Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)


Could this work? Is there always a clear-cut definition of intolerance, and could it be regulated? Or is this complete hypocrisy?

I completely agree with this. It is reality.

No, this can't work...for the very reason you just gave. Who's definition of intolerance are we talking about? The Police are intolerant of criminals...so any action to curtail crime should be punishable? There is no way in a society that you could get a consensus on what should or shouldn't be tolerated.

Which society is it that came to the consensus that the New Testament is the book that deciedes what should and shouldn't be tolerated.


consensus:
agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole;

I have a great example of intollerance:

RM Liberals vs. Anything They Don't Agree With

I'm intolerant of spelling errors.

@%^$&*#%^*@$%&#@%^@$%

Bigot.

I'd never make a law to prevent people from doing things like, oh..getting married.

I would make a law preventing you from posting.

Ridiculous. Be tolerant of everyone that is tolerant of what you are tolerant of, and intolerant of everyone that is intolerant of everything you are tolerant of.

In other words, if you don't agree with me, you're wrong. What a load of crap.

I disagree. I think the general idea is sound, but the way he wrote it sounded like an SNL skit.

You should be tolerant of PEOPLE, not their beliefs, and especially not their words and actions if those words and actions promote intolerance of other PEOPLE.

But isn't he saying we should lock people up that are intolerant? Granted, he's talking about locking up people that are intolerant to an excessive level, but still?

In other words, he's talking about being intolerant of intolerant people. That's how I read it. Well, that's how I read it after 7 or so reads. There are only so many times the word 'tolerant' and 'intolerant' can be used before a migraine sets in. Take my post for example...

Buckle your seatbelts, this may stray off the beaten path a bit...

At the most simple level, it does appear absurd to say that it is OK to be intolerant of the intolerant, but I think in our hearts we all know what the author is getting at. There is no reason why we should have to put up with hate-filled people just because that hate is their "opinion" or their "beliefs" or their "faith". The author used the words "tolerant" and "intolerant" way too many times, and it's why in the end it sounded like a parody of itself.

His solution of criminalizing intolerance is of course absurd. However, the excellent point he makes is at the beginning of his paragraph where he states that if the tolerant people of the world continue to be tolerant even of those who are intolerant, then their (our) right to be tolerant will eventually be lost to the rights of others to be intolerant.

It is just like the way that religious conservatives, Christian Fundamentalists mostly, have twisted the First Amendment's guarantees of religious freedom and freedom from government sponsored religion into a right for them to practice their religions even to the point of codifying their beliefs into law in some places. Those people are using their "right to free exercise" to try to trump the rights of citizens who are NOT members of their churches through discriminatory practices, all in the name of religion.

It's not a balancing test. The rules of civil society trump religious practices. Ask any snake handler, Rastafarian, Fundementalist Mormon, or practitioner of Santeria. If your religion promotes a practice that has been determined to be harmful to society, you lose.

At this point, most of the discriminatory practices are in the form of speech and denial of membership in a private club (church), both of which are protected. But every now and then, some person tests the waters and promotes some religious action in the public sphere, and a lot of the time it takes a lawsuit brought to a high court to stop this illegal practice.

I knew you'd bring this around to Christmas trees somehow

Seriously, you went right to the lawbooks (being a lawyer, it's understandable). I read it from a more human emotional level. You can't legislate beliefs. If a person is morally intolerant of another because of the intolerated persons beliefs, that is their decision. If I am against the intolerant person because of their intolerance, aren't I just as intolerant? I am against someone because of their beliefs. Which of us is right?

You would be in the right

What’s the difference? I don’t advocate criminalizing beliefs, but I certainly don’t think that every belief deserves respect. I’ve extrapolated on why that is before.


What I said earlier. It's a sliding scale. Intolerance of people, for who they are, is wrong, and should not be tolerated. Intolerance of beliefs is the middle ground, and only becomes an issue when that intolerance leads to words and actions of denunciation of PEOPLE who hold those beliefs. Intolerance of those words and actions (of intolerance or otherwise) is perfectly appropriate. We don't tolerate robbery, we should not tolerate discrimination either.

Is it always easy to draw the line between being tolerant of a person and a belief?

Is anything easy?

I draw the line with "who the person is" as opposed to "what the person believes".