home › Body › The problem of religious tolerance. Ra Tolerance is? What are its types and how are they manifested

The problem of religious tolerance. Ra Tolerance is? What are its types and how are they manifested

“When there is no agreement among the comrades, their business will not go well ...”

Tolerance is tolerance for other, opposite customs, customs, culture, behavior. Also, this concept is often used in the aspect of interethnic and interfaith relations, where it denotes tolerance for other religious views, nationalities and traditions.

It is with this interpretation of the concept that we encounter most often. But what we are used to is not always an undeniable axiom. For example, words that have confidently and permanently entered our everyday life do not always have a single meaning. And the case with “tolerance” is just like that... But I propose to talk about the ambiguity of the term later, and now pay attention to the key point - the result that the manifested tolerance and its antipode, intolerance, lead to.

The result of tolerance and intolerance in infographics!

The manifestation of understanding, respect, patience, recognition of the value of the rights of another person, as components of tolerance, naturally leads humanity to peace and order, harmony and progress. Actions that are directly opposite carry the threat of war, and ultimately destruction modern civilization and her achievements.
Visually, these patterns can be seen in the infographic above. And to find clues on how to avoid the deplorable situation in the lower hemisphere and come to world peace, as in the upper one, you can learn from my article.

Everyone has “his own” tolerance: the ambiguity of the concept!

Now we will not talk about how everyone understands tolerance, but about the fact that each science has developed its own definition of this concept. The definition of the term, which can be read above, is borrowed from sociologists. It is the most popular, since it is quite logical that people living in society are concerned about nothing more than communicative tolerance, which is studied by sociology. Physicians, engineers, ecologists, as well as representatives of other wonderful professions may face a “different” tolerance.

What was the Nobel Prize for Tolerance in Medicine awarded for?

Many insist on the initial origin of the medical term "tolerance", and only then - its transformation into a social and psychological one. Perhaps there is some truth in this, but the second part will not be superfluous to doubt. And the thing is that the use of the term "tolerance" in the XVIII century. attributed to Antoine Destut de Tracy - the same philosopher and politician who also began to use the term "ideology" first.

In the XIX century. V Russian Empire liberal forces also used this concept, which might have been developed if there had not been a reshuffling of forces in the political arena of Russia. With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, there could be no talk of any "tolerance", well, perhaps only about medical. So let's go back to it.

Tolerance was made into a scientific medical term by Peter Brian Medawar in the middle of the 20th century. By it, he understood the lack of response of the immune system or its weakened response to the antigen. That is, simply put, we are talking about the continuity of the body of foreign tissues that are transplanted to a person during an operation and which he simply “tolerates.” Having discovered acquired immune tolerance, in 1960 he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Approximately in this interpretation, tolerance was given to Soviet citizens in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1977. Therefore, if we look for the roots of the appearance of this term in the post-Soviet space, we can indeed say that they have a medical background. So how to choose the original Russian word to identify the phenomenon that we are studying, it did not work, most likely there was a borrowing of the term from one scientific branch to another based on their similarity.

But the similarity of medical and social tolerance is obvious - in both cases, tolerance is manifested. The difference lies only in the object that has to be endured: in one situation, these are foreign tissues or organs, in the other, foreign views on religion, ideals, the order of things, etc. Although here I would add one more thing: tolerance in the immune system works on the subconscious level, tolerance in society - solely due to the involvement of consciousness. And in the latter case, consciousness must reach in its development the highest level otherwise it cannot be.

Along with immunology, this term is actively used in pharmacology, narcology, but everywhere it essentially means the same thing - the absence of the body's reaction to any external factors. And this understanding of the concept is very similar to the one I gave at the beginning of the article.

What kind of tolerance is possible in technical sciences?

The work of an engineer is calculations, projections, calculations, drawings and a lot of boring and repetitive actions from day to day. How do I know this? From my own experience. And if not for the article:, my experience as an ordinary engineer at the enterprise would continue to grow further, while my savings would melt even before receiving the next salary. But let's not talk about sad things, let's get back to our question.

The main task of an engineer is to be accurate in everything. Except for some situations that are allowed by tolerance. Its synonym in engineering is the term "tolerance", which is understood as the difference between the largest and smallest values that are set on the dimensions or properties of the part. This difference is considered to be an acceptable, tolerable error that will not lead to deformation of the part or loss of its function.

And although such an interpretation seems already somewhat distant from the usual perception of tolerance, yet here we are faced with a “difference” that we have to “endure”.

What do ecologists mean by tolerance?

The whole essence of tolerance "ecologically" is revealed in Shelford's Law, formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. It is as follows: the lack of prosperity of the body is caused by excessive or insufficient influence of any factor, which can lead to its level reaching the limit of stability (endurance) , i.e. tolerance.

And here the most interesting begins! If such an ecological definition of tolerance is transferred to the social plane, then it can quite “take root” on it. If earlier we talked about tolerance as tolerance, now we have the opportunity to operate with new synonyms for this word, borrowed from ecologists - this is endurance and sustainability.

Why not? If we show tolerance towards other beliefs and views, then we are resistant to them, that is, we are confident in the correctness of our worldview so much that we are not afraid of its change due to the influence of views alien to us. At the same time, by showing tolerance, we demonstrate our endurance. After all, only a strong-willed, hardy person can culturally resist someone else's (often diametrically opposite or even hostile) opinion, while not trying to humiliate, hurt the opponent's feelings, convert "to his faith."

Thus, together with you, we have analyzed the concepts of tolerance taken from various scientific fields. By some particular, separate features, they undoubtedly differ, but their essence remains common: any tolerance is based on “tolerance” and “difference”, and if we speak quite generally, on tolerance for difference and differences.

Tolerance and tolerance - is it possible to put an equal sign between them?

If you enter the role of a thoughtless formalist literalist, then yes, indeed, one could put an equal sign between these two concepts. After all, the word "tolerance" (tolerantia), borrowed from Latin, is present in many modern European languages:

Tolerance (English) - tolerance;

Toleranz (German) - tolerance;

Tolerance (fr.) - tolerance.

There is no other word for "tolerance" in these languages. Therefore, formally for Western cultures, it may be one and the same ... Or perhaps they don’t even think about the similarities and differences between the two concepts under consideration.

Whatever it was, but in the Russian language there are two separate words - tolerance and tolerance. And even if they are synonyms, they still have a different lexical color. And if you dig deeper, then they have completely different meanings ...

What's the first thing that comes to your mind when you say the word "endure"? Surely, you presented a depressing picture in the office of an ordinary official of the following plan: he sits and gnashes his teeth at his boss, not sharing his views (especially on duty on holidays), but he will still do as he orders, because "patience and labor will grind everything. And besides, it’s better to agree peacefully, because the boss has more power, and therefore, levers of influence on the subordinate.

How do you imagine the manifestation of tolerance? Important negotiations between two business partners: they see the future project differently, but none of them is going to endure unfavorable conditions for themselves. What follows from this? Everyone will remain with their own opinion, without imposing it on a partner and respecting the choice of the latter. They will simply part amicably, preferring to realize their plans alone or with another investor.

As for me, this is the best illustrative example for understanding the difference between the two concepts. We will try to systematize them in the form of general conclusions:

Tolerance is an active behavior, tolerance is, on the contrary, a passive one. In the first case, a person shows a willingness to conduct a dialogue with a person of opposing views, in the second, such a readiness is not observed. And there is only the ability to silently accept the surrounding reality without trying to change it, to express one's own opinion.
In relations where tolerance is manifested, both subjects are equal and independent individuals. Where there is tolerance, there are signs of dependence of one on the other indirectly or indirectly.
If a person is tolerant of something, then he behaves meaningfully. In this case, his consciousness is involved. In the case of tolerance, it is not at all necessary for a person to pass his need to "tolerate" through consciousness. Just most often endure out of habit, because it is necessary. And so, if the consciousness in the process of patience suddenly turns on, like a light bulb in an unlit room, it is quite possible that patience will come to an end. Enlightenment, of course, will not come by itself. Some push is needed. For me, it was a video that opened up new horizons and prospects for me in terms of an alternative source of income:

Only after watching it, I realized that I simply endure an unloved job, an eternally dissatisfied boss, a small salary, and my patience does not benefit anyone. When I got tired of enduring, I started trading on binary options. I mastered Viktor Samoilov’s strategy “Optional scalper” step by step according to his article: after which I, a person ignorant of options up to this point, began to succeed in successfully making transactions and getting the long-awaited profit.

In a word, what I am talking about: patience / tolerance, in my opinion, is a rather negative, destructive phenomenon, while tolerance is useful and creative. Therefore, it is in no way possible to put an identical sign between them, and I think that my argument has completely convinced you of this.

Tolerance - is it dangerous for society?

Tolerance in several dictionaries is interpreted as "tolerance" or "tolerance". Then it can be considered again one of the synonyms for the word "tolerance". However, this is not quite true. Tolerance is a mass manifestation of the consciousness of a group of people in relation to the religious views of a minority (a kind of ideology), while tolerance is a manifestation of one individual.

And now it's time to figure out whether it is a useful phenomenon for society or vice versa.
What is wrong with the fact that one person can freely practice his religion among hundreds of other non-believers and not be persecuted for it? Nothing bad. Moreover, this is the ideal to which a civilized society should aspire.

And if you think at a primitive level, then the following conclusions may arise by themselves:

1. Tolerance is good.
2. Tolerantism is a concept identical to tolerance, only on a more global scale.
3. So, tolerance is good squared, or even cubed, and perhaps to some other degree.

But back to our reservation about primitiveness. Yes, if you think narrowly, do not deviate left and right, tolerance without extremes is really good. Only with tolerance there are excesses. And they can be traced especially clearly on the example of European countries and the USA.

Tolerance in the US reaches the point of absurdity. In the homeland of democracy, the rights of small religious groups are so taken care of that it has been forbidden to call the Christmas tree this way for several years now, so as not to offend the religious feelings of representatives of other faiths. A “holiday” tree is erected in front of the Capitol, and the President of the United States congratulates everyone on a “holiday”, not “Christmas”.

