amorc discourse on intolerance and forbearance

8/12/2019 Amorc Discourse on Intolerance and Forbearance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amorc-discourse-on-intolerance-and-forbearance 1/6



SUGGESTI ONS REGARDI NG THE PREPARATI ON NECESSARY TOPROPERLY CONVEY THI S DI SCOURSE TO THE GENERAL MEMBERSHI P.

1. Take the di scour se home and r ead and st udy i t car e-f ul l y bef or e del i ver i ng i t to the Chapt er member shi p.

2. Read the di scourse al oud to some member of yourf ami l y, i f he or she I s a member of AMORC, or to amember of your Chapt er, some eveni ng pr i or to thedat e of del i ver i ng t he addr ess.

3. Look up each unf ami l i ar wor d or t er m i n a di ct i onar yf or i t s def i ni t i on, and l ear n to pr onounce I t cor r ect -l y i n or der to make f or smoot h and I nt el l i gent r ead-i ng .

4. Make mar gi nal not es f or ad l i b pur poses, I f desi r eddur i ng the del i ver y of t he di scour se.

5. Ci t e some i nci dent or exper i ence i n your l i f e, or t hel i f e of anot her , whi ch wi l l subst ant i at e and bear outthe t r ut h of t he st at ement s i n the di scour se.

6. Summar i ze the di scour se to ad l i b, or gi ve at l i ber t y,at the concl usi on of t he eveni ng’s address.

7. St i mul ate di scuss i on among the member shi p on the sub- j ect mat t er conveyed t hrough t he eveni ng' s di scourse.

8. Keep al l comment s and di scuss i on wi t hi n the bounds ofRosi cr uci an st udi es, such as mat er i al cont ai ned i n themonogr aphs, The Rosi cr uci an For um, t he Rosi cr uci anDi gest , Rosi cr uci an books, etc.

YY 223 957



I NTOLERANCE AND FORBEARANCE

We al l pr esume to know the natur e of i nt ol er ance. We general l yconcei ve I t to be the deni al to ot her s of the expr essi on of opi ni onsand the par t i ci pat i on I n act i vi t i es whi ch di f f er f r om one’s own.Obvi ousl y, f or the needs of soci et y, each i ndi vi dual cannot gi ve f ul lexpr essi on to al l hi s i deas, nor engage i n ever y act i vi t y whi ch mayappeal to hi m. There are, and must be, concept s and behavi or whi ch arer ecogni zed as r i ght , and ot her s whi ch are i mproper . The l at t er , thus,must be r est r ai ned. Such r est r ai nt , however , does not const i t ut ei nt ol er ance.

To avoi d f al l i ng i nt o the cat egory of i nt ol erance, t he det er mi na-t i on of what i s r i ght and wr ong t hought and act i on of t en becomes adi f f i cul t t ask. Hi st or y r el at es t he st ory of many persons, i nt ol er ant

i n t hei r at t i t udes t owar d ot her s, who wer e per haps mot i vat ed by a senseof r i ght eousness. I gnor ance i s one of the pr i nci pal f actor s that gi ver i se to I nt ol er ance. One may r eal l y know a subj ect , and as a r esul tof such knowl edge be convi nced t hat i t i s concl usi ve. Not bei ng asf ami l i ar wi t h the ccnt ra subj ect , i t has the appear ance of bei ng wr ongto hi m. I n good f ai th, then, the i ndi vi dual opposes the vi ew hemi st akenl y bel i eves to be f al se.

I nt ol er ance i s mani f est mor e f r equent l y among r el i gi ous sects. The cause i s usual l y t wofol d. The f i r st cause, agai n, i s i gnorance. The r el i gi ous concept , the i deal i sm and dogma of anot her sect , appearsto be qui t e f or ei gn. Al l t hat one may hear casual l y of another creedi s f ar f r om bei ng as i nt i mat e as one' s own. I t , t her ef ore, seems tol ack t he aut hor i t y and compet ency of one’ s per sonal and bet t er knownr el i gi ous dogma. Each r el i gi oni st wi shes t o bel i eve that he hasembr aced t he t rue f ai t h. Al l el se, then, must be f al se. To many dev-ot ees, to r ecogni ze, even to t ol er at e anot her bel i ef i s an i nj ust i ce tot hei r own f ai t h. Thus, the second cause of r el i gi ous i nt ol er ance i sthe bl i nd devot i on whi ch many r el i gi oni st s show to thei r own f ai t h.

Cert ai n behavi or s and concept s or t hought s associ ated wi t h suchmust bi ol ogi cal l y and hygi eni cal l y, as wel l as soci al l y, be observed. Thi s i s because exper i ence has proved, or t hat r eason makes i t apparent ,t hat to di scr edi t t hem i mposes di sast r ous ef f ect s upon men gener al l y.For exampl e, hi ghl y or gani zed ci vi l i zat i on at thi s t i me st i l l bel i eves

i t essent i al to out l aw bi gamy; under i t s pr esent convent i ons and custoi rsI t f i nds the exi st i ng st at e of mar r i age mor e benef i ci al to the home,the st ate, and the publ i c mor al s. Unl ess f ut ur e ci r cumst ances can provsthe pr esent concept f al se, thi s vi ew becomes a soci al r i ght to beenf or ced agai nst al l I ndi vi dual s. I n suppr essi ng al l t he member s ofsoci et y who mi ght t hi nk di f f er ent l y and who mi ght wi sh to act i naccor dance wi t h thei r per sonal vi ews, soci et y must not be consi der edi nt ol er ant .

