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

Tolerance is tolerance for other, opposing morals, customs, culture, and behavior. This concept is also often used in the aspect of interethnic and interfaith relations, where it denotes tolerance towards other religious views, nationalities and traditions.

This is the interpretation of the concept that we encounter most often. But what we are accustomed 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 this... But I propose to talk about the ambiguity of the term later, and now pay attention to the key point - the result that 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 lead humanity to peace and order, harmony and progress. Actions that are directly opposite carry the threat of war, and ultimately the destruction of modern civilization and its achievements.
Visually, these patterns can be seen in the infographics above. And you can find tips on how to avoid the deplorable situation in the lower hemisphere and achieve world peace, as in the upper hemisphere, from my article.

Everyone has their own tolerance: the concept has multiple meanings!

Now we will talk not about how everyone understands tolerance, but about what each science has developed own definition 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. Doctors, engineers, ecologists, as well as representatives of other remarkable professions may encounter “other” tolerance.

Why was the Nobel Prize for Tolerance in Medicine given?

Many people insist on the original origin of the medical term “tolerance”, and only then on its transformation into a social and psychological one. Perhaps there is some truth in this, but the second part would not be out of question. And the whole point is that the use of the term “tolerance” back in the 18th century. attributed to Antoine Destutt de Tracy - the same philosopher and politician who was also the first to use the term “ideology”.

In the 19th century V Russian Empire liberal forces also used this concept, which might have been developed if there had not been a reshuffle of forces in the political arena of Russia. With the Bolsheviks coming to power, there could be no talk of any “tolerance”, except maybe only medical. So let's go back to it again.

Tolerance was coined as a scientific medical term by Peter Brian Medawar in the mid-twentieth century. By it he meant the absence of a reaction of the immune system or its weakened response to an antigen. That is, simply put, we are talking about the body’s continuity of foreign tissues that are transplanted to a person during surgery and which he simply “tolerates.” Having discovered acquired immune tolerance, in 1960 he received the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine.

Approximately in this interpretation, tolerance was presented to Soviet citizens in the Great Patriotic War. Soviet Encyclopedia 1977. Therefore, if we look for the roots of the appearance of this term in post-Soviet space, indeed, one can claim that they have a medical basis. Since it was not possible to find an original Russian word to identify the phenomenon that we are studying, most likely the term was borrowed from one scientific branch to another based on their similarity.

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

Along with immunology, this term is actively used in pharmacology and narcology, but everywhere it essentially means the same thing - the absence of the body’s response 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 involves calculations, projections, calculations, drawings and a host of other boring and repetitive actions day after day. How do I know this? From own experience. And if it weren’t for the article: , my experience as an ordinary engineer at the enterprise would have continued to grow further, while my savings would have melted away even before receiving my next salary. But let's not talk about sad things, let's return to our question.

The main task of an engineer is to be precise in everything. With the exception of 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 ​​specified for the dimensions or properties of a part. This difference is considered an acceptable, tolerable error that will not lead to deformation of the part or loss of its function.

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

What do environmentalists understand by tolerance?

The whole essence of tolerance “in an ecological way” is revealed in Shelford’s Law, formulated at the beginning of the twentieth century. It is as follows: the lack of prosperity of the organism 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 now the fun begins! If we transfer such an ecological definition of tolerance to the social plane, then it may well “take root” there too. If earlier we talked about tolerance as tolerance, now we have the opportunity to operate with new synonyms for this word, borrowed from ecologists - these are endurance and sustainability.

Why not? If we show tolerance towards other beliefs and views, then we are resistant to them, that is, we are so confident in the correctness of our worldview that we are not afraid of it changing due to the influence of views alien to us. At the same time, by showing tolerance, we demonstrate our endurance. After all, only the strong in spirit enduring man can culturally resist someone else’s (often diametrically opposed or even hostile) opinion, without trying to humiliate, hurt the opponent’s feelings, or convert “to one’s faith.”

Thus, we have carried out together with you an analysis of the concepts of tolerance taken from various scientific fields. According to some particular, individual characteristics, they undoubtedly differ, but their essence remains common: any tolerance is based on “tolerance” and “difference,” and, if we speak very generally, on tolerance for difference and differences.

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

If you take on the role of a thoughtless literal formalist, then yes, indeed, you could equate 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 (French) – tolerance.

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

Be that as it may, in the Russian language there are two individual words– tolerance and tolerance. And even if they are synonyms, they still have different lexical colors. And if you dig deeper, they have completely different meanings...

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

How do you imagine showing 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 their partner and respecting the latter’s choice. They will simply part ways amicably, preferring to pursue their plans alone or with another investor.

In my opinion this is the best clear example to understand the difference between the two concepts. We will try to systematize them in the form of general conclusions:

1. Tolerance is active behavior, tolerance is, on the contrary, passive. In the first case, a person shows a willingness to conduct a dialogue with a person opposing views, in the second – such 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.
2. In relationships where tolerance is manifested, both subjects are equal and independent individuals. Where tolerance is present, signs of dependence of one on the other indirectly or indirectly are visible.
3. If a person is tolerant of something, it means he behaves meaningfully. In this case, his consciousness is involved. In the case of tolerance, it is not at all necessary that a person pass his need to “tolerate” through consciousness. Most often they tolerate it out of habit, because it is necessary. And if 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. Epiphany, of course, will not come by itself. Some kind of 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 did I realize that I was simply putting up with a job I didn’t like, an always dissatisfied boss, a low salary, and my patience wasn’t benefiting anyone at all. When I got tired of enduring it, I started trading binary options. I mastered Viktor Samoilov’s “Option Scalper” strategy step by step according to his article: , after which I, a person ignorant of options up to that point, began to be able to successfully carry out operations and receive the long-awaited profit.

In a word, what do I mean: patience/tolerance, in my opinion, is rather a negative, destructive phenomenon, while tolerance is useful and creative. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible 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?

Tolerantism is interpreted in several dictionaries as “tolerance” or “toleration.” Then it can again be considered 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 the time has come to figure out whether he is 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 people of other faiths and not be persecuted for it? Nothing bad. Moreover, this is the ideal to which a civilized society should strive.

And if we reason at a primitive level, the following conclusions may arise on their own:

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

But let's return to our reservation about primitiveness. Yes, if you think narrowly, don’t deviate left and right, tolerance without extremes is really good. Only with tolerance there are excesses. And they can be seen especially clearly in the example of European countries and the United States.

Tolerance in the USA reaches the point of absurdity. In the Motherland, democracies are so concerned about the rights of small religious groups that for several years now it has been prohibited to call the Christmas tree that way, so as not to offend the religious feelings of representatives of other faiths. A “holiday” tree is installed in front of the Capitol, and the President of the United States congratulates everyone on the “holiday”, not “Christmas.”

Another example of extreme tolerance is Belgium. The exclusively Catholic country, where the majority of believers are Catholics, has recently sought 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. This 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 there are even fewer of them. One can’t help but wonder: is such tolerance worth such infringement of the rights of the indigenous population? Why can't Brussels residents see a Christmas tree in the main square of their city, even if Muslims live in it?

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 reverse effect– instead of tolerance, they risk getting a wave of protests and disturbances, which can then escalate into clashes and conflicts.

But it is not only religion that becomes a stumbling block in modern society. “Aggressive tolerance,” as the Americans themselves called it, is already manifested in more intimate spheres - the distinction between genders and sexual orientation. At the end of 2015, a real scandal of local significance broke out in Lancaster (New York), which nevertheless echoed around the world: from above everyone American schools an order was given to change the behavior pattern of boys and girls. What is especially interesting is how it was planned to implement this order: boys were supposed to start going to the girls’ toilet, and girls – accordingly, 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 government of the state wanted to increase the camp of its admirers at the expense of gay citizens. Thus, children were also involved in the struggle for the rights of sexual minorities.

