I think, basically, western culture has cut it own spiritual roots; I see scientific materialism as a major cause of that. I'm not advocating a return to some imagined golden past, because I don't think there was one, but I think a reconnection with the spiritual values fundamental to the Judeo-Christian tradition is badly needed — Wayfarer

Maybe Western culture is finally returning to those original Judeo-Christian values. Wasn't tolerance the foundation of many of the original teachings? The Jewish commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, the Christian amendment to even love your enemies? Wasn't their a mission to spread the message of love and tolerance to all nations and all people? Maybe the interpretation of those teachings gets colored by political views, but it seems there is more interest in the really radical views of not condemning and rejecting people because they were poor, or doing something not socially acceptable. I think the majority of Christians these days owe their faith to being tolerated and even accepted.

I think one cannot name himself tolerant, because it's not black and white. — Linda

There is a black and a white, but in social affairs those extreme states are separated by many standard deviations of subtle grayscale.

For instance, I would consider myself not very tolerant - meaning that my "borders" or "line in the sand" will be crossed earlier than the one of my friend. But until that border is crossed I am tolerant and after crossing I'll be intolerant. — Linda

"Personal boundaries" would be a less provocative term than "line in the sand" and is as effective. You might be extremely intolerant -- I don't know -- OR it might just be that your personal boundaries have not been crossed recently.

We can all be tolerant of non-threatening and distant people. I can be very tolerant of Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel because they are very distant and the details of their meshuganah do not concern me. The wicked practices of minor apparatchiks in the Chinese Communist Party are even easier subjects of toleration.

Some people may have their border at gay marriage and some will have it at transgender rights. — Linda

True enough, but an interesting question is "Why there" -- wherever "there" happens to be.

Because the media coverage of certain topics is so ubiquitous, we may feel like our personal boundaries are being threatened when they are actually not.

For instance, transgendered adults comprise about 1/2 of 1% of the US population -- a little over a million people -- out of about 320 million people in the US. In the last year there have been a handful of cases where schools have been sued over toilet arrangements for transgendered students. Judging by the coverage and the uproar, one would think that the population of transgender juveniles must be in the millions. It isn't --not even close.

Some newspapers provide serious coverage of transgender people, and focus on instances where there is evidence of resistance, and intolerance. Advocacy positions might be taken within the story or in editorial commentary. School boards or employers, or religious spokespeople might be referenced as "intolerant, homophobic, insensitive, xenophobic, or hateful in quoted statements.

The deliberate or inadvertent message is that transgender people should definitely be accepted. If you don't, you are an intolerant and hateful.

In fact, you may have had neither the opportunity nor the motivation to be tolerant or intolerant of transsexuality. But if you have a reaction to the news story that places you in the column of "intolerant" you might think you had been, when you actually had not been intolerant.

Agree with your post although it was Jesus who said 'love your neighbour as yourself'.

Yes, and it was a Jewish commandment, (considered #13 out of 613), too:

“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. — Leviticus 19:17-18

Is that so? Thanks, I hadn't known that. I'm not much of a biblical scholar.

Everything in life involves some acceptance of risk, but we usually don't think about it. When we do, that risk seems emotionally
unacceptable, but if we objectively look at the benefits, it may be worth
considering. — swstephe

Sure, I believe that some tolerance might have helped us in the past. But how about today? We're experiencing an influx of many different cultures that are still dealing with issues which we have already dealt with.. What do you think we have to win from this? Because I see very few cultural, societal or financial gains at the moment.

Maybe there is a different trend at work here. — swstephe

...

Doesn't that mean social tolerance is being reduced? — swstephe

It could very well be the case that this isn't really about tolerance (if that's what you're talking about). It might just be some issues that are being pushed with the idea of keeping the political engaged population occupied. Because who knows what happens when they dive into the more complex matters of international relations, government corruption or the course of their country.

There is a psychological tendency to paint history as virtuous and beneficial. — swstephe

Yes, and I'm not trying to make it sound as if everything used to be better. But my point is that we have to be aware of where we are right now, because it seems that the current trend is that all progression is actually good. Over the long run we risk losing many of the things that - for instance - provide us freedom.

Sure, I believe that some tolerance might have helped us in the past. But how about today? We're experiencing an influx of many different cultures that are still dealing with issues which we have already dealt with.. What do you think we have to win from this? Because I see very few cultural, societal or financial gains at the moment. — Linda

Financially, in general, immigrants bring an economy with them. They tend to look for jobs, earn some money, they spend it on food and rent and pay taxes. That's more money for businesses and more money for government services. Add onto that that many groups in the new influx of immigrants have needed skills. Some people panic at the idea that they are taking their jobs, but often what it means to locals is that they get promoted to leadership positions. There are economists who believe that additional competition has beneficial results. It drives down prices and gives people more choices, helping to improve product quality. Even local companies who run factories in foreign countries, (who often get burned by the host government), might consider returning to take advantage of the situation.

