Tolerance continued

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusading_Canuk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crusading_Canuk

Guest
Sorry for any confusion over that quote I posted last night. The correct one is

-“Tolerance and apathy are the last deeds, of a dieing country”
-Aristotle.

Seriously we can see the effects of excessive tolerance and how its destroying the West every time a same sex marriage is performed, a mosque is constructed two blocks down from Ground zero, affermative action gives a job to a minority when another person (in the majority is actually more qualified, or when a boat load of Tamils enter the country (Canada) illegaly. Even then no respect is ever shown towards members of the political or religious right. At school I am constantly branded racist, sexist or homophobic.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Sorry for any confusion over that quote I posted last night. The correct one is

-“Tolerance and apathy are the last deeds, of a dieing country”
-Aristotle.

Seriously we can see the effects of excessive tolerance and how its destroying the West every time a same sex marriage is performed, a mosque is constructed two blocks down from Ground zero, affermative action gives a job to a minority when another person (in the majority is actually more qualified, or when a boat load of Tamils enter the country (Canada) illegaly. Even then no respect is ever shown towards members of the political or religious right. At school I am constantly branded racist, sexist or homophobic.
Click to expand...
Still - there is no such thing in any of Aristotle’s works and I dare you to find it. Aristotle is fully available on project Gutenberg, in archive.org and other public domain sites.

I think this is a modern anti-liberal quote that is deceivingly attributed to Aristotle to give it a fake feeling of credibility.

No matter what the source is, consider the following - how would a society with the antonyms sound like?

tolerance - intolerance
apathy - activism

Would you want to live in a society based on intolerant activism? Pol Pot’s Cambodia comes to mind - but that one does not exist anymore. You might want to live in Afghanistan where Sharia law is in effect and you’ve got militia groups enforcing it.
 
Absolutely. This whole “tolerance” myth is a runaway train. It’s just another word for pacifism. As a Christian, you gotta put your foot down. I’m not an Eminem fan, but he once said this: “Got enemies? Then you stood up for something.” The people at your school are just like many other young people. They’re stupid, asinine, arrogant, and think they know everything. Jesus even said that Christians “will be hated by this world.” Remember that we are not of this world, but of heaven.
 
JackVk said:
Absolutely. This whole “tolerance” myth is a runaway train. It’s just another word for pacifism. As a Christian, you gotta put your foot down. I’m not an Eminem fan, but he once said this: “Got enemies? Then you stood up for something.” The people at your school are just like many other young people. They’re stupid, asinine, arrogant, and think they know everything. Jesus even said that Christians “will be hated by this world.” Remember that we are not of this world, but of heaven.
Click to expand...
One could, and rightly so, point out that if it were not for some showing tolerance in the past (in the face of great negative popular opinion I might add) the number of those openly Catholic in some states here in the U.S.would be zero.
 
I prefer Chesterton to Aristotle

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”

“Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence.”

:)🙂
 
Corki said:
I prefer Chesterton to Aristotle

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”

“Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence.”

:)🙂
Click to expand...
Beat me to it.👍
 
stenlis said:
No matter what the source is, consider the following - how would a society with the antonyms sound like?

tolerance - intolerance
apathy - activism
Click to expand...
Based on my intolerance of the evil of abortion,
I am involved in pro-life activism.

Won’t make me too popular among some people, apparently.
Oh well.
Guess that’s the “warrior” part of being a
Prayer Warrior,
as they call me here at CAF.

:knight2: :angel1: :knight1:

~~ the phoenix
 
Standing up for our convictions is a good thing. On that we all can agree - I assume.
Code: 
However, to become an enemy of tolerance is dangerous. As one posting has pointed out already, if our country's Protestants forefathers hadn;t shown tolerance (often reluctantly, true) it is unlikely that the Catholic Church would be the largest religion in the USA today.

Another thought. Anti-Catholicism was largely predicated on the belief among Protestants that Catholicism was intolerance. They - for example - read (or read about) "The Syllabus of Errors" of Pius IX and concluded, understandably, that if that represented official Catholicism they'd better be suspicious. Some Protestants had arrived in the US with a copy of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" which outlines the persecution of Protestants going way back to the Czech Huss and and the Italian Waldo and others and they were frightened by Catholicism. 

 Tolerance on balance is a good thing. True, it can be carried too far when it comes to acceptable behavior, and that needs to be resisted. But I take pride in being a citizen of a nation where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others all are permitted to practice their faith freely. We certainly don't want to become a Saudi Arabia or even a relatively modern Spain under Franco when the rights of Protestants were severely curtailed. Thank God for the First Amendment and its guarantee of religious freedom.
 
Roy5 said:
Standing up for our convictions is a good thing. On that we all can agree - I assume.
Code: 
However, to become an enemy of tolerance is dangerous. As one posting has pointed out already, if our country's Protestants forefathers hadn;t shown tolerance (often reluctantly, true) it is unlikely that the Catholic Church would be the largest religion in the USA today.

Another thought. Anti-Catholicism was largely predicated on the belief among Protestants that Catholicism was intolerance. They - for example - read (or read about) "The Syllabus of Errors" of Pius IX and concluded, understandably, that if that represented official Catholicism they'd better be suspicious. Some Protestants had arrived in the US with a copy of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" which outlines the persecution of Protestants going way back to the Czech Huss and and the Italian Waldo and others and they were frightened by Catholicism. 

