Hey everyone, this is my first post on here, but I felt like this is a topic that I can easily relate to.
As an Atheist, I have often come under the scrutiny of intolerance. Similarly, I have several homosexual friends who basically live intolerance here in America. I come from a Jewish family who, despite doing nothing wrong, got kicked out of their countries in the 1940s at the risk of death merely because of their religious preference.
To identify with how to approach tolerance, one must first be able to identify it. To merely group all forms of tolerance on the same plane of existence is obviously flawed. For example, for a Christian to be tolerant to the beliefs of a Jewish person can't even be compared to anyone being tolerant to a pedophile. However, it can be argued that both deserve tolerance.
As you read this, think about what you would think if there was no Bible; no doctrine with which you govern your lives to decide upon what is suitable for your tolerance and which deserves damnation. For starters, to truly understand tolerance one must step off of their elitist throne and acknowledge that their standards of living aren't necessarily the absolute correct ones. One needs to recognize that there are hundreds of unique religions out there. Thousands of uniquely developed cultures, law system, societies, standards of living, practices, and any other sort of human variant. Your book may tell you that your beliefs are the correct ones, but all of the other holy documents do the same. To blatantly state that your beliefs are the correct ones with no exceptions is arrogance in it's simplest form.
In my personal opinion, tolerance should be universal within the boundaries of a system of law. For example, I'm not trying to say that I'm tolerant of a man who kills a family with children. In the court system of pretty much any country in the world, that is a crime, and will NOT be tolerated. However, if someone has life choices (or life conditions) that suit the way they wish to live without harming others, then it is my personal philosophy that these people have a human right to live the lives they are given as they see fit. 'Normality' is a made up term to define a social standard, but why is the irregular necessarily wrong?
In a world where the average IQ spanned from 85 to 115, Albert Einstein held an IQ of over 160. Did he meet normality? No. But he was unarguably one of the most influential minds of modern physics. In a different scope of examination, the "normal" person lives a relatively religious life, but does not devote their lives entirely to that religion. Monks who spend their entire lives researching and worshiping a religion are by no means "normal" but the Christian population would have no problem with their breach in normality.
'Normality' is a made up term to try and type-cast people into roles of prejudice and bias. To go outside of these boundaries is not a sin by any means, because many people who aren't necessarily normal by the standard definition live extremely moral and respectable lives. My point in all this is that to even try and define normality, and therefore establish where to draw the line of tolerance, is something that is so arrogant that it is insulting to even think that others put themselves in a position of superiority. What is 'normal' is limited and defined within cultures and practices, so no one can simply assume that their culture of upbringing, and practices of choice are the right one simply because it's what they perceive to be normal.
