Traditionally, open-minded secular liberal rationalists have not made a case for tolerance.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive.
Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.
There is no religion that was founded on intolerance - and no religion that does not value the sanctity of human life.
I come from an almost wholly secular background and have no quarrel with religion.
Tolerance is not really a lived virtue; it's more of a cerebral ascent.
There's a group of people - maybe the secular Taliban is a good name for them - who have morphed this idea, that you have to accept my values being every bit as cherished as your values. That's not tolerance... There are too many things in this world which we sit back and tolerate.
We've become more tolerant because we're tired of the debate.
Obviously a primary liberal conviction is that we should be tolerant of other peoples' convictions. But if we believe in something, we had better find ways to say so convincingly.
The word 'tolerance' once meant we all have the right to argue rationally for our deepest convictions in the public arena. Now it means those convictions are not even subject to rational debate.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.