23 votes

Define: Tolerance

according to google:

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance"

The biggest division I have witnessed since the election is the utter lack of tolerance here at the DP. Our Constitution was written to restrain the government and protect individual Liberty.

In order to keep ourselves united may I suggest a healthy dose of tolerance to those we disagree with? Be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic.. can we put aside those differences and unite under the banner of Liberty? Is it possible?

The social issues are what tears us apart and I keep banging my head against a wall because of it. Define tolerance!! What is it?? Can you accept the fact you live in a country that protects your religious freedom and still protects those you disagree with?

I love this community and I love the philosophy of Liberty. In my time here I have not witnessed a thread dealing with the issue of tolerance in correlation with our Constitution and Rights.

We can bridge our divides and unite ourselves if we understand the definition of tolerance. If we are to win, we must be united. The philosophy of Liberty brought us here and lets make sure that it is not squandered over personal beliefs. A common understanding of Liberty can unite all of us, from every religion, color and background. Liberty shines like the eyes of Justice. It may be blindfolded but it does not need to see a thing to understand its philosophy.

The greatest gift ever given to humanity was our Constitution. We had a brief moment in time where our leaders believed in their cause. Washington was man enough not to seize power.. and leader enough to make sure a government was in place before he left. The effects of our Constitution freed the oppressed, freed slaves, freed women and children, freed minorities and created the most amazing country ever known to mankind. The greatest minds that signed on understood the value of tolerance. America has led the world because of our rights and proven system of wealth for the lowest denominator. Dave Thomas was an orphaned illiterate that proved how great America is. A hamburger flipper that could not read or write made millions because of our system of govt.

What is tolerance and what does it mean to our movement?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
sharkhearted's picture

"Tolerance is the substrate of Liberty"


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Well-said :)

Peace, Gold, Love

Lotsa people say they are for tolerance

until they run into a situation that requires them to practice some of it themselves.

Washington State Attorney General is suing a florist for declining to sell flowers to a long-standing customer, for a gay wedding. What about all the tolerance that the gays hoot and holler about? How about we define hypocrisy along with tolerance.

"How about we define hypocrisy along with tolerance."

Good observation. They certainly seem to go hand in hand on many occasions. Funny you mentioned that because I also brought it up on a recent thread of mine.

Sorry but at the end of the

Sorry but at the end of the day all religions are enemies of Liberty, whether a few of their flock are not doesn't matter. When you support any major religious institution you are supporting a system which would impose its religious rules on others. No church is immune from this, not a one so supporting any Church is supporting an oppressive, controlling institution far worse than any government.

I believe that even half-minded believers who don't subscribe to any particular faith are at fault for giving credence to any belief in sky-gods they indirectly promote the organized religions.

You're right about many organized religions,

as these groups tend to become involved in politics with many axes to grind. However, how does a person's personal belief in a Supreme Being, particularly if that belief is profoundly rooted in tolerance, cause intolerance? It would appear, by most objective standards, that most of the self-described Christians on this site exhibit far more tolerance of alternate religious beliefs than you do. Am I wrong? A belief in God more anti-liberty than a belief in government? I don't personally know your life experiences and what led you to these beliefs, but I think you've got issues.

Thanks Rusty

Now that we know what intolerance looks like, maybe we can get back to the original question.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

In my town

it's the leftist democrats (95+% of them are non-religious) who are the enemies of liberty, and the Christians (remember Ron and Rand Paul and Tom Woods?) who are friends of liberty.

circular definition

When defining words you should not use this word in definition.
Tolerance the ability to tolerate???

Tolerance from Latin tolerantia - "endurance".
To endure and allow unpleasant, unwholesome, idea or behaviour or world view in the name of preserving higher value. The is to tolerate homosexuality in the name of individual freedom. Tolerance is not an acceptance, approval or justification.

Interesting, but I have a question;

"To endure and allow unpleasant, unwholesome, idea or behaviour or world view in the name of preserving higher value."

"Who" or "what" defines what the "higher value" is? According to "whose" opinion?

Obviously, tolerant action is

Obviously, tolerant action is thriving here at the DP. Not only do folks put up with others who have diametrically opposing views on an issue, but they SEEK THEM OUT. From what I've seen, many folks here enjoy finding a post with which they disagree and, willingly, voluntarily engaging with folks who disagree. It is just not possible to apply the definition of intolerance to folks who are seeking out arguments with people they disagree with. To steal a metaphor from a poster below, here at the DP folks are voluntarily plopping themselves next to the crying baby on the airplane and LOVING IT.

I think the OP abuses the meaning of tolerance a tad. We can place the notion of "tolerance" into two camps.

1. Tolerant language
2. Tolerant action

Since No. 2, tolerant action, is thriving here, I'm supposing the OP is speaking more about No. 1 -- tolerant language. The problem here is that each person has his/her own threshold for what language feels intolerant. If such a person fails to understand that anyone who disagrees and engages him is, by definition, being tolerant -- being willing to not only admit, but to contend with someone they don't agree with.

