The Religious Tolerance Thread

[Steel Accord 6,660]

So speaking on the subject of religious tolerance . . . who here believes in syncretism?!

 

I only bring it up because I hold that opinion quite fervently. Every true faith contains at least some wisdom, why hold only one in your heart as being your only source of spirituality? I know I hold some Gnostic and Buddhist beliefs along with my Catholic upbringing in my heart.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Steel Accord

[King Sejong 859]

   If you believe the media, they will have you believe both the faithful and atheists were on the offensive, with each side making movies and TV shows, despite this modern humanity is remarkably more tolerant than what we are led to believe. I am a Reform Jew, we are not strict nor unaccommodating to anyone seek out some help, there is a time to pious, then there is a time to be logical, but never ignore the dignity of all human and animal life. Although I am Jewish, my family is interfaith, I have Christian and agnostic people in my family, we are all close and respectful to each other's spirit, we celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Thanksgiving, New Years and Rosh Hashanah, I love decorating the Christmas tree, and lighting the candles on our crystal menorah, because we enjoy each other's company, we don't feel religious, neither the church nor temple tell us how to behave, we feel the spirit of faith on our own, regardless of different prayers or ceremonies, there is more to faith than scripture and priesthood, my family is tolerant and so is my neighbourhood, we can give tolerance a chance, to give humanity and the planet the proper respect and harmony it needs.

[Justin_Case001 4,889]

I believe in God, I just dont want immortality. I want to live a normal life, and die. I believe immortality should be a choice.

I have always believed that immortality would be a terrible curse.  Just ask the people of Nova Chrysalia.  They'll tell you that immortality sucks noodles.

 

I'm agnostic.  I can respect and tolerate belief in spirituality because there's no way to disprove it.  What I cannot respect is when people do not believe in provable facts.  You believe in God?  Fine by me.  I can't disprove it.  You believe the Earth is 5000 years old?  er...yeah...that's where we have a problem.  Sorry if I'm offending anyone here, but facts are facts.  There are trees older than some people believe the Earth is.  I also can't tolerate unfair and unjustified hatred and discrimination, i.e. anti-gay and such.  I've always been a person to hate the haters, to be intolerant of intolerance.  I know we're not suppose to have negative feelings like that; we're all suppose to love everyone, but I'm sorry, that's how I am.

[Suukorak 354]

@, that's a great approach to the whole thing. If there were more families like yours, I'm sure religion wouldn't get such a bad rap from the outside and the world would be a happier place for everyone.

Also, my inner proofreader has to say something about your run-on sentences. But don't mind him.

[A Black Circle 1,586]

Can I point out a movie I'm real pissed about?

God's Not Dead.

 

EGGGHHHHHH

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Can I point out a movie I'm real pissed about?

 

God's Not Dead.

 

EGGGHHHHHH

 

You can point out that, but it's not much beyond "this movie is bad" I could say that about . . . okay not many movies because I'm an absolute cinephile but you get my point.

 

I too have my problems with the film, mainly toward the end where I feel like they basically destroyed their own message.

[A Black Circle 1,586]

You can point out that, but it's not much beyond "this movie is bad" I could say that about . . . okay not many movies because I'm an absolute cinephile but you get my point.

 

I too have my problems with the film, mainly toward the end where I feel like they basically destroyed their own message.

Mainly just the portrayal of all atheists as jerks and all Christians as decent individuals, and implying that you can only be a good person by being a Christian.

 

Wow, I bet they'll really want to convert now.

 

And how did they destroy their own message? I don't remember the rest of the movie that well, except for the five minutes that everyone cries. Even then, I'm not sure anything could save a religious movie from ^that^

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

I have always believed that immortality would be a terrible curse.  Just ask the people of Nova Chrysalia.  They'll tell you that immortality sucks noodles.

 

I see your curse and raise you this trope.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LivingForeverIsAwesome

 

I swear, I'm going to write a story one day about an immortal who actually is happy with their status because I'm frankly sick of every media source except religion telling me how terrible it would be!

