Mallorca against racism and in favor of equality and freedom

 

Mallorca Against Racism and in Favor of Equality and Freedom Rally against racism held in Palma (Mallorca), in Plaza de Espanya, October 12, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.

https://arcmediterrani.blogspot.com

Video: Mallorca against Racism:

https://youtu.be/jFhpW4jCIb4?si=_HSKGFaKO_1AOJto

Mallorca contra el racismo

 

Mallorca contra el Racismo y en favor de la igualdad y la libertad Concentración en contra del racismo celebrada en Palma (Mallorca), en la plaza de Espanya, día 12 de octubre de 20025, a las 18 horas. https://arcmediterrani.blogspot.com

Video: Mallorca contra el Racismo:

https://youtu.be/jFhpW4jCIb4?si=_HSKGFaKO_1AOJto

New digital book "Psychology for Everyone"

A new digital psychology book by multiple authors (compiled by me), a new book for the Arcos digital library. A book and a psychology for everyone, for a better life:

Book "Psychology for Everyone, for a Better Life":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kXbxGxahlEj3ChrhmZYvtCh3LMUwEdbV/view?usp=drive_link 

You can read it on your computer or mobile phone; you can also download the file to your computer, transfer it to a pen, take it to a printer, and have it printed and bound (this way you'll have it on paper).

In either case, if you don't have time to read it all, I recommend reading (and applying) the first topic:

1 Why Psychology? (read and understood in three minutes).

and the last three:

16 Social Psychology

17 Humanistic Psychology (like us)

18 Positive Psychology (to be happy, also like us).

If you still don't have time to read all four topics, print them out and read the first and last topics, 1 and 18.

Remember, to search for other books:

Digital Library of the Arches:

https://arcmediterrani.blogspot.com/2024/05/biblioteca-digital.html

Nuevo libro digital "Psicología para todos y todas"

Un nuevo libro digital de psicología de múltiples autores (recopilación hecha por mí), un nuevo libro para la biblioteca digital de los arcos. Un libro y una psicología para todos, para vivir mejor:

Libro "Psicología para todos, para vivir mejor":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kXbxGxahlEj3ChrhmZYvtCh3LMUwEdbV/view?usp=drive_link 

Puede leerlo en el ordenador o en el móvil; también puede descargar el archivo en su ordenador, pasarlo a un pen, llevarlo a una imprenta y que le impriman y encuadernen (así lo tendréis en papel).

Tanto en un caso como en otro, si no tiene tiempo de leerlo completo, le aconsejo leer (y aplicar) el primer tema:

1 ¿Por qué psicología? (se lee y entiende en tres minutos).

y los tres últimos:

16 Psicología social

17 Psicología humanista (como nosotros)

18 Psicología positiva (para ser felices, también como nosotros).

Si aún así no tiene tiempo de leer los cuatro temas, imprima, en su caso, y lea el primero y el último 1 y 18.

Recuerde, para buscar otros libros:

Biblioteca digital de los arcos:

https://arcmediterrani.blogspot.com/2024/05/biblioteca-digital.html

Digital book: "Psychology for high school psychology teachers and students"

Digital book: "Psychology for high school psychology teachers and students"

Psychology book for teachers and students of the subject "Psychology" in high school:
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IXiBiyjtiuwRnHlbBpdJ889p7oSpbPtT/view?usp=sharing  

You can find this and other digital books in our digital library:

Arches Digital Library:

https://arcmediterrani.blogspot.com/2024/05/biblioteca-digital.html

Libro digital: "Psicología para profesorado y alumnado de psicología de Bachillerato"

Libro digital: "Psicología para profesorado y alumnado de psicología de Bachillerato"

Libro de Psicología para el profesorado y el alumnado de la asignatura de "Psicología" de Bachillerato:
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IXiBiyjtiuwRnHlbBpdJ889p7oSpbPtT/view?usp=sharing  

Este y otros libros digitales puede encontrar en nuestra biblioteca digital:

Biblioteca digital de los arcos:

https://arcmediterrani.blogspot.com/2024/05/biblioteca-digital.html

Spain, a missed opportunity

Dialogue between two residents of Palma (Mallorca), a man and a woman, found on Facebook:

- The demolition of the building at the corner of 31 de Diciembre and Antoni Marquès streets is about to begin. Apart from the serious loss of heritage and character this represents for the neighborhood and the city, I wonder: How much will the new apartments cost? Who will be able to buy them? How many will be used as second homes or for disguised tourist rentals, and remain empty for most of the year? It is clear that housing cannot continue to be left to the "free market." It is a social good, a right of citizens protected by the constitution, and the government must intervene to ensure that it is accessible to young people, workers, and local families. To begin with, any apartment in a new development like this should be sold exclusively to someone who has lived in Mallorca for at least 5 years, who does not own any other property, and who intends to use it as their primary residence. We are not experts on this issue, but it is clear to me that, given the current housing crisis, housing cannot continue to end up in the hands of wealthy foreigners and speculators. Enough is enough!

