Tolerance

by Esmeralda 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Esmeralda

  Hello Everyone,

  After observing a couple of the current threads on this board, I thought that I'd throw this
  issue out there to see what people think. I'm really curious.

  Has it been your experience that people who were Jehovah's Witnesses in the past tend to carry
  their conversational/confrontational style right out of the Kingdom Hall with them?

  That when it comes to matters, religious or otherwise, they tend to take the "I have the facts,
  and people with the opposing point of view are ignorant, uninformed, or just refuse to face reality"

  I have seen this a lot, in different discussion boards. It seems like after a point, people sink into
  old habits and constructive exchanges become destructive because they can't simply leave it at this:
  "We disagree. My view is valid, and so is yours: lets leave it at that."

  Why is it that former JW's feel this driving need to be right all the time? Even in matters where
  there clearly is no right or wrong answer? They continue to believe that their view is more
  relevant than that of their fellow man.

  I'm just curious to see if others have observed this as well and if so, how they handle it or
  stopped thinking this way themselves after they left the organization.

  This is a quote from my favorite book, "The Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz. This is from the
  chapter called "The Second Agreement: Don't take anything personally".

  When you take things personally, then you feel offended, and your reaction is to defend
  your beliefs and create conflicts. You make something big out of something so little, because you have the need to be
  right and make everybody else wrong. You also try hard to be right by giving them your own opinions.
  In the same way, whatever you feel and do is just a projection of you own personal dream, a reflection
  of your own agreements. What you say, what you do, and the opinions you have are according to the
  agreements you have made- and these opinions have nothing to do with me.

  From another page, the main point:

  Don't take anything personally because by taking things personally, you set yourself up to suffer for nothing.

  I think that no matter what people discuss, if they just respected each other and tried to be tolerant,
  a lot more of what was said would be really heard, whether or not it agreed with the opinions
  of the person they were speaking to.

  Just my two cents for the day. Which, with our economy is worth half a cent probably *lol*

  I look forward to your remarks.

  Essie
• 

  unanswered

  very nice thought, esmeralda. i try to be a tolerent person, i think it helps me to be a better person, but, because of reading your post, i will self-examine a little more.:)-nate
• 

  perfectpie

  2 the dog snatcher, Thanks 4 your post.

  So much depends on the experience of the person and what he holds in his treasure chest. My reaction to being bound by the unyielding exegesis of the "Holy Ones" is to over due the freedom of voicing my opinion. As you may know during studies in J.W.s you, for the most part echo set teachings of the said F.D.S. Yes there is room to garnish the teachings but going outside the framework is apostasy. That built frustration up in me over the years and I think now I get carried away or perhaps let to much out at one time. The funny thing is when I was active as a Witness with talks etc. I was very non-agressive. But as for me, I like to stay away of trying to understand people by codes of ethics and preconceived ideas of behaivor. We are soo different. We are what we have lived and our lives have been so different. I did take the value of your wisdom to Heart and hope for your continued peace. "Double cross the vacant and the bored, they're not sure just what they have in store"
  3.14 chow
• 

  rem

  When you take things personally, then you feel offended, and your reaction is to defend
  your beliefs and create conflicts. You make something big out of something so little, because you have the need to be
  right and make everybody else wrong. You also try hard to be right by giving them your own opinions.
  In the same way, whatever you feel and do is just a projection of you own personal dream, a reflection
  of your own agreements. What you say, what you do, and the opinions you have are according to the
  agreements you have made- and these opinions have nothing to do with me.

  I totally agree with this statement. The only problem I have is when people’s opinions are challenged by facts, all of a sudden they say that the fact–providers are being intolerant. I believe (and this is only my opinion) that Facts and Opinions are two different things. Facts are verifiable. Opinions are, well opinions. I don’t think we all have to respect opinions just for the sake of respecting them. I think we should definitely tolerate them, but I think respect should be reserved for *informed* opinions. Should you respect my opinion that all gay people are evil? No – because it’s not an informed opinion. I’d expect you to tolerate it, but I wouldn’t expect you to respect it.

  Just my thoughts,

  rem
• 

  Esmeralda

  I think we should definitely tolerate them, but I think respect
  should be reserved for *informed* opinions. Should you respect my opinion that all gay
  people are evil? No – because it’s not an informed opinion. I’d expect you to tolerate it, but I
  wouldn’t expect you to respect it.

  That is a good point Rem. Another example would be that I would not respect Hitler for thinking that Jews were bad, then
  spreading that view to others.

  But I think that in everyday matters that do not involve harm coming to others (as in the case of
  Hitler) or discrimination (as many people discriminate against gays) that there is room for respect
  for those we disagree with.

  As I said to larc earlier today, I haven't even said that I would turn a deaf ear to 'facts'. I just want to be
  free to research them on my own, at my own pace without others calling me uninformed in the
  interim.

  Anyway, I ramble. Thanks for your input :)

  Es
• 

  ShaunaC

  Essie, I read over the posts today and thought you handled yourself quite admirably. I totally concur with your thoughts of tolerance.