 

 

 

I'm agnostic.  I can respect and tolerate belief in spirituality because there's no way to disprove it.  What I cannot respect is when people do not believe in provable facts.  You believe in God?  Fine by me.  I can't disprove it.  You believe the Earth is 5000 years old?  er...yeah...that's where we have a problem.  Sorry if I'm offending anyone here, but facts are facts.  There are trees older than some people believe the Earth is.  I also can't tolerate unfair and unjustified hatred and discrimination, i.e. anti-gay and such.  I've always been a person to hate the haters, to be intolerant of intolerance.  I know we're not suppose to have negative feelings like that; we're all suppose to love everyone, but I'm sorry, that's how I am.

 

 

You don't think some people who are religious don't hold a similar opinion on scientific fact and prejudice being bad?

 

(Has believed in evolution since he was ten, is pro gay marriage.)

[A Black Circle 1,586]

I'm agnostic.  I can respect and tolerate belief in spirituality because there's no way to disprove it.  What I cannot respect is when people do not believe in provable facts.  You believe in God?  Fine by me.  I can't disprove it.  You believe the Earth is 5000 years old?  er...yeah...that's where we have a problem.  Sorry if I'm offending anyone here, but facts are facts.  There are trees older than some people believe the Earth is.  I also can't tolerate unfair and unjustified hatred and discrimination, i.e. anti-gay and such.  I've always been a person to hate the haters, to be intolerant of intolerance.  I know we're not suppose to have negative feelings like that; we're all suppose to love everyone, but I'm sorry, that's how I am.

I am bothered by the bold.

 

Mini-splosion of built up rage in 5...

4...

3...

2...

1...

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR.

What we currently believe and what is actual fact are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Just saying that what we know now is fact and nothing else can be right is stupid and irresponsible. Is it possible that what we know now can be absolute truth? Certainly. But don't assume it. Always take it as theory.

 

(I'm not saying science is groundless. In fact, it's helped us out quite a lot, medically speaking. But there's always gonna be new frontiers of knowledge. Don't stop assume there's a wall in front of you if you can't see your own hand two feet from your face.)

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Mainly just the portrayal of all atheists as jerks and all Christians as decent individuals, and implying that you can only be a good person by being a Christian.

 

Wow, I bet they'll really want to convert now.

 

So three major characters are assholes, only one of whom is explicitly an atheist the other two don't seem to care, an ex-girlfriend to the protagonist who is a Christian yet is a superficial and controlling jerk, and that's what you came away from the movie with?

 

 

 

And how did they destroy their own message? I don't remember the rest of the movie that well, except for the five minutes that everyone cries. Even then, I'm not sure anything could save a religious movie from ^that^

 

 

When the project is over, Josh asks who among the students agrees with him now. One or two stand up, and they were the ones the camera focused on and who asked questions, showing they were paying attention and learning. Then however, they ALL stand up.

 

Wait to go movie, you showed the class was sheep before, and now they're still sheep, just bleating for the other guy!

 

"But Brutus is an honorable man," anyone?!

 

There's a reason this same moment was pulled off better in ​Dead Poet's Society. Not all of the students stood up but it was clear the teacher's lesson had been taught, that those who would stand would never again allow themselves to be quelled. This scene just shows students going from one way as an unthinking Legion, to going the other way because they don't have a sense of guts or individuality to share in between them.

 

The final insult however was that [spoilerS] . . . . 

 

Radisson gets hit by a car and dies.

 

What . . . . . . WHAT?!  The guy was on his way to apologize to his girlfriend and God slams the door in his face? Where's the redemption in that?! The forgiveness of sins? You know . . . the central f**king message of Christianity!   

 

So yeah . . . I got my problems with the movie too but not the whole thing. This is just coming from a guy who's met people like Radisson all his life.

I am bothered by the bold.

 

Mini-splosion of built up rage in 5...

4...

3...

2...

1...

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR.

What we currently believe and what is actual fact are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Just saying that what we know now is fact and nothing else can be right is stupid and irresponsible. Is it possible that what we know now can be absolute truth? Certainly. But don't assume it. Always take it as theory.

 

(I'm not saying science is groundless. In fact, it's helped us out quite a lot, medically speaking. But there's always gonna be new frontiers of knowledge. Don't stop assume there's a wall in front of you if you can't see your own hand two feet from your face.)