Belgium is another example of extreme tolerance. The exclusively Catholic country, the majority of whose believers are Catholics, has recently been striving to abandon its Christian identity. This is observed in the following - the names of the main Christian holidays "Christmas", "Easter", "All Saints' Day" can no longer be used in schools. Moreover, there is no place for them in official calendars either. Such silence is explained by the alleged residence of a significant number of Muslims on the territory of the state. However, in Brussels they account for only a quarter of the population, while in the provinces they are even less. You involuntarily wonder whether such tolerance is worth such an infringement on the rights of the indigenous population? Why can't the people of Brussels see a Christmas tree in the main square of their city, even if it is populated by Muslims?

Such an extreme manifestation of religious tolerance can lead to a violation of the rights of the majority. Such absurd actions taken by government officials can achieve the opposite effect - instead of tolerance, they risk getting a wave of protests and indignation, which can then escalate into clashes and conflicts.

But not only religion becomes a stumbling block in modern society. “Aggressive tolerance”, as the Americans themselves called it, is already manifesting itself in more intimate areas - the differentiation of sexes and sexual orientation. At the end of 2015, a real local scandal erupted in Lancaster (New York), which nevertheless resounded around the world: from above, all American schools were ordered to change the behavior of boys and girls. Particularly interesting is how it was planned to implement this order: the boys had to start going to the girls' toilet, and the girls, respectively, to the boys.

It is difficult to guess what and by whom such an order was dictated, although it is still worth a try - perhaps the top of the state government wanted to increase the camp of its admirers at the expense of gay citizens. Thus, children were already involved in the struggle for the rights of sexual minorities.

"Traditional" parents immediately convened a meeting and unanimously voted to cancel the new order. They also noted that recently the imposition of a "minority ideology" has become aggressive and threatening.

Analyzing all these special cases, one involuntarily thinks - is everything so smooth with this tolerance? In my opinion, no. The ideology of tolerance is able to allow the approval of the most extreme manifestations of cynicism, immorality, and lead to their justification.

Let's look at this example - the violation of the generally accepted norms by which the majority lives in society is also a kind of self-expression. A criminal who has transgressed the line of the law, perhaps, wanted to express his own beliefs, worldview, and thoughts by his behavior. Based on the ideology of tolerance, each point of view has the right to life. Then should we be tolerant towards a thief, a murderer, a pedophile, a drug dealer? Stop, wake up. Of course not!

Any patience has limits, so tolerance must have limits. Total tolerance and acceptance of absolutely all opinions, it turns out, is not a guarantee of the peaceful coexistence of everyone on this planet. And if so, then the described ideology cannot claim to be universal, to act as a generally binding principle of legal relations.

And that's why:

1) tolerance, as an ideology, distorts ideas about tolerance and tolerance, threatens the spread of absolute indifference, as well as the loss of one's own ideals;

2) the ideology of tolerance in its excessive expression can harm national identity because the historically established spiritual, moral and religious and cultural values of one people are relegated to the background, while the values of the minority claim to take an equal place, and in the future - to displace the existing ones and replace them;

3) relying on double standards, tolerance does not accept contradictions, since protecting the minority, any exclamations of the majority are regarded as racism, xenophobia and other radicalism.

Summing up, now we can answer the question - is tolerance dangerous for society? Yes, dangerous. It is just as dangerous as any ideology that threatens to eventually turn into dictatorship and terror. It is not for nothing that the Constitutions of most European countries proclaim ideological pluralism, that is, in fact, a ban on the monopoly of any ideology.

Tolerance, not transformed into tolerance, contributes to the strengthening of peace on Earth, the harmonization of international relations and comfortable living in the neighborhood of representatives of various ethnic groups and confessions. Therefore, do not confuse these two concepts. It's like patriotism and nationalism - do you feel the difference?

What is intolerance?

Conducting a conversation like “what is good and what is bad”, we smoothly moved on to the definition of another concept that is inextricably linked with tolerance - this is intolerance. This term is used to define intolerance that has an external expression.

For a better understanding, I will give an example: in the city of N, a mosque is being built near an Orthodox church. Some people absolutely do not react to construction in any way - neither in word nor in deed. Their behavior can be called tolerant. Others help the worshipers of Islam raise funds for construction, everyone helps in any way they can. They are also tolerant, moreover, their behavior can be called ideally tolerant, since they pass their actions through their consciousness and do so because of their high cultural development. But there is a third grouping of individuals - hostile, not wanting representatives of another faith to be able to fulfill their spiritual needs on an equal footing with them. They can complain to human rights organizations, city authorities, or act in a less civilized manner - go to open confrontation: block a construction site, insult Muslims, provoke a fight, etc. These people are intolerant. And their position, as you can see, is manifested not in silent disapproval, but in outwardly expressed actions aimed at oppressing and persecuting dissidents.

Intolerance can be given an unambiguous assessment - negative. The assumption that your system of beliefs and values, your way of life and judgments is better than that of your neighbor, is fraught with a threat - a time bomb. As soon as this attitude gets the opportunity to be implemented in society, it will take on frightening forms:

Dominance, dominance, dictate;
- ethnic cleansing, genocide, destruction of dissidents.

Human civilization has repeatedly encountered such manifestations of intolerance. Why go far - just remember the Second World War, which was inflamed by the Third Reich, being confident in the exclusivity and superiority of the Aryan race over other nations. Using the example of fascism, we can also consider one of the forms of manifestation of intolerance - the Holocaust.

That is why any of its manifestations - whether it be ridicule, an expression of disdain - must be rooted out, otherwise in the future it will outgrow this harmless form (if it can be considered as such) and acquire a more aggressive color.

In addition to my personal conviction that intolerance is wrong, historical experience also tells us about this. Not one regime that would have been built on the oppression of one group of people and the superiority of another did not last long. Sooner or later, he will be defeated, and therefore intolerance is a social defect that needs to be corrected, corrected.

But we talked a lot about the fact that excessive tolerance can lead to adverse consequences, that tolerance, as an ideology, also harms the moral values and morality of society, and that intolerance can turn into a disaster if it becomes rampant. Where to look for the "golden mean"?

In my opinion, it lies in the harmonious coexistence of representatives of different ideas, views, beliefs due to the definition of the framework of tolerance. This means that "healthy" tolerance must be based on intolerance. Yes Yes! You heard right. On intolerance towards phenomena that have a destructive potential: terrorism, crime, anti-Semitism, sexism. That is, it is necessary to be intolerant of the intolerant. This is the only way to preserve fundamental humanistic values.

As for intolerance, it is necessary to carry out orderly work to overcome it. Who will conduct it? Employees of educational institutions, mass media, public organizations. Of course, with the support of the authorities. It is they who must create all the conditions and organize the work, creating for these purposes the appropriate regulatory and material base.

What can gender equality lead to?

Gender tolerance is a complex concept that includes:

1) lack of prejudice against a member of the opposite sex;

2) an objective assessment of the individual in terms of personal qualities, and not sexual characteristics;

3) rejection of the idea of the superiority of men over women or vice versa.

How often at the everyday level do we come across the phrases “all men are goats” or “all women are fools”? Yes, we hear this all the time. Here is a vivid example of gender intolerance in everyday life. It seems a trifle, but it can also develop into domestic violence and other unpleasant forms.

What can I say when your direct superiors do not adhere to gender tolerance. Most often, women suffer from infringement of labor rights on the basis of gender - they are either refused to be hired at all because they are women, masking their decision, of course, for other reasons, or they already suffer disrespectful, sometimes even boorish things in the process of work. the attitude of the boss, who is inclined to doubt the mental abilities of the fair sex.

Having endured such undeserved harassment, women involuntarily think about working without a boss - one where their success would depend solely on them. Many dream, but not many dare. If you are just at a crossroads, this video, which tells about binary options trading, will help you decide great way achieving financial independence.

Having studied this material, as well as having completed a training course with PAMM TRADE, you will no longer have to endure gender intolerance from your boss, since you will not have it. Your success and earnings will depend solely on you and no one will violate your rights.

But gender equality is violated not only in labor relations. It is observed, including in the political, economic and social aspects of life. Although, it is worth noting that the legislation of many countries requires gender tolerance from their citizens and even provides for a number of measures to hold accountable for non-compliance with such requirements. But in real life, everything is not quite so... This mainly concerns the experience of the post-Soviet states.

In Europe, there are almost no problems with gender tolerance - four European countries ranked first in the global gender equality rankings:

Sweden - 1st place;

Norway - 2nd place;

Finland - 3rd place;

Iceland - 4th place.

The word "almost" was used above not by chance, since in these countries one can observe rather the opposite trend - the blurring of the boundaries between the sexes, which threatens with no less serious consequences than gender intolerance.
You can follow this with an example kindergarten in Stockholm (Sweden) under the name Nicolaigarden. The main principle in raising children here is gender neutrality. Calling "boy" or "girl" is not acceptable. A child of any gender in this institution is treated like this - “my friend”. You can’t ask about mom and dad - what if the baby has two moms ... or two dads?

Toys on the shelves should not be divided according to the principle - this is for boys, and this is for girls. Absolute gender neutrality should help prevent the formation of stereotyping of gender roles. Everyone will choose for themselves the toy that they like, without looking back at who it is intended for. And unlike the American Lancaster, which was mentioned above, parents are not outraged by this state of affairs. On the contrary, they voluntarily send their children to this kindergarten.

And it seems, indeed, from the point of view of gender equality, everything is wonderful: children grow up in the same conditions, play with the toys they want, wear clothes that do not emphasize their sexual characteristics. In a word, they are given the same opportunities and the right to choose. But something is still alarming... Won't such gender tolerance lead to a distortion of their psychology, which in the future may affect their sexual orientation? It is not excluded that this is possible. Therefore, in such a delicate area as the relationship between men and women, it is important not to go too far.

To ensure their equality in society, the following is sufficient:

1) equal rights to participate in economic activities and equal opportunities for this;

2) participation of representatives of both sexes in the political process;

3) equal educational opportunities.

Everything else is excess.

For societies with traditional foundations, gender equality is generally unacceptable as such. And this should not be forgotten. Therefore, it is impossible to say that gender equality is a universally binding principle in modern society.

