July 6, 2015
-
Tolerance Talk by Ravi Zacharias
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3721&v=uyTa5r4GG4M
Is Tolerance Intolerant? Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion
Difference between an opinion and a conviction - Opinion is a preference, a hierarchy of options, a choice, a preference. Conviction is rooted in conscience, in soul. You cannot change it without changing yourself. When convictions collide, disagree with cordiality, interact with civility.
Why do we even have to be discussing tolerance? So easy to offend. Don't say things with a wrong motive or a wrong attitude.
Three ideas that brought us to this point began in 1960's. Daniel Jankelovitch: Culture attempts to provide a coherent set of answers to the existential questions/situations that confront all human beings in the passage of their lives. Cultural revolution makes a break from the shared meanings of the past. Break began in the 1960 with three moods:
Secularization - the process by which religious ideas, institutions and interpretations loose social significance. Sanctity of life, Vietnam War... In moral issues, religion is seen as prejudiced, has an agenda, not objective. Religions views marginalized, lost social significance. Secularization per se not bad. We don't want a theocracy in which those who represent God start to play God. Many bad examples in history. But when secularization does not allow free discourse of religious ideas we run into the problem of necessary definitions.
Trial of Larry Flynt - his lawyer erased distinctions between profane and sacred. What is the difference between pornography and art? The same differences between eggs and poop from the same chicken, between cow secretions - milk and urine. Lies - not knowing the difference between that which is nourishment and that which is garbage. Porno creates a hunger that no one human being can satisfy. Secularism run wild eradicates a culture's sense of shame. When things are wrong, shame is healthy.
Pluralization - a competing number of world views available, and no one view dominates. Good because of many options and ideas. Legitimate, but not good if it takes on the meaning of relativism. Another deadly course.
either / or - law of non contradiction (Western)
both / and - thesis + antithesis = synthesis (Eastern) contradictions not a problem
So we have to pick one of these, right? Which do we choose? To answer the question we use either/or. That is the only choice that makes sense. Easterners also use the either/or. Contradictions are deadly in both ideas and life. Infinite sceptics engaged in undermining their own minds. Too much pluralization that abandons the law of non contradiction leads to a loss or reason.
Privatization - (21st Century Schizoid Man - King Crimson quoted) Compelled to sever your commitments and relegate them to your private world. Don't bring it into the public world. Example of Christmas: no problem with anyone wishing a Merry Christmas in Thailand or China (or Japan), but people get offended in the US. Try playing a carol in a school, even the instrumental versions and it is objected to. Thanksgiving is now Turkey Day. To relegate the sacred to one's private world is to devoid it of meaning.
consequenses: 3 forms of moral issues in cultures - Three kinds of cultures
theonomism - "God's law" - self evident in human heart commonly felt in society - a consensus on certain norms withing the society. Like India.
heteronomism - "different law" - two distinct sets - the handful at the top dictates to the masses below, and the masses must follow whether they agree or not. Like Marxism, Islam. Law comes from above.
autonomism - "self law" - America. But do we respect the autonomy or each individual? Sometimes it is only the guise of autonomy. If I have to respect a person who wants to live a materialistic life, should not the compliment be returned if a Christian wants to live a live following God? If a Christian expresses a different view, the switch is made to a heteronomous system that tells the Christian that he has to follow the crowd. Bait and switch. Autonomous cultures need to be mutually respectful. Freedom can be destroyed with retraction but also by abuse.
Example: Dinner in Moscow - would you like dessert? What do you have? Ice cream. What else? Ice cream. What flavor would you like? Vanilla. Any other flavor? Vanilla. The waitress actually thought she gave then a choice of desserts. Game of tolerance can be like this, where we think we are given a choice, but are actually being dictated to. Civility is probably a better word than tolerance. You don't have to accept what another believes, and should not be forced to celebrate it. Tolerance implies disagreement, and it can be done civilly. This goes for both sides.