The “traditional” parents immediately called a meeting and unanimously voted to abolish the new order. They also noted that recently the imposition of “minority ideology” has become aggressive and threatening.

Analyzing all these special cases, you can’t help but wonder: is everything so smooth with this tolerance? In my opinion, no. The ideology of tolerance can allow approval of the most extreme manifestations of cynicism and immorality, and lead to their justification.

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

Any patience has limits, so tolerance must also have limits. Total tolerance and acceptance of absolutely all opinions, it turns out, is not a guarantee of peaceful coexistence for everyone on this planet. And if so, it means that the described ideology cannot lay claim to universality and 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 self-awareness, since the historically established spiritual, moral and religious-cultural values ​​of one people are relegated to the background, while the values ​​of a minority claim to take an equal place, and in the future - to displace existing ones and replace their;

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

To summarize, we can now answer the question: is tolerance dangerous for society? Yes, it's dangerous. It is just as dangerous as any ideology that threatens to ultimately turn into dictatorship and terror. It is not without reason that the Constitutions of most European countries proclaim ideological pluralism, that is, in essence, a ban on the monopoly of any ideology.

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

What is intolerance?

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

For a better understanding, I will give the following example: in the city of N, a mosque is being built near an Orthodox church. Some people have absolutely no reaction to construction – neither in word nor in deed. Their behavior can be called tolerant. Others help fans of Islam raise funds for construction; everyone helps as much as they can. They are also tolerant, moreover, their behavior can be called ideally tolerant, since they pass their actions through consciousness and act this way due to their high cultural development. But there is a third group of individuals - hostile, who do not want representatives of other faiths to be able to cope with their spiritual needs on equal terms with them. They can complain to human rights organizations, city authorities, or act in a less civilized manner - go for open confrontation: block a construction site, insult Muslims, provoke a fight, etc. These people are intolerant. And their position, as you 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 attitude that your system of views and values, your way of life and judgment is better than that of your neighbor, is fraught with a threat - a time bomb. As soon as this attitude has the opportunity to be implemented in society, it will take on frightening forms:

Dominance, domination, dictatorship;
- ethnic cleansing, genocide, extermination of dissidents.

Human civilization has more than once encountered similar manifestations of intolerance. There is no need to 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 consider one of the forms of manifestation of intolerance – the Holocaust.

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

In addition to my personal conviction that intolerance is wrong, this also tells us historical experience. More than one regime that was built on the oppression of one group of people and the superiority of another has not lasted long. Sooner or later he will be defeated, and therefore intolerance is a social defect that needs correction and adjustment.

But we talked a lot about the fact that excessive tolerance can lead to unfavorable 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 acquires alarming proportions. Where to look for the “golden mean”?

In my opinion, it lies in the harmonious coexistence of representatives different ideas, views, beliefs by defining 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 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? Workers educational institutions, media, public organizations. Of course, with the support of the official authorities. It is they who must create all the conditions and organize the work, creating the appropriate regulatory and material base for these purposes.

What can gender equality lead to?

Gender tolerance is a complex concept that includes:

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

2) objective assessment of the individual from the point of view personal qualities, not sexual characteristics;

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

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

What can we 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 completely refused to be hired because they are women, masking their decision, naturally, with other reasons, or they endure disrespectful, sometimes even boorish behavior during the work process. attitude of a boss who is inclined to doubt mental abilities representatives of the fair sex.

Having suffered such undeserved harassment, women involuntarily think about working without a boss - one where their success would depend solely on them. Many people dream, but not many dare. If you are at a crossroads, this video will help you make up your mind about binary options trading as an excellent way to achieve financial independence.

After studying this material, as well as completing 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, among other things, 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 bring to justice for non-compliance with such requirements. But in real life everything is not quite like that... This mainly concerns the experience of post-Soviet states.

In Europe, there are almost no problems with gender tolerance - four European countries occupy first places in the world ranking of gender equality:

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 - erasing the boundaries between the sexes, which threatens no less serious consequences than gender intolerance.
This can be seen using the example kindergarten in Stockholm (Sweden) under the name Nicolaigarden. The main principle in raising children here is gender neutrality. Being called “boy” or “girl” is unacceptable. A child of any gender in this establishment is addressed as “buddy.” You can’t ask about mom and dad - what if the baby has two moms... or two dads?

Toys on 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 stereotypical sex roles. Everyone will choose a toy that they like, without looking at who it is intended for. And unlike the American Lancaster, 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 that, 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 gender characteristics. In a word, they are given the same opportunities and the right to choose. But something is still alarming... Will such gender tolerance lead to a distortion of their psychology, which may subsequently affect their sexual orientation? It is possible 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 generally binding principle in modern society.

Now we are talking about Muslim countries in which women are not given all the rights that are given to the fair sex, 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, a state like the UAE. It would be hard to call its residents, economy, or standard of living “lagging behind.” But 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 instilling in the East those values ​​that are inherent in the West, including equal rights for men and women, is illogical and fundamentally wrong. Moreover, states with a significant number of Muslim emigrants should be especially careful in protecting the rights oriental women. At the very least, there is certainly no need to interfere in family relationships between a man and a woman. It will definitely not be possible to regulate them using the current national legislation, since the norms of traditional law, formed over millennia, act as an effective regulator. Attempts to change something can only harm, but not help.

National tolerance is the key to peace and friendship on the planet!

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

You can leave a boss who oppresses you because of your gender for someone else, or start free-swimming by going into business. You can divorce a husband who does not respect his wife as a person. What to do with someone who insults your patriotic feelings? Just like that... For no apparent reason. Just because I saw you on the street and noticed striking differences in your appearance and manner of dressing. Some tend to tolerate such attacks, being in a state of psychological discomfort, others act more impulsively - they use their fists. Can you imagine the consequences of such actions on a larger scale?

Everyone is aware of the historical events of the last century, and therefore is able to trace the transformation using a real example. German people from 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 ​​​​its own superiority and domination over other nations.

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

There are many such examples of wars and oppression in world history. There is no point in dwelling on each of them, since we are more interested in something else - is there a universal panacea for such disasters?

At the level interpersonal communication To do this, it is enough to respect the opinion of your opponent. At the international or domestic level:

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 policies aimed at inciting interethnic hatred.

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

Criminal Codes in legal states contain articles providing for punishment for inciting interethnic and interracial hatred, promoting the superiority of one group of people over another on racial or national grounds.

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

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

Taking into account the above, we can try to formulate the concept of national tolerance. It can be considered the willingness 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, and worldview.

How does sexual tolerance manifest itself?

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

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

The difference between these two concepts can be described using two slogans: “all women in the kitchen” and “gays have 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 influence on social tension in society, on the conflicts that arise in it, sexual orientation tolerance does not have such important, let's say national.

This can be explained as follows:

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

2) most of people with non-traditional orientation will be silent about the fact that they are being discriminated against because they do not want publicity;

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

What does the “healthy” majority think about this? This question can be answered with facts: in 24 countries of the world same-sex marriages are allowed (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 see, there is sufficient sexual tolerance towards minorities in the world. But this only applies to European and some Latin American countries, as well as the USA. If you turn your attention 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 (just 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 decide on one’s own orientation than with an ideology or belief system. 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 (for now we will not take bisexuals into account). This is a natural instinct, the call of the flesh, which cannot be strangled through consciousness. And if so - if nothing threatens your space - why not allow people with a different orientation to live and do as they please? But changing political views or even faith as a result of exhortations or convincing arguments is quite possible. 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 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 clothes on the streets of Paris is satisfied by the authorities, then for the indigenous residents there is sufficient reason to fear for cultural assimilation. While providing the opportunity to register a marriage for two men or women does not pose any threat to 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 one can notice the opposite trend. The peaceful 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 foundations, it seems, will never allow them to look, if not with respect, then at least without contempt, at people with non-traditional sexual orientation.

