Tolerant / Intolerant

[Holden]

I've heard a few people say that the definition of 'tolerant' has changed. Perhaps the funniest I heard was John Lofton, who said the new definition of 'tolerant' is "Christians, shut up!" Certainly the word is being used more frequently, but has the meaning really changed? Perhaps the following definitions with dates can help:

Toleration 
1517, "permission granted by authority, license," from M.Fr. tolération (15c.), from L. tolerationem (nom. toleratio) "a bearing, supporting, enduring," from toleratus, pp. of tolerare "to tolerate, lit. "to bear" (see extol). Meaning "forbearance, sufferance" is from 1582. Religious sense is from Act of Toleration, statute granting freedom of religious worship (with conditions) to dissenting Protestants in England, 1689.

Intolerable 
1435, from L. intolerabilis "that cannot bear, that cannot be borne," from in- "not" + tolerabilis "that may be endured," from tolerare "to tolerate" (see toleration). Intolerance "unwillingness to endure a differing opinion" first attested 1765.

Tolerance 
1412, "endurance, fortitude," from O.Fr. tolerance (14c.), from L. tolerantia "endurance," from tolerans, prp. of tolerare "to bear, endure, tolerate" (see toleration). Of authorities, in the sense of "permissive," first recorded 1539; of individuals, with the sense of "free from bigotry or severity," 1765. Meaning "allowable amount of variation" dates from 1868; and physiological sense of "ability to take large doses" first recorded 1875. Tolerant is recorded from 1784. The verb tolerate is attested from 1531.

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php

Text for the aforementioned Act of Toleration: http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/1689toleration.htm

[Mr. Tweedy]

Interesting research.  Those all seem to fall in line with my idea of tollerance, which again makes me think that the word has evolved.

I am thinking, now, that I would like some clarity of definition.  We have three different ideas: 1.) Peacefully permitting the existence and practices of those you disagree with, 2.) Trying to understand and see the good in those you disagree with and 3.) Accepting that what everyone else thinks is just as right and true as what you think.  I say tollerance means the first, slic says it means the second and I feel that the definition is slowly shifting to mean the third.

So, if we cannot agree on which of these things the word "tollerance" means, maybe we should broaden our vocubaly and use a different word for each of the them.

[ClintMemo]

Interesting research.  Those all seem to fall in line with my idea of tollerance, which again makes me think that the word has evolved.

I am thinking, now, that I would like some clarity of definition.  We have three different ideas: 1.) Peacefully permitting the existence and practices of those you disagree with, 2.) Trying to understand and see the good in those you disagree with and 3.) Accepting that what everyone else thinks is just as right and true as what you think.  I say tollerance means the first, slic says it means the second and I feel that the definition is slowly shifting to mean the third.

So, if we cannot agree on which of these things the word "tollerance" means, maybe we should broaden our vocubaly and use a different word for each of the them.

It's interesting that your three definitions imply an ever decreasing amount of close-mindedness:  1) with the most and 3) with the least.  If you added an extra layer on each end then 0) would be discrimination   4) would be assimilation  (insert obligatory Borg comment here )

I'd be happy if we could just get everyone to at least level 1).  "They are not like me, so I will leave them alone."

[Rachel Swirsky]

Is that always possible, however?

There's been a lot of Christian cooption of the language of civil rights, for instance. I taught creative writing in a high school a couple years ago, and the teacher I was working with was a lesbian. There was a man who wanted her and her views to be shut out of the school system. This is not peacefully permitting the existence of others.

His argument was that his intolerance deserved the same respect as her sexual orientation. This is ridiculous on the face of it.

Still, it poses the question: when you have two groups requesting diametrically opposed aims -- one claiming their right to exist in the public square, the other claiming that their religious freedom requires the exclusion of the prior group -- mere peaceful inclusion is no longer sufficient. One has to take a stance on rights.

[Thaurismunths]

So, if we cannot agree on which of these things the word "tollerance" means, maybe we should broaden our vocubaly and use a different word for each of the them.

Tolerance

American Heritage Dictionary
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
  Leeway for variation from a standard.
The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
  Physiological resistance to a poison.
The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.
  Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.
  Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.
The capacity to endure hardship or pain.

