I often will spend part of Shabbat trying to think about Torah, or think about issues that resonate for me as, not only a Jew but a part of humanity. The level of intolerance I see today worries me so much. It exists on so many levels, not just the "biggies" of race, religion, sexuality, gender etc. but just in everyone's day to day life. I think most of us are guilty of it in some way and my goal this year is to try and work through some of my own self centeredness in regard to my fellow humans. Today, I am doing this by thinking alot about the following quote:

"

Intolerance lies at the core of evil.
Not the intolerance that results
from any threat or danger.
But intolerance of another being who dares to exist.
Intolerance without cause. It is so deep within us,
because every human being secretly desires
the entire universe to himself.
Our only way out is to learn
compassion without cause. To care for each other
simple because that 'other' exists."

- Rabbi Menachem Mendle

(and yes, I am quoting a Hasidic Rabbi, indeed the Lubavitcher Rebbe, but his words really resonate with me in this context, although I suspect he and I would disagree in many areas of Jewish practice)

"The level of intolerance I see today worries me so much."

Without some form of intolerance, you cannot establish your own identity. Psychologically, if you let everything else dictate your own ego, you will go insane. The human mind requires an a need for stability and for determining groups.

Its not a thing to be guilty over. Intolerance is not wrong. Acting on your intolerance to break laws and cause harm to others is wrong. There is a huge difference.

I don't agree. Intolerance and disagreement are not the same thing. I can not choose to practice what another person practices. I can even "not like" a particular group or indiviudal for any number of reasons, but it's not intolerance. In my opinion, intolerance is when I refuse to or try to stop others from being who they are.

Now, I suppose, thinking on this that because I believe that murder is wrong and I also believe that stopping people from murdering is right than I am technically intolerant of people who would desire to murder.

However, I was speaking about lawful activities and people.

"Intolerance and disagreement are not the same thing."

They were not described as the same.

Intolerance is the unacceptance of outside forces. I may "tolerate" people wearing black shirts in the legal sense of my not attacking of them, but unless I wear them myself or feel that it would be appropriate for me to wear them, then I am not psychologically tolerating them.

The fact that I have an ego independent of yours shows that I can never completely tolerate you. The whole idea of group distinctions are built on structures, and structures are intolerance.

If your group has all people, then its not a real group. If you do not define yourself in any other terms than "human" than you haven't actually created anything new. Furthermore, lets say you define yourself as human, then you are intolerant to everything else.

People throw around the term "intolerance" because they think it means hate. There is a difference between direct illegal malice towards other and group distinction.

...that you equate intolerence to evil and that we should feel guilt for harboring any intolerence.

First off, it is a human fact that ALL of us have been exposed to things that we do not like. When we disallow those things in our lives, we are being intolerant, no? For instance, I don't like obnoxious people. Ergo, I do not invite or allow obnoxious people into my home. I do not tolerate them. Oh evil me!

Second, because we are each individually unique with our own unique pallate of responsive reasoning why we are put off by certain things, people, religions, politics, foods, colors, etc. our reasons for being intolerant are as numerous and varied as we are.

Self-centeredness is an inexorable part of our humanity. Let's take one of the biggies like sexuality. As a fundamental Christian, I believe engaging homosexuality is morally and spiritually wrong. So I don't tolerate homosexuality insofar as another's homosexuality would trespass my life, liberties and pursuit of happiness. However, according to the gist of your post, I'm guilty. And that intolerence lies at the core of my evil (whatever that may be perceived as). So in essence, I should yield to the homosexual. Forgive me if I'm not getting this, but if I am disposed to what the homosexual wants, how is it then that they aren't being self-centered??

In my opinion, there are certainly things that all of us will not tolerate. For homosexuals and the supporters of homosexuality, my Christian belief that homosexuality is ungodly should NOT be tolerated. Everybody always seems to think that the "other guy" should yield. Why? Self-centeredness.

I don't deny that I'm self-centered. I even acknowledge that Christ in me intends that my "self" would die...but certainly not to the glorification of, or obeisance to, anything that dishonors God.

I honestly wasn't looking to engage in a debate on homosexuality because I think there is none. Homosexuality exists. It's a fact. Just as there are people with blue eyes or red hair, their are people whose sexuality may differ from their next door neighbor's.

I am no interested in being overly semantic here. Intolerance, in this case, is not in you, as a fundamentalist Christian not accepting or condoning or even "liking" homosexuality. Intolerance is when you decide to forbid their existence and work to eradicate their existence from the world. Which I am not implying you condone. I don't agree with your views on homosexuality but that doesn't make me intolerant because I am not trying to stop you from having those views.

"I honestly wasn't looking to engage in a debate on homosexuality because I think there is none. Homosexuality exists. It's a fact."

Murderers exist. Existence is not a determination of value. Not all things that exist have the right to exist. That is the whole idea of competition. For myself to exist, thousands and thousands of things must be destroyed. That is how I gain the energy to live.

Our first desire is for survival. This forces us to organize a system of values on how to act. That is necessary. We are giving the gift of judgment so we can determine what actions are good, what actions are wrong, and create a heirarchy of said values.

Homosexuality, for one, goes against the action of reproduction. Second, anal sex operates in an area reserved for excretion. Thirdly, it is based on sex, not reproduction, and valuing sex above reproduction disabilizes the bond between reproducing partners and deligitimizes the need for the two reproducers to stay together and take care of the child.

