Tolerance and Love: An Introduction

Let's look at the official, full definition of the word tolerance.

Tolerance

Noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. 3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

The key words in the definition are fair, objective, foreign and differ. You're not really tolerant if you FORCE another to think or believe the same as you do, and only then, you will accept, socialize, or partner with them.  It is the same with Love. (And there's no hidden meaning behind the word "partner" either. SMH that I even have to say that :)

One can also focus on the word "undogmatic" in the definition of tolerance, too. The other side, if there be any other side and debate about what I write, may well choose to pull that word out.  It could be a basis for a solid argument, and a good one, especially against some of the overly zealous religious and against some religions/philosophical doctrines, period. But allow me to show and explain the difference between the dogmatically religious and so intolerant, and the dogmatically religious, yet tolerant.

Those that are dogmatic and intolerant, look down on and askew the company of others that do not have like beliefs. They are usually unfair. Separate, but equal is technically a possibility, but only seems to work theoretically and has a poor track record when tried. These can not tolerate at all, even the company of, those that differ from them and it usually leads to inequality, because it's really hate disguised and a lack of confidence in their own values. But one that is religious; internally dogmatic and faithful of heart to their God and/or belief, doesn't expect or force others into their belief system, especially not those of other faiths or no faith, but are externally and socially undogmatic; tolerant. These usually actually enjoy and seek out the company of those otherwise minded. They are settled in what they believe, so there's no fear. They are willing and desire to learn about all. They are also ready to share who they are, but without force, and compel others to change. The greatest examples are Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul. But if you reject these examples because they are connected with one particular religion, Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. also fit the bill. And representing evil, there's Manson, and Bin Laden.

Now religion, by its' definition, is within intolerant. It is a discipline, no different from Tai Chi or the Atkins Diet. You cant eat 3 loaves of French Bread and say you're following the Atkins Diet plan. Therefore, within the gates of any religion or religious service or house of worship, each must remain personally disciplined or faithful to the laws and precepts that govern that religion, or else can't really be recognized as a follower of that religion. It says a lot about one's integrity.

Tolerance and love then, from one that religiously practices his/her faith, is displayed (and tested) in their ability to partner and inter-connect with those that are weak in the faith, have made mistakes according to the faith, are ignorant (validly/understandably so and not by reason of sloth and willful ignorance) and finally with those that choose to not believe/practice that faith/religion at all, but another faith, or live without religion period. But I must explain this law of humanity. Everyone lives by some sort of philosophy. That's life. We really do think, and therefore exist, and are what we think. Atheism is the discipline of believing there is no god or higher being. It is a philosophy, only without a god or written doctrine. Homosexuality/the LBGTQ life, how and why they exist and everything about it, is a discipline and way of life.

Discipline and Definitions. If I'm a car, I can't ride on two wheels. For then, I'm either a bike, motorcycle, or in a never ending loop of a Dukes of Hazard episode!

If I'm a boxer, I can't get in the ring kicking and throwing open fisted chops like I'm Bruce Lee, and yet truthfully say I'm a boxer. Discipline and Definitions.

But outside the ring, as a boxer, I can have a beer with a practicer of Karate, share a meal with the Kick-Boxer, work with the Wrestler, do business, party, go shopping and enjoy the company of all non-boxers. (There's no hidden meaning behind "enjoy" either!  SMH that I even have to say that, too :)  Outside the ring, I can even take you to the hospital, pray or lay "holy healing hands" on you, after the butt whooping I give if you dare get inside the ring kicking and chopping instead of boxing, and still myself be a boxer if I played by the rules. Now that's tolerance and Love.

Discipline and Definitions. There are rules to life, and definitely to all religions/philosophies. My ability to remain disciplined to and by those rules, and do it openly, determines what and who I am. If speech and actions aren't equal, one is either confused, ignorant, a hypocrite and/or sometimes a combination or all three. Your ability to love me for it comes by my ability to reason and give knowledge of the definition of what I say I am.