Now we are talking about Muslim countries in which women are not granted all the rights that the fair sex is endowed with, for example, in Europe. It cannot be said that the restriction of their rights is a kind of indicator of the backwardness of society. Take, for example, such a state as the United Arab Emirates. To call its inhabitants or the economy, or the standard of living "lagging behind" the language does not turn. Nevertheless, women continue to occupy the same position in society that their predecessors occupied hundreds of years ago.

From the point of view of democratic views, gender intolerance reigns in Muslim countries. But for representatives of such societies, this is the normal order of things, the violation of which is unthinkable and unnatural. That is why it is illogical and fundamentally wrong to instill in the East those values that are inherent in the West, including the equality of men and women. Moreover, states in which a significant number of Muslim emigrants live should be especially careful in protecting the rights of Eastern women. At least you certainly do not need to interfere in family relationships between a man and a woman. It will definitely not be possible to regulate them with the help of the current national legislation, since the norms of traditional law, which have been formed over thousands of years, act as an effective regulator. Attempts to change something can only harm, but not help.

National tolerance is a guarantee of peace and friendship on the planet!

Before that, we paid attention to gender equality, emphasizing that this is a necessary component of a democratic society. But then national tolerance can be safely considered an archival component of peace and friendship of all peoples on Earth.

From the boss who harasses you because of your gender, you can go to another or start free swimming by going into business. A husband who does not respect his wife as a person can be divorced. But what about those who offend your patriotic feelings? Just like that... For no apparent reason. Simply because I saw you on the street and noticed striking differences in appearance and manner of dressing. Some tend to endure such attacks, being in a state of psychological discomfort, others act more impulsively - use their fists. Can you imagine what such actions threaten on a larger scale?

Everyone is aware of the historical events of the last century, and therefore is able to trace real example the transformation of the German people from the oppressed and insulted after the imposition of huge indemnities and other restrictions after the First World War into a fascist society with the idea of their own superiority and domination over other nations.

The Treaty of Versailles led to all this, which literally brought Germany to its knees. The oppressed position of the defeated people turned into a new war - even more bloody and terrible than the previous one. It can be concluded that oppression based on nationality breeds hatred and a desire for revenge, which ultimately leads to war.

There are many such examples of wars and oppression in world history. It is not worth dwelling on each of them, since we are more interested in something else - is there a universal panacea for such disasters?

At the level of interpersonal communication, it is enough to respect the opinion of your opponent. At the level of interethnic or intrastate:

1) not to interfere in the internal affairs of other states or nationalities living on the territory of the state;

2) respect the sovereign rights of neighboring states or the right of peoples to self-determination;

3) not to pursue a policy aimed at inciting ethnic hatred.

At first glance, such a concept may seem utopian, since people will always point fingers at someone who is not like them, and strong states will always seek to absorb the weak ones. However, such encroachments can be influenced, and this is already happening.

Criminal Codes in the rule of law contain articles that provide for punishment for inciting interethnic and interracial hatred, propaganda of the superiority of one group of people over another on racial or national grounds.

At the international level, joint organizations of states are created, the main task of which is to prevent new wars and maintain peace.

Thus, if national tolerance cannot be nurtured, then it can be forced.

In view of the above, we can try to formulate the concept of national tolerance. It can be considered the readiness of representatives of different nations to interact with each other, which is based on tolerance, recognition and acceptance of the differences that exist in their culture, lifestyle, worldview.

What is sexual tolerance?

It is very important to draw a line between gender and sexual orientation tolerance, since at first glance it may seem that these are one and the same thing. But let's not make such a mistake and start right away with the definition this concept to clarify the situation.

So, sexual orientation tolerance is an impartiality towards persons with non-traditional sexual orientation.

The difference between these two concepts can be described with the help of two slogans: "all the women in the kitchen" and "blue has no place among us." So, we have already talked enough about the first, let's move on to the second.

From the point of view of the impact on social tension in society, on the conflicts that arise in it, sexual orientation tolerance is not as important as, say, national tolerance.

This can be explained as follows:

1) a group of individuals declaring their non-traditional orientation will always be numerically smaller than the nation or confession, and therefore will not carry a noticeable threat to peace in society in case of discontent;

2) most gay people will remain silent about being discriminated against because they do not want publicity;

3) representatives of sexual minorities in many countries and do not claim their equal position with straight people, they are willing to endure reproaches and criticism, because they are aware of their obvious difference from the majority.

And what does the “healthy” majority think about this? This question can be answered with facts: 24 countries of the world allow same-sex marriages (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, etc.), another 16 allow other forms of same-sex unions - civil partnerships or unions (Germany, Andorra, Venezuela, Estonia etc.).

As we can see, there is sufficient sexual tolerance towards minorities in the world. But this applies only to European and some Latin American countries, as well as the United States. If you turn your eyes to countries with a traditional way of life, then there is no need to talk about such a concept as sexual tolerance, since it simply does not exist there (as well as there are no representatives of non-traditional sexual orientations).

Why is there such loyalty towards people with a different orientation? Perhaps it is much easier to determine one's own orientation than with an ideology, a system of views. People do not feel personally threatened by sexual minorities, because they are not afraid to change their sexual preferences under their influence.

It is unrealistic to force a person to change his orientation with the help of propaganda: he likes either men or women (now we will not take into account bi-sexuals). This is a natural instinct, the call of the flesh, which cannot be strangled through consciousness. And if so - if your space is not threatened by anything - why not allow people with a different orientation to live and do as they please? But to change Political Views or even faith as a result of exhortations or persuasive arguments is quite real. That is why political and religious intolerance is much more common than sexual intolerance, because people are afraid and unsure of their own system of values and views.

Despite the fact that sexual orientation tolerance is the “youngest” of all, so to speak, its manifestation is much more common than all the others. And to be completely honest, homosexuals in France feel much more comfortable than, say, Arabs. The reason for this may be fear - the one discussed above. For example, if the desire of Muslims to walk in traditional dress on the streets of Paris is satisfied by the authorities, then there is good reason for the indigenous people to fear for cultural assimilation. While providing the opportunity to register a marriage to two men or women does not pose any threat of changing the usual way of life of every Frenchman. The consequence of this is tolerance towards sexual minorities and intolerance towards emigrants.

Although in Russia you can see the opposite trend. The peace-loving mentality of Russians allows them to put up with a huge number of visitors in their own capital, but conservatism and loyalty to traditional family values, it seems, will never allow you to look, if not with respect, then at least without contempt, at people with non-traditional sexual orientation.

Analyzing the provisions above, one can come to the conclusion that sexual orientation tolerance is not capable of “ripening” in every society. Its "maturation" depends largely on the mentality of the nation, the dominant religion and its dogmas, traditions and established ideas about the family in a particular society.

Why is it the easiest and most difficult thing to achieve religious tolerance?

Tolerance can be defined as a respectful attitude of representatives of some religious groups to others, whose views and ideas about God are strikingly different, as well as unshakable adherence to their religious beliefs along with recognition of the equivalence and equivalence of the rights of representatives of other religions.

There are several types of religious tolerance:

1) to non-believers, that is, representatives of other religions (for example, the religious tolerance of a Muslim towards a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc.);

2) to representatives of other confessions, that is, movements within one religion (for example, one can talk about Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism in Christianity);

3) to sectarian movements - religious groups that broke away from the main religious trend and oppose it (Jehovists, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Evangelists, etc.);

4) believers to atheists and vice versa - atheists to believers.

The criteria for this classification are the subjects in relation to which tolerance is manifested.

The characteristic features of religious tolerance are:

1) recognition of every religion's right to exist;

2) respect for any religious choice of a person;

3) tolerance towards the implementation of believers of various religions of their rituals, observance of the canons;

4) refusal from coercion to any religion, from condemnation of non-believers;

5) non-use of repressive measures against people of other faiths;

6) willingness and ability for dialogue, cooperation, reaching mutual understanding with representatives of other faiths.

It is worth noting that every believer should have religious tolerance. If he is truly a believer. Indeed, there are cases when outwardly a person fulfills all the prescriptions of the Bible, if we talk about Christianity, then he goes to church, fasts, repents at confession, but there is no true faith in his heart.

Such superficiality breeds religious intolerance. Instead of thinking about the salvation of his soul, showing love for all living things, such a “believer” begins to delve into the dogmas of other religions in order to find something in them that contradicts his views.

If we look at the root of every religion that exists on Earth, then we will see in it the universal principles that can be traced in each of the religious teachings. There is not a single religion that would preach war and strife, fratricide and hatred towards dissidents or non-believers. Each of them sows the seeds of kindness and beneficence, sacrifice and love for man into fertile soil.

If all religions preach tolerance, then a completely logical question is brewing - why did the Huguenot wars flare up, how were the Crusades allowed, and what is the same ISIS fighting for, the witnesses of the cruelest massacres of which we are witnessing today? It could be said that the wrong interpretation of the scriptures is to blame. However, when we say this, we are lying. Mankind has vast experience in interpreting the Bible, the Koran, the Suna, the Talmud, so it is simply ridiculous to assume that someone has not read something or misunderstood something. The ideologists of ISIS are not students of the 5th grade, but born leaders with a good education, who were simply able to skillfully manipulate the feelings of believers.

So, on the basis of this, we can conclude that the cause of religious intolerance is the desire to seize power by certain individuals, for which they resort to the manipulation of religious feelings. All religious conflicts have a political basis. If there was no push from above, the followers of Christianity, Islam or other religions would continue to go to temples, mosques and pray to their God, but would not fight.

Therefore, the task of instilling religious tolerance in society rests with the state. That is why those who represent its ruling elite must observe the following principles, embodying them in public policy:

1) respect the feelings of believers, recognize the religious beliefs of every citizen or religious associations;

2) guarantee equal rights and prevent the persecution of citizens, both professing certain religious views and atheists;

3) to establish a dialogue with religious associations, together with them to look for ways of the spiritual revival of society, the establishment of universal moral values.

Of course, the formation of religious tolerance is facilitated by appropriate upbringing in the family, as well as the influence of teachers and mentors in educational institutions.

