Guest guest Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Barclay (I think) says: >>The concern for tolerance cuts in many directions ... While the linguistic arguments on this matter are indecisive (is 'God' a proper name or a title?"), I have felt it better to equalize all parties in this matter, rather than succumb to the Jewish and Christian presumption that only their Deity is truly 'God,' while the rest are merely 'gods' (or worse).<< --Sounds reasonable. Nobody should have to put their own deity in the category of fantasy or superstition while another's deity is put on a pedestal. Since most people enjoy putting their deities on pedestals, it's reasonable to allow everyone to do it, while encouraging humility all around. >>Of course no stance here is truly 'objective', since 'tolerance' and 'respect' are just as value-laden as is any more particularized commitment. But I think I know which is more conducive to that 'civilized behavior' (kalokagathia) which phus identified as the only basis on which a pluralist society can survive (Ant. 16.177-78).<< --It's impossible to gain agreement on talking points, but it is possible to encourage people to listen and not to allow insecurity to override freedom of speech and civility. The consequences of the opposite are vivid enough when they become widespread that tolerance becomes an operative value rather than a buzzword. Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.