Will's Blog

Warning: Declaration of categories_plugin::SkinTag($params) should be compatible with Plugin::SkinTag(&$params) in /home/scher3/public_html/blogs/plugins/_categories.plugin.php on line 0

With the recent presidential campaign and my personal dealings in life, I have observed that people whom claim that they are "tolerant" of others' views and that we should "respect" other people's views are the most intolerant and disrespectful people. I have a deep seeded morale and ethical belief set from my own personal faith in Christianity. These set of beliefs color how I see and react to all of the world. Every instance of the day, my choices are based upon what I have been taught and believe to be true of the bible and Christ as well as the sum of life experiences. I realize that some do not see life or the bible the way I do. I acknowledge those difference and see where they come from.

What ever your philosophy, beliefs, and morale outlook on life is, it affects the way you react and respond to EVERY situation. Even if one does not think they have a "belief system" and "set views" on the world, they do. It goes beyond heaven and hell, but also how you react to a every day situations like a bad day. Is a bad day just a case of the "Mondays", random chance, the affect of "evil" forces, or God trying to shape & grow you? The first responses sees things as cyclical, the second responses chalks up things to chance, while the third response is always blaming external (to the person) items, and the fourth is reflective in order to grow from the situation.

People whom USUALLY view themselves as "tolerant" have the flawed reasoning that everything and each belief should have equal weight. It is based on a hypothesis that has gained large acceptance in the last few decades that no one is wrong. If Jack believes that bears are dangerous and "tolerant" Joe believes that bears are harmless, than Joe will think that Jack is intolerant if he does not acknowledge that the two contradictory beliefs (in Jack's eyes) are not equal. Jack is "tolerant" of Joe by acknowledging the differences and agreeing to disagree. Joe may someday find out the error of his ways when he is mauled by a bear while feeding it picnic scraps.

My example is a little simplistic (and brutal?), but it none the less illustrates my point. "Tolerance" and other PC terms are usually in the eye of the beholder. Webster does not fully define all of the English language terms as they are in each individual's mind. Terms are "re-invented" and additional definitions added to word meanings throughout time. Meaning of words are colored by one's life experience, culture, social, and religious upbringing. A quick example is the word "pissed". In the states one whom is pissed is terribly angry and may best be left alone. In the UK, it is one whom is drunk and may need assistance. Be careful how you react to one whom is "pissed". Rushing in to help out one whom is "pissed" up the stairs my have dire consequences.

The philosophy that everyone's beliefs have equal weight is rooted in a culture of inclusion. By acknowledging equal weight to all beliefs, you are validating that person. The thought is that to disagree or differ in an opinion with someone is to challenge the person themselves and invalidate their belief. We may all be created equal, but we are not right 100% of the time. If this were true, one would never make a mistake. Disagreements are not personal attacks, but difference in view point.

The next time that someone professes to be "tolerant" be wary of voicing opinions that differ from their own. Their definition may be different than your own and in extreme cases it may just be code word for "I am right, don't challenge me!" Flock to conversations with the "intolerant" people, at least you know where you stand.

Any thoughts?