The church is also capable of fostering tolerance towards non-believers, but its influence extends only to believers. It is almost impossible to convey to clergy to atheists or people who are simply not interested in religion the value and significance of religious tolerance.

I propose to make sure that the three most numerous denominations - Muslim, Christian and Buddhist - consider it their goal to bring peace, goodness and brotherly love into the life, where not a brother by blood or faith is considered a brother, but every person living on Earth. This can be traced in the example of passages from the sacred writings.

Tolerance in a Muslim way: how to deal with "infidels"?

One of the fundamental principles proclaimed by Islam is freedom of religion. It is reflected in verse 256 of Surah Al-Baqarah of the Qur'an, which states that there is no compulsion in religion. It is unacceptable that a person's worldview is formed under duress.

An example for all Muslims is the Prophet Muhammad, who was distinguished by tolerance and loyalty to non-Muslims. At the time of his life and preaching, the Arabian Peninsula was a mixture of religions and cultures. There were frequent cases of open confrontations between believers from different faiths, and therefore Muhammad behaved cautiously and tolerantly, recognizing the right of non-believers to profess their own religion. This is confirmed by verse 6 from Surah Al-Kafirun, in which he tells them that their faith was given to them, and to him (Muhammad) his.

The manifestation of religious tolerance in Islam is not a wish, but a requirement of scripture. So, in verse 125 of Surah An-Nakhl, it is said that one should call to the path of one's Lord with wisdom and good admonition, and a dispute with non-Muslims should be conducted with the best words.

If it is not possible to achieve the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by reasonable arguments and arguments, then it is impossible to impose faith by force. In this case, you should leave your religion to the Gentiles so that they can be satisfied with it.

Living in the same territory of representatives of different faiths is quite possible. Moreover, such a neighborhood can be peaceful and conflict-free if the necessary tolerance is shown. Muhammad proved this with his Medina agreements, the essence of which was the voluntary unification of Muslims, Christians, Jews and polytheists under one command - the authority of Muhammad, who provided them with equal rights and protection regardless of religion. From that time on, all who signed the agreements became a single community (Ummah), different from other people.

The Medina Agreements became a kind of Constitution of Medina, which was to be followed by all the inhabitants of the city. It described the responsibility of each tribe (faith) living in Medina in case of violation of mutual obligations and restrictions, which were also clearly documented.

If internal disputes arose in each tribe, the supreme power did not interfere in their resolution. But if a conflict arose that threatened the peaceful coexistence of all tribes, only the Messenger of the Lord could resolve it. Thus, all the inhabitants had to reckon with the supreme authority in the person of Muhammad.

As you can see, Islam, as an ideology, is based on religious tolerance, which is not only spoken of directly in the Koran, but which can also be read between the lines if the scripture is correctly interpreted.

There is not a single line in the Qur'an that calls upon the followers of Muhammad to kill infidels in the name of Allah. Those who criticize and slander Islam like to pull out individual lines of verses about murders from the general context, as a result of which their meaning is distorted.

Especially often refer to the 9th and 47th sura of the Qur'an. The first of them says that with the end of the forbidden months, the polytheists should be killed where they are found and captured. In order to correctly interpret this surah, it is necessary to know the circumstances of its revelation.

At that time, the Arabs were divided according to religious principle: some were polytheists, others were Muslims. And the former of them constantly unleashed wars against the latter. The Muslims offered the polytheists to conclude a peace treaty, which would guarantee the refusal of each side from attacks and provocations. But polytheists often violated the agreement, in particular - in 641 AD. Then Muhammad gave them four months to renew the truce. In this sura, it is precisely about these four “forbidden months” and that the destruction of polytheists is allowed only in case of direct aggression against Muslims.

As you can see, there is no connection with terrorism, forced proselytizing in these lines. The same can be said about the beginning of the 47th sura, which says that when meeting with infidels, they should cut off their heads. The appearance of this verse refers to the time when the Battle of Badr took place, in which the adherents of Islam fought with the Quraysh. Such instructions can be considered as guidance for the Muslim army in case of war. Such actions are unacceptable in Peaceful time. True Muslims should not show aggression towards dissidents, except in exceptional cases - defense and protection.

Therefore, it is impossible to justify the unleashing of bloody wars by the injunctions of the Koran. Those who do this are promoting pseudo-Islam.

Is there religious tolerance in Christianity?

Despite the fact that in the eyes of modern society, Christianity looks like a more peaceful religion than Islam, there is not a single exact indication in the Bible that one should be tolerant of non-believers. Islam, overshadowed by the actions of numerous terrorist groups, seems to the public to be an aggressive, militant religion, although this is not at all the case. But in the Koran, meanwhile, there are several direct indications that one should show tolerance towards non-Muslims (read about this above).

You won't find this in the Bible, no matter how hard you try. Yes, one can derive from the general provisions of the New Testament one's own formulations about the need to be tolerant... But - tolerant of everything: persecution, persecution, insults, and so on. There is not a word about how to behave with non-Christians, how to treat them.

But what about the well-known commandment: “Yes, love one another”? Ardent defenders of Christianity may cite it as evidence of "biblical tolerance." Perhaps this is the only wording that can be drawn "by the ears" to religious tolerance. Jesus calls everyone to humanism, all-encompassing love, and this can be seen as a call to religious tolerance. But this can only be achieved through one's own comprehensive interpretation and analysis of the provisions of the Bible. If you take this phrase out of context and bring it to a person who has not read the Bible, its meaning for him will be completely different.

Although in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) one can also find a call for mercy and love towards everyone without exception – regardless of faith, nationality, personal enmity, etc. It says that you need to love your enemies and pray for them, like the example of the Lord, since the sun, according to his will, shines on everyone: evil and good, the righteous and sinners.

Although the lines in the Gospel of Matthew sound somewhat categorical, which say that the one who is not with him is against him, who does not collect with him, he squanders. Separation into associates and opponents on the face. And it doesn't sound quite right at all.

But if you understand better, find out the historical subtext of this phrase, as well as the situation in which it was uttered, then you can see another meaning in it. IN this case we are talking about a conscious rejection of the teachings of Christ, about a deliberate opposition to the truth.

This is confirmed by another Biblical teaching, which says that those who are not with us or who are not like us, does not yet mean that they are against us. (Mark 9:40). These words from the mouth of the Lord were addressed to the apostles and concerned a pagan who was not a disciple of Christ, but cast out demons in his name. They mean something like this - if a person does not openly oppose you, then he is not your opponent. Therefore, there is no reason to feel hostility towards him. Although Christ calls to treat enemies mercifully and with love, as mentioned above.

So, if we analyze the provisions of the Bible for the presence of calls for religious tolerance in it, then we can draw the following conclusions: Christians should not experience hostility and hatred towards those who do not share their views, and even if aggression is shown against them, one must pray for offenders and love them as Christ commanded. It is worth believing that it is precisely in this that religious tolerance is manifested in a Christian way.

What is the most tolerant religion?

The most ancient religion, but at the same time meeting modern realities, is Buddhism. It is he who is also considered the most tolerant, humane and democratic religious trend.

The Buddha's teaching on religious tolerance can be summarized as follows:

In relation to other religions, it is necessary to show religious tolerance;

Everyone has the right to an independent search for spirituality;

It is impossible to impose the Buddhist teaching by force if a person has not matured spiritually and has not come to it himself.

An ardent follower of Buddhism - the ruler Ashok - issued decrees in which he instructed his subjects: "One should respect someone else's faith." He believed that in this way a person strengthens his own faith and provides support to someone else.

Such religious tolerance in Buddhism has led to the fact that within it there are many breakaways - schools and movements.

But what is most interesting is that those who wish to study Buddhism are not required to renounce their faith. Believers from other religious groups can only adopt that part of the Buddhist teaching that does not contradict their own. Thanks to this, Buddhism spread to the West, where its admirers could continue to remain faithful to their religion, and from Buddhism to adopt only that which did not contradict the tenets of their dogma.

But despite the fact that religious tolerance is a religious ideal for Buddhist monks, in the practice of Buddhism one can also encounter cases of ardent intolerance. Most cases of discrimination and aggression on religious differences are observed in Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is not established as a state religion at the official level, but is strongly supported by the authorities and the population (about 70% are Buddhists).

So, here, not just believing Buddhists, but also monks went into open confrontation with representatives of the Protestant movement of the Holy Family Church. They stormed the house of the pastor of this church, and then dragged him outside and beat him. All this was accompanied by demands to renounce their faith and stop religious activities. That's religious tolerance for you...

But perhaps there are exceptions to every rule. And it is impossible to find a single religion that its representatives would not defend with the help of their fists. Therefore, to draw general conclusions about tolerance in Buddhism on a single example of monks from Sri Lanka is at least not logical. In this case, human weaknesses, which are inherent in everyone, rather jumped up, but the doctrine of Buddhism did not change from this. The religion of the Buddha, in spite of everything, remains the most modern, despite the antiquity, and tolerant of the existing ones.

How does success in business depend on manifestations of tolerance?

Getting high profits in business is directly proportional to the tolerance shown, that is, the more patience you show, the more you can earn.

At the same time, tolerance will have to be shown in relation to:

Clients, buyers, consumers;

Employees when hiring;

Competitors;

Investment risks.

Although, for example, those who are engaged in Internet business on their own will not have to be tolerant of their employees, and traders will not have to endure annoying and meticulous clients. Each of these cases should be considered separately.

Tolerance in private enterprise!

Entrepreneurship is an occupation for very flexible and patient people. Stubborn people are unlikely to succeed in the private sector, and hot-tempered choleric people are even more so... To get a high income from business, you need a prudent and cold mind, as well as the ability to quickly adapt to the situation and the client.

Therefore, the principle of providing services on equal terms to each client must be combined with an individual approach to the clientele. At the same time, compliance with the first principle requires the entrepreneur not only the norm of the law, but also personal motives - the desire to expand their customer base and make a profit. That is why business tolerance is the basis and guarantee of success in entrepreneurship. Let such behavior not be called highly moral, since, ideally, tolerance should not be manifested for profit, but should be unconditional and gratuitous - that is, when a person does this based on his own convictions, views, and the idea of equality of all people. But still, the outward manifestation of tolerance, even if it is not based on deep moral principles, is always better than open confrontation.

