From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

See Talk:Toleration for most conversation on this topic.


The first section seems a bit too dictionary-like. The cross-links are more useful than the definition, IMO. Mkmcconn

Some content moved to Forty-nine charismatic virtues. Peter Manchester 13:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This really needs to also mention tolerance in manufacturing, particularly electronics. –radiojon 03:43, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)


I tried to edit but I can't. This entry has the strange effect of people who have been taught about Tolerance, and lectured about it, but have never felt it for a moment at first-hand. Tolerance cannot be neutral about what is good, though, for its very purpose is to guard good and avert evils. The circumstantial element in the practice of tolerance is right judgment of greater ends against lesser ends. Is not the natural conclusion to this sentence thus enabling lesser ends to be sacrificed to greater ends. I recognize the school of thinking, but it's not known for its tolerance. Wetman 19:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Old self[edit]

The following paragraph is strange, to me:

In Christianity, tolerance plays a part with regard to the one's former way of life, as a belief is often professed in the need to put off the old self that was corrupted by its deceitful desires (prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance), and be renewed in the spirit of the mind. Accompanying this is also a corresponding need to put on a new self, which was created to be like God, in righteousness and true holiness, which includes tolerance,

It quotes from Ephesians 4:22. In that context, the "old self" and "former way of life" is "ignorance", "hardness of heart", surrender to "sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more". Can someone find "prejudice, bigotry and intolerance" in this? It strikes me as a misappropriation of a well-known text for a rare application. In other words, it sounds as though the editor was explaining himself, rather than explaining the Christian view of tolerance. Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tolerance as a conundrum[edit]

As evidenced by the statement, "There's only one thing I won't tolerate, and that's intolerance". The article leaves unclear the level of tolerance that is tolerable of the intolerant. Matt Stan 11:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tolerance does not mean "agree with"[edit]

Laws like Canada's recent amendment to its hate crimes law, forbidding the speaking against different sexual behaviours, do not stop at tolerance. It so silences even reasoned, fact-based, compassionate speech against such behaviours by people who want to help those trapped in such behaviours. It does not allow the opposing point of view to be taught. It is, therefore, a perversion of "tolerance", requiring total acquiescence by opponents of, for example, homosexual behaviour, even when those opponents intend no malice whatsoever against homosexual individuals; rather, the opponents want to prevent young and naive people from being lured into a behaviour that is medically documented as hazardous and life-shortening. That is not tolerance; that is intolerance.

Voltaire put it succinctly: "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." A person might not agree with his atheist views, but Voltaire would defend the right of a religiously-devout person to speak their views and beliefs. A homosexual activist of 2005 should, in the same pattern, vigorously defend a Christian's right to speak of the dangers and immorality of the behaviour, even while the two of them do not agree. Unfortunately, more often, homosexual activists will not tolerate a point of view that is in opposition, and seek to silence it through court actions or Svend Robinson's hate crimes amendment.

When church leaders no longer feel safe in speaking the truth of the Gospel and the Bible, even with the utmost heartfelt sorrow for homosexuals, we no longer have tolerance.

GBC 00:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"the opponents want to prevent young and naive people from being lured into a behaviour that is medically documented as hazardous and life-shortening"... its worth noting that heterosexuality is also documented as potentially hazardous and life-shortening. std's can happen to anyone. anyways, im not sure why you are so fixated on homosexuality.
mere 'heterosexuality' can be potentially hazardous and life-shortening... but monogamous, faithful heterosexuality has very little hazard, as there are only two people involved, and if neither of them is infected with an STD, both are safe from STDs. Rarely are homosexuals monogamous. GBC 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance is more about showing recpect and civility than some sentece and it's also the ability to put up with people who make you mad.

This entry conflicts with the Allophilia entry in Wikipedia[edit]

This article conflicts with the Allophilia entry in its definition of the word "tolerance" (first paragraph.) Allophilia entry states that "tolerance is not the logical antithesis of prejudice, but rather is the midpoint between negative feelings and positive feelings toward others." However, this entry states that "Tolerance is a recent political term used within debates in areas of social, cultural and religious context, as an emphatic antithesis to discrimination." 01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Pam

Removed text that is not about Tolerating the intolerant[edit]

I removed the following text from section Tolerating the intolerant:

Issues that are controversial in various countries include the separation of church and state, homosexuality, the consumption of tobacco, alcoholic beverages and other drugs, reading disapproved political tracts, and deviant sexual acts as well as the correct reaction to disorderly conduct and misdemeanours (for example, see zero tolerance policy).

Separation of church and state, if it belongs into this article, should be covered in the previous section on tolerancde and religion. Homosexuality, tobacco etcetera are not per se intolerant and thus do not belong under "Tolerating the intolerant". There may be a case for moving them to another part of this article, but I would vote against it since we then could include half of Wikipedia, as any issue that is controversial somewhere touches naturally on tolerance. Common Man 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, zero tolerance policy should be mentioned somewhere in this article - I'm putting it under "See also" for now. Common Man 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Both Lessing and Voltaire were groundbreaking in their arguements for religious tolerance, is it really necessary to call them out for not making a case for political tolerance? It was before even the French Revolution.

Definition within Context[edit]

This is an interesting debate, and often difficult to understand and accept, perhaps even to tolerate. Although words carry definitions they also carry meaning. Definition and meaning are completely different from each other. Meaning derives from and within a context, whereas definition is a standalone guide to the usage of a word. However, the use of a word can also be changed depending on context. A word like 'Tolerant' has a definition, infact many, but none of them have a meaning without a context. Every word is essentially defined differently depending on its context, in other words its meaning changes. 'I am a tolerant man.' has little meaning when you try to extract a context from it. I would not a tolerant man if my family was being assulted. "Britian in a tolerant society" is a very vague statement and does not draw meaning from the word 'tolerant', because the perameters of 'tolerance' have not been set, so the exactness of the statement is unfinished, hence unclear. To simply try and attach a meaning from'tolerant' in every context as it is defined seems foolish and can only lead to deluding oneself when trying to extract truth from the matter of text.

Behzad Bayati.


I've gone ahead and redirected this page to "Toleration," and moved most of the content from this page to there. "Toleration" is the more usual heading for this concept, and the article at that page was much less useful than this one. I've made a few modifications, and included references from the other article in the version of this page that now appears in association with the term "Toleration;" however for the most part I've simply recreated this page at that location. I hope this merge/redirect will be a useful change. ThaddeusFrye 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)