Online Etymology Dictionary
1412, "endurance, fortitude," from O.Fr. tolerance (14c.), from L. tolerantia "endurance," from tolerans, prp. of tolerare "to bear, endure, tolerate" (see toleration). Of authorities, in the sense of "permissive," first recorded 1539; of individuals, with the sense of "free from bigotry or severity," 1765. Meaning "allowable amount of variation" dates from 1868; and physiological sense of "ability to take large doses" first recorded 1875. Tolerant is recorded from 1784. The verb tolerate is attested from 1531.

WordNet
1.  the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions 
2.  a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior [syn: permissiveness] [ant: restrictiveness] 
3.  the act of tolerating something 
4.  willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others [ant: intolerance]  
5.  a permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits [syn: allowance] 

Associate words:

Respect
1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in): to differ in some respect. 
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route. 
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment. 
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly. 
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect. 
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents. 
7. favor or partiality. 
8. Archaic. a consideration. 
9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat. 
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights. 
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy. 
12. to relate or have reference to. 
13. in respect of, in reference to; in regard to; concerning. 
14. in respect that, Archaic. because of; since. 
15. pay one's respects, a. to visit in order to welcome, greet, etc.: We paid our respects to the new neighbors. 
b. to express one's sympathy, esp. to survivors following a death: We paid our respects to the family. 
16. with respect to, referring to; concerning: with respect to your latest request. 

Intolerance
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc. 
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat. 
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc. 
4. an intolerant act. 

Bigotry
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot. 

The meaning of the word "tolerance" is not up for debate. If ones intended meaning doesn't match what the dictionary says, than one should use another word, or they may continue using the word how they wish and accept that they will be using it incorrectly. In time, consistently incorrect use of a word will either change the meaning of the word, or expose the user as a fool.

[ClintMemo]

Is that always possible, however?

Yes, but only if everyone is willing.
It's also possible that lightning will strike me before I finish this post - and probably equally likely. 
How about if we gather up all the intolerable people and just dispose of them? 

[Holden]

Thaur - Big thanks to you for the you spent on your post and for including your sources.

I believe the disagreement regarding the term lies in the difference between intolerant actions/deeds/acts and intolerant thoughts/words/opinions. If one person strongly disapproved of yet begrudgingly endured another person's behavior, bemoaning and lamenting through the whole ordeal but made no effort to stop the behavior, in fact even abetted it, would that be and example of tolerant or intolerant behavior? Somewhere in between?

For example, if a Christian mother strongly and repeatedly verbally disapproved of her daughter's groom-to-be because he is Muslim, yet out of love and respect for her daughter, she consents to the marriage and even helps plan and pay for the wedding, though with fairly regular verbal reminders that the disapproves of the groom, is she acting in a tolerant or intolerant manner? Somewhere in between?

[Mr. Tweedy]

The mother is being tollerant.  An intollerant mother would 1.) Use force to stop the wedding or 2.) try to make everyone's life hell by being bitchy.  A mother who lets it proceed while remaining stolid in her disaproval is being tollerant.  (If she approved of the arrangement, no tolleration would be necessary.)

------

Maybe if I withdraw this from the arena of morality and religion, you all will be able to see better where I'm coming from.  Let's talk about bare facts: Suppose a person believes that 2+2=5.  How would one exhibit tollerance for that belief?  Do you say, "Well, your math is as good as mine," or do you nicely inform the person that they are mistaken?  If a person believes the Earth is flat, do you acquiesce and say, "Well, maybe it is; I see the virtue of your viewpoint," or do take them asside and explain how Direct TV works?

[Heradel]

Ah, yes, but math is definitive. 1 will always be 1. Murder can be held to be not always wrong (self defense, if that person is about to kill another). Morality is relative.

One person's view of what is wrong and right can be shaped and changed by the people around them, or the situation (the name escapes me, but the experiment with the students being given the roles of prisoner and wardens).

There is an averaged morality that society seems to adopt, but it's usually under some flux, and can be different from place to place and group to group.

So tolerance is the acceptance of variable morality and the acceptance that you can't make everyone's morality yours.

Now, if your tolerance means that you're accepting that by someone else's morality it's ok to kill you, well, you've got too far. But if it doesn't personally affect you in a direct way (Gay Marriage, Abortion), well, to be tolerant is to say that you would not do whatever is immoral to you, but you cannot make others not do that thing.

