MollyMurphy · 17/06/2011 17:38

YABU and very thick narrow minded. You are assuming everyone agrees with you about what constitutes a right and wrong lifestyle. You see moral absolutes through the eyes of your personal religious views - which are not shared by everyone.

Perhaps widening the definitions of family actually creates - more family, just in diverse forms. That unhappy wife is not locked in a violent relationship but moves into the family of many friendships, that man in the closet moves in with another man and creates a family in partnership, those children of miserable Tom and Mary move into a more divided but peaceful family constituting parents and step parents Tom and Sally and Mary and Bob. It is shortsighted to see only the divisions when there are so many potentially positive permutations.

The worst impacts on our society are from the haters, not the lovers. Who through the centuries have been bigger haters than the staunchly religious? Most people don't want to be judged as intolerent, just self-righteously correct. Boo.

garlicnutter · 17/06/2011 17:38

Oh, it does, doesn't it! Congratulations on your other two (or more) divorces, Lulu :) What shampoo do you use?

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 17/06/2011 17:38

Shock [awe]

garlicnutter · 17/06/2011 17:39

Sorry, Molly, that wasn't a reply to your post. Though I agree with you as well.

Hullygully · 17/06/2011 17:40

Lulu uses dry shampoo on her wig or it goes all soggy

Peachy · 17/06/2011 19:45

TYR

Quaker by belief and attitude, although I can;t get to meetings atm as am a Carer

Pendeen · 18/06/2011 01:23

LDNMummy

A very thougtful reply, thank you.

Unfortunately (probably my fault for not phrasing the questions clearly) my point was more about your assumptions of what constitutes "society", as in your comment "...society is moving away from the more conformist elements..."

What do you mean by "society"? Who, in your view constitutes "society"?

The (notional) 'majority'? All "right-thinking people"? Or is it only an intelligent, educated, elite?

You also said "...we are moving into a new stage of social development ..."

On what basis do you make that claim? And, who are "we"?

I genuinely do not understand who you are talking about here.

Punkatheart · 18/06/2011 09:30

Hello friend Peachy - Quaker here too! I love it because tolerance is high on their beliefs. I do not believe in God but I am never judged for it.

Peachy I am so sorry that you cannot attend Collect service. I hope you have some support with your caring role. My mother did it for a long time and it can be exhausting.

HellAtWork · 18/06/2011 11:28

You can be a Quaker and not believe in God? I have never ever met any Quakers in real life and have a terrible antiquated view of the religion (mostly relating to female headwear and kind of Amish dress Blush) so this is very informative - thank you Peachy and Punkatheart!

sieglinde · 18/06/2011 11:43

Well, if the Mormons can tolerate the multiply-married, why fret about Ryan Giggs? if they can tolerate Stephenie Meier (who is a Mormon), why worry over declining literacy standards and preteen precocity? And if they can bear the idea of God handing out his Word on gold tablets, why trouble about the poor?

Ok, I'm cranky.

If you tolerate something you bear it - tollis = bear. It doesn't mean you approve of it, agree with it, or like it. So it is that I dislike all of the above, but it won't lead me to anything more ferocious than a testy posting or two. I won't campaign for the Latter-Day Saints to be run out of town, or to be barred from the UK. (The Latter-Day/Mormons are the source of the OP's article). However, if they were in a majority I imagine they might not extend the same tolerance to me....

onagar · 18/06/2011 12:12

An extreme definition of tolerance is now widespread that implicitly or explicitly endorses the right of every person to choose their own morality

Everyone does get to choose their own morality, but then they must obey the laws based on the majority view of which morality works best.

That's really tough on the priests who want to impose theirs on people isn't it. It must be hard having the urge to control others according to the voices in your head, but not having the power to force them to obey.

As you can see I don't feel obliged to agree with everyone. Just to allow them to have their own opinion. So for example I wouldn't support making it illegal to be religious, but I do reserve the right to think (and say at appropriate times) that it's a corrupting influence that should be no part of a civilised society. I'd favour taking away the special rights it enjoys and letting churches obey the same laws as everyone else, but the right to think there is a god or large rabbit following you around talking to you is yours to enjoy.

I support the BNPs right as a political party to exist even though I disagree with them and think the whole race thing demonstrates a depressing level of ignorance.

I think that the serious 'pro-lifers' are entitled to their opinion too. I think they are disturbing and unpleasant and that the world would be better off without them, but they have a right to be what they are so as long as they don't try and force it on others.

Punkatheart · 18/06/2011 13:00

Yes, some Quakers (namely the Plymouth Brethren) dress in black and white - use thee and thou quite quaintly. Others are fiery little atheists/agonists like myself who nevertheless want some sense of spirituality, rather than the constraints of organised religion. Kindness and tolerance can be sneered at in our tough society but they don't half make the world a nicer place!

Peachy · 18/06/2011 15:22

Yes, my take is different again- I believe in a Vivekananda-inspired universalist approach, that the majority of faiths folow the same path in different ways for different people. I am inspired in many ways by the Hndu style definition of 'ultimate'- a piece of energy in each of us which comes from and reverts to the source and that is the divine aspect; but I follow a very jesus led interetation of how I should live my lie, mostly based on the idea of the jesus commandment that we should love one another.

And I rarely manage that; I often get angry, I certainly swear and when tired I am a nightmare! But I think I am a nicer person than if I didn't have that code to revert to which is enough for me. I also hope that it gives me the strength to speak out for those who are weaker than me and need a vive.

I am not the stereotypical Quaker- I drink albeit not really to excess (2 glasses and I am asleep anyway LMAO), I perform and ance as Hully knows. For me it's about the support for an atypical beleif and teh sense of fellowship for my own idea of morality.

Thank you Punkat; I am blessed with a good husband who pulls his weight as far as he is able. We have a few disabled children (ds1 AS; ds2 being assessed for ADHD; ds3 autistic; ds4 being assessed for asd) but working as a pair we not only cope but have happy lives that are fulfilling. DS2 is expressing an interest in Quakerism so hopefully one day we can attend meeting together, the lcoal group can't have children attend but they will of course grow up. I haven;t even met the local ones even though we've been here 7 years, but we plod on.