Rejection and intolerance should in no case be transferred from everyday life to your business activities. For example, if there is a person in your circle of acquaintances whom you dislike, he should not guess about it when he came to you as a buyer or customer. You can not refuse to provide services to him or raise the price due to the fact that you did not like him. In addition to the fact that you endanger the existence of the business in this way, you can also get yourself into trouble with institutions that control the observance of consumer rights.

But not only customer tolerance can help your business grow at a rapid pace. Tolerance in the recruitment of employees is another component of a harmoniously developing business. As practice shows, employers who collect clone employees in their team, that is, those who do not differ at all in external features and internal qualities, will never lead their company to market leaders.

And here's the thing - differences in at least something inevitably lead to discussion. And everyone already knows that truth is born in a dispute. If the thoughts of employees converge, if they do their work in the same way, then they will never have extraordinary and creative ideas. And that's the only way to make money.

So, discrimination in employment in relation to representatives of the other sex, race, nationality, religion, political ideology will certainly lead your project to a fiasco. On the contrary, the greater loyalty and tolerance will be shown at the stage of the competition, the more opportunities for development your business will receive due to the “diversity” of the work team.

And now about loyalty and respect for competitors... The word "competitor" already carries a negative. It becomes even more when, in the process of your tireless work and efforts, competitors in dirty ways begin to lure customers to themselves. There is only one way out in this case - to be tolerant towards competitors. Exactly like this and nothing else.

There are several explanations for such patience and humility:

1) acting “not cleanly” in relation to your competitors, you set up a whole camp of other businessmen against yourself;

2) acting according to paragraph 1, you must be prepared for the fact that this “camp” will not only not help in the event of a difficult and unpleasant situation that has happened to you, but will also be happy to trip you up;

3) the consumer will always choose for cooperation an honest company with an excellent reputation than one that weaves intrigues and attracts the attention of buyers with dishonest actions.

It is impossible not to say that it is important for every entrepreneur to be resistant to risks and failures. But much more can be said about risk tolerance in the light of trading.

How does tolerance manifest itself in trading?

Trading, i.e. trading on a currency, stock or commodity exchange is inevitably associated with risk. It is generally accepted that the more cold-blooded a trader is about the risk of losing his funds, the more tolerant he is (high tolerance for risks). If the speculator is afraid to take risks, even given the opportunity to earn big money, then he has a rather low tolerance.

It depends on many factors, the most significant of which are:

The amount of the deposit and the funds that can be used for trading;
Trading experience;
Psychological features and personal perception of binary options trading;
social status.

Here we can talk about the influence of mood, situation in personal life, weather and even meteomagnetic storms. However, all these factors are short-term, and therefore do not have a long-term and noticeable effect on the level of tolerance.

The first place among such factors deservedly can be given to the size Money, which a trader can involve in trading. The more of them, the easier the trader agrees to take risks, because he knows that he will be able to deposit an additional amount he has on deposit, and then, accordingly, restore the balance between infusions and losses, and ideally increase it towards the profitability of trading. The less money a binary options trader has, the more inert he behaves in the market, thereby reducing his chances of "hitting the jackpot", but at the same time guaranteeing the safety of his funds. Owners of small capital, as a rule, have low tolerance: they understand that risks can turn them into bankrupts, and therefore behave with restraint and caution.

Another important indicator of high tolerance is experience in trading. And here you can talk not only about your own, but also about someone else's experience, because as the saying goes: "a wise man learns from the mistakes of others, a smart one learns from his own, and a fool does not learn at all." Therefore, in order to increase your risk tolerance, I recommend borrowing the experience of Viktor Samoilov and his students on the Exact Entry trading strategy by reading about it in the article:

This strategy enables beginners to avoid serious financial losses in the first days of trading, as well as increase their income in the shortest possible time. This visual video will help to master it perfectly.

Having experience helps traders to calculate possible risks in advance, which means they give the opportunity to participate in a much larger number of transactions, as a result - to earn more money. Those who make their first hesitant steps in trading, as a rule, do not know how to predict risks in advance, and therefore they lose more and earn less.

There are two ways to increase "risk" tolerance in this case:

1) by own mistakes and work on them;

2) by training on the PAMM Trade.

The latter method is faster and more efficient. You should start learning by reading the article:

Those who have always considered psychology a useless and unnecessary science will now tense up. And all because even in such a material and pragmatic matter as trading, the achievements of this science and the advice of practicing psychologists are needed. Since the success of trading largely depends on your psychological attitude.

People who are naturally negative and pessimistic about the future, skeptical about this type of income, will not be able to make a fortune on options. But adventurous natures, not without the ability to think logically and quickly, can achieve some success in trading. You can verify this by the example of the stories of real people in the article:

Many of them worked according to Victor Samoilov's strategy "Trading by Signals" and already in the first months they reached such earnings that they could only dream of during the days of hired work. Watching this video will take only a few minutes, but you can see the whole process of working on this strategy, as they say, in the first person.

And returning to the factors influencing risk tolerance in trading, I would also like to say about the social status of a person. It is difficult to give a clear interpretation of the concept of "social status", but it is usually interpreted as a person's position in society. How can this position be determined?

The position in society depends on the origin of a person, his education, position, financial capabilities and other factors that can raise a person to an unattainable height in the eyes of others. It affects binary options trading in the following way: having a higher social status, a trader trades more calmly, which means he has a high tolerance.

Why is he behaving calmly? A high status in society is an indicator of looseness of thought (not to be confused with looseness in behavior), dynamism of mental activity, calm and dignified acceptance of one's defeat. All this allows you to feel more confident, as well as to quickly respond to market conditions. Thus, the drain of capital as a result of an unsuccessful transaction by a person who is a representative of the cream of society will not be a strong shock to him and a blow to financial stability. And therefore, he takes risk more calmly than someone who occupies a much lower stage in society, and, accordingly, is used to worrying and worrying about his future.

Weather, personal life, good vacation influence rather not on tolerance, but on mood. And already the mood, in turn, is for the process of work, that is, for trading in binary options.
To reduce risks in trading in the financial markets and increase your tolerance, I recommend subscribing to the portal's newsletter, from which you will receive knowledge on possible earnings, and you will have the opportunity to improve your social status.

Get step by step instructions earnings!

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

The problem of religious tolerance naturally ranks among the most pressing and actively discussed issues in the modern world. Religious tolerance should be considered as a complex phenomenon of public consciousness, in which worldview and socio-psychological attitudes combine and allow the legitimacy of multiple religious traditions. Religious tolerance should also be perceived as concrete actions at the levels of individuals, social structures, and the state. In other words, religious tolerance can be understood as a value and social norm civil society, manifested in the right of all its individuals to be different both in religion and confessional affiliation. The mechanisms for the formation of religious tolerance are connected with the entire system of social relations, with the possibility of the full implementation of constitutional democratic rights and freedoms, with the level of spiritual culture of the individual and society. Having arisen in ancient times, the problem of religious tolerance was most acute where peoples with different faiths were forced to live together within the great empires.

The Republic of Tatarstan is an amazing region in which representatives of two traditional faiths - Islam and Orthodoxy coexist peacefully. Religious tolerance is needed not only by Tatarstan residents, but also by all other residents of Russia. Nationalism and religious intolerance is a centrifugal force tearing our multinational Motherland to pieces. If Russia wants to remain whole and prosperous, then Moscow and the regions should look to Tatarstan and adopt our values. The brightest example the awarding of Minitimer Sharipovich last year in Riyadh can serve. King Abdullah ibn Abdul-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia presented him with the King Faisal International Prize in the "Service to Islam" nomination in recognition of his contribution to the revival of culture and Islamic values in the republic. You may wonder why? Because in Tatarstan, for many decades, the peaceful coexistence of both Islam and Orthodoxy has been ensured. The Republic has become a symbol of tolerance and harmony between people of different religious denominations. This is what the whole world is striving for. When the peaceful coexistence of the two dominant religions is at the forefront, this speaks volumes.

Let's show the situation in the country with reliable facts and dry figures. According to the statistics of the official website of the Republic of Tatarstan for 2014, the region is home to more than 3 million 800 thousand residents who are permanently in the republic. The region under consideration is one of the most multinational territories of the Russian Federation. More than 115 nationalities are recorded in Tatarstan, among which the Tatars are predominant in number, of which there are more than 2 million people, which is 52.9% of the total population of the region. In second place are the Russians, who number about 1.5 million people, or 39.5% of the total population of the republic, and other minor nationalities. The traditional major religions in the republic are Orthodoxy and Islam. Muslims are professed by Tatars and Bashkirs - about half of the population of Tatarstan. Another significant part of the population professes Orthodoxy, these include primarily Russians, Maris, Chuvashs, Mordvins, Udmurts. Between the two major confessions, as far as possible, a balance is maintained, on the basis of which inter-confessional harmony and religious tolerance are built. It is noteworthy that in the region under consideration, Christian-Muslim marriages are 21-23%. An increase in the number of such marriages has been noted in Tatarstan. According to experts, such marriages are more stable and prosperous (!) than mono-ethnic marriages. In view of the inter-ethnic and inter-confessional situation that has developed over the years, trusting relations have developed between the Orthodox and Muslims of the Republic of Tatarstan.

The interreligious Christian-Muslim dialogue deserves special attention. In the field of Christian-Muslim cooperation and dialogue, the most important institutions on religious issues in the republic on the part of the state are the Department of Religious Affairs, on the part of Muslims - the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Russian Islamic University, on the part of Orthodox Christians - the Kazan Diocesan Administration and the Kazan Seminary . The tasks of both sides are to avoid conflicts between representatives of religions, correct behavior in relationships, holding conferences, holding peaceful rallies on topical issues ("Islam against terrorism", "Cessation of ethnic hatred", etc.), seminars on interreligious topics ...