The problem is that there are people that believe that their morality being held by a majority of people means that they have the right to set the morality in law for everybody.

[BrandtPileggi]

The mother is being tollerant.  An intollerant mother would 1.) Use force to stop the wedding or 2.) try to make everyone's life hell by being bitchy.  A mother who lets it proceed while remaining stolid in her disaproval is being tollerant.  (If she approved of the arrangement, no tolleration would be necessary.)

I disagree. I feel that the example would be best illustrated by switching and group of people for 'Muslim'. If you take the same example and substitute White and Black for Christian and Muslim, respectively, for many it would become more visceral:


For example, if a White mother strongly and repeatedly verbally disapproved of her daughter's groom-to-be because he is Black, yet out of love and respect for her daughter, she consents to the marriage and even helps plan and pay for the wedding, though with fairly regular verbal reminders that she disapproves of the groom, is she acting in a tolerant or intolerant manner? Somewhere in between?


If she's not willing to explore the possibility that this man will love, honor and cherish her daughter for as long as he shall live than I would say she is not tolerant to Black folks. If being Black is the exclusive criterea, then there must be something about Black people in general, not about this one person, that she is intolerant of.

[Thaurismunths]

I believe the disagreement regarding the term lies in the difference between intolerant actions/deeds/acts and intolerant thoughts/words/opinions. If one person strongly disapproved of yet begrudgingly endured another person's behavior, bemoaning and lamenting through the whole ordeal but made no effort to stop the behavior, in fact even abetted it, would that be and example of tolerant or intolerant behavior? Somewhere in between?

The fact that the mother disapproves at all is a sign that she is intolerant.
In order to have any moral fiber at all there must be things you do no tolerate. What you are discussing isn't "tolerance" but "acceptance." In your examples the mother is intolerant of Muslims/blacks/jugglers, she does however "begrudgingly endure" her daughter's choice. She accepts her daughter's choice, however intolerant she may be of the suitor’s lifestyle.

The mother is being tollerant.  An intollerant mother would 1.) Use force to stop the wedding or 2.) try to make everyone's life hell by being bitchy.  A mother who lets it proceed while remaining stolid in her disaproval is being tollerant.  (If she approved of the arrangement, no tolleration would be necessary.)

No, she is not being tolerant. She is, at best, being accepting. I believe "though with fairly regular verbal reminders that the disapproves of the groom" counts as #2 on your list. And though it may not seem so from your current perspective, try being the daughter whose mother "regularly" reminds her of how much her life choices is loathed. The kind of hypocrisy exhibited in the wedding example is something I have seen very prevalent in all walks of life, not just religious. From office politics to sporting events, we are a hypocritical bunch.

Maybe if I withdraw this from the arena of morality and religion, you all will be able to see better where I'm coming from.  Let's talk about bare facts: Suppose a person believes that 2+2=5.  How would one exhibit tollerance for that belief?  Do you say, "Well, your math is as good as mine," or do you nicely inform the person that they are mistaken?  If a person believes the Earth is flat, do you acquiesce and say, "Well, maybe it is; I see the virtue of your viewpoint," or do take them asside and explain how Direct TV works?

This is apples and orangutans. Math is, as we currently understand it, a very concrete thing. By virtue of counting real objects we can universally confirm that 2 objects plus 2 more objects is 4 objects. It's so universal that we hope to mathematics to communicate with other races, and hopeful with alien life. Tolerance, acceptance, and morality are considerably less so. Perhaps drawing a parallel to something that is equally debatable would help clarify your position?

[raygunray]

Toleration is always espoused by the minority, never the majority.  Once the minority becomes the majority, there is little or no quarter for the former minority.  There are exceptions, such and the Muslim Caliphates of the Middle Ages, but even the minority Christians and Jews were restricted. 

Some think toleration is a "yeah, whatever" view of opposing viewpoints, religions or lifestyles.  In the contemporary sense, it means allowing behavior or practice that causes no physical or prolonged emotional harm to another or encourages predatory behaviour.  So if you have a town that is 90% Christian and there are a handful of atheists, Moslems and gays, a sensible person would accept that there is no threat of harm to the majority.  A  few may convert to the other side, but it won't cause a landslide of defections. I'm paraphrasing much of what JS Mill said, but its my view of it.