Analyzing the provisions above, we can come to the conclusion that sexual orientation tolerance is not able to “ripe” 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 at the same time the most difficult to achieve religious tolerance?

Tolerance can be defined as the respectful attitude of representatives of some religious groups towards others, whose views and ideas about God are strikingly different, as well as the unwavering adherence to their religious beliefs, along with the recognition of the equal value 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 tolerance of a Muslim towards a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc.);

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

3) to sectarian movements - religious groups that have broken away from the main religious direction and oppose it (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Baptists, evangelists, etc.);

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

The criterion for this classification is the subjects towards whom tolerance is manifested.

The characteristic features of religious tolerance are:

1) recognition of the right to exist for every religion;

2) respect for any religious choice of a person;

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

4) refusal of coercion to any religion, from condemnation of people of other faiths;

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

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

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

Such superficiality gives rise to 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 tenets of other religions in order to find in them something that contradicts his views.

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

If all religions preach tolerance, then a completely logical question arises: why did the Huguenot wars flare up, how were the Crusades allowed, and why is the same ISIS fighting, whose brutal massacres we are witnessing today? One could say that it is all due to the wrong interpretation of the scriptures. However, when we say this, we are being disingenuous. Humanity has vast experience in interpreting the Bible, the Koran, the Sunna, and the Talmud, so to assume that someone did not read something or understood it incorrectly is simply ridiculous. ISIS ideologists are not 5th grade students, but born leaders with a good education who were simply able to skillfully manipulate the feelings of believers.

So, based on this, we can come to the conclusion 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, 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 adhere to the following principles, translating them into public policy:

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

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

3) establish a dialogue with religious associations, together with them seek ways for the spiritual revival of society and the affirmation 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 cultivating tolerance towards people of other faiths, 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 faiths - Muslim, Christian and Buddhist - consider their goal to bring peace, goodness and brotherly love into the life of everyone, where a brother is considered not a brother by blood or by faith, but every person living on Earth. This can be seen in passages from the scriptures.

Tolerance the 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 Quran, which states that there is no compulsion in religion. It is unacceptable for a person’s worldview to be formed under coercion.

An example for all Muslims is the Prophet Muhammad, who was distinguished by tolerance and loyalty towards non-Muslims. During his life and preaching activities, the Arabian Peninsula was a mixture of religions and cultures. There were often cases of open confrontations between believers from different faiths, and therefore Muhammad behaved cautiously and tolerantly, recognizing the right of people of other faiths to practice 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 the Holy Scriptures. Thus, verse 125 of Surah An-Nakhl says 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 convert non-Muslims to Islam through reasonable arguments and arguments, the faith cannot be implanted by force. In this case, you should leave your religion to the Gentiles so that they can be satisfied with it.

It is quite possible for representatives of different faiths to live in the same territory. Moreover, such a neighborhood can be peaceful and conflict-free if you show the necessary tolerance. Muhammad proved this with his Medina Agreements, the essence of which was the voluntary unification of Muslims, Christians, Jews and polytheists under one authority - the authority of Muhammad, who provided them with equal rights and protection regardless of religion. From then on, everyone who signed the agreements became a single community (ummah), distinct from other people.

The Medina Accords became a kind of Constitution of Medina, which had to be followed by all residents of the city. It described the responsibilities 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 God could resolve it. Thus, all residents had to reckon with supreme body authority in the person of Muhammad.

As we see, the basis of Islam as an ideology is religious tolerance, which is not only spoken of directly in the Koran, but can also be read between the lines if the Holy Scriptures are interpreted correctly.

There is not a single line in the Koran that calls on the followers of Muhammad to kill infidels in the name of Allah. Those who criticize and denigrate Islam love to tear out individual lines of verses about murder from the general context, as a result of which their meaning is distorted.

Particularly often they turn to the 9th and 47th suras of the Koran. The first of them says that with the end of the forbidden months, the polytheists should be killed where they are found and captured. To correctly interpret this surah, it is necessary to know the circumstances of its revelation.

At that time, the Arabs were divided along religious lines: some were polytheists, others were Muslims. And the first of them constantly started wars against the last. Muslims proposed that the polytheists conclude a peace treaty that would guarantee that each side would renounce attacks and provocations. But the polytheists often violated the agreement, in particular in 641 AD. Then Muhammad gave them four months to renew the truce. This surah specifically talks about these four “forbidden months” and that the destruction of polytheists is allowed only in the event of direct aggression against Muslims.

As you can see, there is no connection with terrorism or forced conversion 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 dates back to the time when the Battle of Badr took place, in which the followers of Islam fought with the Quraish. Such instructions can be considered guidelines for the Muslim army in case of war. Such actions are unacceptable in peacetime. True Muslims should not show aggression towards dissidents, except in exceptional cases - defense and protection.

Therefore, the outbreak of bloody wars cannot be justified by the injunctions of the Koran. Those who do this are promoting pseudo-Islam.

Is there tolerance in Christianity?

Despite the fact that in the eyes of modern society Christianity looks like a more peace-loving religion than Islam, there is not a single precise indication in the Bible that one should be tolerant of people of other faiths. 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 will not find anything like this in the Bible, no matter how hard you try. Yes, it can be derived from general provisions The New Testament has its 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: “Love one another”? Ardent defenders of Christianity can cite it as evidence of “biblical tolerance.” Perhaps this is the only formulation that can be pulled “by the ear” towards religious tolerance. Jesus calls everyone to humanism, all-encompassing love, and in this one can see a call to 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 present 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 - without regard to faith, nationality, personal hostility, etc. It says that you need to love your enemies and pray for them, imitating the example of the Lord, since the sun, by His will, shines on everyone: the evil and the good, the righteous and sinners.

Although the lines in the Gospel of Matthew sound somewhat categorical, which say that he who is not with him is against him, whoever does not gather with him, scatters. The division into comrades and opponents is obvious. And it sounds somehow not at all tolerant.

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

This is confirmed by another biblical teaching, which says that those who are not with us or not like us does not 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 even enemies with mercy and love, as mentioned above.

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

What is the most tolerant religion?

The most ancient religion, but at the same time corresponding to modern realities, is Buddhism. It is also considered the most tolerant, humane and democratic religious movement.

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

Tolerance must be shown towards other religions;

Everyone has the right to independent search spirituality;

You cannot impose Buddhist teachings by force if a person has not matured spiritually and has not come to it himself.

An ardent follower of Buddhism, ruler Ashok, issued decrees in which he instructed his subjects: “One should respect the faith of others.” 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 dissenters - schools and movements.

But what is most interesting is that those who wish to study Buddhism do not have to renounce their faith. Believers from other religious groups can adopt only that part of Buddhist teachings 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 adopt from Buddhism only that which did not contradict the tenets of their faith.

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. The most cases of discrimination and aggression based on religious differences are observed in Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is not established as a state religion in official level, however, it is strongly supported by the authorities and the population (about 70% are Buddhists).

So, here not just Buddhist believers, 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 out into the street and beat him. All this was accompanied by demands to renounce their beliefs and stop religious activities. So much for religious tolerance...

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

How does success in business depend on manifestations of tolerance?

Receiving 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, you will have to show tolerance in relation to:

Clients, buyers, consumers;

Employees upon hiring;

Competitors;

Investment risks.

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

Tolerance in private enterprise!

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

Because of this, the principle of providing services on equal conditions each client must be combined with individual approach to the clientele. At the same time, compliance with the first principle is required from the entrepreneur not only by the rule of law, but also by personal motives - the desire to expand his client base and make a profit. That is why business tolerance is the basis and guarantee of success in entrepreneurship. Let such behavior cannot be called highly moral, since ideally tolerance should not be shown for profit, but should be unconditional and free of charge - that is, when a person acts this way based on own beliefs, views, ideas about the equality of all people. But still, external manifestation tolerance, even if it is not based on deep moral principles, is always better than open confrontation.