Historical moments are a big indicator. The Tatarstan people have centuries-old traditions of coexistence and interaction of different faiths. Relations between the two religions have experienced a difficult evolution and have not always developed in an ascending straight line. But I want to emphasize that it was precisely the positive facts of the peaceful coexistence of the main religions in the Volga Bulgaria that played a huge role in history. More than seven centuries ago, the Khan of the Golden Horde, Mengu Timur, issued a letter of commendation, according to which the Orthodox clergy were forever freed from all kinds of tributes and duties, and the death penalty was imposed for blaspheming the Orthodox faith. More than two centuries have passed since the publication, at the behest of Catherine II, of the decree of the Holy Synod, according to which Russian Islam received great opportunities for development. Finally, for more than a century, the act of Emperor Nicholas II, according to which religious freedoms were proclaimed in the country, has been fulfilled.

In Tatarstan, in particular Kazan, there is a tolerant and tolerant attitude towards religion and its representatives. Having moved to live here, my friends from Kazakhstan did not experience any difficulties in socialization. The absence of discrimination and oppression allowed us to quickly orient ourselves in studies and relationships between people. Concepts such as subordination, tolerance and altruism are universally known in this country, and in every possible way help visitors to be in the country relaxed and at ease. And integration at the religious level was not difficult, because the relations of the republic to the Islamic religion were stated above. Whether it is a Kazakh, a Chinese, a Mongol, a Hindu or another representative of a religious movement, he will be able to find a peaceful refuge in a country free from prejudice and discrimination at the religious level. Against the background of all of the above, it should be especially noted that today the principles of a secular state are being implemented in Tatarstan.

A lot has already been done to this end. But the secular nature of the state does not mean the displacement of religion from the life of society, the removal of religious associations from participating in solving socially significant problems. Religion is separated from the state, but not from society. This axiom also determines the features of interfaith interaction, its influence on the development of society as a whole. religious tolerance personality society

On the other hand, confessions are also aware of the advantages of a secular state, in which the authorities, without singling out anyone, without showing ideological preferences, are aimed at dialogue and cooperation with the main confessions. Thanks to the coordinated, systematic work of all state bodies, the current religious situation in Tatarstan remains stable and controlled by the state. Work is underway, first of all, to increase the religious literacy of people, educational work on the difference between pseudo-religious movements and counteracting the spread of radical ideology

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

B. in the Roman Empire

V. in Catholic and Protestant countries

In the Middle Ages, with the highest power of the power of the Roman bishops, the Catholic. The Church was etatized. The status of non-Catholics in the West Europe depended Ch. arr. from the popes and to a lesser extent from religions. the policies of secular rulers.

Catholic ecclesiastical and secular authorities, relative V. manifested itself in relation to the Orthodox, Eastern. non-Chalcedonian Christians, as well as Gentiles - Jews and Muslims, but only to those of them who were not previously Catholics. Breakaway from the Catholic Churches in heterodoxy or heterodoxy, as a rule, were punishable by death. Non-Catholic Christians, Jews and Muslims had all kinds of restrictions in religion. life, political and civil rights. Jews, who often enjoyed the patronage and protection of the Catholic. sovereigns, in other times they were persecuted and expelled (for example, from England in 1290, from Spain in 1492). Muslims, who enjoyed relative freedom of worship in Castile and Aragon during the Reconquista, were expelled from united Spain in the 15th century. During the era of the Crusades in the states of the crusaders, Muslims, as well as Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian Christians, could legally practice their religions, but were subjected to different time discrimination.

In Sicily and southern Italy, especially in Calabria, where in the XI-XII centuries. There were also numerous Orthodox Greek-speaking population, they were persecuted and essentially forced to convert to Catholicism. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (later - in the Commonwealth), in which Catholics were politically dominated, the Orthodox before the Union of Lublin (1569) had complete freedom of religion and were only slightly limited in political rights, after the Union of Brest (1596) they were subjected to severe discrimination, and their very legal existence was threatened.

The legal status of the Orthodox Churches and other confessions in modern. Russia is established primarily by a number of provisions of the Basic Law - the Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted on December 12. 1993 Indirectly, the role of the Orthodox. The Church, without a direct mention of it, is mentioned in the preamble, which says that "the multinational people of the Russian Federation" adopts the Constitution, "honoring the memory of their ancestors" and "reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia." Thus, the continuity of the new Russia is declared in relation to that Russia, in which the Orthodox. The church enjoyed an exceptionally high status.

13th Art. The Constitution, according to which “ideological diversity is recognized in the Russian Federation”, so that “no ideology can be established as a state or mandatory one”, involves the elimination of the legal consequences of the official monopoly. atheism. Direct relation to the status of both the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches and religions. communities has a provision contained in the 14th article: “The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as a state or obligatory one. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.” The absence of state religion does not constitute an obstacle to the state bodies in their policy. the authorities took into account the real social weight of different religions. associations in Russia, their unequal contribution to spiritual heritage Russian people. The principle of secularism of the state is contrary not only to the establishment of the state. religions, but also any kind of legal support by the state for atheism.

19th Art. proclaims the equality of rights "of a person and a citizen, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language" and including "attitude to religion." The same article "prohibits any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the grounds of social, racial, national, linguistic or religious affiliation."

28th art. The Constitution states: “Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess individually or jointly with others any religion or not to profess any, freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs and act in accordance with them.” The right not to profess a religion and to freely disseminate relevant views cannot be considered identical to the right to propagate militant atheism in the style of Soviet era, because such propaganda is prohibited by the 2nd part of the 29th article: “Propaganda or agitation that incites social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity is not allowed. Propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic superiority is prohibited.” The ban referred to in this article can only mean a ban on propaganda of the personal superiority of the bearers of one religion in comparison with the bearers of another confession, as well as the insistence on the legal privileges of citizens depending on their religion.

26 Sept. In 1997, after a long and heated discussion both in parliament and in society, it was adopted the federal law“On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations”, which replaced the Law of the RSFSR “On Freedom of Religion” of 1990. The 1997 law basically repeats the norms of the previous law, but its preamble contains a provision that was absent in the 1990 law, which recognizes the special role of the Church, as well as some other faiths in the history of Russia: “The Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, confirming the right of everyone to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, as well as to equality before the law, regardless of attitude to religion and beliefs, based on the fact that the Russian The Federation is a secular state, recognizing the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture, respecting Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions that are an integral part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia, considering it important to promote mutual understanding, tolerance and respect in matters of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, adopts this Federal Law ”(Russian Orthodox Church and Law. M., 1999. P. 110-111).

In general, the legal regime for both Orthodox Churches, and for others. Churches and religions. communities in modern Russia, arising from the current legislative acts of the state-va, is characterized as a regime of complete religion. freedom that goes beyond V. that existed in the Russian Empire.

Lit.: Laurent F . La Papauté et l "Empire. P., 1860; Nicodemus [Milash], Bishop of Dalmatia. Orthodox church law. St. Petersburg, 1897. S. 699-705; Reisner M. A. The state and the believing person: Sat. Art. SPb., 1905; Gidulyanov P. V. Separation of the Church from the State: Collection of Decrees. M., 19242; Russian Orthodox Church and the Communist State 1917-1941: Documents and Photomaterials. M., 1996; Russian Orthodox Church and law. M., 1999; Tsypin Vl., archpriest Church law. M., 1996. P. 422-425.

Prot. Vladislav Tsypin

Non-state educational institution

higher professional education

"Moscow Institute of Modern Academic Education"

Federal Institute for Advanced Studies and Retraining

Faculty of Additional Professional Education

Essay

discipline: "Patriotic education of schoolchildren"

topic: "Religious tolerance"

Completed:

Student of the Faculty of DPO

"Teacher Education:

a history teacher"

Petrova Olga Gennadievna

Moscow, 2016

religious tolerance.

Introduction 2
Historical and philosophical foundations and essence

concepts of tolerance 4

The essence of religious tolerance 8
Manifestations of Religious Tolerance 9
Religious Tolerance Mechanisms 10
Conclusion 14
Literature 15

1. Introduction.

Now in Russia, as well as throughout the world, the problems of interethnic relations, national isolation, separatism are acute. The social situation in Russia is aggravated by the intensification of ethnic migration of the population, the increase in intercultural, interethnic contacts. All this can lead to the development of interethnic tension and conflicts.

Young people, whose personalities are still being formed, are especially vulnerable to the current situation. Moreover, this process is taking place in a society that is sharply stratified into rich, poor and simply impoverished people with its deeply rooted imperial, authoritarian and lumpen stereotypes. These circumstances are superimposed on the maximalism inherent in youth, skepticism about the world of adults, the desire to escape from their guardianship, uncriticality towards the idols chosen by young people for themselves, the tendency to unite in closed groups and clans. Therefore, young people are a grateful audience for any propaganda that inflames the “grievances” inflicted by society and personifies the offender in the image of another people or a specific person of a different nationality. All this can lead to the emergence in the mentality of a young person of the germs of ethnocentrism, chauvinism, xenophobia, ethnic and racial prejudice.

It is known that attitudes that are entrenched in youth change with great difficulty in adulthood. Ethnic stereotypes, preferences, and orientations formed during the socialization of a young man will influence his consciousness, behavior throughout his life and how he, in turn, will raise his children. In other words, the ethnic orientations of today's youth are the orientations of adults at the beginning of the 21st century and subsequent generations. In such a situation, the problem of intercultural interaction arises, tolerance for the “other” - appearance, behavior, language, in general, for a different culture.

Today we are talking about the need to form not just tolerance, but the education of tolerance (including religious and ethnic) among all the inhabitants of the planet. The world community defines tolerance as respect, acceptance and correct understanding of the rich diversity of cultures of the modern world, forms of self-expression and ways of manifesting human individuality. Tolerance is harmony in diversity. And it is very important that the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO, emphasizes that “tolerance is not a concession, indulgence or indulgence. Tolerance is, first of all, an active attitude, formed on the basis of the recognition of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The urgency of the problem of tolerance is due to the fact that today the values and principles necessary for common survival and free development are coming to the fore (ethics and strategy of non-violence, the idea of tolerance for foreign and alien positions, values, cultures, the idea of dialogue and mutual understanding, the search for mutually acceptable compromises). and so on.).

“Tolerance is what makes peace possible and leads from a culture of war to a culture of peace,” states the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 1995.

Tolerance is peacefulness, tolerance for ethnic, religious, political, confessional, interpersonal disagreements, recognition of the possibility of the equal existence of the “other”.