Culturally? Immigrants tend to add more variety to life. I couldn't imagine life here in California without a Chinese, Italian, Mexican and Middle-Eastern resturant somewhere in town. If it weren't for German immigrants during World War II, there would probably be no NASA. There are many other inventions which were the result of immigrants interacting and adopting our culture. That was the whole basis of the Rennaisance in Europe bringing them out of the Dark Ages, (adopting all that foreign technology and concepts).

Socially? It is a bit complicated, while they might bring different practices, (some are technically superior), one of the main points of conversation with immigrant families is how the children tend to abandon their old ways and adopting the social values where they are. Sometimes ithey even take what they learned back to their own society. Eventually each culture can reach a consensus on a better way.

Because the media coverage of certain topics is so ubiquitous, we may feel like our personal boundaries are being threatened when they are actually not. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. I used to consider myself as more of a cultural libertarian, however, since these issues are getting more and more attention in the media, I feel as if it's being pushed. As you said, the number of Americans actually being transgender and the amount of media attention the bathroom issue has been getting - is a great example. The world is 'on fire' and we seem to be looking for problems within our own society to explore / emphasise / push .. causing people to take a stand. And because our boundaries aren't (in most cases actually) threatened, we're inclined to think; 'Meh, why not, everybody deserves rights'. But what would happen if these issues would actually reach us before we were urged to take a stand? Wouldn't we be a bit more critical about them? Or take a bit more time to figure out the consequences?

Regarding your previous comment on being and immigrant way back - this made me want to check into my past, and my ancestors were all from this (or sometimes the neighbouring) country. The question on immigration is quite different to US and European citizens.

I want to come back to those three points because I've got a very different experience with them.

Financially: the current influx of refugees / migrant is putting a huge strain on our state budget. Almost all of them aren't working at this moment - yes, we have to keep in mind that the process of becoming a citizen takes one or more years. Still, they are currently fully dependant on government spending when it comes to housing, food, education, health care and 'living money' (to spend as they like).
Because of EU regulation we're only allowed to have a 3% deficit - meaning we have to cut back on social securities for the elderly and students. I've looked into rapports about refugees in Europe and quite a few articles and tbh, they don't lie.. It's putting an enormous strain on our budget. This used to be different with previous influxes, in where the migrants did many low-paid jobs.

Culturally: yes! Immigrants do bring a lot of culture with them and we've enjoyed this a lot here with the Italians, Spanish, Germans etc. However, this is because they bring a similar culture, one that just differentiates on 'details' and general less important aspects such as speech, expression and religious (Christian) branches. They usually take 2 or 3 generations to merge into the main culture. Now we're faced with much bigger cultural differences.. Some freedoms which we've accepted for decades are intolerable in the foreign culture. Instead of the foreign culture 'enriching' the host culture, it's making the host culture adapt itself to the guest culture.

Socially: what I see is not so much an abandoning of their own culture. As just mentioned, the cultures don't easily merge - not surprising when looking at their markup. Also, we're witnessing a polarisation in society. Some have faith in the idea that this will work out over time and some have had bad experiences: cut back on social security, houses being redistributed or being unsafe in public (as I can confirm myself).

My tolerance basically ends at people initiating significant nonconsensual (physical) violence.

Regarding your previous comment on being and immigrant way back - this made me want to check into my past, and my ancestors were all from this (or sometimes the neighbouring) country. The question on immigration is quite different to US and European citizens. — Linda

I was including Europe, and pretty much every other area of the world, (except maybe eastern Africa). You are right, it is important to know who you are. A lot of DNA and archaeological research has lead to the conclusion that the first Europeans, just after the last ice age, came along the same route as many of today's immigrants:

Financially: the current influx of refugees / migrant is putting a huge strain on our state budget. Almost all of them aren't working at this moment - yes, we have to keep in mind that the process of becoming a citizen takes one or more years. Still, they are currently fully dependant on government spending when it comes to housing, food, education, health care and 'living money' (to spend as they like).
Because of EU regulation we're only allowed to have a 3% deficit - meaning we have to cut back on social securities for the elderly and students. I've looked into rapports about refugees in Europe and quite a few articles and tbh, they don't lie.. It's putting an enormous strain on our budget. This used to be different with previous influxes, in where the migrants did many low-paid jobs. — Linda

There are other EU laws, such as they must find employment within 2-3 years or they lose refugee status. Many of those problems have been taken into account. Every new group of immigrants struggle at the start, then most become productive, hard-working, members of society. Here is the DIW's analysis of economic impact under optimistic/pessimistic scenarios:

Culturally: yes! Immigrants do bring a lot of culture with them and we've enjoyed this a lot here with the Italians, Spanish, Germans etc. However, this is because they bring a similar culture, one that just differentiates on 'details' and general less important aspects such as speech, expression and religious (Christian) branches. They usually take 2 or 3 generations to merge into the main culture. Now we're faced with much bigger cultural differences.. Some freedoms which we've accepted for decades are intolerable in the foreign culture. Instead of the foreign culture 'enriching' the host culture, it's making the host culture adapt itself to the guest culture. — Linda

You have to ask why they are similar. It is probably because there was a lot of interchange of cultures for centuries. How much did the Romans have in common with the Visigoths? Nearby cultures integrated over time. Look at Christmas celebrations, an outside observer would see it as a strange blend of Middle-Eastern religion/mysticism and local "pagan" traditions. History is full of integration and mutual benefits.

