Shoot off: Tolerance of religious beliefs

[TechWife]

This is a spin off from the HOA thread. I may be opening a can of worms, but I’m hoping for cordiality. 

The US is a pluralistic culture.

Tolerance of others has been engrained into our culture over the past 25-30 years.

Our culture is increasingly polarized and nuance is no longer appreciated and in some circles it’s seen as dangerous to even admit that nuance is real.

How does a healthy culture form without recognition of nuance and an understanding, appreciation and acceptance that not everyone has the same value system?

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by TechWife

[Melissa Louise]

It doesn't. You can't form a healthy culture out of that. 

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though. Does the decrease in tolerance cause a less healthy society, or is a decrease in tolerance of others a symptom of an unwell society? 

 

 

[TechWife]

I agree with the chicken & egg. I also know there are some people who think tolerance is the cause of an unhealthy society.

I’m thinking an increase in the understanding of nuance would promote tolerance. Does that make sense? Which brings me to - How do people learn nuance? Is it something that must now be explicitly taught where previously people learned about it through reading good books and personal interactions? 

[Rosie_0801]

Possibly the more important question is why people choose not to learn nuance, when it is served up on a platter.

It's about fear and safety, isn't it?

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

I agree with the chicken & egg. I also know there are some people who think tolerance is the cause of an unhealthy society.

I’m thinking an increase in the understanding of nuance would promote tolerance. Does that make sense? Which brings me to - How do people learn nuance? Is it something that must now be explicitly taught where previously people learned about it through reading good books and personal interactions? 

It does make sense.

I am in favor of explicit teaching.

One thing that helps tolerance is harnessing people's own self interest.

When I understand that by protecting your right to (legal) belief and practice, I am helping ensure my right to (legal) belief and practice, I am motivated to tolerate (legal) perspectives, attitudes and practices I may find not to my taste. 

[Melissa Louise]

32 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Possibly the more important question is why people choose not to learn nuance, when it is served up on a platter.

It's about fear and safety, isn't it?

Can you expand, Rosie ? 

 

[Pawz4me]

I think lack of tolerance in general is an offshoot of the "all about me" attitude. It's become a "you agree with me or you're wrong." Which yes, is almost always a lack of nuanced thinking. I think nuanced thinking is a type of critical thinking, and there's certainly a huge lack of that ability.

But as far as religious tolerance in particular--I see the "all about me" attitude coming mostly from the religious people around me. They're the ones who are pushing their beliefs on all of us via legislation. When a particular group is shoving things down your throat it's kinda hard to feel very tolerant towards members of that group. Whether they personally agree with the legislation or not, simply belonging to the group is a bit of complicity and that can be challenging to overlook.

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I think lack of tolerance in general is an offshoot of the "all about me" attitude. It's become a "you agree with me or you're wrong." Which yes, is almost always a lack of nuanced thinking. I think nuanced thinking is a type of critical thinking, and there's certainly a huge lack of that ability.

But as far as religious tolerance in particular--I see the "all about me" attitude coming mostly from the religious people around me. They're the ones who are pushing their beliefs on all of us via legislation. When a particular group is shoving things down your throat it's kinda hard to feel very tolerant towards members of that group. Whether they personally agree with the legislation or not, simply belonging to the group is a bit of complicity and that can be challenging to overlook.

Tolerance has to be mutual, for sure. 

And not all behaviours are tolerable.

When I think of tolerance, I think about my local area, which is a mix of secular progressive families, older Catholic and Orthodox people, and more recent Muslim families. There is very little friction. And yet we are all tolerating in our neighbours beliefs and practices that we find challenging. 

What makes it work? I'm unsure, except that there's something in having a diverse mix of people, with no one group dominating, that encourages tolerance. 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[TechWife]

16 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I think lack of tolerance in general is an offshoot of the "all about me" attitude. It's become a "you agree with me or you're wrong." Which yes, is almost always a lack of nuanced thinking. I think nuanced thinking is a type of critical thinking, and there's certainly a huge lack of that ability.

But as far as religious tolerance in particular--I see the "all about me" attitude coming mostly from the religious people around me. They're the ones who are pushing their beliefs on all of us via legislation. When a particular group is shoving things down your throat it's kinda hard to feel very tolerant towards members of that group. Whether they personally agree with the legislation or not, simply belonging to the group is a bit of complicity and that can be challenging to overlook.

When we were teens, Gen X was known as the “me generation.” I think it’s been said of every generation since. 