Tolerance is a human virtue: the art of living in peace different people and ideas, the ability to have rights and freedoms, while not violating the rights and freedoms of other people. At the same time, tolerance is not a concession, condescension or indulgence, but an active life position on the basis of an acknowledgment otherwise.

2. Historical and philosophical foundations and the essence of the concept of tolerance.

At the beginning of the 18th century, the concept of tolerance (from the Latin "tolerantia"), identified at that time with the concept of "tolerance", was quite new. Prior to this, the original Latin "tolerantia" had the same meaning as the Russian "patience", as well as the corresponding words in European languages until the 16th century. Then, due to socio-cultural and political factors, a lexical evolution takes place, which within one or two centuries leads to the establishment of a special concept of "tolerance" as a concept from the lexicon of civil society.

Modern ideas about tolerance, or, more precisely, its recognition as a factor that strengthens civil peace and provides protection from injustice, were largely prepared by the activities of the philosophers of the 17th-18th centuries. A significant contribution to the development of the design and legislative introduction of the principle of freedom of conscience and religious tolerance was made by Renaissance humanists, figures of the Enlightenment, thinkers of German classical philosophy.

An important role in the development of the philosophy of tolerance was played by the English thinker D. Locke (1632-1704) and his “Letters on Tolerance” (1689, 1692), where philosophical and political positions determined his attitude to religion. The author stands for the widest religious tolerance, as well as for the complete non-interference of the state and the church in each other's affairs. Locke viewed the natural state of society as a natural state of equality. People in the state of nature are "free, equal and independent." Limits the freedom of a person only natural law, which says: "No one has the right to limit another in his life, health or property."

A. Collins (1676-1729) in his writings “Discourse on Free Thought” (1713) and “Study on Human Freedom” (1715) substantiated the inalienable right of every person to think freely, because this is “... the surest and best way finding the truth." Freedom of thought was for Collins the basis of human virtue and acted as a guarantor of protection from the cruelty of religious fanatics, from bloody battles, and spiritual devastation.

K. Shefsbury (1671-1713) saw the foundations of human morality in the understanding of tolerance. He believed that malice, deceit, revenge, etc. - all these are unnatural, not corresponding to "human nature" affects. They not only harm people, but also make those who are endowed with them unhappy and lonely.

French philosophers of the 18th century continued the work on the approval of the principles of tolerance, which began in the Renaissance. The most consistent critic of religious fanaticism and advocate of tolerance was Voltaire (1684-1772). In the Philosophical Letters, he gained fame for his sharp criticism of the foundations of feudal society, led a philosophical debate with religious discord, fanaticism and injustice. In his Treatise on Religious Tolerance, Voltaire did not criticize any particular religion, but showed that all beliefs should be able to be expressed, while noting that "the height of madness should be considered the belief that all people are obliged to think equally about abstract objects."

Fully armed with scientific knowledge, C. Montesquieu (1689-1755) fought against the old order. He criticized Christianity, which claims to be a religion of love and meekness. “There never was a kingdom in which there were so many civil strife as in the kingdom of Christ,” he wrote in Persian Letters. Montesquieu developed the concept of the functional role of religion, necessary for maintaining social order and preserving morality. As an enlightener, he believed that people are equal from birth, that there is no superiority of some races over others.

German classical philosophy continued and brought to its logical end the fundamental ideas of tolerance in achieving freedom, in the formation and self-determination of the individual, in the cognitive process. The founder of German classical philosophy, I. Kant (1724-1804), comes to the conclusion that the achievement of a civil society governed by legal laws, in which every citizen is free within the boundaries determined by the freedom of his citizens, is the highest task of mankind. In his opinion, the independence of a citizen and the equality of citizens before the law are the essential characteristics of human freedom.

F. Schelling's (1775-1854) concept of freedom becomes the theoretical substantiation of the rule of law, the democratic reorganization of society. It presupposes a system of law that ensures the equality of all citizens before the law, established through their free will.

L. Feuerbach (1804-1872) comes out of the sphere of ethics to the problem of creating a project of social transformations. He is sure that social issues can be solved only through a free person. The problem of gaining freedom by a person was for the German thinker not only theoretical problem, it has acquired practical meaning. Feuerbach sought to restore man's faith in himself, the principle of humanism, and thereby make man free.

From this it can be seen that the very idea of tolerance goes back to the history of philosophical thought as a solution to the problem of human relations and implied the principles of humane relations with those who believe and dissent, including such components as tolerance, loyalty, respect for the faith and views of other people, peoples. These problems do not lose their significance even today, when the problem of tolerance has acquired particular relevance in connection with the process of globalization, which clashes civilizational, religious, national and ethnic identities different cultures and peoples.

Analysis of the concepts of "tolerance" and "religious tolerance" allows us to conclude that these terms have a number of common and different characteristics. The specificity of the concept of "religious tolerance" lies in the fact that, firstly, it is understood as a type of tolerance, which is based on the acceptance of "other", due to belonging to any religious group. Secondly, tolerance can be viewed as a personality trait that characterizes the range of personal manifestations, while religious tolerance is understood as a set of attitudes towards other religious groups. Based on this, tolerance as a personality trait is a more stable characteristic, and religious tolerance, due to both internal and external factors, easier to change.

Considering religious tolerance as a set of attitudes, the following components can be distinguished in its structure:

1. Cognitive (ideas about other religious groups, their culture, interethnic relations; knowledge about the phenomenon of tolerance, the rights of people regardless of religious affiliation);

2. Emotional (attitude towards other religious groups);

3. Behavioral (specific acts of tolerant/intolerant response, manifested in the desire to communicate/distance/demonstrate aggression against representatives of other religious groups).

“Tolerance from a religious point of view consists in the fact that one can endure without hatred the imperfection and errors of the religion of another, although he experiences displeasure at the same time. Whoever considers that which is a delusion in my religion to be true religion, should in no case be an object of hatred, ”the famous German philosopher I. Kant once wrote in his Lectures on Ethics. At the time of Kant, achieving even religious tolerance, in the content he set forth, was a very difficult matter. Since then, humanity has made significant progress along the path of developing religious tolerance. At the same time, globalization, mass migration of the population, an increase in the wealth gap between different countries and between ethnic groups within countries have significantly increased the threat of escalation of various forms of intolerance, which has acquired a planetary character. They did not bypass Russia either. According to the Center for the Study of Xenophobia and Extremism Problems of the IS RAS, the level of xenophobia in the last four years has almost doubled compared to the previous period. Religious intolerance has grown significantly. Among today's youth, it manifests itself more than twice as often as among older people.

3. The essence of religious tolerance.

Religious tolerance can be formulated as follows: “this is the tolerant attitude of adherents of one religious and confessional community to adherents of other religious and confessional communities. Each follows his own religious convictions and recognizes the analogous right of others." Nevertheless, religious tolerance is a multifaceted and meaningful phenomenon. Therefore, it is no coincidence that this concept has different interpretations and perceptions. Without delving into them, we note that they can be divided into two main types - positive and negative.

In a positive perception, religious tolerance presupposes knowledge, acceptance and respect for religious and confessional values and ideas of non-Christians.
In the negative perception, religious tolerance implies indifference to the religious and confessional views and value systems of others, as a result of which the absence of hostility and clashes on religious grounds is ensured.

In both cases, regardless of whether religious tolerance towards non-Christians is based on respect or indifference, it ensures social stability and coexistence of various religious and confessional groups. Nevertheless, of the two above-mentioned types of religious tolerance, the first one is preferable - acceptance and respect for the religious and confessional values of others, since indifference, often due to ignorance, can sooner or later lead to manifestations of intolerance. It is no coincidence that G. Shlimova, speaking about ensuring social consolidation in a country characterized by ethnic and religious diversity, emphasizes the importance of the role of educational work in this matter, which should be aimed at increasing the level of mutual knowledge of various religious and confessional groups. Indeed, often the cause of intolerance is ignorance. Not knowing the values and ideas of others, a person may treat them with disdain and indifference, which can lead to intolerance. Whereas knowledge of the values and views of others creates a tangible positive attitude towards them.

4. Manifestations of religious tolerance.

Religious tolerance can be of several types, depending on the object (in this case, human society), in relation to which it is manifested.

The first is tolerance towards non-Christians (Muslim Christian, Buddhist Muslim, Buddhist Christian, etc.),
The second is tolerance towards representatives of other confessions (Catholic Protestant, Protestant Adept). Orthodox Church(in Christianity), Sunni Shiite (in Islam), etc.),
The third is tolerance towards sectarian movements (as well as tolerance of sectarian movements towards each other),
And finally, tolerance between believers in God and non-believers (atheist believer).

5. Mechanisms for ensuring religious tolerance.

Mechanisms for ensuring religious tolerance, depending on the two above-mentioned approaches to the perception of its content (negative and positive), can also be divided into two groups:

Negative mechanisms implying indifference to religious and confessional ideas and the system of values of non-Christians.
Positive mechanisms that involve knowledge, acceptance and respect for the religious and confessional ideas and value systems of non-Christians.

Of the negative Two main mechanisms can be distinguished - atheism and secularization.

1. Atheism, although it implies intolerance towards all religious movements and denominations, at the same time it implies mutual tolerance between adherents of different religions and denominations, based on the principle of rejecting religion in general. The results of the 2001 in Russia, sociological studies have shown that, although with a slight advantage, but, nevertheless, non-believers in God are more tolerant towards non-believers and more open in terms of contacts than believers.

The increase in tolerance in the conditions of atheism can also be seen in the example of Armenian realities. Before the establishment of the Soviet system, there was a huge psychological barrier between the adherents of the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholics. They were isolated from each other, and communication between them was very limited. An atmosphere of mutual intolerance reigned. However, during the Soviet years, this psychological barrier was almost completely erased, and between the Armenian Catholics and the adherents of the Armenian Apostolic Church, normal relations were established, not constrained by confessional differences. In this, perhaps, a significant role was played by the ongoing Soviet period at the state level, the policy of atheism, erasing the psychological barrier between the two confessional layers of Armenians.

