If a virtue is used dishonorably, could it become a vice? If someone tolerates something that is harmful, they are no longer benefitting society. Even though practicing tolerance is viewed in a positive light, the masses do not consider that the meaning behind the definition can apply to darker circumstances. Depending on the situation, tolerance should be either regulated, upgraded, or forsaken if the intended effect, peace and goodwill, no longer exists. It was once said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (Burke, n.d.). To tolerate a crime or damaging behavior, one only needs to witness it and ignore it. Merriam-Webster’s definition of tolerance is “willingness to accept feelings, habits, or …show more content…
What to tolerate and what not to tolerate can still be objective and unclear depending on the situation. For example, how much should one tolerate a disabled child’s behavior if the behavior has a chance to be corrected over time? Should one tolerate a child who throws tantrums because they do not understand a better way to deal with their emotions or should one become strict in fixing the behavior? While a disabled child may not always understand the situation well enough to properly react to it, a guardian can not just ignore the behavior in favor of appearing more relaxed and accepting. Tolerating a child’s misbehavior, disabled or not, is an excellent example of when tolerance only causes grief. The child will grow up believing unruly behaviors is ok which will only cause the child and the people around him to suffer. Another example is whether or not one should tolerate their friend’s smoking habit. Should the smoker be allowed to make their own decisions or should others be allowed to persuade them to behave differently? In examples like this, when another person’s safety or health is at stake, people should be allowed to intervene. There are an abundance of stories where the family or friends of someone would tolerate another’s unhealthy behavior and the person would end up suffering greatly for it. Even though the smoker may be an autonomous adult who is capable of making their …show more content…
For the last several decades, the Muslim community in western countries has increased in size; consequently, so have tensions and conflicts (Jailani, 2016). A prominent debate is whether or not Muslim women should be allowed to wear headscarfs, burqa, and niqabs; otherwise known as veils (Jailani, 2016). The western world tends to see these veils as a sign of oppression; as a result, laws and regulations have and are being passed to ban them from public areas (Jailani, 2016). Whether or not one agrees with Islam or its practices is irrelevant; allowing these bans to be passed is tolerating intolerance. These laws are said to be just one of the countless examples of tolerating cultural assimilation in favor of the more advanced western culture over the Islamic culture (Jailani, 2016). Although it can be said that prohibiting the use of veils in public will circumvent female oppression, those with opposing views argue that even those who try to spread western ideals in good nature are being intolerant (Jailani, 2016). There is no denial that this topic is a double edged sword, both solutions seem to have downfalls. That is to say, tolerating the veils can mean tolerating symbols of oppression over women; hence, we value the peace over justice (Jailani, 2016). In contrast, outlawing the use of veils in public is still a sign of religious intolerance (Jailani, 2016). While both sides have
In the article, Chesler uses several persuasive appeals in an attempt to convince readers to support France’s ban on head coverings. While some may argue that banning religious clothing infringes on Islamic law, Chesler points out that “many eloquent, equally educated Muslim religious… women insist that the Koran does not mandate that women cover their faces… Leading Islamic scholars agree with them.” In an appeal to logos, Chesler uses facts, gathered from educated Muslim women and Islamic scholars, to show that this argument is illogical because the burqa is not required. Chesler continues logos appeals by citing the Sheikh of al-Azhat University as saying “The niqab is tradition. It has no connection to religion.” This passage demonstrates ethos as well, but carries on the idea that burqas and niqabs are not required by Islamic law, making the ban perfectly logical. The idea is that, since these garments are not mandatory in the Koran’s broad requisite of “modest dress,” the ban does not infringe on religious rights, making the ban a logical choice. Chesler takes the argument one step further by insisting that the burqa is not only optional, it is detrimental to wearers. The argument that “it is a human rights violation and constitutes both a health hazard and is a form of torture” to women who wear burqa exhibits both logos and pathos. By pointing out that burqas are a possible “health hazard,” Chesler uses unappealing syntax to make readers believe that burqas are unhealthy and i...
throughout society today where people commit acts such as the lynching of blacks due to a deep hate or the killing of a loved one, where at the time seems to be the only answer.
Muslims, Sikhs, and many other religious affiliations have often been targeted for hate crimes, racial slurs, and misfortunate events. We are all different in our own ways some are good and some are bad yet one event changes everything for everyone affiliated with the group. The book The Politics of the Veil by Joan Scott a renowned pioneer in gender studies gives a detailed and analytical book of about the French views towards the Muslim females in France during 2004. The author talks about why the French governments official embargo of wearing conspicuous signs is mainly towards the headscarves for Muslim girls under the age of eighteen in public schools. The main themes of book are gender inequality, sexism, and cultural inequality historical schools used in the book are history of below, woman’s history, cultural history, and political history. In this essay, I will talk about why Joan Scotts argument on why the French government’s ban on wearing conspicuous signs was
Lemon, Michele. "Understanding Does Not Always Lead to Tolerance." Reader's Choice. 3rd Canadian Edition. Kim Flachmann, Michael Flachmann, & Alexandra MacLennan.