But whoever said that America is run by sensible people?

This thread started with "Toleration means Christians-Shut Up."  Been paying attention the last few centuries?  Religious authorities have rarely (unless their faith is the minority) espoused toleration to differing beliefs.  I've noticed there are many self-proclaimed "Conservative Christians" here.  Your leaders have made it clear that "toleration" is a liberal ideology whose motives is to destroy Christianity.   They espouse only voting for true Christian politicians, not keeping company with non or lukewarm Christians, denying gays and non-Christians civil rights, and turning all public schools into parochial schools. 

Where is the toleration in that? Nowhere.  So maybe Christians should just shut up?  I don't agree with that, but many of us involved in this conversation won't cotton to Religion, Inc.'s tendicies to bar the conversation entirely.

[Mr. Tweedy]

How is morality relative?

Is there certain threshhold where, if I get angry enough, it becomes okay for me to shoot people?  Is there a threshold where, if I want something baddly enough, it becomes okay to steal it?  Is rape okay if I'm realy, realy horny?  Etc.

Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics.  Take the most basic moral paradigm: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  How do you negotiate with that statement?  You either are following it, or you aren't.  As in math, coming to the answer might be hard or easy, depending on the situation, but there is a right answer.

Now, if your tolerance means that you're accepting that by someone else's morality it's ok to kill you, well, you've got too far. But if it doesn't personally affect you in a direct way (Gay Marriage, Abortion), well, to be tolerant is to say that you would not do whatever is immoral to you, but you cannot make others not do that thing.

I don't really want to vear off and go there, but both of those things have a direct and relevant impact on society as a whole and on each person in it.  (In the case of abortion, for instance, we have about 45 million fewer people under 30 in the US than we would have had without it.  Quite an impact, on everyone.)

[ClintMemo]

How is morality relative?

What one person thinks is immoral may not be what another person thinks is immoral

Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics.

Really?
I challenge you to prove logically that gay marriage is wrong.

[SFEley]

One person's view of what is wrong and right can be shaped and changed by the people around them, or the situation (the name escapes me, but the experiment with the students being given the roles of prisoner and wardens).

The Stanford Prison Experiment.  Reading about it for the first time forced me to reexamine a large part of my worldview and my opinions about evil.  This is nightmare stuff.

Incidentally, the professor in charge of the experiment, Philip Zimbardo, has a new book out called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.  He writes about the Experiment, about Abu Ghraib, school shootings, and evil on a much smaller and everyday scale, such as schoolyard bullyings and peer torment.  He's been doing a lot of interviews lately, including on podcasts such as Skepticality and Shrink Rap Radio.

[SFEley]

Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics.  Take the most basic moral paradigm: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  How do you negotiate with that statement?  You either are following it, or you aren't.

Mr. Tweedy, I disagree strongly.  Not with the principle (the Golden Rule, aka the Ethic of Reciprocity, is not a paradigm, it's a principle); it is indeed one of the best ideas humanity has ever come up with; but with the notion that it has the hard edges of arithmetic.  It's a good heuristic, but it's not digital.  It's analog.

Mathematics works because it's a closed system with known variables.  When one says "2 + 2 = 4," there is no fear that another digit is going to sneak into the equation, or that the first 2 has communication issues that prevent it from coming to terms with the second 2, or that the plus sign is really a minus sign living a conflicted life.

I could challenge your assertion with any number of scenarios, from gay marriage to civil disobedience to lunch menus, but instead I'll just ask you two questions:

• Do you understand yourself completely?  Do you have a full comprehension of everything you want people to do unto you, and the implications of those desires?
• Do you understand other people completely?  Do you have a full comprehension of their desires, and the implications of those desires?

To say that morality can be mathematical implies that you know all the variables.  It implies omniscience.  If you can honestly answer "Yes" to both of the questions above, then I suppose you may have a...  Wait.  Don't Christians have a name for an omniscient being that knows the hearts and minds of every creature on Earth?

Are you that being?

If you are not...  Might claiming hard-edged, unambiguous moral certainty in all human matters be just a little presumptuous?

