Suchergebnisse

The issue of intolerance is increasingly being brought to our attention. (See, for example, a recent publication by Jay Newman, Foundations of Religious Tolerance, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982). A task force recently appointed by the Government of Alberta in response to the Keegstra affair was assigned to study the problem of intolerance within our education system and in our society generally. The committee's report gives expression to a very commonly held position, namely, that the key to fostering tolerance in a society is to maintain a strong and uniform public school system, and that the proliferation of private/alternative/separate schools will foster intolerance in our society.The purpose of this article is to refute this belief by clarifying the concept of "tolerance,'' uncovering some problematic assumptions underlying the opposition to educational pluralism, and considering relevant empirical evidence.

Tolerance,the great religious and ethical valuefor which we desperately in need during these distinguishing historic moments in the history of our nation and perhaps in the history of the world.Now, all parties in Arab and Muslim worlds must focus on supreme national interest through tolerance with others, and giving up bigotry for an idea,a principle, or a doctrine in which they believe, and all parties and fanatics must realize that truth comes with many aspects, and the one aspect around which they strongly gather, seeing it as absolute truth, is not at least the whole truth. Thus, they have to listen to the other point of view, perhaps in this way problems would be solved, or at least it would be a way for convergence or coexistence. In tolerance and acceptance of coexistence with others,irrespective of their opinions or beliefs,lie true citizenship, and the true faith in multilateralism, in whichAllah formed us and makes it a basis for human life, whether political or social, economic or creative.

The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned. Tolerancijos ribos ir kultūrinis egalitarizmas Santrauka.Formaliu kriteriju, kurie leistu spresti tolerancijos paradokso problema, svarbaišryškejo kulturinio egalitarizmo akivaizdoje. Tokiu kriteriju nera iki šiol.Isitikinimas, kad tolerancijos problema prasminga tik socialinio ir politinio diskursokontekste, gali buti kvestionuojamas vien todel, kad per kelis šimtmeciusši nuostata problemos išspresti nepadejo. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad tolerancijosproblema galima spresti sisteminiu požiuriu ir sociosinergetikos ižvalgomis.Tolerancijai skirtos literaturos analize leidžia daryti išvada, kad bendriausiuatveju tolerancijos ribas nustatanciu formaliu kriterijumi galima laikyti tokiusnukrypimus nuo normos (kaip idealiu visuomenines sistemos parametru), kuriemsesant ji dar gali normaliai (stabiliai) funkcionuoti. Kulturinis egalitarizmas,reikalaujantis sulyginti daugumos ir diskriminuojamu mažumu teises, pažeidžiabutinos ivairoves proporcijas ir todel yra kvestionuotinas. ...

The article explores four possible explanations for the lower levels of political tolerance of evangelical Christians. First, these differences could be spurious, due to demographic differences. Second, evangelicals may be less tolerant of atheists, homosexuals, and communists, but more tolerant of groups on the other side of the political spectrum, suggesting a group effect. Third, evangelical intolerance may be the result of higher levels of religiosity. Finally, the religious doctrine of evangelicals may produce greater levels of intolerance. Using data from a national survey on tolerance and from the General Social Survey, the article concludes that demographic variables and religiosity are partial explanations for the greater intolerance of evangelicals. Group affect seems to play no role: evangelicals are less tolerant of communists, atheists, racists, and militarists. Finally, religious doctrine plays a major role in explaining evangelical intolerance.

Abstract:In spite of appearances and declarations to the contrary, toleration is a not altogether fashionable notion these days. We must, therefore, start by recalling what it really is. Further to that we shall show how it is: unsystematic, taking multiple forms, not strictly rational -- yet utterly essential for the smooth running of social life. We shall consider its relationship with Law as wellas with rights, themselves hardly univocal, and liberties. We shall look atelements in today's environment that are both favourable and unfavourable toit. Our methodology will eschew abstraction and look to historical and concreteapproaches that stick close to reality. ; Resumen:A pesar de las apariencias y proclamaciones oficiales, la tolerancia no está hoy de moda. Por ello lo primero que procede es recordar en qué consiste realmente y mostrar cómo es: asistemática, pluriforme, no estrictamente racional, e imprescindible para la vida social. Estudiaremos después la relación que tiene con el Derecho y con los derechos (que no es unívoca), así como los factores ambientales favorables o desfavorables.En cuanto al método, evitamos el razonamiento abstracto y buscamos el histórico y basado en la realidad.Abstract:In spite of appearances and declarations to the contrary, toleration is a not altogether fashionable notion these days. We must, therefore, start by recalling what it really is. Further to that we shall show how it is: unsystematic, taking multiple forms, not strictly rational -- yet utterly essential for the smooth running of social life. We shall consider its relationship with Law as wellas with rights, themselves hardly univocal, and liberties. We shall look atelements in today's environment that are both favourable and unfavourable toit. Our methodology will eschew abstraction and look to historical and concreteapproaches that stick close to reality. Summary:BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION. A REMINDER. SOMEPROBLEMS CONCERNING TOLERANCE: Tolerance and theLaw. Tolerance and Rights.The Paradox of Tolerance. Tolerance and Relativism. Tolerance and Religion. BY WAY OF A CONCLUSION: SOME FACTORS FAVOURING OR HINDERING TOLERANCE. REFERENCES.