 

I think his point wasn't that we know everything just that what we can confirm with our current scientific models shouldn't be up for debate.

 

Of which I agree.

[FlutterHigh 81]

I for one am an atheist but i still respect other people beliefs only because i wan't people to respect my disbelief. Basically treat others as you wan't to be treated.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I for one am an atheist but i still respect other people beliefs only because i wan't people to respect my disbelief. Basically treat others as you wan't to be treated.

 

"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

 

~Luke 6:31

Edited April 11, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

So speaking on the subject of religious tolerance . . . who here believes in syncretism?!

 

I only bring it up because I hold that opinion quite fervently. Every true faith contains at least some wisdom, why hold only one in your heart as being your only source of spirituality? I know I hold some Gnostic and Buddhist beliefs along with my Catholic upbringing in my heart.

Not me. I'll be "tolerant" of other faiths in the sense that I won't go around slandering everyone who doesn't believe what I do, but I still believe that Jesus Christ is the only way, the only truth, the only life, that no one comes to the Father except through Him. I won't mock people for believing differently, but I also won't regard other faiths as valid. I'll concede that a lot of faiths get bits and pieces right, but I'd bet my life and my eternal soul that the Bible contains perfect truth. I've no need for anything else.

 

I have always believed that immortality would be a terrible curse.  Just ask the people of Nova Chrysalia.  They'll tell you that immortality sucks noodles.

 

I'm agnostic.  I can respect and tolerate belief in spirituality because there's no way to disprove it.  What I cannot respect is when people do not believe in provable facts.  You believe in God?  Fine by me.  I can't disprove it.  You believe the Earth is 5000 years old?  er...yeah...that's where we have a problem.  Sorry if I'm offending anyone here, but facts are facts.  There are trees older than some people believe the Earth is.  I also can't tolerate unfair and unjustified hatred and discrimination, i.e. anti-gay and such.  I've always been a person to hate the haters, to be intolerant of intolerance.  I know we're not suppose to have negative feelings like that; we're all suppose to love everyone, but I'm sorry, that's how I am.

That there are trees older than we young-earth creationists believe the Earth is is not a "fact." It is neither observable nor testable, as we lack the capacity to go back in time to witness the beginning of said trees. It's a theory based on one interpretation of the evidence, biased by a preexisting worldview.

 

That's all I'll say about that on this thread, because I don't wanna derail the topic, but if you'd like to discuss the issue further, feel free to PM me. I always enjoy those conversations! 

 

What . . . . . . WHAT?!  The guy was on his way to apologize to his girlfriend and God slams the door in his face? Where's the redemption in that?! The forgiveness of sins? You know . . . the central f**king message of Christianity!   

 

So yeah . . . I got my problems with the movie too but not the whole thing. This is just coming from a guy who's met people like Radisson all his life.

I think you're failing to grasp a lot of what Christianity teaches, specifically that this life is temporary, that what matters is eternity. This life isn't about this life, it's about eternity. So where's the redemption? In Radisson's repentance, his sorrow at his past mistakes, his acceptance of Christ's lordship over him in his last moments. That's the redemption that Christ offers.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Henny Penny Benny

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Not me. I'll be "tolerant" of other faiths in the sense that I won't go around slandering everyone who doesn't believe what I do, but I still believe that Jesus Christ is the only way, the only truth, the only life, that no one comes to the Father except through Him. I won't mock people for believing differently, but I also won't regard other faiths as valid. I'll concede that a lot of faiths get bits and pieces right, but I'd bet my life and my eternal soul that the Bible contains perfect truth. I've no need for anything else.

 

Then you and I are not going to see eye to eye on many things, Benny. My father taught me a lesson that I carry with me to this day and always will.

 

You don't have to be Christian to be like Christ.

 

 

That there are trees older than we young-earth creationists believe the Earth is is not a "fact." It is neither observable nor testable, as we lack the capacity to go back in time to witness the beginning of said trees. It's a theory based on one interpretation of the evidence, biased by a preexisting worldview.