@Rosie brought up fear. I think that’s a serious issue in pushing beliefs on others through legislation, as you mentioned. In the US the fear of being unable to practice the religion of your choice, or no religion at all, is unfounded, as religious freedom has been supported time & time again through the courts.

Being part of a group is hard, especially when the group is polarized. “Not all fill in the blank” is actually a valid statement in a variety of contexts, but again, if lack of awareness of nuance is absent, both those inside and outside the group can’t see the reality of that. The loudest group is the most visible group, regardless of how representative of the group they really are. When groups can’t recognize nuance within the group, then all sorts of problems arise.

 

 

[wintermom]

My first question is: was US culture ever tolerant of others? Let's explore the beginnings of the US, where first the locals in North American were no longer tolerant of the British, the French or the Spanish. Then go forward from there. Who were the Americans acutally tolerant of? Not the people native to the land, not the African slaves. Not the Irish immigrants. Not a host of different religious sects. It seems to have been an internal battle since before 1776. 

I'm not saying the US is alone. We have our own parallel intolerance of others up here in Canada. We just have a different level of "energy and drive" to prove to the world that we're something. 

Edited June 17, 2023 by wintermom

[Pawz4me]

5 minutes ago, TechWife said:

When we were teens, Gen X was known as the “me generation.” I think it’s been said of every generation since. 

 

It's a people or culture thing, not a "generation" thing.

(The entire "generation" thing is utterly silly and should have gone away a long time ago.)

[TechWife]

2 minutes ago, wintermom said:

My first question is: was US culture ever tolerant of others? Let's explore the beginnings of the US, where first the locals in North American were no longer tolerant of the British, the French or the Spanish. The go forward from there. Who were the Americans acutally tolerant of? Not the people native to the land, not the African slaves. Not the Irish immigrants. Not a host of different religious sects. It seems to have been an internal battle since before 1776. 

I'm not saying the US is alone. We have our own parallel intolerance of others up here in Canada. We just have a different level of "energy and drive" to prove to the world that we're something. 

I don’t think tolerance has ever fully been realized here. I know, though, in the late 80’s - early 90’s people started talking about tolerance as a desirable trait and that accelerated after 9/11, believe it or not. But, I think perhaps a lot of people confused tolerance with endorsement. 

[bibiche]

10 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I don’t think tolerance has ever fully been realized here. I know, though, in the late 80’s - early 90’s people started talking about tolerance as a desirable trait and that accelerated after 9/11, believe it or not. But, I think perhaps a lot of people confused tolerance with endorsement. 

Hmm… I don’t think my Muslim friends would agree with your post 9/11 assessment…

[Rosie_0801]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Can you expand, Rosie ? 

 

Thou shalt be righteous if rightness is one shade and you feel good wearing it.

Dogmatism not only protects people from stepping outside their comfort zone, but it makes it a virtue not to.

No doubt there are other reasons, but this was my main thought.

How can you be sure you are being good/right/safe if there are too many options? Because we can only be good/right/safe if there are bad/wrong/unsafe things to avoid.

[Indigo Blue]

47 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Thou shalt be righteous if rightness is one shade and you feel good wearing it.

Dogmatism not only protects people from stepping outside their comfort zone, but it makes it a virtue not to.

No doubt there are other reasons, but this was my main thought.

How can you be sure you are being good/right/safe if there are too many options? Because we can only be good/right/safe if there are bad/wrong/unsafe things to avoid.

Just wanted to “like” this post. 🙂

[TechWife]

12 hours ago, bibiche said:

Hmm… I don’t think my Muslim friends would agree with your post 9/11 assessment…

They started talking about it, not necessarily doing it. Before, it wasn’t a term or idea that was heard regularly. The discussion expanded largely as an effort to turn down the heat on Muslim Communities post 9/11. Like other cultural concerns, incorporating change is slow. But, the concept is now understood by the general public, but it is practiced with varying degrees of success/failure in different geographical areas and/or contexts. If we hadn’t started talking openly about it when we did, we would not be in the same place culturally as we are now.  Change is slow. Hence, our discussion. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by TechWife

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Thou shalt be righteous if rightness is one shade and you feel good wearing it.

Dogmatism not only protects people from stepping outside their comfort zone, but it makes it a virtue not to.

No doubt there are other reasons, but this was my main thought.

How can you be sure you are being good/right/safe if there are too many options? Because we can only be good/right/safe if there are bad/wrong/unsafe things to avoid.

Agree. I think this is why recognition of nuance isn’t apparent anymore. There is a “chain of events” within white evangelicalism in the US that has led to this moment in time. People have really been discouraged from honesty examining their faith to make it their “own,” so to speak. Instead, people have been circling the wagons to preserve their own milieu. 