Rejection and intolerance should under no circumstances be transferred from everyday life to your business activities. For example, if in your circle of acquaintances there is a person whom you dislike, he should not guess about it when he came to you as a buyer or customer. You cannot refuse to provide services or increase the price because you don’t like him. In addition to the fact that you put the existence of the business at risk in this way, you can also incur problems with institutions that monitor compliance with consumer rights.

But not only tolerance towards customers can help your business develop at a rapid pace. Tolerance when recruiting staff is another component of a harmoniously developing business. As practice shows, employers who assemble clone employees in their team, that is, those who do not differ at all from each other in appearance and internal qualities, will never make their company a leader in the market.

But the point is this: differences in at least something inevitably lead to discussion. And everyone already knows that truth is born in 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 only with them you can make money.

So, discrimination in hiring against representatives of a different gender, race, nationality, religion, political ideology will certainly lead your project to fiasco. On the contrary, the greater loyalty and tolerance shown at the competition stage, 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 message. It becomes even greater when, in the process of your tireless work and efforts, competitors begin to lure clients to themselves using dirty methods. In this case, there is only one way out - to be tolerant of competitors. That's exactly it and no other way.

There are several explanations for such patience and humility:

1) by acting “uncleanly” in relation to your competitors, you are setting up a whole camp of other businessmen against yourself;

2) when proceeding according to point 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 happened to you, but will also be happy to trip you up;

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

It must be said 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 inevitably involves risk. It is generally accepted that the more calmly a trader treats the risk of losing his funds, the more tolerant he is (high risk tolerance). If a speculator is afraid to take risks, even considering the opportunity to make big money, then he has quite low tolerance.

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

1. The size of the deposit and the funds that can be used for trading;
2. Trading experience;
3. Psychological characteristics and personal perception of binary options trading;
4. Social status.

Here you can talk about the influence of mood, the situation in your personal life, weather and even meteorological 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 can deservedly be given to size. Money that a trader can engage in trading. The more of them, the easier the trader agrees to take risks, because he knows that he will be able to deposit the additional amount he has, and then, accordingly, restore the balance between injections 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 other people’s experience, because as they say: “a wise man learns from the mistakes of others, a wise man from his own, but 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 “Precise Entry” trading strategy by reading about it in the article:

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

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

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

Those who have always considered psychology to be a useless and unnecessary science will now become tense. 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. Because the success of trading largely depends on your psychological attitude.

People who naturally have a negative attitude and pessimistic views of the future, who are skeptical about this type of income, will not be able to make a fortune on options. But adventurous people, not lacking the ability to think logically and operationally, can achieve certain success in trading. You can verify this by looking at the stories of real people in the article:

Many of them worked according to Viktor Samoilov’s strategy “Trading by signals” and already in the first months they earned such earnings that they could only dream of during the days of hired work. Watching this video will only take a few minutes, but you will be able to see the entire process of working on this strategy, as they say, from the first person.

And returning to the factors influencing risk tolerance in trading, I would also like to say about a person’s social status. 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 situation be determined?

Position in society depends on a person’s origin, 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, the trader trades more calmly, which means he has high tolerance.

Why is he acting calm? High status in society is an indicator of relaxed thoughts (not to be confused with relaxed behavior), dynamic mental activity, and calm and dignified acceptance of one’s defeat. All this allows you to feel more confident and also to quickly respond to market conditions. Thus, the loss 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 for him and a blow to financial stability. And therefore, he takes risks more calmly than someone who occupies a much lower level in society, and, accordingly, is accustomed to worrying and worrying about his future.

Weather, personal life, good rest affect not tolerance, but mood. And the mood, in turn, is for the process of work, that is, for trading binary options.
To reduce risks in trading on financial markets and increase your level of 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 increase 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.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

The problem of religious tolerance is naturally one of the most pressing and actively discussed issues in the modern world. Religious tolerance should be considered as a complex phenomenon of social consciousness, in which ideological 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 in both religion and confessional affiliation. The mechanisms for the formation of religious tolerance are connected with the entire system public relations, with the possibility of full implementation of constitutional democratic rights and freedoms, with the level of spiritual culture of the individual and society. Having emerged in ancient times, the problem of religious tolerance was most acute where peoples of different religions were forced to live together within 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 are a centrifugal force tearing our multinational Motherland to pieces. If Russia wants to remain whole and prosperous, then Moscow and the regions must turn their gaze to Tatarstan and adopt our values. The clearest example is the awarding of Minitimer Sharipovich last year in Riyadh. King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia presented him with the King Faisal International Award in the category “Service to Islam” 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 faiths. This is what the whole world is striving for. When the peaceful coexistence of two dominant religions is prioritized, this speaks volumes.

Let's show the situation in the country with reliable facts and dry figures. According to statistics from 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 located in the republic. The region under consideration is one of the most multinational territories of the Russian Federation. More than 115 nationalities have been recorded in Tatarstan, among which the predominant ones are the Tatars, of whom there are more than 2 million people, which is a percentage of total number The region's population is 52.9%. In second place are Russians, of whom there are 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. Islam is professed by Tatars and Bashkirs - about half of the population of Tatarstan. Another significant part of the population professes Orthodoxy, these include primarily Russians, Mari, Chuvash, Mordovians, and Udmurts. Between the two major faiths, as far as possible, a balance is maintained, on the basis of which interfaith harmony and religious tolerance are built. It is noteworthy that in the region under review, 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 monoethnic marriages. In view of the current interethnic and interfaith situation, trusting relationships have developed over many years between Orthodox Christians and Muslims of the Republic of Tatarstan.

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 Islam - 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", "Ending 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 religions. Relations between the two religions went through a difficult evolution and did not always develop in an ascending straight line. But I want to emphasize that it was the positive facts peaceful coexistence of the main religions in Volga Bulgaria. Khan of the Golden Horde Mengu Timur published more than seven centuries ago letter of commendation, according to which the Orthodox clergy were forever exempted from all tributes and duties, and for blasphemy Orthodox faith the death penalty was imposed. More than two centuries have passed since the decree of the Holy Synod was issued by order of Catherine II, according to which Russian Islam received great opportunities for development. Finally, more than a century has passed since the act of Emperor Nicholas II, according to which religious freedoms were proclaimed in the country.

In Tatarstan, in particular Kazan, a tolerant and tolerant attitude towards religion and its representatives can be traced. 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 navigate our studies and relationships with people. Concepts such as subordination, tolerance and altruism are universally known in this country, and in every possible way help visitors to be relaxed and at ease in the country. And integration at the religious level was not difficult, because the republic’s relationship with the Islamic religion was outlined above. Whether he is a Kazakh, Chinese, Mongolian, 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 in Tatarstan the principles of a secular state are being implemented.

