2006-10-23 08:40:19 · 22 answers · asked by Cherie 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Amen to these answers, that is what I was thinking, and does not that in itself tell us that religion does not work in the world to guide us towards peace, since "most" religions are so intolerant.
2006-10-23 08:52:51 · update #1
respect
2006-10-23 08:41:42 · answer #1 · answered by Kenneth G 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Uh, this isn't an either or. There is no unity without tolerance, think about it.
Preventing war and chaos would be EASY if politicians would listen to the people. It's not like a shoe salesman in new York has a personal grudge against a shoe salesman in Baghdad. The common people only want to live in peace, until the government whips them into a frenzy. (All quiet on the western front is a perfect example of this.)
2006-10-23 15:51:30 · answer #2 · answered by Rabid 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
War is predominantly fought over security and power/dominance. So - neither. If you want security - demand it (i.e. - Koreans testing nuclear capabilities - not good - not secure - questionable tactics...)war may be in order for security. To tolerate security breach or power play - not good either....1 prime example is our 'toleration' of the people in Darfur...is this right? OF COURSE NOT...why are we allowing the UNs participation of this tolerance....we need to sanction these criminals.....
So - with that argument - are you still for unification or tolerance in these 'war call' situations? In other words...it is not an either or answer because WAR is difficult!
Now - the real question is why are we participating in the war we are in? Even Andy Rooney wants to know!!!!
2006-10-23 15:54:05 · answer #3 · answered by 100%cotton 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To tolerate. It is hard to get a bunch of people together and have them all united in agreement. But that they tolerate and respect each others views and the others right to hold those belief's this is truly an amazing thing. If we as a nation and as a world could come together in this, we could wipe poverty, hunger, war and disease off the face of the earth. Tolerance and respect.
2006-10-23 15:52:35 · answer #4 · answered by brendagho 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Tolerate
2006-10-23 15:45:21 · answer #5 · answered by Love Exists? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Tolerance
2006-10-23 15:44:23 · answer #6 · answered by Bright 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Unity is not an achievable goal, it would require everyone to agree with each other. Tolerance, on the other hand, we can do as individuals. If enough individuals are striving to be more tolerant of differing worldviews and lifestyles a lot of the worlds problems become manageable.
2006-10-23 15:49:32 · answer #7 · answered by rich k 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Tolerate. Let us be united in our respect for one another's differences. Let the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lead the way.
2006-10-23 15:44:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Tolerance. Unification is much harder because it involves influencing others' beliefs. Doing that is also offensive to the influenced.
I DO however advocate the abolishment of the bipartisan system and the electoral college.
2006-10-23 15:54:55 · answer #9 · answered by fiveshiftone 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Unity is pretty difficult to achieve if not impossible. People are just too different and proud to really be united. Tolerance is I think a more realistic goal.
2006-10-23 15:45:18 · answer #10 · answered by jim t 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Tolerate. Unification is not possible unless a majority of the planet gives up their belief structure.
2006-10-23 15:42:12 · answer #11 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