- Toni, I'm sorry to say this, but it's us who have sold and continue to sell to foreigners, and then we complain about it.

Both are right. On the one hand, there is the issue of uncontrolled tourism growth (with capitalist operators who are only concerned with maximizing profits from tourism, without bothering to manage public resources rationally, when, precisely, they are entrusted with this responsibility by the electorate), and on the other hand, there is the fact that the country joined the European Union, and that the potential buyers also belong to the European Union. This means that preferential conditions cannot be given to citizens of the host country over citizens of other European countries, meaning that European citizens from countries with a higher GDP per capita have greater purchasing power than those from countries with a lower GDP per capita. This is the case with Spain (the selling country) compared to most other (buying) countries. For example, a seller from Mallorca (a region of Spain) doesn't necessarily prefer to sell to another Mallorcan over any other European citizen. What they will consider is who can offer them the highest price for the property, whether it's a house, a plot of land, or any other asset.

If we look at the following table, we see that the GDP per capita of Germans is €50,830 per year, while the GDP per capita of Spaniards is €32,590 per year. In other words, Germans have an annual GDP per capita that is €20,000 higher than that of Spaniards. They have greater purchasing power; they can afford to pay more for a purchase than the average resident of Mallorca, who is trying to sell the property. Logically, the seller will sell to whoever offers the highest price, regardless of the buyer's nationality. And this is true for Germans and for almost all people from the traditional Western European countries (excluding the Eastern European countries), since Spain's GDP per capita is lower than that of all other Western European countries except Portugal and Greece.

And this is despite the fact that, after a period in which Spain was steadily declining and becoming increasingly impoverished, there was a time when this trend reversed and the economy began to recover and grow: the period of the Second Spanish Republic (April 14, 1931 to July 18, 1936). The Republic was clear that cultural, social, and economic growth would come hand in hand with education, and for this reason, it built thousands of schools, ensured that all school-aged children received an education (thus reducing endemic illiteracy), imported educational methods for teacher training and for teaching at all levels, and passed laws guaranteeing respect for and the rights of women... The Second Spanish Republic was a democratic government that ruled Spain between 1931 and 1939, following the abdication of King Alfonso XIII. This period marked a significant shift towards modernization and social reforms in Spain, including substantial advances in education, healthcare, women's rights, and labor legislation, all of which contributed to significant, consistent, and sustained economic growth.

If this educational, intellectual, cultural, social, and economic progress had continued at the same pace until today, Spain would have been among the top seven countries in Europe, ranked by GDP per capita, many years ago, and Spaniards would not be outcompeted by Swedes, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, French, and Italians when it comes to purchasing a house, a property, land, a marina berth, etc., anywhere in Spain. However, the fact that Spain occupies the penultimate position in this ranking, only surpassing Portugal and Greece, clearly indicates that this growth rate was not maintained. Indeed, on July 18, 1936, a group of military coup plotters, along with the newly formed Spanish fascist group, the Falange, and the most reactionary and authoritarian right-wing elements, staged a coup, followed by a civil war and a brutal, inhumane repression that abruptly halted the progress that had been made (in terms of schools, intellectual development, scientific advancement, culture, social rights, respect and rights for women, and the economy) during the Republic. The Republic only lasted five years (from April 1931 to July 1936), representing a brief period of political, social, and cultural opportunity. The coup, war, and repression were the greatest harm inflicted on Spain and the Spanish people (except for the privileged minority) during the 20th and 21st centuries, plunging the entire country into misery and hunger ("the years of hunger"), and establishing the principle that 'anyone who does not fully subscribe to the principles of the "Movement for the Salvation of Spain" – when in reality it did the exact opposite: condemning Spain and the Spanish people to misery, hunger, shame, ignominy, death (more than 600,000 deaths), and fear – must be eliminated.'. It was a missed opportunity, one that was lost in 1936, and which, here and now, 89 years later, we still haven't managed to recover. I was born after the coup and the Spanish Civil War, when Spain was already a fascist state, and now, as I approach my visit to the Vatican, I am convinced that I will never see the Republic, which was violently usurped, restored. An entire life lived with shame. I find the so-called patriots who claim to be proud of being Spanish amusing. If they look at the following chart, they can be ashamed of being Spanish. They could be proud if they were from Monaco, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, or the Netherlands... but proud to be Spanish? I am ashamed of those who talk about "friends of banana republics." And what are we? A "shady monarchy"? The kind where there was a king who peeled beans and let the peelings fall into his bowl? In short, a missed opportunity. And we are experts at missing opportunities.