Already in our time, a lot has been done for this. But the secular nature of the state does not mean the displacement of religion from the life of society, the exclusion of religious associations from participation in solving socially significant problems. Religion is separated from the state, but not from society. This axiom also determines the features of interfaith interaction and its influence on the development of society as a whole. religious tolerance personality society

On the other hand, confessions are 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 government bodies, the current religious situation in Tatarstan remains stable and controlled by the state. Work is being carried out, first of all, to increase the religious literacy of people, educational work to distinguish pseudo-religious movements and counter the spread of radical ideology

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

From time immemorial, religion has been a factor that unites or splits societies. general characteristics problems of implementing the principles of religious tolerance. Introduction to the most important mechanisms for ensuring religious tolerance: negative, positive.

presentation, added 11/15/2014


A study of the understanding of religious tolerance by Polish anti-trinitarians. Characteristics of religious tolerance and intolerance within the Sejms. Consideration of the features of the process of resolving property disputes between the Orthodox clergy and the authorities.

thesis, added 09/28/2017


Religion as a necessary component public life and spiritual culture of society. Its sociocultural functions, social reasons for its occurrence. Different ideas about its essence. Monuments of religious culture. Various forms of freethinking.

presentation, added 05/28/2014


The role of religion in the life of the individual and the whole society. Features of religious faith. The essence of the cult and its place in the religious complex. Formation and characteristics of a religious personality. Religious organization as a complex social institution, religious groups.

abstract, added 04/07/2010


The need for interreligious dialogue and contacts between leaders of various faiths in the modern world. Discussions between representatives of diverse faiths - Orthodoxy and Islam - around the interpretation of key concepts, including the understanding of religious tolerance.

scientific work, added 12/11/2010


Religion as the oldest form of spiritual culture, its origin, structure, problem of origin and role in the modern world. Features of religious faith as the basis of any religion. Comparative characteristics of the main groups of currently existing religions.

abstract, added 02/10/2010


The reasons and circumstances that became the reason for religious reform. The path of formation and the main ideas of Patriarch Nikon. Personality traits of the patriarch, their role in the reform and career growth patriarch. The fall of Patriarch Nikon, its prerequisites and consequences.

course work, added 05/02/2012


History of origin and development religious beliefs. Traditional and new religious movements. The relationship between beliefs, art, morality and science. Analysis of the modern cultural and religious situation. Interaction of culture and religion in the modern world.

course work, added 11/20/2012


History of the religious system of Judaism, main provisions. Peculiarities of the image of an ideal believer based on the material of the Sacred Text. Creation of a model of the relationship between God and man in the Holy text “Torah” of the religious system of Judaism.

course work, added 02/22/2012


Identification and analysis of the main features of the religious system of Christianity. A study of the relationship between the image of man and the Absolute in the religious system of Christianity using the example of the analysis of the text “The Blessing of Thomas” and determining the characteristics of this relationship.

May be questioned and removed. You can improve the article by providing more accurate citations to your sources.

Tolerance- a social, cultural and religious term used to describe the collective and individual behavior which consists of not pursuing those whose way of thinking or acting does not coincide with your own and causes someone else's disapproval. Tolerance implies a conscious decision not to do or commit any kind of persecution against strangers. Typically the term is applied to nonviolent, consensus-based behavior and is used in connection with religious issues (in which case the term toleration), politics and morality. Tolerance does not require accepting 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 “house of tolerance”).

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

Politics and religion

Historically, the political and religious spheres have been most important in promoting tolerance, as differences in political and religious ideologies have led to many wars, purges, and other atrocities. British philosopher and educator John Locke in his Epistles on Tolerance (published: 1st - in 1689, 2nd and 3rd - in 1692, 4th - in 1706, after Locke’s death) expressed a revolutionary idea for that time that tolerance of any deviating opinion should be the duty of a believer. Enlightenment philosophers and writers, especially Voltaire and Lessing, actively advocated religious tolerance and their influence is felt in modern Western society. At the same time, issues of political tolerance still remain less understood. Although a 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 observing the principle of tolerance in politics is emphasized by the proclamation of the International Day dedicated to tolerance.

Attitudes towards tolerance of different religions

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

Christianity

Currently, 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 his right to make statements about them that give negative assessments.

Islam

The Holy Quran as well as prophetic hadiths command and encourage Muslims to show tolerance towards representatives of other faiths. Including both Christians and Jews. For example, the Koran says:

“Allah does not forbid you to be kind and fair to those who did not fight you because of religion and did not expel you from your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who are impartial.” [Sura 60: verse 8] trans. E. Kuliev.

Judaism

The Bible presupposes a deliberately intolerant attitude towards idolaters (primarily meaning religions with human sacrifices). However, the active extermination of idolatry in the Bible is limited to the territory of Israel. Nowadays similar attitude obviously does not apply to representatives of other religions in the Jewish state.

At the same time, any non-Jew who observes the Seven Laws of the Descendants of Noah is recognized in Judaism as a righteous person worthy of the kingdom of heaven, and has the status of a foreigner 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 carry out active missionary activities. 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 lost and in need of salvation. Counts [ by whom?] that the souls of people after death are not judged by religious affiliation, but by thoughts, words and deeds, which makes it possible for non-Zoroastrians to live a righteous life and avoid a worse fate after death.

Tolerance of intolerance

An important issue when defining the concept of tolerance is the question of the boundaries of tolerance. Should a society that professes tolerance 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, the modern persecution of Nazism in Germany is regarded by some countries as intolerance, while in Germany itself Nazism itself is considered highly intolerant. Controversial issues in various countries may include the separation of church and state, use of tobacco, alcoholic beverages or drugs, reading unapproved political works, as well as homosexuality, deviant sexual behavior and criminal misdemeanors.

Philosopher John Rawls devoted a chapter in his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether society should tolerate intolerance and the related problem of the rights of intolerant members of society to demand tolerance of 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 create a threat to society. Liberal economist Chandran Kukathas, in his article “Tolerating the Intolerant,” emphasizes: “Tolerance requires people to be comfortable with difference of opinion and diversity of views, and not at all with crime or irresponsibility.”

Laws on religious tolerance

• - Edict of Toleration in the Holy Land
• - Decree of Nicholas II “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance” ()

3.2.Modern concepts of political tolerance.

3.3.Political tolerance and the modern political process.

3.4.The role of mediation in the transition to a position of political tolerance.

Topics for reports and abstracts:

Questions for the exam:

Chapter 4. Ethnic tolerance.

4.1. Ethnic tolerance as a type of tolerance.

4.2. Tolerance in interethnic communication.

Chapter 5. Ethnic intolerance and conflictology of interethnic relations

5.1. Ethnic conflictology: subject field, tasks, methods

5.1.1.General and ethnic conflictology: similarities and differences

5.1.2. Classification of ethnic conflicts

5.1.3. Structure of ethnic conflicts

5.1.4. Conflict management

Basic concepts:

Recommended reading

5. 2. Empires and peoples: history and theories of nationalism

5.2.1. Empires and the “national question”

5.2.2. Awakening of Nationalism

5.2.3. Types and forms of nationalism

5.2.4. Mobilization theory

Basic concepts:

Recommended reading

5.3. Phenomenology and analytics of conflict: “Case study”

5.3.1. Content

Key concepts:

Recommended reading

Internet resources

5.4. Ethnic conflictology in a regional context

5.4.1. Conflictology of interethnic relations and migrationology

“Approaches to the analysis of migration processes through the prism of various disciplines”

5.4.2. Diaspora problems

5.4.3. Countering extremism

5.4.4. Ethnoconflictological monitoring

Basic concepts:

Recommended reading

Internet resources

I. Pre-test questions

II.Topics for abstracts and reports:

III. Self-test questions

Questions and assignments for section 5. 2

I. Select the required answer options and justify them

II. Try to make changes and additions to the table:

Questions and assignments for section 5. 3

II. Comparative table “Judaism and Christianity: general and special”

Questions about the document

V. Structural analysis of the conflict based on eyewitness accounts.

VI. Topics of abstracts and reports

VII. Viewing and annotating documentaries:

Questions and assignments for section 5.4

III. Conduct a study of the assessment of the situation in the region over a certain period of time by local media on the following scale:

Chapter 6. Gender tolerance

6.2 Manifestations of gender tolerance and intolerance at the level of social interaction

6.3. Manifestations of gender tolerance

6.4. Manifestations of gender tolerance and intolerance at the intrapersonal level

6.5 Factors shaping an individual’s gender tolerance.

Literature

Guidelines

Tasks and questions for independent work:

Chapter 7. Psychology of tolerance/intolerance.