Socially: what I see is not so much an abandoning of their own culture. As just mentioned, the cultures don't easily merge - not surprising when looking at their markup. Also, we're witnessing a polarisation in society. Some have faith in the idea that this will work out over time and some have had bad experiences: cut back on social security, houses being redistributed or being unsafe in public (as I can confirm myself). — Linda

They said the same thing just about every immigration. The immigrants arrive, broke, not owning any property, so they end up in cheap neighborhoods. It happened when the Irish, Italia and Jewish refugees arrived in the US. There was plenty of literature written at the time about how they were uncivilized drunkards who couldn't even control their violent or sexual urges. At the time, it wasn't unusual to see signs saying, "Irish need not apply". Then the locals like to complain that those immigrants never try to integrate. I always thought that was odd. When I lived in far away foreign countries, I saw "expat communities", where Europeans huddled together and never bothered to even learn the local language or eat local foods. (I was always the weird one, and a bit of an outcast for treating locals as equals). But I guess that is human nature. I don't expect people to immediately integrate -- it is a process that takes time -- but I think it is important to imagine yourself in their place. If your government and a bunch of foreign factions had reduced your house to rubble and you had to go to their country and beg for help, wouldn't the claim that you refuse to integrate into their culture a cruel and inhumane response? Those immigrants would probably be as desperate as you to find a solution so this emergency arrangement would be as friendly as possible.

spiritual values fundamental to the Judeo-Christian tradition — Wayfarer

Weird how I more or less agreed with the thrust of your post and then start foaming around the mouth because you could have simply stopped at "spiritual values".

There's more to this world than owning stuff but it isn't a religion. In fact, We'd be better off without materialism and religion.

Tolerance comes from compassion. Ego is the opposite. Compassion wants to give, is willing to accept suffering for worthy causes. Ego wants to consume even at the cost of causing suffering to others. The point at which they meet is the level of our tolerance.

Things, people and circumstances form parts of our ego, as well as our body. Home, our city, the job, family, friends, the economic and the political environment, our abilities and our shortcomings, they all form our self identity, ego. Our ego tells us what we deserve. We fight for our rights, and then more.

The amount of our tolerance for an entity is in proportion to the portion of our ego it occupies. We are more tolerant of our loved ones, than of others.

We judge others by these parameters (our preformed notions; prejudices). We wish punishment for those who are better off than we think they deserve to be.

Our mind stores our emotions to relive once again. That is why a surgeon builds a different emotional make up (character) for himself, than a murderer, even though they engage in cutting others up. When we wish punishment for others, our mind swallows that emotion. I suspect this is the reason Jesus told us not to judge others, or we will be judged by our own parameters. An angry person creates angry world for himself, and loving person receives love.

I think tolerance is just an instantiation of the golden rule - do unto others as you'd like others to do unto you.

Also in this modern age of globalization there's no room for intolerance. Everyone's connected in one way or another - we all depend on each other if civilization is to survive.

The concept of tolerance (taking a broad-minded view of others’ opinions and beliefs, from the Latin tolerantia, or endurance) was devised by racists and other unenlightened people. The world is organized in such a way that it requires variety in order to exist, and it is the combination of this variety that creates all the imaginable and unimaginable shades of life.
The three primary colors – blue, red, and green – when combined produce an array of hundreds of millions of shades.
The four basic temperaments – choleric, melancholic, sanguine, and phlegmatic – when combined produce the planet’s 7 billion people.
The different races combine to define what we now call humankind.
The laws of physics – the law of gravity, the law of conservation of energy – combine to give us the world as we know it and to which we have adapted.
Thus, tolerance is an imprecise and even harmful concept.
See how polite this sounds: “I am tolerant of others’ opinions,” “I am tolerant of others’ skin color,” “I am tolerant of others’ religion.”
But see how stupid this sounds: “I am tolerant of the color blue,” “I am tolerant of the law of gravity.”

Instead of tolerance, the correct word is awareness.
I am aware that the law of gravity is an integral part of the general laws of nature. I have to adapt to this law in order to survive and grow.
I am aware that the color blue (and the colors green and red) are an integral part of the color palette. I have to accept this as truth.

I am aware that other people’s skin color, religion, personality, manners, and ethnicity are an integral part of humankind and its development.
These things will always exist, whether or not I am tolerant of them. I can only choose to be aware of them and accept them as truth.