Suchergebnisse

Tolerance means respect, acceptance and understanding of the rich cultures of our world, the different ways of expressing oneself and one's individuality. It is formed by knowledge, sincerity, open communication and free thought, conscience and faith. Tolerance is a unit of diversity. This is not only a moral duty, but also a political and legal need. Tolerance is the key to peace and the transition from the uncultured to the culture of peace. The concept of tolerance is widely used in various fields of science and life, including politics, philosophy, social ethics, and comparative theology. Tolerance is derived from the Latin word (tolerae), which means to endure, to be patient, and basically to accept something, a different idea or point of view with as much tolerance and perseverance as possible, regardless of one's own personal understanding. Tolerance is a concept that means refraining from distortion of the creed, the absoluteness of truth, and affirms the rules established by international human rights instruments.

Part of the political leadership running the Netherlands is the far-right Party of Freedom (PVV) whose agenda is immersed in anti-immigrant sentiment. This situation is a side effect of the fact that anti-Muslim discourse has encountered growing acceptance in recent years. This paper examines how the PVV gained inclusion in the Dutch governing coalition by employing not race-based rhetoric but anti-Islam rhetoric. Adapted from the source document.

1 SHALL ARGUE THAT TOLERANCE IS CENTRALLY A MORAL CONCEPT (although it is also used in a variety of non-moral ways). My differences with the two papers, with which I in many ways agree, derive from this observation. I shall argue that the definition they use must be extended to allow for claims to legitimacy characteristic of cases of tolerance, and I shall further argue (against Dr King) that tolerance characterizes social groups in a less formal sense than he allows, and (against Professor Crick) that tolerance is primarily a social rather than a political phenomenon.

Recently, some inflation-targeting countries have started to use point targeting instead of tolerance band targeting, while most inflation-targeting countries still use tolerance band targeting. The main reason for the use of tolerance band targeting is to avoid serious inflation biases caused by a political interference. It is considered to be one of institutional arrangements; which is subclass of inflation contract and it modifies central bank's preference by imposing the constraint on likelihood of inflation tolerance and also it is the most compromising method comparing to other institutional devices. Besides, it does not severely decrease the society welfare.

We develop an economic theory of tolerance where lifestyles and traits are invested with symbolic value by people. Value systems are endogenous and taught by parents to their children. In conjunction with actual behavior, value systems determine the esteem enjoyed by individuals. Intolerant individuals attach all symbolic value to a small number of attributes and are irrespectful of people with different ones. Tolerant people have diversified values and respect social alterity. We study the formation of values attached to both endogenous and exogenous attributes, and identify circumstances under which tolerance spontaneously arises. Policy may affect the evolution of tolerance in distinctive ways, and there may be efficiency as well as equity reasons to promote tolerance.

For people to live together in pluralistic communities, they must find someway to cope with the practices of others that they abhor. For that reason, tolerance has always seemed an appealing medium of accommodation. But tolerance also has its critics. One wing charges that the tolerant are too easygoing. They are insensitive to evil in their midst. At the same time, another wing attacks the (merely) tolerant for being too weak in their sentimentsof respect. "The Christian does not wish to be tolerated," as T. S. Eliot said; and by this he meant to claim, presumably, that the Christian desires respect and acceptance, and not merely the forbearance suggested by "tolerance."To make the case for tolerance, we must engage in a three-front campaign: first, against intolerance; second, against the moral failing of indifference; and third, against the desirability of respecting and accepting everyone. The central claim in making this case will be that unlike these three competing sentiments, tolerance is a complex attitude toward the behavior and beliefs of others. Its complexity consists in both moral disapproval (or atleast cultural rejection) and the avoidance of interference. If there is a case to be made for tolerance, it must derive from this peculiar complexity. After surveying its alternatives, I will argue that the complex sentimentof tolerance is more readily praised than its alternatives.

In a pluralistic society such as ours, tolerance is a virtue -- but it doesn't always seem so. Some suspect that it entangles us in unacceptable moral compromises and inequalities of power, while others dismiss it as mere political correctness or doubt that it can safeguard the moral and political relationships we value. Tolerance among the Virtues provides a vigorous defense of tolerance against its many critics and shows why the virtue of tolerance involves exercising judgment across a variety of different circumstances and relationships -- not simply applying a prescribed set of rules. Drawing inspiration from St. Paul, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein, John Bowlin offers a nuanced inquiry into tolerance as a virtue. He explains why the advocates and debunkers of toleration have reached an impasse, and he suggests a new way forward by distinguishing the virtue of tolerance from its false look-alikes, and from its sibling, forbearance. Some acts of toleration are right and good, while others amount to indifference, complicity, or condescension. Some persons are able to draw these distinctions well and to act in accord with their better judgment. When we praise them as tolerant, we are commending them as virtuous. Bowlin explores what that commendation means. Tolerance among the Virtues offers invaluable insights into how to live amid differences we cannot endorse -- beliefs we consider false, actions we think are unjust, institutional arrangements we consider cruel or corrupt, and persons who embody what we oppose

A review essay on books by (1) A. J. Conyers, The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit (Dallas, TX: Spence Publing, 2001); (2) John C. Laursen & Cary J. Nederman (Eds), Beyond the Persecuting Society (Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania Press, 1998); (3) Andrew Murphy, Conscience and Community (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State U Press, 2001); & (4) G. F. Newey, Virtue, Reason, and Toleration: The Place of Toleration in Ethical and Political Philosophy (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh U Press, 1999).

IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WE ARE CONCERNED WITH tolerance, not as a physical problem, but as a problem of human relations. In this context, 'to tolerate' generally means to endure, suffer or put up with a person, activity, idea or organization of which or whom one does not really approve. One can 'put up with' an item both when one can and cannot do anything about it. For example, one can 'put up with' the excesses of a ruler whose behaviour one has no power to amend. Equally, one can 'put up with' the excesses of a child even where one has no need to do so. In the second case, one has control; in the first, one does not. Both cases could be advanced as instances of 'tolerance'. But cases of the first sort (powerlessness) I shall label as instances of 'acquiescence' or 'sufferance' or 'endurance', since it is obvious that acquiescence typically flows from powerlessness. I shall label cases of the second sort (powerfulness) as instances of tolerance. It is clear in any event that these two types of case are distinct, and, for the purposes of this discussion, at least, differential labelling is essential. In this context, an agent will be said to 'tolerate' an item where the item is disliked or disapproved and is yet voluntarily endured. On this definition it is plain that tolerance requires some form of self-restraint by the tolerator.

Factors influencing the tolerance level of evangelical Christians; 1972-88 survey data; US; based on conference paper. Whether evangelical Christians have less political tolerance; demographic variables, religiosity, and group affect.