7.2. Tolerant personality

7.3. Psychological structure and criteria of tolerance-intolerance

7.4. Tolerance-intolerance as a multi-level psychological phenomenon.

7.5. Psychological mechanisms and factors of tolerance-intolerance

7.6. Tolerance and intolerance of the media

Hate speech

Political correctness

List of used literature:

Exercise “Faces of Tolerance”

Exercise “Sculpture”

Assignment “Hate Speech Diary” Methodological recommendations for compiling a hate speech diary

Types of Hate Speech

Hate Speech Objects (examples)

Examples of statements

Addresses of tolerance on the Internet

Quest “Politically correct fairy tales”

Diagnostic tasks Methodology “Tolerance of uncertainty”

Questionnaire “Tolerant Personality Traits” (Mr. Soldatova)

Recommended reading

Chapter 8. Religious tolerance.

8.1. Religion and tolerance. Specifics of religious tolerance.

8.3. State-church relations and tolerance (world experience)

8.4. State-church relations in Russia: historical and modern aspects.

8.5. Religious tolerance in modern Russia: state, problems, prospects.

8.4. State-church relations in Russia: historical and modern aspects

8.5. Religious tolerance in modern Russia: state, problems, prospects

Guidelines

Topics for essays

Tasks

Internet resources

Chapter 8. Religious tolerance.

8.1. Religion and tolerance. Specifics of religious tolerance.

In the context of the development of such world processes as globalization and regionalism, researchers note, the importance of religious factor in the life of modern society. This phenomenon is generally not new. Historians know well that a sharp increase in the religious factor in life always occurs at sharp turns in history. And the current stage in the development of humanity, when it has reached a new level of its development, is also marked by the strengthening of the role of religion in the life of society. That is why issues of interaction are so relevant today different religions, believers, issues of religious tolerance.

Religious tolerance (religious tolerance) manifests itself on two levels. Firstly, these are tolerant relations between believers of different religions and denominations, religious associations, based on the principle of mutual respect, mutual recognition of the rights to existence and activity. Secondly, this is the recognition by the state of the right to the existence of various religions, and not just the dominant one.

Religious intolerance (intolerance) is a sharply negative, negative attitude towards believers of another religious tradition, another confession, which can be expressed in infringement of their rights, in repression, persecution and harassment, as well as in the denial by the state of their right to practice their faith and exercise of religious worship (1).

In connection with the analysis of the specifics of religious tolerance, the following should be said. The term “tolerance,” as already mentioned, has a wide range of meanings. The same can be said about religious tolerance. According to the Declaration of Principles of Tolerance (1995), tolerance “means respect, acceptance and correct understanding of the rich diversity of cultures of our world, our forms of self-expression and ways of manifesting human individuality (clause 1.1., art. 1). The minimum level of tolerance, therefore, is tolerance, i.e. willingness to recognize the right to exist of those whose beliefs and related actions do not contain a direct intention to destroy the very foundations of tolerance.

Religious tolerance differs in many ways from secular tolerance (political, intercultural, etc.). The value-worldview core of secular culture is not a rigidly hierarchical structure, because it is based on the principle of pluralism of values ​​and opinions, which leads to the recognition of the relativity of any ideals and truths. This makes it possible in a secular culture to accept “other people’s” values, views and behavior patterns as equivalent to “one’s own” values, views and behavior. Secular culture is therefore defined as “tolerance of other people’s opinions, beliefs and forms of behavior.” Religious tolerance is something else. It only means the absence of statements or actions that could be regarded as derogatory or offensive to representatives of another religious tradition and would be aimed at infringing the rights and freedom of religion and worship (closing churches, banning missionary activity, etc.). After all, any religious culture, in contrast to secular culture, is a rigidly structured system with a single and only center - the sacred, which is understood in its own way in each religion. Therefore, religion itself cannot be tolerant in the sense in which we talk about secular culture, secular tolerance. Religious tolerance cannot include as its obligatory component doctrinal tolerance, the desire for the convergence of religious teachings, for the recognition of their equal value. Therefore, religious intolerance cannot include such forms of behavior of believers that must demonstrate a certain degree of alienation in relation to another religion, its creed, its representatives and rituals. That is why exclusivism (the idea of ​​believers about their creed as the only true, exclusive one and the refusal to recognize any other as such) religious doctrine) is not advisable to identify with intolerance, although it contains some reasons for its possible occurrence. As for modern Russia, we need to talk only about mutually respectful relations between religious organizations, about mutual recognition of the right to the existence of religious activities, about the absence of appeals to the state with a request to provide preferences and benefits to any religious organization (status “more equal than others”) , and even more so about the absence of calls to limit the activities of other religious organizations. The need for tolerant relations between believers and non-believers should also be emphasized. “Policy and mutual criticism are acceptable, but not “regrets,” for example, about the fact that religion (atheism) still exists.” (2).

Religious tolerance: historical and modern aspects.

Since ancient times, tolerance has not been the main feature of religion, but rather the opposite. Having been for a long time the basis of the ethnic and cultural identification of a tribe, people, nation, integrating members of society into a single whole, religious beliefs and rituals at the same time contrasted them with representatives of other communities. For this reason, religion has more than once been the cause of intergroup conflicts, for example, Israelites with Canaanites, Christians with Romans, Catholics with Protestants and Orthodox Christians, Muslims with Hindus, etc. Today it is customary to talk about the integrative function of religion. At the same time, they often forget about the disintegrative function of religion, about its possible dysfunctional, i.e. disintegrative consequences. They forget that religion has always played an important role in the emergence of conflicts in society, they forget about the numerous religious conflicts and wars that there were so many in the past. There has not been a single era in the history of society, and the modern one is no exception, without religious strife, intolerance, religious persecution and conflicts. There is not a single religion in history that could do without demonstrating its superiority and persecuting other believers. A list of this kind can be extended indefinitely, bringing it up to the present day. Let us recall the persecution of the Canaanites (indigenous inhabitants of Palestine) by the Israelis, the first Christians - first by the Israelis and then by the ancient Romans, Protestants - by Catholics, and Catholics - by Protestants, Muslims - by Christians, and Christians - by Muslims, Anabaptists - by Lutherans, Sufis - by devout Muslims, Quakers - Puritans in England, Buddhists - Shintoists in Japan, Old Believers and sectarians - in old Russia.

From modern history, one can recall the recent persecution of Baha'is by the religious establishment in modern Iran or the recent bloody persecution of Christians in Sudan.

Thus, historical and modern material makes it possible to draw a conclusion: the history of religion, like the history of society, of any state, is full of examples of intolerance and disagreement, conflicts and enmity, there is a history of clarifying the relationship between religions “our own” and “strangers”. As for cases of religious tolerance and harmony, they were very rare and episodic in the past. Such cases are the exception rather than the rule in the history of religion. In the name of God, in the name of religious values, more wars have been fought and more human lives have been lost than for any other reason. For many centuries, religious intolerance has constantly acted as the basis for the emergence of ethnic, racial, political prejudices and prejudices, and acted as a reason for political and social discrimination against those who adhered to a different faith.

A certain opportunity for the formation of religious intolerance is created by the claims of religions to exclusivism. This means that “each religion has an inherent absolute understanding of truth and the world... Each of them claims to be the only true and correct faith, and each of them demands to be recognized as such. For centuries, the absolute nature of truth held by every religion has provided religious sanction for intolerance and discrimination. The higher truths and goals accepted in religious traditions have largely discouraged tolerance of opposing views in doctrine and practice" (1).

As the famous sociologist Ernst Troeltsch noted, “all religions were born absolute, since they follow an irrational impulse and express a reality that requires faith - not only for the sake of recognition of it (i.e. reality), but most likely for the sake of recognition of its values.” . This rule is true not only for the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), but also for the religions of the East (Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism), whose representatives have always boasted of their openness to all other religions in their understanding of the truth. Even in these religions one can detect claims to exclusivity.