The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned. Tolerancijos ribos ir kultūrinis egalitarizmas Santrauka Formaliu kriteriju, kurie leistu spresti tolerancijos paradokso problema, svarbaišryškejo kulturinio egalitarizmo akivaizdoje. Tokiu kriteriju nera iki šiol.Isitikinimas, kad tolerancijos problema prasminga tik socialinio ir politinio diskursokontekste, gali buti kvestionuojamas vien todel, kad per kelis šimtmeciusši nuostata problemos išspresti nepadejo. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad tolerancijosproblema galima spresti sisteminiu požiuriu ir sociosinergetikos ižvalgomis.Tolerancijai skirtos literaturos analize leidžia daryti išvada, kad bendriausiuatveju tolerancijos ribas nustatanciu formaliu kriterijumi galima laikyti tokiusnukrypimus nuo normos (kaip idealiu visuomenines sistemos parametru), kuriemsesant ji dar gali normaliai (stabiliai) funkcionuoti. Kulturinis egalitarizmas,reikalaujantis sulyginti daugumos ir diskriminuojamu mažumu teises, pažeidžiabutinos ivairoves proporcijas ir todel yra kvestionuotinas. Reikšminiai žodžiai: egalitarizmas, tolerancijos paradoksas, tolerancijos ribos,butinos disharmonijos konstanta

The noticeably high social and ethnic intolerance in Romania may have not only historical or cultural explanations, but also structural explanations. This research paper settles on social frustration as a predictor of various types of intolerance. Social frustration may be caused by perceived social inequities and inequalities, and by discontent with current standards of every day life. Whereas social frustration appears to be a predictor for the general social, ethnic and religious intolerance, and specific intolerance against ethnic Hungarians, it is not counterpoised by other positive factors, as education. It is up to the state institutions to balance inequities and inequalities, in order to reduce social frustration. A major difficulty, however, is that people do not trust state institutions, as they have proved largely incapable in fighting corruption, one major source of perceived inequity. Pervasive corruption undermines democratic legitimacy and economic growth, affects social trust, and fuels social frustration. In turn, social frustration, social distrust, and poor economic living standards feed authoritarian attitudes and undermine tolerance, in a continuous vicious cycle that is still very hard to break in Romania.

This research on the political tolerance among youth (high school & university students) is based on the theory & concepts by J. Sullivan & his associates (1979). The level of political tolerance of our respondents toward the least liked group depends largely on the group itself & the content of political freedom that is tolerable or intolerable. Averaging the responses to the six questions of political tolerance, only 35% of the respondents displayed political tolerance. This level of tolerance is closer to that of Israeli citizens than US or British. 9 Tables, 11 References. Adapted from the source document.

This research on the political tolerance among youth (high school & university students) is based on the theory & concepts by J. Sullivan & his associates (1979). The level of political tolerance of our respondents toward the least liked group depends largely on the group itself & the content of political freedom that is tolerable or intolerable. Averaging the responses to the six questions of political tolerance, only 35% of the respondents displayed political tolerance. This level of tolerance is closer to that of Israeli citizens than US or British. 9 Tables, 11 References. Adapted from the source document.

Although victims of aggression, Croats have been labeled as intolerant & aggressors themselves. However, contrary to expectation, several independent studies of tolerance have shown a relatively high level of political tolerance in Croatia. In an American study, data pointing to the toleration paradox were interpreted as inconsistent toleration. Also, some incidents that occurred in Croatia pertaining to the toleration paradox were used as indicators of the lack of tolerance. 2 Tables, 12 References. Adapted from the source document.