[Thaurismunths]

Morality is clean-cut and black and white, very similar to mathematics.  Take the most basic moral paradigm: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  How do you negotiate with that statement?  You either are following it, or you aren't.  As in math, coming to the answer might be hard or easy, depending on the situation, but there is a right answer.

Taken.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What does that mean, exactly?
Literally it means that if I want someone to give me $1000, I should give out $1000. That would be morally correct.
It means that if I want someone to compliment me, I should compliment them. That would also be morally correct.
It means if I like beer, I should buy one for my friend, even if he doesn't like beer or doesn't want to buy me one. Still morally correct.
It means that if I want to see my wife have sex with my best friend, I should have sex with my best friend's wife. Still morally correct.
The golden rule, taken as an absolute, is not black and white. The golden rule does nothing to consider the desires of others and can swiftly become a very selfish ideal.

I don't really want to vear off and go there, but both of those things have a direct and relevant impact on society as a whole and on each person in it.  (In the case of abortion, for instance, we have about 45 million fewer people under 30 in the US than we would have had without it.  Quite an impact, on everyone.)

Any yet we are still over crowded.

[Holden]

I like defining terms, and I've enjoyed many of the thoughtful posts on this thread. In sharing my position about the nature of tolerance and intolerance, there are two points that I'd like to make.

My first point: You can only tolerate that which you dislike or disapprove of. If you enjoy or approve of something, then terms "tolerant" and "intolerant" have no application. If you objectively read the full definitions posted by Thaur and myself, it will be clear that some level of dislike or disapproval is inherent in the term "tolerant". Consider these ridiculous sounding sentences:

"While I enjoy practically all of the stories on Pseudopod, Counting From Ten is my favorite, which I tolerate."

"I tolerate Escape Pod, which is an immensely fun podcast that I enjoy, and I eagerly look forward to each new story."

"He is a believer in the equality of all races because he tolerates blacks and other minorities working in his factories."

It's pretty clear that these sentences sound self-contridictory. The reason for this the term "tolerate", which denotes some level of dislike or disapproval. Here's some sentences that make correct use of the term "tolerate":

"While I enjoy practically all of the stories on Pseudopod, I didn't like Turista, but I can tolerate a bad story every now and then because of the high quality of most the stories they produce."

"Listening to the Escape Pod, an immensely fun podcast that I enjoy, makes it easier for me tolerate my terrible drive to work."

"He is a racist and a bigot, and he only tolerates blacks and other minorities working in his factories because of federal anti-discrimination laws."

These sentences sound reasonable because they are applying the term "tolerate" to situations in which the person is voluntarily choosing to endure something they don't like or approve of.

My second point: There are degrees of tolerance and intolerance. One person can be more or less tolerant than another, or more tolerant of one thing than anther. In the wedding example, the mother could more tolerant by never saying a negative word about the groom and going out of her way to make him feel welcome. She could be more intolerant by refusing to give her consent and refusing to help plan and pay for the wedding.

[SFEley]

I don't really want to vear off and go there, but both of those things have a direct and relevant impact on society as a whole and on each person in it.  (In the case of abortion, for instance, we have about 45 million fewer people under 30 in the US than we would have had without it.  Quite an impact, on everyone.)

On the notion of social impact we fully agree.  In fact, I'd love to get your opinion on Steven Levitt's research correlating Roe vs. Wade with a precipitious drop in nationwide urban crime in the past 30 years.  Statistics indicate that access to legal abortion has likely made the country much safer.   (It sounds extraordinarily callous, but the demographics are pretty clear: all of those people who don't exist?  The vast majority of them would have been racial minorities, in poverty, undereducated, with very little opportunity for advancement.  And that means crime and violence.)

I don't know what formal studies have been done on the socio-economic implications of gay marriage; but I look at the amount of money that goes into the wedding industry every year, into co-pays and increased efficiency of health benefits for spouses, into leisure and dining and all the things that couples do for each other that involve spending money...  Then I look at the higher-than-average purchasing power of the homosexual demographic.  I look at their education level, at the sharply reduced rates of domestic violence, at the success and overall happiness of kids who are intentionally adopted and not accidentally conceived at a really bad time...  And I have to wonder.  Have you ever stopped to think at all about the possible social upsides?  Have you really done the analysis to conclude that the downsides are greater?