The reasons and reasons for religious intolerance have always been varied. As for the objects to which religious intolerance is directed, these are usually the following: intolerance is directed at a religion recognized as being in conflict or opposition with the traditional customs and moral and spiritual values ​​of a given society; on religion, which is accused of undermining the foundations of society, because its teaching threatens one or another political authority or political line (the refusal of Christians to recognize the Roman emperor as God); to a religion that is recognized as alien to the cultural environment on the basis of which it develops; finally, to the religion that is identified with a foreign state (2).

The exclusivism of every religion, its claims to the absolute and universal meaning their entire creed in the past often served as a religious basis for intolerance towards other religions: after all, each demanded that it be recognized as true, the only true one, by others. To achieve this, religions often used various means, including violence. Thus, religions' claims to the absolute nature of their beliefs provided religious sanction for the practice of discrimination against other religions. Religious intolerance and discord resulted from the inability of one religious community to understand and recognize the right of another to the truth, to possess it, and, finally, simply to exist. Such misunderstanding led first to hostility, and then to repression, persecution and, finally, to religious wars in which adherents of different religions clashed in bloody battles, as happened during the notorious crusades in the Middle Ages.

Very often, the religious identity of a nation gave rise to political intolerance, because expressing disagreement with the dominant religion in the state meant the risk of being accused of a crime against the state. Thus, the intolerance of Ancient Israel towards foreign religious cults was caused by the fact that the Israelis saw the latter as a danger to their religious identity and the unity of Israel. In Ancient Greece, having atheistic views and preaching them was considered a criminal offense, because they denied the state gods, which means they showed political unreliability. Atheists in Ancient Greece were persecuted and put on trial.

This situation persisted as long as religion was the basis of the state’s identity and was an expression of patriotism and national consciousness. The penetration of foreign religions was seen as a threat to national unity and the integrity of the state. Protecting the unity of the state was considered an extremely important task not only in the era of the Ancient World, but throughout almost the entire history of mankind. Due to the fact that in ancient times, and even in the Middle Ages, political power was of a sacred nature, it is natural that the expression of disbelief in God or gods, blasphemy, belief in other gods was considered a state crime. Since religion for a long time was the most important social institution ensuring state and national harmony and unity, any heterogeneity was considered dangerous, because it threatened the very unity of society and the state. The history of mankind, therefore, is such that people’s understanding of the need for a tolerant attitude towards other religions and their followers, the recognition of the right to freedom of conscience came very, very late. The situation began to change, at least in Western Europe, only in the modern era, when, thanks to the efforts of advanced thinkers (J. Locke, D. Hume, I. Kant, etc.), the principles of ideological pluralism were developed, and politicians and mere mortals tired of the bloody, protracted religious wars on the territory of European states, which devastated the land and brought disaster to the population. As a result, both the authorities and philosophers came to unanimous opinion that there are issues in which no one, due to the limited abilities of the human mind, can claim to be a judge in possession of the absolute truth. Such questions included questions of religion, religious beliefs, and worldviews in general.

It should be noted that demands for religious tolerance and, more broadly, freedom of conscience usually came from persecuted and disenfranchised religious minorities, and not from the official religious establishment. It should also be borne in mind that the most important and decisive steps towards the recognition of human rights to freedom of religion were taken not by religious leaders, not by church councils, but by legislative assemblies, parliaments, courts, and constitutions. Churches took a painfully long time to recognize religious tolerance. As early as 1832, Pope Gregory XVI, in his encyclical Mirari vos, denounced freedom of conscience as “nonsense” (“deliramentum”). It was only in the 20th century that there was unanimity among the main churches and religions on the issue of the admissibility of religious tolerance. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council adopted the “Declaration on Religious Freedom,” which stated, in part, the following: “For the development of international relations between people of different cultures and religions and for the establishment and strengthening of peaceful relations and harmony in the human community, it is necessary that throughout the world, religious freedom was ensured by effective legislative measures and that the supreme duty and right of the individual to freely lead religious life in society was respected. Pope John Paul II for more than 25 years constantly addressed the issue of tolerance in general, religious tolerance in particular. The World Council of Churches, at its first assembly in Amsterdam more than 50 years ago, declared that “freedom of religion is an essential element of a good international legal order... Christians therefore regard the issue of freedom of religion as an international issue. They are concerned that freedom of religion will be ensured everywhere. In arguing for this freedom, they do not ask that Christians should be given any privilege that would be denied to others.” At the same time, the World Council of Churches adopted the “Declaration on Religious Freedom.” It defined four fundamental rights in the field of religious tolerance, which were to be recognized by all churches and respected by all people without distinction as to race, color, sex, language or religion." These rights or principles are:

“every person has the right to determine his own religion and belief”;

“every person has the right to express his beliefs within the framework of a social or political community”;

“every man has the right to enter into union with others, and with them to establish an organization for religious purposes”;

“Every religious organization established or maintained in accordance with individual rights has the right to determine its policies and practices in order to achieve its chosen goals.”

Let us remember that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations later. Subsequent Assemblies of the World Council of Churches, in which Protestant and Orthodox churches participated, reaffirmed the Amsterdam Declaration and reaffirmed the Council's commitment to the protection of religious human rights.

The principles of religious tolerance were also approved in international legislation and formed the basis for a number of international documents and acts. In 1948 the United Nations adopted Universal Declaration human rights. Its eighteenth article contains the following provision: “Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom to manifest his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, in teaching, worship and observance.” In March 1961, the Commission on Human Rights adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. However, the provisions of this document were so revolutionary that it took 20 years of negotiations for this Declaration to be adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. In adopting the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief in 1981, the United Nations went so far as to indicate that discrimination on religious grounds should not only be considered an “outrage” of human dignity, but also “a rejection of the principle of the United Nations Charter and as a violation of other freedoms guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” It was also pointed out that the recognition of religious human rights as the cornerstone of all human rights in general (civil, economic, social) is of decisive importance for the creation of a truly democratic society in which both individual and public rights would be respected and would be guaranteed. Similar principles regarding religious tolerance and human rights to freedom of religious choice are recorded in many other international documents: “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (Article 18), signed by 109 states, “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (Article 9), signed by 44 countries; The American Convention on Human Rights (Article 12), signed by 23 countries, the Documents of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which are binding on all 55 participating countries, etc.

Of course, there were also objections to this approach to religious tolerance. Some opponents of the above documents said that in these documents religious tolerance appears as something without boundaries and limits, that it allows anything and everything. The question was again raised: does this mean that we should be tolerant of everyone and everything? Is there an end, a limit to patience, possible at some stage? The answer was given as follows, and it is assumed in international legislation on religious worship. Tolerance, like tolerance in general, has, naturally, boundaries, has a limit. And these boundaries are outlined by international acts and documents. The UN Human Rights Committee has interpreted Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, clarifying the meaning of the phrase “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” as follows: “Article eighteen, paragraph three (of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) allows restrictions on freedom religion or belief only in cases where

such restrictions are established by law, and

necessary to protect public safety, order, health and morals and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others...

Restrictions can only be applied for the purposes for which they are established and must be directly related and proportionate to the established purpose. Restrictions cannot be imposed for the purpose of discrimination.” The European Court of Human Rights has also recognized the above standards regarding religious tolerance and its limitations.