 

You want a testable method that you can see? Fine, chop one of those trees down and count how many rings it has, I guarantee you it'll have more than how old the Bible says the Earth is.

 

This is a God fearing Christian telling you this. Our perception of the Divine should be informed by what we scientifically know of the world, not the other way around.

 

specifically that this life is temporary, that what matters is eternity. This life isn't about this life, it's about eternity. So where's the redemption? In Radisson's repentance, his sorrow at his past mistakes, his acceptance of Christ's lordship over him in his last moments. That's the redemption that Christ offers.

 

I fully agree, it is the immaterial that transcends the flesh and matter in reality. However, as the ending of a movie, it was an audience insulting anti-climax and one I found dissatisfying as a viewer and as a Christian. Not to mention it basically shot any attempts at possibly garnering interest from atheists in the foot.

 

If you want people to sympathize with you via a film:

 

A ) Don't make their representative a straw man.

 

B ) Don't KILL the character that is their proxy!

Edited April 11, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

You want a testable method that you can see? Fine, chop one of those trees down and count how many rings it has, I guarantee you it'll have more than how old the Bible says the Earth is.

Using that reasoning, Seth could have looked at his son Enosh, how he was born a babe, then looked at his father Adam and deduced his age from his physical appearance. But Seth would have gotten in wrong, because Adam didn't begin as a baby, he was created fully mature. Similarly, I believe God created the universe fully mature, so trying to determine the age of the oldest trees from what we know about younger trees makes as much sense as Seth trying to determine Adam's age from what he know's about Enosh.

I fully agree, it is the immaterial that transcends the flesh and matter in reality. However, as the ending of a movie, it was an audience insulting anti-climax and one I found dissatisfying as a viewer and as a Christian. Not to mention it basically shot any attempts at possibly garnering interest from atheists in the foot.

 

If you want people to sympathize with you via a film:

 

A ) Don't make their representative a straw man.

 

B ) Don't KILL the character that is their proxy!

Well I can certainly agree that they didn't get their message across very well. I mean, I enjoyed the movie as a believer (who is also generally uncritical of movies), but I could tell even as I watched it that it wouldn't appeal to non-believers at all. Of course, non-believers may not have been their target audience, but still.....

[A Joe in the Bush 255]

Using that reasoning, Seth could have looked at his son Enosh, how he was born a babe, then looked at his father Adam and deduced his age from his physical appearance. But Seth would have gotten in wrong, because Adam didn't begin as a baby, he was created fully mature. Similarly, I believe God created the universe fully mature, so trying to determine the age of the oldest trees from what we know about younger trees makes as much sense as Seth trying to determine Adam's age from what he know's about Enosh.

 

That is actually a very good point. The Creator could have created a fully fleshed world, giving somethings the appearance of AGe in order to produce fruit for mankind, so Science and Religion cold both be correct in this case, The tree's are older than 60000 years, but only because the creator started them out already aged.

[Justin_Case001 4,889]

I am bothered by the bold.

 

Mini-splosion of built up rage in 5...

4...

3...

2...

1...

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR.

What we currently believe and what is actual fact are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Just saying that what we know now is fact and nothing else can be right is stupid and irresponsible. Is it possible that what we know now can be absolute truth? Certainly. But don't assume it. Always take it as theory.

 

(I'm not saying science is groundless. In fact, it's helped us out quite a lot, medically speaking. But there's always gonna be new frontiers of knowledge. Don't stop assume there's a wall in front of you if you can't see your own hand two feet from your face.)

 

I think his point wasn't that we know everything just that what we can confirm with our current scientific models shouldn't be up for debate.

 

Of which I agree.

Steel Accord is exactly right.  No need for a blown gasket, Flinchel.  There's some things we know for sure, and many things we don't.  I leave the possibility open for spirituality due to all of the mysteries of universe that we can't explain.  I'm not a spiritual person.  I just leave the possibility open, and that's enough.  But I certainly concede that what we know as fact has a way of changing as our understanding evolves.  E.g. Pluto isn't a planet anymore.  We updated our definition of a planet, but Pluto exists either way.  That much is fact, and not open for debate.  As of right now, I believe the accepted age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years.  Perhaps that number will change as our understanding changes.  Maybe it's more like 4.34 billion, or 4.72 billion, but we know with 100% certainty that it's much older than a few thousands years.  Little details may change, but that much is fact.  So, to reiterate, I tolerate and respect any beliefs, as long as they don't contradict what we can conclusively prove.  And I don't use the word "prove" lightly.  I never meant to imply that we know everything, or that everything we know now is 100% correct.  A lot of what we know at the moment is just working theories, but a lot is fact as well.  There is a difference, and I acknowledge it.