If anyone is interested, the books The Making of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison Barr and Jesus and John Wayne by Kristen Kobez duMez go into some aspects of that chain of events. 

 

 

[Katy]

I think it’s got a lot to do with childhood exposure to people from other cultures and religions. 

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Thou shalt be righteous if rightness is one shade and you feel good wearing it.

Dogmatism not only protects people from stepping outside their comfort zone, but it makes it a virtue not to.

No doubt there are other reasons, but this was my main thought.

How can you be sure you are being good/right/safe if there are too many options? Because we can only be good/right/safe if there are bad/wrong/unsafe things to avoid.

I wish we could like Rosie's posts!

[Harriet Vane]

50 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Agree. I think this is why recognition of nuance isn’t apparent anymore. There is a “chain of events” within white evangelicalism in the US that has led to this moment in time. People have really been discouraged from honesty examining their faith to make it their “own,” so to speak. Instead, people have been circling the wagons to preserve their own milieu. 

If anyone is interested, the books The Making of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison Barr and Jesus and John Wayne by Kristen Kobez duMez go into some aspects of that chain of events. 

 

 

Fabulous books. Well researched and brutally honest.

[SKL]

I really think the apparent rise in intolerance is mostly the ignorant, idle fringes spending too much time on the internet.

I think the majority of Americans are just minding their own business, doing their jobs, raising their families, living and letting live, as long as nobody is all up in their business.

Not saying it isn't a problem if the fringes take stupid actions against others, but I think the response needs to be targeted.

I think nuance is mostly learned from being engaged in society (physically, not on the internet).  Working and playing with actual humans, who are by nature diverse.

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I really think the apparent rise in intolerance is mostly the ignorant, idle fringes spending too much time on the internet.

I think the majority of Americans are just minding their own business, doing their jobs, raising their families, living and letting live, as long as nobody is all up in their business.

Not saying it isn't a problem if the fringes take stupid actions against others, but I think the response needs to be targeted.

I think nuance is mostly learned from being engaged in society (physically, not on the internet).  Working and playing with actual humans, who are by nature diverse.

I agree that the majority of Americans are carrying on with their own lives. However, I think people on the fringes are not idle, but instead are very busy pushing extreme ideas and extreme solutions on everyone else because they think they are 100% right and they need to protect themselves and everyone else from whatever the bad influence of the day is determined to be. They are doing this by participating and being outspoken about what they believe at every level of the government from town councils, school boards, all the way up to the halls of the US Congress. They are also busy in churches, causing divides where there used to be respectful disagreement. The fringes are fearful of anyone who isn’t like them, just because they have been told they should be. Nuance doesn’t enter the picture because recognizing it means a loss of certainty and a loss of control.

How do people learn to appreciate nuance through interaction with each other when there are fewer and fewer people who realize it’s a real and legitimate assessment of reality? Even people who are just quietly living their lives don’t seem to do nuance well - they are in their own bubble. 

I do think high quality relationships could be part of the answer, but for that to work we all will need to learn to leave our bubbles and commit to develop ongoing relationships with people, believing that the relationship is more important than power or the need to be right 100% of the time. How do we get there?

 

 

 

 

[Bootsie]

8 hours ago, TechWife said:

They started talking about it, not necessarily doing it. Before, it wasn’t a term or idea that was heard regularly. The discussion expanded largely as an effort to turn own the heat on Muslim Communities post 9/11. Like other cultural concerns, incorporating change is slow. But, the concept is now understood by the general public, but it is practiced with varying degrees of success/failure in different geographical areas and/or contexts. If we hadn’t started talking openly about it when we did, we would not be in the same place culturally as we are now.  Change is slow. Hence, our discussion. 

Perhaps this was different depending on where one lived and the acitivites with which one was engaged.  I clearly remember many people wearing "Teach Tolerance" t-shirts and discussing the issue in the mid 1990s.  In fact, in 1996 I attended an event at which both Gandhi's grandson and MLK's daughter spoke.  One of the major things she talked about was the danger of "tolerance" in that tolerance is simply "putting up with".  Tolerance does not require dialogue, respect, understanding, growth, challenge. " You do you and I'll do me" in our own spheres that never bump into each other can be tolerance.  She emphasized that we are called to hate evil and love (not tolerate) people.  I wonder if the push for "tolerance" has contributed to a "who cares" attitude and passivity in society.

[Carrie12345]

8 hours ago, Katy said:

I think it’s got a lot to do with childhood exposure to people from other cultures and religions. 