There are many other values that determines such an action to be improper.

Thus, one must be intolerant with such a system of values, or the whole system of values in general becomes moot. Thus, right becomes wrong, up becomes down, and nothing gets done.

If you want to be an animal and act like an animal without social rules and regulations, please, enter into a woods, give up your computer, your clothes, your car, and all other products that come from an organized social construct that has allowed man to progress to this point.

are so beyond my thinking that I wonder sometimes if Christianity has learned anything over the 2000 years of its existence and the several thousand years of life covered by the OT. Your post and the one by B-Cleaver are so scary and insane that its astounding you call yourselves in tune with a God. I do not consider either of you to be insane or stupid, both of you are very articulate and extremely intelligent. However, your views on life and humanity are locked in a time warp. We have moved on from the dark ages guys. You two actually have more in common with fundie Moslems than you do with most of us Americans. Time to get another religion guys, yours is too steeped in hate and judgement to do you any good over the course of your lifetimes.

Woolley, are you saying that Freud and Jung were fundamentalist Christians?

Because they agree with what I state, as do most Psychologists. It is the fundamental nature of identity that means that you cannot be free of "intolerance".

To accept all groups and to believe that everyone is equal is to deny your own individuality and to destroy the self. To even acknowledge that there are groups or definitions is an expression of intolerance, so to even say that people are white or black, tall or small, is being intolerant.

Woolley:

are so beyond my thinking that I wonder sometimes if Christianity has learned anything over the 2000 years of its existence and the several thousand years of life covered by the OT. Your post and the one by B-Cleaver are so scary and insane that its astounding you call yourselves in tune with a God. I do not consider either of you to be insane or stupid, both of you are very articulate and extremely intelligent. However, your views on life and humanity are locked in a time warp. We have moved on from the dark ages guys. You two actually have more in common with fundie Moslems than you do with most of us Americans. Time to get another religion guys, yours is too steeped in hate and judgement to do you any good over the course of your lifetimes.

Most Americans are Christians and do not agree with legitimizing homosexuality.

Also everything you have posted relates to the semantic. To me the debating of semantic is worthless so I'll just say that your view of intolerance is very 'harsh'. It other words it relates to specific ACTIONS to prevent SPECIFIC behaviors.

Also your point about homosexuality is way to PC for me. The issue (conflict) around homosexuality is about BEHAVIOR. Do we prevent \ restrict homosexual behavior or homosexuals from engaging in certain behaviors (e.g. getting married). Note: I'm for NO restrictions expect those that apply also to non homosexuals.

Don't take this in the wrong way, but at the end of the day, I don't feel your post says anything. By this I mean one does have to look at specific behaviors and actions and determine, on an indivisual basis, whether one (or the state) will sanction said behavior \ action or not.

The rest is only talk.

Freud or Jung said about anything. Their opinions on these matters is no better or worse than any others opinions. I just don't believe your worldviews are going to last much longer, its over guys.

The cows out of the barn Nano. Time to join the human race and rid yourself of your fear. It could make you free if you have the balls to be really free.

Yes. I often find this when I pop in to this board, the need to be literal about pretty much everything is the standard.

So in the interests of being clear (though clearly inferior to all here in intellect):

1. The quote I started with and my feelings towards it have to do with the need that many humans have to destroy others because of hatred and intolerance of who they are. You can put almost any value of "who" in there you like.

2. Homosexuality is no more or less a "behavior" than heterosexuality and while ymmv I see no difference at all.

3. I am always amused at those who claim that sex without reproduction is meaningless etc. because I don't have a uterus or ovaries because of cancer and JGC knew that when we first became involved and he knew that meant we wouldn't be reproducing. We chose adoption, but some couples choose to remain childless, are we and they not supposed to enjoy sex?

4. I'm somewhat annoyed that everything comes back to sex. Whether you are in a same sex relationship, hetero, poly or whatever trust me, your life is more than how often you f--k. I really wonder about some of the folks on this board and elsewhere somedays because clearly their lives must be entirely about their next sexual experience.

5. I honestly don't care if other people don't sanction me or my behavior, they can dislike me all they want-when they twist that into a hate that brings them to physically harm, legally constrain or detain and effectively attempt to bring about my demise I do get a little touchy.

"Freud or Jung said about anything. Their opinions on these matters is no better or worse than any others opinions. I just don't believe your worldviews are going to last much longer, its over guys."

People like you started a trend in Greece that lasted a good 40 years. That was mocked and destroyed by Plato and Aristotle. People like you started the trend again in Rome, which lasted a good 250 years until the Vandals came and destroyed Rome, because people were too concerned with Vomitoriums and Whore Houses.

Hedonism doesn't last long. We do not progress towards hedonism. It is like any plague, it stirs up, it causes problems, then is eradicated when the majority of society can no longer tolerate the problems that come from it.

Pleasure for pleasure's sake does not improve society. It does not lead to technological increase. It leads to a stagnation. Read Brave New World. Pain has been conquered. Sex is everywhere. People are stimulated. Guess what? Its not a good thing and society has completely fell apart. To enter into the "Brave" world is to say, "hmm, maybe Hedonism isn't good".