AND THE WORD OF THE DAY IS…

…Tolerance.
This is a much bandied about word on the Internet, and the blogosphere. And each side of the culture wars accuses the other of the lack thereof.

So, let’s examine the definition.

Tolerance –
n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.


2. Leeway for variation from a standard.


3. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
(I will skip the others: it’s readily apparent what I’m talking about).

Let’s also compare the opposite:
Intolerance
(From the Thesaurus)
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: bigotry, prejudice. See like/dislike.

So now the premises have been dictated. The lines drawn, the swords unsheathed, the soldiers on either side girded for battle, awaiting the clarion call when combat becomes enjoined and the blood flows.

Okay, I’m being a tad melodramatic.

I have been accused of being intolerant of religion. However, if we look at the definition as provided above, I would like to state for the record, that my suspicion and hatred is by no means irrational. It is based on a long, long history of micro-management, control issues, blatant propaganda, and nursery fables gone wild.

For the record, I don’t hate religious people (though there are times when it becomes difficult, I tell myself they’re not to blame, they’ve been indoctrinated, deep breaths, stay calm now. There are some specific folks, well, if they came within arm’s reach, it would take a considerable effort combined with white knuckles not to take after them….). It is that social construct I loathe, those much beloved shackles of slavery, that bind a man and then explain the manacles are a good thing, the manacles are necessary, for we are evil incarnate, forged from mud and spittle into beings of darkness that will be cast out of favor unless we pay drooling imbecilic worship to that which never was.

http://www.holysmoke.org/tol-rgi.htm
“First. Thought is a necessary natural product -- the result of what is called impressions made through the medium of the senses upon the brain, not forgetting the fact of heredity.

Second. No human being is accountable to any being -- human or divine -- for his or her thoughts.

Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the thoughts of each other, and one who undertakes to tell his thoughts should be honest.

Fourth. All have an equal right to express their thoughts upon all subjects.

Fifth. For one man to say to another, "I tolerate you," is an assumption of authority -- not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of the right to persecute.

Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the whole world his ideas that the rest of the world has to express their thoughts to him.”

The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

I adhere specifically to number five. It speaks to me. All six do. But that one especially makes sense in these trying times.

And so, each and every thinking person, when accused of intolerance should, in my humble opinion, instead of resorting to the K-12 tactic of saying “I know you are, but what am I?” should go and stand in front of a mirror, and ask themselves:”Is this true? Am I intolerant?” Because if you make those distinctions, those divisive discriminations that elevate one class, one element, one subsection of humanity above another, where none are being harmed, then yes, you are. And if so, you should be shouted down, in the name of all that’s decent, all that’s good and right and proper. In plain sight. Because that’s not persecution, my friend. That’s because you’ve assumed an authority that you are not entitled to. Whether it’s via an illusory contact from on high, or some ancient tome.

I have looked in the mirror, as any honest man should, and asked the question, baldly, bluntly, self-awareness intact.

Everyone is equal. There is my answer. But I shall not suffer foolish opinions gladly: that is not intolerance – the opinion is not the person. So I will treat you as a peer, but if you voice a thought that is laughably ridiculous, rest assured, I will mock it; I shall laugh in your face, I shall shout it down, if necessary. That is how the shadows of ignorance are dispelled. Not through the listless recitations of facts – these usually have little impact on the closed mind – but satire and mockery.

I will try to be polite – but consider yourself warned, thicken your skin, turn the other cheek, or whatever mechanism props you up and powers you through the scathing barbs.

I am no weak little progressive liberal, who waffles on about “Well, I respect your opinion, even if it I don’t agree with it.” I am not paralyzed by the foolishness of such a position. I am through being patient: if you are willing to listen, and present something logical, I will listen, I will debate.
There is a difference between tolerance, and agreement with stupidity.

And I am not stupid, nor shall I agree with it: a stupid opinion is just that.