I pray I am explaining and making it as clear as possible as to why religions should and needs to be respected, even if not believed. And why a faith must be practiced without change or else is no faith, but how it can be practiced while accepting and being fair to all others outside that faith. It can be done. Strait and narrow is the way, and few can even find that way, much less actually walk it and live it. But all things are possible when you communicate with others, especially when the basis for their fight is exactly the same.

My faith, Christianity and most others, have a set doctrine and laws. Most religions are theocratic and unchangeable, only understanding becomes greater and there's more revelation. But the religion itself is set. So, there is no malice when we are contrary to your belief. If I personally deny or hide my faith to inter-connect with you, I am then unfaithful.  If you force me to,  I myself am now the one found forced into inequity. I will both live my faith and connect with all society, and allow you to do so, too in the public sector. And if you are obliged, in the house of worship, or my home, to fellowship, I welcome you. But there are house rules that can not be changed.

I hope it translates properly when this is read, but I am affectionately pouring my heart out for faith, freedom and for you. I will not disconnect from society to live my faith. I can not lay down my religion, to be among all.  I have walked this narrow plain for most of my life. I speak now about it and define it because many confuse it with insincerity or use it as manipulation to gain advantage over all, really lying and deceiving. And others are genuine, but don't quite get it. Those able to walk it look exactly like hypocrites, but are not. Another reason I share now. The difference shows by motives and results.

Now, especially in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, many homosexuals and those already living or desirous to live a LBGTQ life, wanted to no longer be underground or hidden. Coupled with several instances of gay bashing, violence and even murder, much like what Blacks went through, the intro of HIV/AIDS and its stigma, and so openly unjust treatment towards all Gays, even by all of society, motivated Gay activists to make a real push for change and to come out of the shadows and live loud and proud without fear of injustice, and inequality; sanctioned or unsanctioned.  They were right to do so. And I, even as a born again Christian, am with you. Let's make it happen. But we have to get some things straight, for I must also protect Christians and all other religion's rights and their ability to also live loud and proud.

Whether you are actually LBGTQ or an advocate of, I too fully believe in global human rights and Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.  But in order to get us there, the people that claim to be tolerant, when they are not, needs to be shown their own flaws and failures at it.  Though they vigorously fight for justice, it is only for themselves and like-minded people.

The pendulum did swing, but we must not pass the point of equality for all, and make the religious live the way gays were forced to once upon a time; in the shadows. Homosexuality v. Religion is the best demonstration. But I have also seen Women v. Men, Rich v. Poor, and minority Races/Nationalities v. Whichever seems to be in power, and all activists for the powerless, push more for dominance than fairness. That's just hypocrisy and causes a never ending battle for control.

Both Ghandi, and Martin Luther King were Human Rights Activists. Many who adapt their ways and even fought side by side with them, use their ways to advance their cause only, but stopped there. Civil Rights meant blacks only. Equality, meant women only. Liberty to openly BE and exist, now means for gays only and screw all religions and whomever that doesn't support or justify homosexuality, and their right to live openly. (There's no hidden meaning behind "screw" either!  SMH that I have to say that, too :)

If we are going to change the world and make it suitable, and give everyone an opportunity to thrive, we have to examine ourselves. We have to make sure we are fighting for the rights of all. Love does to others, whether individuals or whole groups of people, exactly what they want done to them.

This, that I have laid out, is tolerance. It is civility. In order to maintain civility, and a civil society, especially Liberty and Justice, social interaction is a must, but while keeping utmost respect for all our differences, especially as the world gets smaller and smaller.  To get it done, we have to be educated about one another, and always greatly consider all.

I challenge every activist of any cause to judge whether you are truly altruistic, or are using altruist means like that of Ghandi and King, only to free yourself and imprison all others, which is really selfishness. Justice for you or "Just for you", and who cares about them.

Let us fight with everything we have with one another and for one another. All for one, and one for all according to the common philosophies that all life has value, is born free, and deserves to pursue the life that makes them most happy and that sustains and satisfies them within, without harming others, can be accomplished. It is humanity.

Consider. Consider.

Peace In!

Yulanda K.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.10