I go back and forth on this one.  
A friend of mine was raised in a bit of a cultural bubble, as was I. I’m not talking zero exposure, but similar low levels to each other.  
As adults, we’ve lived in the same area for similar amounts of time, have been sahms for similar amounts of time, blah, blah, blah. We even both have similar mental health issues.

She still doesn’t really get that there are perfectly normal people with different ideas, including me. 

I do agree that bubbles play a part, but they are not the whole story.

[Kidlit]

I second (third) Kobez Dus Mez's and Allison Barr's works.   It's not hard to find podcasts on which they are interviewed, either.

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Perhaps this was different depending on where one lived and the acitivites with which one was engaged.  I clearly remember many people wearing "Teach Tolerance" t-shirts and discussing the issue in the mid 1990s.  In fact, in 1996 I attended an event at which both Gandhi's grandson and MLK's daughter spoke.  One of the major things she talked about was the danger of "tolerance" in that tolerance is simply "putting up with".  Tolerance does not require dialogue, respect, understanding, growth, challenge. " You do you and I'll do me" in our own spheres that never bump into each other can be tolerance.  She emphasized that we are called to hate evil and love (not tolerate) people.  I wonder if the push for "tolerance" has contributed to a "who cares" attitude and passivity in society.

Yes, that’s why I said upthread that the discussion began on the late 80’s - early 90’s & that it accelerated after 9/11. 

Reading your comment, I wonder if tolerance is poorly defined to the general public. Perhaps many are working with different definitions. Perhaps there isn’t a good way to define it.

When I think of religious tolerance- 

I think tolerance doesn’t mean believing someone else’s religion is true. It means you recognize others have different beliefs and respect that they have made that choice and are free to do so. Tolerance accepts that others exercise their beliefs in their words and actions and that means sometimes I might hear or see evidence of their faith. It means I don’t interfere with that practice when it falls within the law & is humane. It means that we see each other as people, not as labels. It means when we engage, we do so thoughtfully and respectfully, recognizing any boundaries that people choose to put in place around conversation or interactions. Tolerance means acting with discernment.

I think there’s often an element of “you do you, and I’ll do me” in a tolerant culture. I think it often shows that people aren’t being coerced into supporting something that they either don’t understand or that contradicts their own beliefs. Tolerance isn’t celebrating all the religious holidays, for example. It’s celebrating the holidays of your own religion and ensuring others are able to do the same. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

Tolerance is about all one can expect in a complicated, complex society, where there are people who will disagree with many of our own closely held opinions, beliefs and practices.

One example I see on my streets is women in niqab. I'm not required to enter dialogue with proponents of niqab, or learn to respect the the beliefs and opinions underlying the wearing of niqab. I am required to tolerate niqab - to accept that as much as I disagree with it, I have to co-exist peacefully with it. 

I am sure there are things about my beliefs and behaviours that other people have to tolerate - why should they be forced to dialogue and learn to respect my beliefs if they find them objectionable? I can only reasonably ask that they tolerate my right to have those beliefs and behaviours. 

 

 

 

[Faith-manor]

7 hours ago, TechWife said:

I agree that the majority of Americans are carrying on with their own lives. However, I think people on the fringes are not idle, but instead are very busy pushing extreme ideas and extreme solutions on everyone else because they think they are 100% right and they need to protect themselves and everyone else from whatever the bad influence of the day is determined to be. They are doing this by participating and being outspoken about what they believe at every level of the government from town councils, school boards, all the way up to the halls of the US Congress. They are also busy in churches, causing divides where there used to be respectful disagreement. The fringes are fearful of anyone who isn’t like them, just because they have been told they should be. Nuance doesn’t enter the picture because recognizing it means a loss of certainty and a loss of control.

How do people learn to appreciate nuance through interaction with each other when there are fewer and fewer people who realize it’s a real and legitimate assessment of reality? Even people who are just quietly living their lives don’t seem to do nuance well - they are in their own bubble. 

I do think high quality relationships could be part of the answer, but for that to work we all will need to learn to leave our bubbles and commit to develop ongoing relationships with people, believing that the relationship is more important than power or the need to be right 100% of the time. How do we get there?

 

 

 

 

People who deny this is happening need to watch Shiny Happy People societies on Amazon. This has happened by DESIGN by a cult that has wielded enormous influence in politics, in public policy.

This is what happens when religious belief becomes weaponized. 

[Bootsie]

20 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Yes, that’s why I said upthread that the discussion began on the late 80’s - early 90’s & that it accelerated after 9/11. 

