Boaz: "it makes me wonder why there is so much polarization on such issues when it comes to interacting with 'me' on such things."

Well, in the interests of honesty, I'd point out that the answer is right in front of you. It's because you pay lip service to tolerance, then spend the rest of the post attempting to justify your lack of tolerance. You perform variations on this theme in most threads you contribute to.

That's why.

Romany: Also, you make a good point about the Enlightenment and the Reformation. I have nothing to suggest re Wikipedia, but I take the point.

HUMAN RIGHTS and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION...

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf

the link in the 'Religious sensibilities' thread to a UN committee contains the following about an amendment proposed by none other than.. yep, you guessed it, "Religion B" and is an attempt to 'Sharia-ize' Western societies such that they cannot speak about Religion B's prophet or practices in any negative way.

<<The amendment only focuses on restrictions to freedom of expression,
rather than on the idea of an appropriate balance between the positive protection for the
right to freedom of expression and the need to limit incitement to racial and religious
hatred. This lack of balance is reflected, for example, in the opening language, as well as
in the reference only to Article 19(3), which is about restrictions on freedom of expression, rather than to Article 19 as a whole.>>

The sneakiness of this is mind boggling. They are trying to influence a UN committee specifically to outlaw speech or expression they feel is 'unnacceptable' for their own religion. The sentiments expressed above are from organizations IN Religion B countries.

This is exactly what I was moaning about in the last post...where a religion sees itself as a 'State'.... this is the result.

For those who feel that 'raising awareness' of such things is a 'scare campaign' and 'hysteria'.. I can only say that if it passes, the law will change here, by virtue of our UN convention signatory status, and you won't even realize it.

2night at 8.00pm at Caulfield campus of Monash Uni, Dr Daniel Pipes will be speaking. Last time he came (2005) he was harrassed and heckled by 'Religion B' followers and swore never to speak publically here again.
He will be speaking at an "Anti Semitism" seminar with other speakers.
If only I didn't have a prior committment :(

Looking around and seing what is around you then understanding it as people who have fears do not understand.David H.

Humans are adept at arriving at agreed or accepted standards or a set of values to ensure survival ie. to be able to interact harmoniously within the group. Any variance too far removed from this standard is usually not tolerated. Intolerance would appear to be biologically programmed.

Some societies are more tolerant because they expand this standard to include greater variations from the 'norm'. As communications and migration has increased so has tolerance but it takes time.

At which point those tolerance levels are challenged would probably be relative to the level of risk or threat to those standards at any one time in history. When a way of life or a set of values is threatened (real or perceived), this will dictate the level of tolerance displayed. The Cronulla riots was a good example of the boiling point in relation to cultural and religious tensions (a way of life) and was intrinsically a fear reaction.

A group's tolerance level might vary depending on factors like culture, religion and economic security.

Tolerance is an odd word that we tend to define as acceptance when (as Vanilla said) it really means to endure or in other words to 'put up with' which is quite different to acceptance. Or maybe it's not - I am not sure.

Vanilla - Ah-hah! Now I get you. Sorry I misinterpreted...but I was pretty sure I WAS misinterpreting which was why I wanted to sort that bit out (about the racist thing).

As for the Reformation vs. the Englightenment? And you not not knowing enough about it (which I doubt).Damn! I was dying to ride off into the sunset on one of my own particular hobby horses.

Dear Pelican.....that was a very VERY astute post! In terms of cultural/behavioral observation, you get a big tick :)

I regard your sentence:

<<When a way of life or a set of values is threatened (real or perceived), this will dictate the level of tolerance displayed.>>

to be about 15months pregnant with meaning.

How true.. how very true. As I see it, in that (what you said) the 'perceived' level and the 'real' levels are determined by a whole lot of factors.

-The Stirring/fanning of flames aspect.
-The apologist/dampening aspect.

Both extremes seem to have been at work during Cronulla, and after.
I only disagree though that Cronulla occurred out of 'fear'..I think outright 'ANGER/outrage' was a bigger factor. But..I don't have the time for a serious survey :)

It seems that certain events can act like triggers and tip the balance between "she'll be right mate, no drama, let em alone" and "They've gone tooooo FAR.. let's GETem"
The bashing of the lifeguards appears to have been that trigger.

Unfortunately, tolerance can also be an excuse for us to act as 'doormats' and be trampled underfoot of callous individuals.

Next weekend, I'll be meeting up with some former Air Force mates, and one of them, gave me such a hard time during our period together, that it scarred me for life. I'm kinda wondering if the very first thing he says to me will be a regurgitation of what went on 30 yrs ago.. or perhaps the first word he utters will be the same one he used to humiliate me day in day out then?
The simplest way then to solve it would have been a quick walk to the "carpark" so to speak. But now my values are different. I'd hope that after all this time, he'll be a bit more mature, but given he uses the same 'old' names in emails about others, my hopes are not high.