Реферат: Tolerance (critics on Tony Campolo's Article)
To write an essay, concerning the major humanvalues is not a simple task. Usually, inthis case, there is an option, either to accept author’s point of view or tryto challenge it, which is more difficult.
This is always more difficult to defend your ownbelief, than take a point of view of an intelligent person. So, looking throughthe articles I tried to find some author’s conclusions that were rathercontroversial. After reading the article, which deals with such value astolerance, I got rather dual impression. Frankly speaking, I would name thisarticle in the American way «How to be a really tolerant person».
On the one hand it’s difficult to disagree that allpeople are different and we should see them as they are. On the other hand I don’tthink that tolerance is achieved by making an effort not to harm a differentperson. It is written in Webster’s Dictionary that tolerance is a fair andpermissive attitude toward those, whose race, religion, nationality differsfrom one’s own. I think that Tony Campolo looked intothis dictionary before writing the article. In fact, this is the most laconicdefinition of tolerance. But if thispossible to be so laconic in such miracle as human life, I bet not. I’m afraidthat my point of view is not the only true point, but I honestly believe thattolerance and faith lie somewhere in the deep of our souls, and we can’t justlearn how to be tolerant, as we can’t just learn how to believe in God. If wetake a concept of faith and it’s definition in Webster, it’s a belief in God orin the doctrines or teachings of religion. For me it’s not just like abidanceby religious rules. Faith is a fraction of holy creature inside me, somethingthat makes me human, something that guides me through my entire life.
To saythe truth, such simple ideas of tolerance and faith by Campolomade me recall such book as «Windows for Idiots». In which you didn’t have tothink something over — a wise Uncle Sam had done everything for you. All youneed to do is just follow the instructions of the menu, just do it, just singthe songs they sing, taste the food they eat and everything will be OK.‘American philosophy’. But I think it won’t be OK if, as the author suggests,you hide your personal feelings, negative emotions somewhere inside you. Itwill lead to something that we often observe in the States. Sooner or laterthose negative tendencies appear in shoot-out somewhere in McDonald’s, inbombing <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Baghdad</st1:place></st1:City>or <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Belgrade</st1:place></st1:City>. Soto my mind, a person may be really tolerant if he or she does believe in God, aperson who just can’t carry something negative in his, her soul. As far as Camplo’sideas of tolerance are concerned I think it’s better to call them the ideas oftact and correct behavior, which is more connected with the upbringing andeducation problems, than a faith in God.
There is one more controversial pattern that Ican’t share. This is author’s insight on the biblical truth: We all created inGod’s image. His point resolves itself into the formal features of humanappearance, which is not correct. A human is a similar to God not to hisappearance, but to the ability to create. A human being is the only being onearth that can create something, introduce something new into this world. Thisis the only feature that proves our affinity with God. Otherwise we could onlybe primates.
Concluding all these I must say that tolerance isnot just a permissive attitude toward others .We can’t just learn it anyhow. Ofcourse, some of my thoughts may seem controversial, but they are frank anyway,unlike the thoughts from this article.