  The statement earlier made that an opinion should only be respected if it is based on fact blows me away (& I mean opinions that don't harm anyone). To me, an opinion means there are no facts to substantiate it. Thus you go by what you feel to be true.

  If you challenge me on fact, I'm thankful. I want to have my facts straight. But don't challenge me on opinion! You have no right to enforce your view on me! If I wanted to be around those kind of people, I would have remained a JW!

  I guess the problem arises when people have different views of what a true fact is. However it happens, there is no reason to insist that your view is the right way and should be subscribed to by everyone else. Why can't we just say, "That's intersting you feel that way. In my experience......" Why does it have to be "You're an idiot if you think that way. My way is better!"

  In the words of a famous Cali man "CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!"

  Shauna

  Shauna
• 

  rem

  The statement earlier made that an opinion should only be respected if it is based on fact blows me away (& I mean opinions that don't harm anyone). To me, an opinion means there are no facts to substantiate it. Thus you go by what you feel to be true.

  Interesting you feel that way. In my experience opinions that have no facts to substantiate them are worthless. Of course I’m not talking about opinions like “I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla”. Those truly are inconsequential opinions. I think what we are really talking about are beliefs.

  With the chocolate vs. vanilla example – I have no problem respecting that opinion. Let’s turn the chocolate vs. vanilla example into a belief: “I think chocolate ice cream is brown because it is made out of mud.” This is not really an opinion – it’s a belief. It’s not a really important belief – I could care less whether a person really believes that, but I would definitely call it an uninformed (or ignorant) belief. Thus I would not respect this belief, but who am I not to tolerate it?

  Now, what would be the problem with me informing this person that he does not have all of the facts and that chocolate ice cream is not made out of mud? Would it be disrespectful of his beliefs to give him some information that he lacked because he might see it as belittling his beliefs? Is it wrong to inform this person, just because his belief seems to be inconsequential to most? I don’t think so. That is only my opinion, though.

  You see, a lot of the debate was going on because people are confusing facts with opinions and beliefs. Some people think that unsubstantiated opinions or beliefs are just as valid as scientific theories and facts. That is not the case. Scientific theories are rigorously tested using double blind experiments and are repeated by independent people. Scientific discoveries and theories can not be dismissed as mere opinions. Some people see this as putting science on a pedestal – but the fact is that scientists welcome challenges to their findings. If you can poke holes in the theory, then you are following the scientific method and improving our knowledge of the universe. You have just as much right as anyone else to publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal to refute scientific evidence. If your findings do not stand the face of scrutiny, then they become mere beliefs without factual basis.

  This is why it would be ridiculous to respect the idea that the earth is flat – there is so much scientific evidence showing otherwise that a person who believes this is ignorant of the facts. Where I see ignorance, I will step in and try to educate – that is my good deed. I would expect the same from others if I err. In fact, this has happened and that is why I continue to grow in my knowledge of life and the universe.

  Again, I think this comes down to definitions. “Opinions” was probably not the best word – I think beliefs would describe what we are talking about better.

  rem, who hopes he’s done ruffling feathers today :)
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  There is one immutable fact about scientific "facts". They are very susceptible to change. It's unfortunate, but true, that many scientists are far from objective in their double-blind tests. More than once, irrefutable "facts" have been overturned by subsequent studies due to poor or prejudiced research. In many cases, the research wasn't fraudulent, but rather skewed because of the researcher's belief in his or her own theory.

  Just look at the research done in the field of nutrition. One study "proves" that coffee in any amount is toxic to the system. Another study "proves" that coffee is totally innocuous. A third study "proves" that coffee is beneficial but only in small amounts. None of the research was fraudulent, but it was based on trying to prove a preconceived theory.

  That's why I like to try things out for myself to see if they work or not. More than once, I've developed severe reactions to medications that were "proved" safe, and one of them nearly killed me. I've learned that it pays to be skeptical....even when it involves "proven" science.
• 

  GinnyTosken

  Does tolerance include tolerating the nontolerant?

  Ginny
• 

  Norm

  Hi RedhorseWoman,

  You said:

  More than once, irrefutable "facts" have been overturned by subsequent studies due to poor or prejudiced research. In many cases, the research wasn't fraudulent, but rather skewed because of the researcher's belief in his or her own theory.

  No serious scientist ever operate with the concept "irrefutable facts". You seem to hold a WT textbook view of science.
  That's a concept for believers. Science is by it's very nature progressive as our understanding of the universe expands. Scientific theories will therefore some times have to be reevaluated. This is of course a good thing.

  Newspapers and magazines often like to report different studies done about this and that. If you get hold of such reports and read them for yourself, you will usually not find much of what the journalist claim.

  Many times you will see that those who made the study will have to go out and try to remedy the mess the journalist has made of their material.

  If you sit down and read some serious scientific literature you will find that very little of your assumptions hold water.

  Norm.