That's tolerance in so many spades that it moves far outside the definition of tolerance and moves into the realm of respect. Right? No one bothers arguing with a guy with an IQ of 50. We bother arguing only when we have a basic respect for the other side. Sure sometimes, we're just trying to get our rocks off, or trying to work out our own thoughts on an issue, but we're choosing to do so with folk we disagree with. That's tolerance on steroids.

Good points.

As humans, we can't help but have emotions. But I think if we learned to control those emotions, our "tolerance" would spike and we would probably be able to go a lot farther in our "debates" here than we would otherwise.

Also, maybe the goal shouldn't only be to "defeat" the other person you're debating, but also to be open enough to go in to the debate with the possible expectations of actually learning something, hence growing from the experience. Otherwise, you're just trying to teach/lecture. Nothing wrong with teaching except for the fact that you could possibly be wrong, no?

What do you think?

Here, here! I think I often

Here, here!

I think I often get too wrapped up in the issue and the logic trail I'm trying to follow. I forget the person I'm speaking to. Too focused on ideas and fail on the personal end -- the politic end -- the end that matters for me as much as who I'm talking to.

Because, yeah, I'm wrong a lot and I'll be less able to catch it if I'm fixated on the elusive logical debate as framed by my own mind. Easier said than done.

right on!!!

Thanks for your perspective. I see what you mean..

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

acceptance for homosexual marriage has been made...

...a litmus test for libertarianism in recent days; I sense the pressure, resistance to my principles, and I think Liberty movement will be DOA next year at the ballot box because we need Republican candidates, Libertarian candidates, Constitution Party candidates, and Independent candidates to WIN elective office in 2014 in droves....but...the long war against God continues, and intolerance for "the laws of nature, and of nature's God" are really not welcome because of some disprovable argument that guys like me are wolves in libertarian clothing, and we want a theocracy.

Those Christians who stand with the Architects, Engineers, Firefighters, and Pilots for 9/11 truth are concerned about purging EVIL from representative government; not shoving our morality down everyone's throat through government FORCE!

Oh well...If I were elected to representative government, I could have helped slow down the wheels of tyranny for a time; but if I can't support here...Karl Rove and his Democrat buddies certainly have succeeded in dividing and conquering this Statesmanship Movement...

No patriot LABORS to hewn down the indispensable supports of religion & morality, so supporting the militant homosexual agenda in the name of libertarianism is not the American Liberty we need to achieve that will restore this Republic. Throwing off the laws of the Creator that is higher than Caesar, is progressivism, and it has the same potential for attacking free speech as does those who fund the homosexual agenda on behalf of the communists who likewise won't tolerate sodomy anymore that a hostile Islamic theocracy would.

Only a VIRTUOUS people are capable of freedom, tolerance for reckless and unnatural immorality is not virtuous...so we fail if the laws of nature, and of nature's God are of no value, consideration, or summarily rejected regardless of their prominent contributions to our social order and national identity in history.

While I consider myself pro-life, my favorite bumper sticker is.

"If you are against abortion don't get one."

The belief that "[human]life begins at conception" is just that...a belief. Others have beliefs just as strong that human life does not begin until a child takes his first breath.

If you do not want others imposing their beliefs on you, don't impose your beliefs on them. That is "tolerance".

Based on this belief...

someone who thinks that life does not begin until the age of one and disposes of the "lifeless" body should not be punished. Should their be consequences for a guy who beats his dog because he believes it is okay? Really?

A father rapes his daughter because he believes it is within his rights... do you see where I am going with this train of thought?

-Matthew Good

I think to each his own

The question that should be addressed, which is what I believe you were getting at(I assume), is if your actions are causing any harm to others in the process?


I believe there is a line that you have to be careful with when speaking about tolerance. Just because someone in their mind believes they own something doesn't make it true. The man doesn't own the dog, he is just pack leader. He has no right to bring harm to the animal. A father does not own his daughter, he is there to teach and set boundries, but he has no right to harm her. A woman doesn't own her baby, she is there to give it a wonderful and fulfilling childhood, she has no right to end the life whether the baby is 2 months in the womb or a day before birth.

-Matthew Good

No, I don't see where you are going.

Unless it is into the gooches of women you never have and never will sleep with to decide what they should do with THEIR BODY.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

My morality has nothing to do..

with a woman's body much less her "gooch". I wonder, when do you believe you own your body? For me, it is when my heart started beating. Should this be a major question in the abortion debate? Personally, I would never want an abortion for a child I created because I would not want to risk killing. I do not believe someone in the "afterlife" will judge me. I just believe that people have a right to live no matter who put them here. It is a respect for life.

-Matthew Good

Me too, I respect the living woman

I believe life begins when it breathes. Thing is, we will NEVER agree on this, so are you willing to seek common ground with me? Can you agree that something as tragic as abortion is better handled as a private family matter, rather than have the government try to make a solution for us?
A young girl who knows her parents will be ashamed of her will find a way to get an abortion, a young girl who knows her parents will treat her with love is a lot more likely to keep the baby or give it to a barren aunt or friend of the family. I do not even like the government involved in adoptions or foster care - they have a VILE history of abusing such children.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Babies respirate in the womb...