The t heory may be est abl i shed t hat no opposi t i on to countervi ewsor count er act i ons const i t ut es i nt ol er ance i f i t i s done f or the wel f ar eof t he gr eat est number . Here, a cr i t i cal f act or enters of whi cht here ar e a number of exampl es today: does the mer e mass demand by a



peopl e concer ni ng some doct r i ne, of whi ch they do not approve, j ust i f yi t s suppr essi on? To be more conci se, j ust because the peopl e do not

want somethi ng, does t hat make i t wr ong? Unf ort unat el y, i n ourdemocraci es, t her e i s the i ncl i nat i on to denounce as f al se al l t hatdoes not have publ i c i nt erest ; thi s I s equi val ent to endor si ng asr i ght anythi ng appr oved by publ i c opi ni on. I mpor t ant i s the di st i nc-t i on bet ween the i nt er est of the masses and thei r t rue wel f ar e.

There i s no bet t er exampl e of an i ntol erance whi ch a soci et y mayseek to j ust i f y as r i ght t han the r el i gi ous domi nance of a stat e.When t he gr eat est number of a popul ace are of one r el i gi on and thatsect gai ns cont r ol of t he state, i t i s l egi sl at ed and enf or ced adver se-l y agai nst the mi nor i t y. I n such i nci dent s, hi st ory has al ways shownt hat act s of aggr essi ve i nt ol er ance occur . To f ur t her the par t i cul ar" i nt er est s" of i t s adher ent s, a st at e thus cont r ol l ed suppresses al lot her r el i gi ons di r ect l y or I ndi r ect l y. From an i mpar t i al poi nt ofvi ew, such suppr essi on cannot be shown to serve the wel f are of thest at e as a whol e. Rat her , I t cat ers t o bi got r y and the i gnor ance ofa peopl e col l ect i vel y.

The wel f are of a peopl e upon whi ch the det ermi nat i on of i nt ol er -ance rest s must not sol el y depend upon abst r act i deas. Bef or e theconcept or act i vi t i es of anot her ar e to be banned upon the basi s ofpubl i c wel f are, I t must be shown t hat such t hought s or acts producet angi bl e, det r i ment al ef f ect s upon the peopl e. A t hought mer el ydi f f er ent f r om t hat hel d by the maj or i t y of the peopl e i s not suf f i -ci ent evi dence of i t s adver se i nf l uence upon t hei r l i ves. I t must be

shown that such i deas or i deal s hel d by an i ndi vi dual or a gr oup ofpersons are mot i ves whi ch cause t hem to act i n ways whi ch ar e to thephysi cal , ment al , and soci al di sadvant age of t he publ i c.

I t i s t o be noted t hat no r ef erence has been made her e to moralpr i nci pl es. As i n the past , t here I s a st r ong t endency to abol i shspeci f i c mor al doct r i nes whi ch ar e sai d to be agai nst the publ i c i nt er -est. I n most such i nst ances, the pr ohi bi t i ons set up wer e exampl es ofabsol ut e i nt ol er ance. I t coul d not be shown t hat such doct r i nes ori deal s act ual l y wer e i nj ur i ous to the publ i c wel f ar e, such as af f ect i ngt he publ i c heal t h or l i ber t y. Consequent l y, t he abol i t i on of t eachi ngsi n whi ch t he quest i on of mor al s i s i nvol ved must be r el at ed to anyconsequence r esul t i ng f r om t hemwhi ch has a t angi bl e ef f ect upon publ i c

wel f ar e. Agai n we emphasi ze t hat a di f f er ence of opi ni on f r om t hathel d by t he masses of peopl e i s not suf f i ci ent j ust i f i cat i on f or i t ssuppress i on.

How can i ndi vi dual s avoi d an at t i t ude of per sonal i nt ol er ance? I nf act , why do so many persons oppose the di f f erent vi ews and act i ons ofot her s— even when t hei r cont ent i s not har mf ul ? The cause l i es i n thehuman ego and the i nst i nct i ve urge of sel f to asser t i t sel f . We ar edi sposed to gi ve our sel ves over ent i r el y to our I nst i ncts and desi r eswhenever the oppor t uni t y af f or ds i t sel f . We are a composi t e, not j ustof our t hought s, but of our emot i onal r esponses and our desi res. I tbecomes di f f i cul t f or many per sons to det ach desi r e f r om sel f so as toi mper sonal l y anal yze i t s wor t h I n r el at i on to t he wel f ar e of ot hers.Consequent l y, we or di nar i l y def end a per sonal i nt erest , a bel i ef or



desi re, as we woul d our physi cal per son, agai nst an at t ack. We seek

to advance such bel i ef s and f avor such i nt el l ect ual desi r es j ust asvi gor ousl y as we seek out ways and means of gai ni ng our sust enance.

