Classic theories of religious toleration from the 17th century regularly made exceptions for various categories of people such as Catholics and atheists who need not be tolerated. From a contemporary perspective these may be understood as blind spots because at least some of us would argue that these exceptions were not necessary. This essay explores the toleration theories of John Milton, Benedict de Spinoza, Denis Veiras, John Locke and Pierre Bayle in order to assess whether they actually called (...) for such exceptions and whether those exceptions were justifed or were in fact blind spots. It concludes with some reflections on what our own blind spots may be, and whether we can see around them. (shrink)
"--Maria DiBattista, Princeton University "This book provides a really original take on the literature of the fin de sicle and high modernism, suggesting how central the imaginative labor of literary works was to the social, philosophical, ...
Leibniz is not commonly numbered amongst canonical writers on toleration. One obvious reason is that, unlike Locke, he wrote no treatise specifically devoted to that doctrine. Another is the enormous amount of energy which he famously devoted to ecclesiastical reunification. Promoting the reunification of Christian churches is an objective quite different from promoting the toleration of different religious faiths – so different, in fact, that they are sometimes even construed as mutually exclusive. Ecclesiastical reunification aims to find agreement (...) at least on the most important doctrines. Religious toleration involves accepting and respecting disagreement even on the most important doctrines. If one regards these two projects as alternative rather than complementary strategies for dealing with religious diversity, Leibniz might more readily be characterised as an ecumenist rather than a tolerationist. Such appears to be the conclusion, at any rate, implicit in the balance of critical literature on these topics: whereas a steady stream of studies has discussed Leibniz’s project of ecclesiastical reunification, only a meager trickle has been devoted to his views on toleration; and some of these studies go so far as to conclude that Leibniz had no doctrine of toleration at all. This paper will attempt to show, on the contrary, that a robust, many-layered, and unusually inclusive doctrine of toleration can be gleaned from Leibniz’s writings. This doctrine operated at least at three different levels: philosophical, theological, and pragmatic. As this implies, the doctrine of religious toleration, rather than being in collision with Leibniz’s core project of ecclesiastical reunification, was an essential element of that very project: it should be seen, in other words, not as a competing goal, but as a necessary first step toward ecclesiastical reunification. Yet at the same time it will also emerge that Leibniz’s doctrine of toleration was no mere function of this intra-Christian project of reunification: rather it was a still more fundamental principle which extended beyond the ecumenical project as well. It had the resources for accepting and respecting irreducible religious diversity and disagreement on points of importance not only between Christian communities, but also between Christians and non-Christians, including, in principle, even the atheists. These points will emerge from a discussion of statements on the philosophical, theological, and pragmatic justifications of religious toleration scattered throughout Leibniz’s sprawling corpus of writings. (shrink)
Attempting to settle various debates from recent literature regarding its precise nature, I offer a detailed conceptual analysis of toleration. I begin by isolating toleration from other notions; this provides us some guidance by introducing the eight definitional conditions of toleration that I then explicate and defend. Together, these eight conditions indicate that toleration is an agent’s intentional and principled refraining from interfering with an opposed other (or their behavior, etc.) in situations of diversity, where (...) the agent believes she has the power to interfere. This non-normative definition can serve as a preliminary to normative discussions of toleration. (shrink)
Although tolerance is widely regarded as a virtue of both individuals and groups that modern democratic and multiculturalist societies cannot do without, there is still much disagreement among political thinkers as to what tolerance demands, or what can be done to create and sustain a culture of tolerance. The philosophical literature on toleration contains three main strands. (1) An agreement that a tolerant society is more than a modus vivendi; (2) discussion of the proper object(s) of toleration; (...) (3) debate about whether there is a ‘paradox’ of toleration and, if so, how it might be solved. This Introduction outlines how each of the subsequent papers addresses problems in the theory and practice of toleration, in the light of these three strands in the existing literature. (shrink)
Expecting Saving Mr. Banks to be a jolly jaunt about the creative development of the movie Mary Poppins (1964), I found myself waiting endlessly for the “jolliness” to begin—it never did. In fact, rather than joy, there was an ever-present sensation of tension as I watched the film. Having moved house myself in recent days (during a Queensland heat wave), the scenes of the Goff family leaving their home and trekking across hot, dusty Queensland were very emotional. However, seeing the (...) family patriarch Travers Goff (played by Colin Farrell) swig from an alcohol flask in a desperate manner told me that his was no “routine” family move. And, certainly, arriving at their destination—a dilapidated ranch home—shed even more light on the Goff family’s predicament: alcoholism and the cycle of employment and unemployment. Further, it is the downstream consequences of the family predicament that fuel the identity and behaviour of Mary Poppins—a fictional character created by Travers’ daughter, a. (shrink)
Do unto others -- Don't pester the pigeons -- Try it, you'll like it -- Be science fair -- Chicken out -- Save the whales -- Be good to bugs -- Fur is un-fur-giveable -- Don't pass the product tests -- Horsing around -- It's raining cats and dogs -- "Companimals" are priceless -- Pen pals for animals -- Watch out for animals -- Dump wasteful habits -- Free the fishes -- Art impact -- Help turtles out of trouble -- (...) Stick it to 'em! -- Call for compassion -- Check out the entertainment -- Dress to a 't' -- Sing for the animals -- Be an elefriend--get the elefacts -- Write on! -- Born free, bored stiff -- Saying goodbye to uninvited guests -- Talk to the animals -- Get your class into the act -- Hooray for holidays! -- Dressing cool to be kind -- Pig out! -- Take care of hot dogs -- Oh, deer! -- Give a well-come gift -- Critter chatter -- Pack a lunch with punch -- Be a bookworm -- Reflecting on dissecting -- Step up on your soapbox -- Lost and found -- It's your turn to set the table -- School's out -- Develop a good roadside manner -- Add a little spice to their lives -- Make sure fair is fair -- Get poetic -- Join the club -- Hang in there -- One last thing you can do to help the animals. (shrink)
What does God look like? Where does He live? Does God love me? How can I hear God talk? Does God know what I think? Children naturally have many questions about God. In simple language they can understand, Carolyn Nystrom answers many of their basic questions. Brightly colored pictures complement the text and make this a perfect book to help children better understand who God is.