I do not believe that society should be empowered to make individual decisions for people when there's no direct and immediate threat to others' life, liberty or property.  Suggesting that the overall good of society should take priority over individual liberty is socialism, Mr. Tweedy, and I believe it's been shown not to work in practice.  However, examining the social implications of individual choices is a fine and appropriate course of study.

I do think about this stuff.  And I think that, from a perspective of social good, most of the objections raised to some adults' consensual lifestyle choices are moronic.  There's no actual good achieved by stopping other people from exercising liberty in these cases -- and much lost opportunity and squandered resources.

[FNH]

The problem is that there are people that believe that their morality being held by a majority of people means that they have the right to set the morality in law for everybody.

Thats how democracy works.  The majority enforces it's will.  If that will includes making laws to support a moral standpoint thats its right.

If it's possible to prevent a democracy from imposing its majority-moral's then you no longer have a true democracy.

The will of the people and all that.

If Florida ( or any other state ) decides to be the "state of intolerance" isnt it they're right as a democracy ?  Wouldn't it be intolerant/immoral to not allow them.

[SFEley]

If it's possible to prevent a democracy from imposing its majority-moral's then you no longer have a true democracy.

Which is exactly why the United States has never been a true democracy.  I don't know if a true democracy has ever existed at any scale larger than the town level.  The nation I live in is a constitutional republic, as are most other nations of the modern world. 

This is important, because pure democracy very easily enables evil of precisely the sort you describe: minorities crushed beneath the heel of an angry mob.  Constitutional republics can enable this too, but it's a slower and harder process.  The ideal of any constitution is to impair evil more efficiently than it impairs good.

If Florida ( or any other state ) decides to be the "state of intolerance" isnt it they're right as a democracy ?  Wouldn't it be intolerant/immoral to not allow them.

The issue of the primacy of states' rights was settled over a century and a half ago.  You probably missed the war; so did I; but I believe there was a movie made about it.

[ClintMemo]

The problem is that there are people that believe that their morality being held by a majority of people means that they have the right to set the morality in law for everybody.

Thats how democracy works.  The majority enforces it's will.  If that will includes making laws to support a moral standpoint thats its right.

If it's possible to prevent a democracy from imposing its majority-moral's then you no longer have a true democracy.

The will of the people and all that.

If Florida ( or any other state ) decides to be the "state of intolerance" isnt it they're right as a democracy ?  Wouldn't it be intolerant/immoral to not allow them.

When it's good it's called "Democracy". When it's bad, it's called "Mob Rule." 

The United States is not a democracy.  It's a Republic. 
The US also has a bill of rights.  This keeps the majority from inflicting total will on the minority (unless they amend the constitution first.)

It also brings up an interesting question - what happens when the majority is wrong?

[FNH]

I do not believe that society should be empowered to make individual decisions for people when there's no direct and immediate threat to others' life, liberty or property.

Whats your viewpoint on a recent news story where a group/individuals are being prosecuted in Germany ( I believe ) for owning Pornographic Images of Children that were computer generated.  No actual children involved. 

I have to say that I was struggeling with that.  I find it horrid and detestable yet no children were hurt or involved.   Now in theory it could lead in a chain of events to actual child abuse.  Merely owning a computer generated image was a crime.  Would that be a justified prosecution?  The Germans obviously think so.

Hmm...

[FNH]

It also brings up an interesting question - what happens when the majority is wrong?

Your stuffed.  They elect the "wrong" officials who enforce the "wrong" laws.

You get into the problem of trying to define "wrong".  If you have no solid "moral" standpoint then your only position to judge what is moral and what can be tolerated is to take a majority-cultural view.  The majority-cultral view has no reason not to move towards perscecuting minorities.

( My brain is starting to hurt )

[SFEley]

Whats your viewpoint on a recent news story where a group/individuals are being prosecuted in Germany ( I believe ) for owning Pornographic Images of Children that were computer generated.  No actual children involved.

I believe they should not be prosecuted.  If there are no victims, there is no crime.

Now, the logical fallacy here would be to extend that statement into an assumption that I endorse the art itself, or the people who create and buy it.  I haven't seen the images in question, and I don't know the precise circumstances, so I won't say anything definitive about it; but I do think it ought to be possible for most people to distinguish a difference between "I do not approve of that" and "That should be illegal."