Thus, despite all the negative aspects, the atmosphere of atheism that reigned in the Soviet period played a positive role in terms of the national consolidation of Armenians, erasing the psychological barrier in the mutual perceptions of Catholic Armenians and adherents of the Armenian Apostolic Church. It is possible that the policy of atheism pursued at the state level during the Soviet period had a clear political goal. It was aimed at erasing the psychological barrier between the various religious and confessional layers of the Soviet heterogeneous (polyethnic, polyreligious, multicultural) society, conditioned by religious and confessional differences.

2. The role of secularization as a factor contributing to an increase in the level of religious tolerance, is clearly expressed in modern Western societies. There is incomparably less hostility and clashes occurring on the basis of religious differences. This, apparently, is due not only to democratic culture, but also to the secularization of society, which relegated religious and confessional issues to the background and gives priority to relations and spheres of activity of a secular nature. In this context, the psychological barriers that once existed between people with different religious and confessional views and values have been erased. A clear separation of the state from the church, mutual non-interference in each other's affairs, the formation of a civil society aimed at resolving common problems joint efforts in secular societies overshadowed religious and confessional differences between individuals and groups.

Positive mechanisms are aimed at introducing and ensuring religious tolerance in societies through mutual knowledge of various religious and confessional groups, mutual perception and mutual respect of value systems. In this context, it is important to emphasize the commonalities between various religious and confessional groups, structures that form public consciousness and culture (school, media, etc.), which becomes the basis not only for religious tolerance, but also for social solidarity and consolidation. Emphasizing communities takes place in the religious, national and state-civil planes.

1. In religious Plane underlining commonality involves several aspects. It is important to emphasize that:

all religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) have ideological and systemic values in common. As for the differences, they are good prerequisites for the complementarity of religions. Consequently, the difference in religions creates serious prerequisites for complementarity and enrichment of various religious and confessional groups of society in the ideological, systemic, and value terms. Finally, differences do not necessarily imply incompatibility. Differences and incompatibility are completely different phenomena and concepts. And different religions and denominations can be quite compatible, coexist peacefully and effectively.
the ideas of religious tolerance are also laid down in the teachings of religions and confessions. Despite the fact that each religion ascribes a monopoly on truth to itself, at the same time it also contains elements of tolerance and respect for the ideological system and value system of others. In this regard, although "any religious tradition claims its exclusivity and superiority (or at least assumes them)", nevertheless, "the potential for tolerance is contained in all known religious systems of mankind."
the commonality between different denominations within the same religion lies in the religion and faith itself. best example in this issue is the Armenian community of Syria, whose three confessional layers (Armenian Catholics, Armenian Protestants and adherents of the Apostolic Church) are mutually integrated and form one single, cohesive whole - the Syrian Armenian community. Integration and solidarity based on religious tolerance have deepened so much that, for example, adherents of the Apostolic Church also go to the Evangelical churches of Syria. According to the spiritual leaders of the Armenian Evangelical community in Syria, the main thing is the Christian faith, while confession (confessional distinctions) are of secondary importance.

2. Nationalplane, emphasizing the commonality of various religious and confessional layers emphasizes not religious and confessional, but ethnicity. In this case, it is emphasized that “...confessional diversity does not destroy national unity. Unity must be sought in the harmony of those components, the main motive of which must be nationalism in its highest sense of the word. This approach means that representatives of one and the same nation, be it Christian or Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, believer or atheist, do not cease to be the sons of the same people. Thus, when emphasizing the national community of various religious and confessional strata, they strengthen the consciousness of belonging to the same ethnic community, which is a serious basis for religious tolerance and national-social solidarity and consolidation.

3. In the state-civilplane, emphasizing the commonalities between various religious and confessional groups comes to the fore in cases where these groups at the same time belong to different nations. That is, in this case, emphasizing the commonality in the ethnic plane does not work. Instead, citizenship and belonging to the same society are emphasized. Various religious and confessional groups are instilled with the idea that they face the same problems and challenges (social, economic, environmental, political, etc.), have common interests and requirements and, therefore, common tasks, which is no less an important prerequisite for ensuring social solidarity and suppressing strife and disasters in societies based on religious and confessional grounds.

6. Conclusion

An analysis of the literature indicates a certain tension in interethnic relations especially among the youth. There is a trend double standards in relation to representatives of other nationalities.

This study revealed the features of religious tolerance among young people. This state of affairs, which is observed, requires measures to develop religious tolerance as recognition, acceptance, understanding by a person of a person of a different faith. There is a need to develop a program of work with youth, taking into account the main factors contributing to the formation of tolerance, as well as the age characteristics of students. Which would consist of general blocks aimed at self-knowledge and the search for identity, and specialized blocks aimed directly at working with religious attitudes.

Wood, J.E., The Human Right to Freedom of Religions in an International Perspective // Dia-Logos. Religion and society. – M.: Truth and life, 1997, p. 12.

Soskovets L. I., Religious tolerance and freedom of conscience: history and theory of the issue // Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. 2004. V. 307. No. 2, p. 177.

Interview with the spiritual pastor of the Armenian Evangelical Church of Damascus, Rev. Tatev Pasmachyan, Araks Pashayan, Armenian community of Damascus: present and prospects, Bulletin of Noravank Foundation, 2008, # 23, p. 33 - 34.

Raffi, What do we and Western Armenians have in common?http://www.eanc.net/EANC/library/Fiction/Original/Raffi/Essays_9.htm?page=31&interface_language=en

Can be questioned and removed. You can improve the article by adding more precise references to the sources.

Tolerance- a social, cultural and religious term used to describe the collective and individual behavior, which consists in not persecuting those whose way of thinking or acting does not coincide with your own and causes someone's disapproval. Tolerance implies a conscious decision not to do and not to commit all kinds of persecution of aliens. Usually the term is applied to non-violent behavior based on consensus, and is used in connection with issues of religion (in this case, the term is often used). religious tolerance), politics and morality. Tolerance does not require the recognition of the behavior of others as acceptable and only means that people tolerate a person or social group, often as a necessary evil (for example, a brothel is called a “brothel”).

From a sociological perspective, the concept of tolerance implies that both intolerance and conformism breed violence and social instability. In this regard, tolerance has become a social term for the rational justification of unconventional ways of behavior and social diversity [ ] .

Politics and religion

Historically, the political and religious spheres have been the most important for the promotion of tolerance, as differences in political and religious ideologies have led to numerous wars, purges and other atrocities. British philosopher and educator John Locke in his Letters on Tolerance (published: 1st - in 1689, 2nd and 3rd - in 1692, 4th - in 1706, after Locke's death) expressed the idea, revolutionary for that time, that tolerance for any retreating opinion should be the duty of a believer. Philosophers and writers of the Enlightenment, especially Voltaire and Lessing, actively advocated religious tolerance and their influence is being felt in contemporary Western society. At the same time, the issues of political tolerance are still less comprehended. Although the lack of religious tolerance causes problems in many regions of the world, differences in political ideology have led to hundreds of millions of victims in the 20th century alone.

The importance and necessity of respecting the principle of tolerance in politics is emphasized by the proclamation of the International Day for Tolerance.

Attitudes towards tolerance of various religions

In different religious denominations, the attitude towards tolerance of their representatives varies from complete rejection to unconditional acceptance of its principles.

Christianity

At present, almost all [ Who?] [ ] Christian denominations are for tolerance, if it is understood only as a refusal to act against dissidents. However, most [ Who?] of them firmly stands on its right to speak out against them, giving negative assessments.

Islam

The Holy Quran as well as prophetic hadiths command and encourage Muslims to be tolerant towards representatives of other faiths. Including both Christians and Jews. As, for example, the Quran says:

"Allah does not forbid you to be kind and just with those who did not fight you because of religion and did not drive you out of your dwellings. Verily, Allah loves the impartial." [Sura 60: ayat 8] trans. E. Kuliyev.

Judaism

The Bible assumes a deliberately intolerant attitude towards idolaters (first of all, they mean religions with human sacrifices). However, the active extermination of idolatry in the Bible is limited to the territory of Israel. Today, such an attitude towards representatives of other religions in the Jewish state is obviously not applicable.

At the same time, any non-Jew who observes the Seven Laws of the descendants of Noah is recognized in Judaism as a righteous man worthy of the kingdom of heaven, and has the status of a resident-stranger in Israel ( Ger toshav).

Buddhism

Zoroastrianism

There is an opinion whose?] that Zoroastrianism is also tolerant of other religions. Unlike Islam and Christianity [ ], Zoroastrians do not conduct active missionary activity. This is explained by the fact that Zoroastrians, unlike Christians and Muslims, do not consider the souls of all people who do not profess Zoroastrianism to be dead and requiring salvation. Counts [ by whom?] that the souls of people after death are judged not by religious affiliation, but by thoughts, words and deeds, which makes it possible for non-Zoroastrians to live a righteous life and avoid the worst fate after death.

intolerance intolerance

An important issue in defining the concept of tolerance is the question of the limits of tolerance. Should a tolerant society be tolerant of intolerance? Will this not lead to the destruction of society itself or its vital ones?

It is difficult to establish the boundaries of tolerance, not only in relation to different societies, but even sometimes within the same society. For example, modern persecution Nazism in Germany is regarded by some countries as intolerant, while in Germany itself Nazism is considered highly intolerant. Controversial issues in various countries may include separation of church and state, use of tobacco, alcohol or drugs, reading frowned upon political writings, as well as homosexuality, deviant sexual behavior, and criminal misdemeanors.

Philosopher John Rawls devoted a chapter in his influential and controversial book The Theory of Justice to the question of whether a society should be tolerant of intolerance, and the related issue of the rights of intolerant members of society to demand tolerance towards themselves. Rawls comes to the conclusion that society as a whole should be tolerant, therefore, intolerance should be tolerated, since the opposite situation would lead to injustice. However, the author insists on the reasonable right of self-defense of society and its social institutions which prevails over the right of tolerance. Therefore, intolerance must be tolerated, but only as long as it does not pose a threat to society. Liberal economist Chandran Kukatas, in Tolerating the Intolerant, emphasizes: “Tolerance requires people to be calm about differences of opinion and diversity of views, and not at all about crime or irresponsibility.”