Search results

Tolerance is a key concept in contemporary political theory & practice. Clearly, it is linked to such difficult classical questions as rights, freedom, state neutrality, the role of autonomy in liberalism, the limits of toleration, etc. However, nowadays, the concept of tolerance also cuts across several important political issues: multiculturalism, pluralism, the "rights" of cultures, interculturalism, reflexivity & dialogue as foundations of democracy, etc. This paper analyses the concept & explores its theoretical difficulties. 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

"In this book, readers will learn what tolerance is, how and why to show it, how to use mindfulness to better practice tolerance, and how to encourage it in others. Social and emotional learning (SEL) concepts support growth mindset throughout, while Grow with Goals and Mindfulness Exercise activities further reinforce the content. Vibrant, full-color photos and carefully leveled text engage young readers as they learn more about showing tolerance. Also includes sidebars, a table of contents, glossary, index, and tips for educators and caregivers"--

Tolerance is an aspect of the balance between power and freedom. This contribution starts from a decision taken by the general synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, in 1914, on the issue of church members who did not recognise infant baptism. The synod decided that – on certain conditions – 'tolerance can be practiced' towards such members. This contribution analyses and evaluates this decision, with particular attention for the distinction made between fundamental and non-fundamental faith issues. It shows how this decision is related to the broader context of early twentieth century political life in the Netherlands (the 'Pacification of 1917'), and it concludes with some thoughts on the costliness of true tolerance. ; http://www.hts.org.za ; am2017 ; Church History and Church Policy

AbstractArguments for tolerance, and criticisms of it, regularly produce paradoxes and other kinds of conceptual difficulty. We seek to show that these paradoxes are unnecessary, and that they arise from misconceptions of what a theory of tolerance is required to justify. Imagined as a "virtue," tolerance is simply confused with other concepts; understood in the framework of a theory of "rights," the element of choice essential to the concept is wholly neglected; explaining the concept in terms of some theory of fallibilism leads to a confusion of pragmatic with cognitive standards. Moreover, such mistaken approaches often arise from an equation of tolerance with liberalism or pluralism: the authors maintain, however, that justifications of tolerance do not rest on a commitment to any political theory or ideology, but imply only a recognition of the political situation itself.

Discusses the considerable fluctuations in measured tolerance that have occurred over the last half century, and concludes with some comments about the degree to which the public can be said to be whimsical in its approach to the issue of civil liberties. Although the public seems able to react to news events in a predictable manner, it may be most useful to conclude that no meaningfully measurable attitude on tolerance exists. (PFB)