 Tolerance on balance is a good thing. True, it can be carried too far when it comes to acceptable behavior, and that needs to be resisted. But I take pride in being a citizen of a nation where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others all are permitted to practice their faith freely. We certainly don't want to become a Saudi Arabia or even a relatively modern Spain under Franco when the rights of Protestants were severely curtailed. Thank God for the First Amendment and its guarantee of religious freedom.
Click to expand...
Amen. YBTW you do know Fox’s Book of Martyrs is a load of BS, don’t you?
 
Thankyou for the responses. I got this quote second hand and am not quite sure where to find it in Aristotles writings. Sorry for any confussion. Frankly I am not intolerant, my best friends are both Muslim immigrants they know my political and religious beliefs and respect them, I also respect theirs.
I was not referring to tolerance in the true meaning of the word (respect) just to the modern sense of political and in some cases the white guilt we have shoved down our throats on a regular basis.
 
My favorite:

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.
Code: 
http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.
 
JackVk
Code: 
"Foxe's Book of Martyrs" was typical of Protestant propaganda against Catholicism following the Reformation. It was not bs. There obviously was a huge persecution of Protestants just as there was of Catholics, depending upon where one was, time in history, etc.

I am in part French-Canadian and remember going through a time, years ago, when I read widely about the religious wars in France. One event, of course, was the St. Bartholomew Massacre when several thousand (and more?) Protestants were slaughtered in Paris and throughout that country when they had gathered to celebrate a Protestant wedding. The Pope, upon hearing the news ordered a Te Deum to celebrate the blood-letting.

 Now there was persecution both of Catholics and of Protestants in England. Mary, Queen of Scots, killed many Protestants, and Elizabeth I killed many Catholics. As for Henry VIII, I never considered him a Protestant, as he attacked Luther so vigorously. He was more of a schismatic than a heretic, vaguely comparable to the Eastern Orthodox, perhaps. His main interest was defying the Papacy and grabbing church lands.

 It's foolish for Protestants or Catholics today in live in that vengeful past. Both should be embarrassed and pentitent for the crimes committed in the name of Christ. Religion should be a bridge rather than a barrier. God bless all his children.
 
Roy5 said:
JackVk
Code: 
"Foxe's Book of Martyrs" was typical of Protestant propaganda against Catholicism following the Reformation. It was not bs. There obviously was a huge persecution of Protestants just as there was of Catholics, depending upon where one was, time in history, etc.

I am in part French-Canadian and remember going through a time, years ago, when I read widely about the religious wars in France. One event, of course, was the St. Bartholomew Massacre when several thousand (and more?) Protestants were slaughtered in Paris and throughout that country when they had gathered to celebrate a Protestant wedding. The Pope, upon hearing the news ordered a Te Deum to celebrate the blood-letting.

 Now there was persecution both of Catholics and of Protestants in England. Mary, Queen of Scots, killed many Protestants, and Elizabeth I killed many Catholics. As for Henry VIII, I never considered him a Protestant, as he attacked Luther so vigorously. He was more of a schismatic than a heretic, vaguely comparable to the Eastern Orthodox, perhaps. His main interest was defying the Papacy and grabbing church lands.

 It's foolish for Protestants or Catholics today in live in that vengeful past. Both should be embarrassed and pentitent for the crimes committed in the name of Christ. Religion should be a bridge rather than a barrier. God bless all his children.
Click to expand...
Interesting post, sir!
It is truly ironic that here in Ireland, the Catholic hierarchy are reticent in proclaiming the urgent teachings of His church viz personal morality while in the North the Protestant religions have no hesitation in preaching same.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
buffalo said:
My favorite:

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.
Code: 
http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.
Click to expand...
A beautiful post, sir!
I bought a second-hand copy of Bishop Sheen’s ‘Life of Christ’ on holiday recently.
The wisdom is breathtaking!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
Roy5
Tolerance on balance is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Tolerance of a person, hardly tolerance of wrong.
Cardinal Ratzinger: I would say that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” (The Priest, Autumn, 1993).

As Archbishop Fulton J Sheen has written: we “are suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos.

“A person who can make up his or her mind in an orderly way, as a person might make up a bed, is called a bigot; but a person who cannot make up his or her mind, any more than one can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded.”

zenit.org/article-19001?l=english
Address of Papal Theologian on Natural Moral Law
The Moral Natural Law: Problems and Prospects
Excerpts:
“In fact, in the Western world, at least in the public sphere, there is bleeding atrophy of understanding what is natural and what is not, leading to changes in ethical mores that are amounting to a profound revolution of the foundations of civilization. These changes are not taking place in the name of some forceful ideology, capable of mustering the support of crowds – as was the case with nationalism and communism, both of which had an altruist element within them – but in the name of pure hedonism and anti-rationalist skepticism, hidden under the mask of tolerance.

“What is perplexing, however, is that these new concepts of new virtues are nebulous or ambivalent, and deprived of any rooting in coherent and certain knowledge about the human person, about human nature and its finality. If in the name of tolerance, no certain knowledge may be had about anything, if no one is entitled to declare that he holds any truths as true and therefore universally binding, there is no place for any virtue at all, and all supposedly value-charged statements are in fact empty.”

To quote Dr Jeff Mirus:
“…universal tolerance means the acceptance (and therefore tacit approval) of all behaviors, irrespective of their impact on the common good and on human flourishing. To put the matter simply, tolerance perceived as a virtue always rewards vice….The invocation of tolerance as a virtue will always undermine prudence, the real and necessary virtue that enables us to match proper solutions to particular problems.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top