[Overlord0909 479]

I have no idea if we're all being tolerant or not exactly. '_' I haven't seen that movie, and I never plan to. Maybe I will or not, meh. But we aren't talking about the creation of earth are we? I know as a Catholic, what I have learned in class. That it was formed by matter in space surrounding the sun, and slowly creating it's gravitational field in the center, sending more matter into a big ball (I'm trying XD)... Anyways, if you're a fundamentalist Christian, that's cool. But I just wanted to say, not all Christians believe in Genesis literally, we believe it has symbolism. I honestly don't believe God would take six to make the universe surrounding our particular planet. And (Outside of my current faith) I really don't think God only created us, and that we're special to the rest of the universe. I think we're all equal, anything God made, was meant to be made, God is good, so what he makes must be. If given free will, then he decided that for a reason that is unknowable... Even me saying this isn't nessacerly a truth. I think I spoke correctly. Anyways, no disrespect to any religion, we all have our opinions/beliefs, and that is what God wanted. None of us are right, or wrong. We are who we were made to be.

Should've split this into paragraphs... ':D

[Shenron00 366]

I am bothered by the bold.

 

Mini-splosion of built up rage in 5...

4...

3...

2...

1...

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR.

What we currently believe and what is actual fact are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Just saying that what we know now is fact and nothing else can be right is stupid and irresponsible. Is it possible that what we know now can be absolute truth? Certainly. But don't assume it. Always take it as theory.

 

(I'm not saying science is groundless. In fact, it's helped us out quite a lot, medically speaking. But there's always gonna be new frontiers of knowledge. Don't stop assume there's a wall in front of you if you can't see your own hand two feet from your face.)

I'm sorry, but I DID say to take things like this elsewhere....

Mainly just the portrayal of all atheists as jerks and all Christians as decent individuals, and implying that you can only be a good person by being a Christian.

 

Wow, I bet they'll really want to convert now.

 

And how did they destroy their own message? I don't remember the rest of the movie that well, except for the five minutes that everyone cries. Even then, I'm not sure anything could save a religious movie from ^that^

Okay, I know I said to take debates elsewhere, but I need people to know this:

Nowhere in the movie did they say that all Atheists were bad and all Christians were good, they were just using the bad kind of Atheists and the good Christians because the opposite kinds didn't have much importance to the plot of the film. Although I DO think that a disclaimer should have been somewhere in there...

Now, I'd like to wipe the debate slate clean and I hope that anymore big debates like this are taken to PMs, somewhere in the Debate Pit, or any other way you guys may contact each other.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Shenron00

[Trine 665]

I would label myself as sceptic. Scepticism. I do tend to pray at times as a habbit i have, maybe because i feel alone, and it sort of helps. I am against religion having political influence, like theocracy. I don't mean a political party in a democracy that people can vote for, but actually religion theocratically being the governing force of a country, because that's like denying people the right to believe in whatever they like and base laws not on reason or rational thought, but on religion that can be so immorale if its laws comes from god and not a reasonable mind that is much more useful and helpful to other people.

 

But if people wanna believe in whatever they are comfortable with then that's totally ok with me ^^

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

I got my credentials of ministry in the mail a few days ago....

 

soooo....

 

As a minister of the Universal Life Church I'm naturally obligated to uphold only two tenents:

 

1. Promote freedom of Religion

 

2. To do that which is right.

 

The second one is a delightful catch-22 that by itself isn't really that helpful at all.

 

At the same time that's about all that can be said since what's right changes from situation to situation. There's a lot of room for debate and interpretation and we can spend all day looking at our selected holy texts trying to piece together a solid set of rules to live our life by as much as we want, yet we still find ourselves caught in this gray-zone of uncertainty that requires us to look beyond the text and within ourselves to figure out what's right.