I n t hi s i nst i nct i ve aggr essi on, t hi s pr omot i on of t he desi r es ofsel f , i*.re t respass upon t he r i ght s and di gni t y of other human bei ngs.We conf l i ct wi t h t hei r hopes, aspi r at i ons, and bel i ef s—and t hey havean equal and I nal i enabl e r i ght to express t hese. We cannot const r ueour per sonal wel f ar e t o mean t hat al l count er t hought s and desi r esnecessar i l y j eopar di ze our bei ng, and must , t heref or e, be opposed.Such a concept i *7ould dest r oy soci et y. I t woul d set agai nst hi s nei gh-bor each i ndi vi dual who thought or act ed di f f er ent l y f r om anot her . Wef i nd, t hi s behavi or among many of t he l ower ani mal s whi ch have not yetdevel oped t he t!herd i nst i nct ' ’— ar e not yet gr egar i ous. However , such

an at t i t ude i s not wort hy of man, and. def eat s t hose el ement s of hi snat ur e whi ch r equi r e uni f i ed ef f or t and gr oup l i vi ng.

I nt ol er ance can be r ect i f i ed by an at t i t ude of f or bear ance. For -bear ance consi st s of some r est r ai nt of our ani mal i nst i nct s. I t i snot hi ng mor e t han a f or m of per sonal di sci pl i ne and sacr i f i ce— t hat wer est r ai n our sel ves i n some regar d, t hat we be wi l l i ng to f or ego someof t he f ul l enj oyment of our physi cal senses and. of our personal powersi n order to al l ow other s to do the same.

I f we exami ne ever y I nst ance of i nt ol er ance, we wi l l f i nd t hat t heI ndi vi dual di d not necessar i l y want to i nj ur e someone or to depr i vehi m of hi s r i ght s, even t hough hi s act i ons amount ed t o j ust t hat . I t

i s r eal l y because t he i ndi vi dual was concer ned onl y wi t h hi s owni nt er est s and t he sat i at i ng of hi s own desi r es t hat he vi ol at ed t hesanct i t y of t he sel f of someone el se.

We ar e not t r ul y exer ci si ng al l of our pot ent i al i t i es i f we al l ow,desi r e and i nst i nct t o. sol el y mot i vat e us i n our r el at i ons wi t h ot her s.

To at t ai n t he hi ghest human r el at i onshi ps necessi t at es a r at i onalunder st andi ng of t he common human wel f are. We can and we must di sci -pl i ne our sel ves. We cannot l i ve al one. We must f orbear somethi ng ofour own sat i sf act i on f or t he col l ect i ve good i n whi ch we want topar t i ci pat e.

St r ange as i t may seem, f r eedom somet i mes becomes an obst acl e tot ol er ance. Thought l essl y i nsi st i ng on a per sonal f r eedom, or what wei nt er pr et per sonal f r eedom to be, i nt er f er es wi t h t he l i ber al i smof t ol er ance. Freedom i s the exer ci se of wi l l ; i t i s conf or mi ng towhat we want to do or have t he d. esi re to do. I f , however, we exer ci seour per sonal wi l l s to t hei r f ul l est ext ent as a di spl ay of f r eedom,we cannot be t ol er ant 3 We must i mpose f orbear ance on wi l l and t heI nst i nct i ve desi r e f or f r eedom i f i ndi vi dual s and nat i ons are to knowt ol er ance and t he peace whi ch f ol l ows f r om i t .

_ _ _ _ o o o 0 o o o



" HeW' MASitn's Ht:ss46 e, ' f ' l e o - 3 w j

I f IS / HE HOfl/OR ,'JW ) GREAT PRIVILEGE To SERVE OUR B Ei vVEB 0%T>EKr AMoKc M-* M Y CQPR-dTY,

fyKD ANY WAY, f tND THftTS WHY 1 M So HRP fY •Top A Y.f HAVWG O f P OK r Vk iTy -f c SERVE OUR tHff-P^r

TER fo-R OHE WW LE Y£ #R. RS Tt lE m s TE R - H-4 v i WG M if f * M W Oft VERFVLl CROUP OF K t TUf l -

• 1 (*.i H O o f f 'EC. ER% To G E T/ / ER W)1 W SVCH ft S / /VCERE: M En ve -RSH iP .; ;

. - ' ' 4

[ £ T i / s % ^ 7 / / / 5 Yenn,^ s / c ^ y c / / ? ^ Y <fPtR 33/ 3 WILL 3 E THE M o s t success

F{f L o w e F o r fr lL o f i / s-r Ttf#T~ i T ^ j L L ^ W G Tv (/s Cos Mi (L BLEss/ / V(?s ft-ND 'BE/ ver r / s.

/ t+i/S US CLOSER 'To THE rzL/m 'oA/

o f PEACB FK O W U m 7 ?

amorc discourse on intolerance and forbearance

Documents