In an allegedly postmodern world, when looking at tolerance for ideologies other than our own is said to be the only absolute and controlling ideology. Inasmuch, as its doctrine of “sin” suggests that all humans are inherently flawed; Christianity is often viewed as judgmental and intolerant of others. Granted the approach of a certain Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas pushes the extreme that makes all Christians cringe in this area. Christians should not be embarrassed of the doctrine of sin today. Moreover, Christianity should not try to soften what it says about the human condition to be more readily acceptable to a broader world. This world needs help, guidance, and rules if we are to succeed as a human race.
Although conforming gives security, it also offers harm towards others if you use it against them.
In response to your question on relativism, what I mean is that the underlying assumption in society is: there is no absolute truth. You believe what you want, and that is okay because I can believe what I want. Toleration is simply stating that I will not contend
I will advance the thesis that the banning on Muslim headscarves in French schools is not justified. By saying that the French ban on Muslim headscarves in public schools is not justified, I mean that, even though this ban was implemented as a means to neutralize public space, in hope of developing autonomy, as well as to protect females’ rights in traditional Muslim communities, the ban actually infringes on a more pressing rights of a person, and thus means that it is not justified as it does more harm than good. I have two reasons for attacking the justification of the ban on Muslim headscarves; first, the children’s autonomy; and second, positive and negative liberty. As mentioned above, my thesis asserting that the ban on Muslim headscarves in French public schools is not justified is heavily dependent on the fact that “banning adults from wearing religious symbols in public institutions an infringement of basic human rights (Gereluk 2005, p.260) ”, in which I will illustrate that the French government’s justifications are actually derived from a mere intolerance of Islam; I will first disprove the justifications provided for this ban and reveal their foundation of intolerance, then I will proceed to prove the that the ban is limiting basic human rights.
It is amazing how there are so many different views on what is considered deviant, bad or good. There are so many cultures with different beliefs as to how people should act and that has a huge influence on the perception of deviance in the world today.
In life, we come across all varieties of people with different beliefs and customs. It is inevitable. Therefore, tolerance is crucial to promote world peace, prosperity, and harmony. I believe in tolerance and understanding of others.
There are many different views towards Muslim choice of clothing especially wearing the veil. “I wear it believing it is necessary, but someone else can be wearing it believing that she is doing something extra” said Hamna Ahmed. One of the many reasons a Muslim can be wearing the veil are their own personal decisions too. Hamna has been wearing it for seven years now, despite her mother and three of her four sisters staying uncovered. Socially this causes an issue with the meaning of the veil and conflict with other groups. With many different consumptions of religion, what it means, what is considered to be practicing and what is not can lead to negative misunderstandings. Ultimately the decisions are up to the individuals although; there is likely to be misinterpretation between the meaningfulness of religion to family and society. On an even bigger scale of things this could also impact society and it...
"Deviance, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. There is nothing inherently deviant in any human act, something is deviant only because some people have been successful in labeling it so." – J.L. Simmons
299). The study consisted of having in-depth personal interviews to share their experiences of being a Muslim American woman (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 300). Veiling to these women was a way of freedom while also having a Muslim identity (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 301). It was also a source of behavior control, to not be sexually objectified, a way of commanding respect from others and even a source of checking their own behavior (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 301). One of the women interviewed said, veiling to her was a way to feel connected to other Muslim woman who veil (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 302). Veiling can be a way to feel connected to your religion and God as well as being connected to those who practice the same faith, it can be considered an act of membership. Many of the women interviewed noted they have been removed from planes, been treated unfairly, and have had strangers shout at them all for just being Muslim and being more visibly recognized from veiling (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 303). This is an example of how media can affect the general population. When the media only shows radicals and compares all Muslims to being terrorist or dangerous they are actually putting Muslim people at risk of being assaulted in public. Muslim woman in particular are more at risk for being assaulted as they are more identifiable. So while veiling can be a source of empowerment and freedom for women it is a double-edged sword because it also puts them at further risk of being
As we all have observed, throughout history each culture or society has unique norms that are acceptable to that group of people. Therefore, to establish and come to the acceptance of these basic norms, each society must develop its’ own strategies and techniques to encourage the fundamentals of behavior, which is clear in our modern society. Most do assume that everyone in a society will follow and respect such norms. However, some tend to deviate from the adequate norms and demonstrate deviant behavior. Nevertheless, we are inclined to ask ourselves, why do people decide to violate such important standards of living?
In numerous countries, particularly in the West, Muslims are currently looked upon with terror and suspicion, just as they are not by any means a part of the communities in which they live in. The Muslim veil, a long way from being the wonderful clothing of humble and devotion as Muslims see it, is viewed as an image of some dangerous religion. Young Muslim men wearing a facial hair are seen as extremists, and are stopped and searched as possible terrorists. Indeed, even government officials now talk about Islam and Muslims just as if they are considered to be hidden enemies inside these countries, who must be observed carefully.