 

If fought a vain fight today and perhaps made no headway in the goal I wanted to. Was there any merit in it? I fought with conviction. but perhaps it was a form of tribalistic conviction. Tribalism is not truth, is it?

 

Conviction does not always play well with tolerance. Conviction in tolerance means tolerating opposing convictions.

 

Tolerance means compromise. Conviction hates compromise. Conviction in compromise is a compromised conviction.

 

Easy to speak of religious tolerance. Hard to do when the spirit is burning inside you.

[KatonRyu 1,033]

Personally, I don't believe in any God. I think it's more important to be the person you want to be and what you feel is right than what anyone tells you you should be like.

 

Since many people these days seem to think that atheists are enemies of religious people: we're not. Most atheists simply don't believe in a creator deity and are absolutely fine with other people having different opinions.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I got my credentials of ministry in the mail a few days ago....

 

soooo....

 

As a minister of the Universal Life Church I'm naturally obligated to uphold only two tenents:

 

1. Promote freedom of Religion

 

2. To do that which is right.

 

The second one is a delightful catch-22 that by itself isn't really that helpful at all.

 

At the same time that's about all that can be said since what's right changes from situation to situation. There's a lot of room for debate and interpretation and we can spend all day looking at our selected holy texts trying to piece together a solid set of rules to live our life by as much as we want, yet we still find ourselves caught in this gray-zone of uncertainty that requires us to look beyond the text and within ourselves to figure out what's right.

 

That's not a Catch-22 though, it's a very hard task, but not one that by it's nature is impossible. Yes, the "right thing" depends on the circumstance but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. True wisdom comes from being able to discern the white and black in a world of greys.

 

 

 

If fought a vain fight today and perhaps made no headway in the goal I wanted to. Was there any merit in it? I fought with conviction. but perhaps it was a form of tribalistic conviction. Tribalism is not truth, is it?   Conviction does not always play well with tolerance. Conviction in tolerance means tolerating opposing convictions.   Tolerance means compromise. Conviction hates compromise. Conviction in compromise is a compromised conviction. Easy to speak of religious tolerance. Hard to do when the spirit is burning inside you.

 

That depends on what you have conviction for though. For instance my conviction is that all religions contain at least some wisdom, no matter how great or small. I don't oppose atheism because I recognize we all must find our own path. My convictions are that:

 

- There is a Divine in some form or nature.

 

-Freedom of the individual is the most optimal state of humanity.

 

Those require that I take a stance, that I risk myself or at least the possibility that I am wrong. That's the meaning of faith, when you put a part of yourself on the line for something you don't know for certain but choose to believe in. That doesn't require you to necessarily be someone's enemy, but it does ask that you give voice and action to your ideals.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,302]

I like to think that I'm someone who's at least capable of practicing empathy; even when I don't share any evident common ground with those on the other side of an issue.  But when it came to religion...  I was not that person.  I could muster none of it for the religious individual.  I was that aggressive atheist who took on religion wherever he could; that frustrated atheist who tired of hearing people emphasize their faith and beliefs above facts and evidence.  I required a more personal experience in order to relate.

 

Very simply put: It hurts, doesn't it?  I don't believe in god, and so I do not love god.  But there are people who do.  People who need religion.  People for whom religion, I suspect, is a comfort and an answer and a direction, all rolled into one.  While I don't subscribe to any popular, established religion...  I now recognize the hurt I was needlessly causing.  Granted, if someone is using their religious beliefs as an excuse to attack others, I will stick to my guns.  But I don't think that's what religion is really for - not on an individual level.

 

So, while I don't believe what many people believe.  While I don't agree with everything religion has been used to justify.  I do understand hurt.  And I realize I've no more right to deprive you of your beliefs than you have to deprive me of what I believe in and hold dear.

[Kothen 279]

My stance is, Believe what you want to believe. I'm an agnostic myself but I understand why other people choose to follow a religion. My tolerance ends when that religion is used as a weapon, to justifying the harming or killing of others. That I will have no tolerance for and will show absolutely no respect.