Breathing-respiration... they are ONE in the SAME. This starts at conception. So you actually believe that a baby is alive before I do. If this is your litmus test, then you have some thinking to do. Maybe it isn't breathing that is your litmus test. Maybe the litmus test for life is when we physically see it outside of the womb. That is when life begins, when a person can witness it with their own eyes! The kicking that we see must not count, the heartbeat we hear must not count. It is ONLY when we see with our own two eyes that, yes, that is no alien, it is a baby. We will never agree on this? Why shut down debate?

There are consequences for bad decisions, especially dangerous decisions that could kill. Why do you care about the child after it has come out of the womb instead of during it's entire development? A one day out of the womb baby has just as much life as one that is still in there. Why do you care about the abuse of the child? Should we punish for the abuse of a child outside of the womb? How about inside of the womb? Do you see any inconsistencies with your arguments?

-Matthew Good

How to we agree to disagree?

I do not want to change your mind, I want to stop fighting with you. You will not change my mind, do you want to stop fighting with me?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

When a woman has an abortion

she does more harm to her body than had she carried the child to term. Not to mention the emotional and spiritual consequences. Abortions frequently injure women and almost always result in the death of a child.


Abortion is a lifestyle choice, and a poor one.

Fortunately, for any woman who has ever had an elective abortion, God forgives, and God heals.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Unless she dies in childbirth.

It still happens, all pregnancies risk the life of the woman.
And the thing is, the decision is hers. My opinion, our opinion, none of it matters. We COULD leave the "judgement" to God and concentrate on creating a LOVING society where abortion would fade away. It starts with NOT shaming young girls who make bad decisions, or had bad DNA forced on them.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Yes Fishy,

pregnancy is dangerous, and much more so when a woman chooses to end her pregnancy prematurely. As of 2009, for American women between the ages of 20 and 35, the death rate due to complications in pregnancy is around 3.3 percent. 6th on the list behind Unintentional Injuries 30 percent, Cancer 11 percent, Homicide 8 percent and Suicide 8 percent. Incidents of rape in America are around 300,000 annually, this was the highest number I found while researching this, it's clearly an estimate as a large number of rapes go unreported. Meanwhile there are approximately 1.3 million abortions. So even if we concluded that all rape ends in pregnancy, which it clearly does not, by eliminating elective abortions we could save the lives of around 1 million children annually.

As you say, "We COULD leave the judgment to God..." Following that line of reasoning, should we also leave the judgment to God in the areas of murder, rape, incest, robbery etc.? And how would this do anything to help create the loving society which you invision? After all, those who made the decision to rob or rape or murder were merely expressing their will through a choice, who are we to judge? By this standard, tolerance and compassion should rule the day right? Or do I misunderstand you?

Additionally, women who have had abortions are nearly twice as likely to suffer from mental health issues and substance abuse. In fact, women who have had abortions are six times as likely to commit suicide within the first year following the abortion, and twice as likely to commit suicide as those who had miscarriages. So please, let's not make this a womans health issue. If we were truly concerned about womens health we would ban abortion tomorrow. Abortion does not now, nor has it ever contributed to the well being of women.

On a side note, before someone tries to tell me that I know nothing of what I speak simply because I am a man. Let me say that I am myself a survivor of sexual abuse, a father and a grandfather. As a much younger man I also had two of my children terminated by abortion without my knowledge or consent. The closest I ever came to taking my own life was immediately following the abortion of my child, and If not for the miraculous intervention of God I would not be here today.

The premeditated taking of life, no matter how much a society may seek to distort the facts to it's justification, cannot be justified within the heart of a mother, as the available data clearly demonstrates. I have no desire to shame women who have made this terrible mistake, as I said before, God heals and God forgives.

If we truly are interested in creating this loving society you spoke of, we would begin by putting an immediate stop to infanticide.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

double post

double post

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

The threads are here, they get no traction.

"I love this community and I love the philosophy of Liberty. In my time here I have not witnessed a thread dealing with the issue of tolerance in correlation with our Constitution and Rights."

I posted this a couple hours before you made that comment, it slid into oblivion without a peep out of anyone. Maybe someday, someone will find the right words to make people understand... Not me, not today. Maybe you? Here's a bump for trying.


Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

It happens fishy!

Happened to me twice this week alone. First I posted about the policeone poll and that didn't go anywhere, but 14 hours later it was posted by someone else and landed on the front page. Same thing with that post about the "Hanford nuclear waste". I posted, post disappeared, and you posted some 10 hours later, and yours took notice. It's happened to me quite a few times and from my understanding is that it has to do with "timing" amongst "other" things.

Regardless, just read your post and as usual it rocks!

BTW - Would've never have seen your article if it hadn't been for this thread, or you making this comment. So in a way, it's a good thing it was done, aside from the fact that both of these threads show that you guys are indeed noticing what's going on. Helps the rest of us not feel alone.