Reading your comment, I wonder if tolerance is poorly defined to the general public. Perhaps many are working with different definitions. Perhaps there isn’t a good way to define it.

When I think of religious tolerance- 

I think tolerance doesn’t mean believing someone else’s religion is true. It means you recognize others have different beliefs and respect that they have made that choice and are free to do so. Tolerance accepts that others exercise their beliefs in their words and actions and that means sometimes I might hear or see evidence of their faith. It means I don’t interfere with that practice when it falls within the law & is humane. It means that we see each other as people, not as labels. It means when we engage, we do so thoughtfully and respectfully, recognizing any boundaries that people choose to put in place around conversation or interactions. Tolerance means acting with discernment.

I think there’s often an element of “you do you, and I’ll do me” in a tolerant culture. I think it often shows that people aren’t being coerced into supporting something that they either don’t understand or that contradicts their own beliefs. Tolerance isn’t celebrating all the religious holidays, for example. It’s celebrating the holidays of your own religion and ensuring others are able to do the same. 

 

I agree that definitions are very important.  I think the bolded becomes problematic when defining tolerance.  What is humane?  Am I tolerant of other people's views of what is humane or not humane?   Do I not interfere with the practice so long as it falls within the current law in my current location? In many situations, laws are based upon what people have or have not been tolerant of.  Laws against certain behaviors are statements that the behavior is not tolerated.   

[HomeAgain]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I agree that definitions are very important.  I think the bolded becomes problematic when defining tolerance.  What is humane?  Am I tolerant of other people's views of what is humane or not humane?   Do I not interfere with the practice so long as it falls within the current law in my current location? In many situations, laws are based upon what people have or have not been tolerant of.  Laws against certain behaviors are statements that the behavior is not tolerated.   

I think this is where an established definition of human rights would be most important.  When we can understand that everyone has the same fundamental rights as human beings, most of the nitpicking doesn't have a place.  It's acknowledged that people have the right to X, Y, and Z, as long as they don't infringe upon others' rights to the same.

When beliefs run into areas of trying to control each other, that's where we can't expect tolerance and coexistence.

[Faith-manor]

15 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

I think this is where an established definition of human rights would be most important.  When we can understand that everyone has the same fundamental rights as human beings, most of the nitpicking doesn't have a place.  It's acknowledged that people have the right to X, Y, and Z, as long as they don't infringe upon others' rights to the same.

When beliefs run into areas of trying to control each other, that's where we can't expect tolerance and coexistence.

This. We really should have a uniform federal definition of basic human rights for all. If memory serves, the EU has this, and if so, it would be good to take a look at that. I also feel that we have long ago reached a place where we need to either federally, deliberately confer these rights to minors, or draft a children's bill of rights because what parents are allowed to do to their children in the name of "belief" gets to be pretty appalling. A codified definition of human rights is desperately needed. I mean we have a local group of religious folk who are only allowing a very limited K-6 education for their kids to keep them dependent on the religious community. The kids become adults who are functionally illiterate both in literacy and numeracy. This should be a violation of the children's human rights. 

One of the big problems we have is that people think they need to horde human rights, that is something that is very finite, a bunch of slips of paper in a hat, and when one group gets a "right", this is like taking one of those slips out of the hat and now there are fewer rights to go around. It is as if they believe if one group has rights, it means it was taken away from someone else, a piece of a pie being eaten up. I have many conversations with folks where this seems to be the view. They don't seem to realize that rights are not consumables.

[Melissa Louise]

Rights aren't zero sum, but resources are finite.

There are sometimes clashes over finite resources.

To have a discussion about how resources should be allocated isn't a lack of tolerance.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[MEmama]

52 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

One of the big problems we have is that people think they need to horde human rights, that is something that is very finite, a bunch of slips of paper in a hat, and when one group gets a "right", this is like taking one of those slips out of the hat and now there are fewer rights to go around. It is as if they believe if one group has rights, it means it was taken away from someone else, a piece of a pie being eaten up. I have many conversations with folks where this seems to be the view. They don't seem to realize that rights are not consumables.

One of my stickers on my car 🙂

It gets a lot of compliments from people who get it 🙂 

[Faith-manor]

4 minutes ago, MEmama said:

One of my stickers on my car 🙂

It gets a lot of compliments from people who get it 🙂 

I need a sign just like this! Project for Mark.

[Melissa Louise]

Again, rights are not pie.

Resources are. 

[KSera]

7 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I need a sign just like this! Project for Mark.

Etsy has a ton of versions in all kinds of formats.