The commitment of many countries to the principles of religious tolerance was put to the test in the hours after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. There was a real possibility that after the events of September 11 there would be a danger of complete distrust between religions and suspicion of state structures towards religious dissent and religious minorities. However, this did not happen. The reaction of the American authorities to what happened, among other things, included actions aimed at preventing a campaign against Muslims from being launched in the United States. At the highest level it was stated that the American reaction should completely exclude the possibility of identifying Islamic terrorists with Muslims. The US President invited Muslim leaders to a meeting in White. Muslims were regular participants in official religious meetings or memorial services for victims of terrorist attacks. Islamic leaders in the United States and other countries also condemned the actions of religious terrorists, emphasizing that Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance. At one of the international conferences of Islamic jurists, the following statement was made: “Islam was the first religion to recognize the existence of fundamental human rights, and almost fourteen centuries ago this religion introduced certain guarantees of protection, which subsequently became part of international human rights documents.” At the same conference, Islamic jurists stated that Islam's special respect for human rights stems from the principle that human rights and freedoms are not part of the natural condition of man, but are bestowed on humanity by God himself.” Other speakers argued that the human person is a core value in Islam because represents humanity in general, confirming what is said in the Koran: “Whoever kills a soul not for a soul or for a crime is like the killer of all humanity.” The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights states: “It is prohibited to use any means of coercion to convert anyone or to impose atheistic beliefs.” It also states that Muslims must respect the religious beliefs of others and strive to “live in peace with them on the basis of a concluded treaty, as was the case during the early Caliphate.”

The above indicates that the principles of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience have become truly universal.

Formation of mechanisms of religious tolerance

Religion is a special sphere, bordering between the public and the individual. Probably, precisely because of its “borderline” nature, it requires special sensitivity and attentiveness on the part of researchers. Intimate, personal character religion does not allow us to be careless about the subject of our research. Any conflict situation in the sphere of religion can easily turn into the sphere social life and lead to the most tragic consequences. We are faced with two tasks: the first is to consider religion manifesting itself in society, with the main emphasis on the dichotomy “tolerance - intolerance”; second – note the principles of religious tolerance.

Secularization and globalization are two major factors affecting religion and changing its face today.

Secularization (), as a process of secularization, the replacement of religious institutions with secular ones, and globalization, as a new form of coexistence, are products of the modern world, opposed to traditional religiosity.

Both secularization and globalization lead, on the one hand, to an increase in the total number of non-believers (or believers in Something, surpassing the human mind), and on the other hand, to the revitalization of the activities of old religious institutions and the emergence of new ones. The result may be both the emergence of new forms of interreligious dialogue and the growth of religious intolerance. In this case, religious tolerance promotes the first and opposes the second.

Tolerance, as defined by the UNESCO General Conference in the “Declaration of Principles of Tolerance” of November 16, 1995, “means respect, acceptance and correct understanding of the rich diversity of cultures of our world, our forms of self-expression and ways of manifesting human individuality” (). “Tolerance is a virtue that makes peace possible and helps replace the culture of war with a culture of peace.” ().

Tolerance may have various shapes(personal, public, state ()). Religious tolerance – most important factor for interreligious dialogue. There is no doubt that such a dialogue is a necessity these days and has its own specifics. For example, the features of religious dialogue in Russia are determined by its multi-confessional and multi-ethnic nature.

If we turn to the history of Russia, we can see how tolerance was often b an unattainable ideal for its citizens. Many philosophers and thinkers of the second halfXIX century – beginning of the 20th century. expressed hopes for a rapprochement of religions (Vl. Solovyov, V.V. Rozanov, etc.), but in reality, the achievement of the tolerant principle in the religious sphere happened very slowly, and sometimes seemed completely impossible. How else can we explain the fact that many Molokans, Tolstoyans, Stundists and other people of other faiths were often exiled for their religious beliefs?and for permanent settlements in Siberia or the Caucasus? Similar facts of religious intolerance by the authorities are reflected in state archives, preserved to this day.

With the advent of Soviet power, the policy of intolerance becomes dominant in relation to everyone religions. Only in the late 80s - early 90s. XX century the situation is changing dramatically. The right to practice any religion is now enshrined in the Constitution Russian Federation and it would seem that believers, having received freedom of religion, should support the principles of religious tolerance in relations with each other. As surveys show, the majority of people in Russia no longer accept the idea of ​​​​the exclusivity of one religion or another (). However, this is not a reason to claim that Russia is a tolerant country. IN modern Russia every now and then voices are heard in support of certain religions, and their opponents are presented as “sectarians”, and under negative definition"sects" often fall under individual Protestant denominations.

We can also observe examples of religious intolerance in cases where the “traditional,” wanting to strengthen its position, claims its rights to various spheres of influence (culture, education, science). Of course, this can lead to religious intolerance and, as a consequence, religious conflicts.

Modern society is characterized by a desire for freedom, democracy, and peaceful solutions to problems. History shows that religion has often been the cause of bloody wars. Religious identity, i.e. awareness of one’s uniqueness is a property inherent in any religion. Hence the result - collisions on religious grounds, misunderstanding and fragmentation in society.

Conflicts on religious grounds are included in the third group of armed conflicts - the so-called conflicts with others (). David Rosen (Jerusalem) says: “To our embarrassment and shame, even if religion is not the real source of conflict, it often turns out to aggravate the situation rather than help resolve it” (). Religious organizations, working in the field of peacekeeping, strive primarily for religious tolerance, as a necessary condition for eliminating interethnic conflicts ().

Religious tolerance means recognizing other religions without diminishing the importance of one's own religion. Tolerance is inherently opposed to a secularized society. This is not an indifferent contemplation of each other, but a desire for understanding, communication and participation in each other’s problems. Peacemakers working to achieve religious tolerance call for greater faith - everyone in their own religion ().

I would like to finish our short review in the words of the Carnegie Commission: “There is a need for increased interreligious dialogue so that religious leaders can find commonalities. The Commission believes that religious leaders and institutions should be encouraged to make efforts around the world to increase respect for diversity and expanding pathways out of violence.<…>They must also take stronger measures to condemn fellow believers who spread violence or give it religious justification." ().

Notes:

1. Secularization(from Latin saecularis - worldly, secular) - the process of liberating various spheres of public and individual life from the influence of religion.
2. Declaration of Principles of Tolerance. Art. 1, clause 1.1.
3. Ibid.
4. Russian civilization: Ethnocultural and spiritual aspects: Enc. Dictionary/ Ed. Col.: Mchedlov M.P. and etc.; Auto. Col.: Andreev A.L. and others - M., "Respublika", 2001. P. 432.
5. "For the public sentiment shared by the overwhelming majority Russian population, characterized by a loyal attitude towards people of other beliefs and convictions, a readiness for tolerance, goodwill, cooperation in various spheres - from everyday life to politics. Unlike some religious leaders, the majority of the population (75% of Orthodox Christians and 68% of Muslims) does not agree with the idea of ​​exclusivity, the only truth of a particular religion, especially with opposition to other religions." - Russian civilization: Ethnocultural and spiritual aspects. P. 435.
6. It is customary to distinguish three main categories of armed conflicts: 1. Interstate conflict; 2. Revolutionary conflict; 3. Conflict with “others”. - - St. Petersburg, Caritas of Russia, 2000.
7.Dia-Logos: Religion and Society 2000. Almanac/ General ed. and comp. Mark Smirnova. - M., Cultural and Educational Center "Spiritual Library", 2001. - P. 405.
8. The activities of the international organization Caritas can serve as an example.
9. “A priest working to prevent conflict between Muslim and Hindu religious communities in the Ahmedababa slums in India says that when he tries to dissuade people from religious strife, he tells them: “I am not asking you not to be a Muslim anymore.” or a Hindu, I ask you to be a good Muslim or a good Hindu." - Paths of reconciliation. Practical Handbook of Caritas. P. 87.
10. Paths of reconciliation. Practical Handbook of Caritas. P. 91.

Formation of mechanisms of religious tolerance, Culture and religious tolerance. To the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg. Materials of the X St. Petersburg religious readings. - St. Petersburg, 2003. pp. 12-14.