España, una oportunidad perdida

Diálogo entre dos ciudadanos de Palma (Mallorca), hombre y mujer, leído en Facebook:

- La demolición del edificio esquina 31 de Diciembre y Antoni Marquès está a punto de empezar. Aparte de la grave pérdida patrimonial y de autenticidad que esto representa para el barrio y para la ciudad, me pregunto: ¿Qué costarán los nuevos pisos? ¿Quién podrá comprarlos? ¿Cuántos se destinarán a segundas residencias o a alquiler turístico encubierto y estarán vacíos buena parte del año? Es evidente que la vivienda no puede seguir en manos de "las leyes del mercado libre". Es un bien social, un derecho de la ciudadanía protegido constitucionalmente, y la Administración debe intervenir para garantizar que sea accesible por jóvenes, trabajadores y familias residentes. Para empezar, un piso de cualquier nueva promoción como ésta debería venderse obligatoriamente a alguien con al menos 5 años de residencia en Mallorca, que no fuera titular de ninguna otra vivienda, y que la destinara a primera residencia. No somos ningún experto en el tema, pero tengo claro que en la situación de EMERGENCIA HABITACIONAL que vivimos actualmente las viviendas no pueden seguir terminando en manos de extranjeros ricos y especuladores. ¡BASTA!

- Toni siento decirlo, pero somos nosotros quienes hemos vendido y seguimos vendiendo a los extranjeros y después nos quejamos.

Ambos tienen razón. El hecho del crecimiento descontrolado del turismo por un lado (con gestores capitalistas que no se preocupan más que para conseguir el mejor rédito posible del turismo, sin preocuparse por gestionar racionalmente todo lo público, cuando, precisamente, ellos son los encargados, por resultados electorales, de gestionar los recursos económicos y de servicios, públicos) y el hecho de haber entrado en la Unión Europea y que los pretendientes compradores también pertenezcan a Europa (esto hace que no se puedan poner condiciones preferentes a los ciudadanos del propio país respecto a otros ciudadanos de otros países europeos, con lo que los ciudadanos europeos de países que tienen un mayor PIB per cápita tienen un poder adquisitivo superior que aquellos que en su país tengan el PIB per cápita inferior. Y este es el caso de España (país vendedor) que la mayoría de otros (países también compradores) El vendedor, por ejemplo mallorquín, no prefiere vender a otro mallorquín por el hecho de serlo más que a cualquier otro europeo no mallorquín. Él lo que mirará y valorará es quien le puede pagar más por el mismo bien, casa, finca o terreno.

Si miramos la siguiente tabla vemos que el PIB per cápita de los alemanes es 50.830 € anuales, mientras que el PIB per cápita de los españoles es 32.590 € anuales. Es decir, el alemán tiene 20.000€ más de PIB per cápita anual más que los españoles. Tiene una mayor capacidad de compra, un mayor poder adquisitivo; podrá pagar más por la compra que el otro mallorquín, al que quiere vender y, lógicamente, el vendedor venderá a quien le pague más, prescindiendo de la nacionalidad del comprador. Y esto ocurre con los alemanes y con casi la totalidad de personas oriundas de cualquiera de los países de la Europa occidental tradicional (sin contar los países europeos procedentes de la Europa del Este) ya que España se ve superada en el PIB per cápita por todos excepto Portugal y Grecia.

Y esto que, después de un tiempo en que España iba decreciendo y se iba empobreciendo constantemente, tuvo un tiempo en que se invirtió la tendencia y la economía se iba recuperando y creciendo: El tiempo de la II República española (14-04-1931 a 18-07-1936). La República tenía claro que el crecimiento cultural, social y económico vendería de la mano de la educación y, por eso, construyó miles de escuelas, procuró la escolarización (y disminución del analfabetismo endémico) de toda la población en edad escolar, importó métodos de educación para la formación del profesorado y para la enseñanza en todos sus niveles, promulgó leyes de respeto y derechos de las mujeres,...

La Segunda República Española fue un gobierno democrático afincado en España entre 1931 y 1939, tras la abdicación del rey Alfonso XIII. Este período marcó un cambio significativo hacia la modernización y las reformas sociales en España, que incluyeron avances significativos en educación, sanidad, derechos de la mujer y legislación laboral, todo lo que repercutía en un crecimiento económico significativo, constante y permanente.

Si esta progresión escolar, intelectual, cultural, social y económica hubiera seguido el mismo ritmo hasta la actualidad, España hace rato (muchos años) que, en la relación de países europeos ordenados de más a menos, según el PIB per cápita, estaría entre los 7 primeros y los españoles no se verían superados por suecos, alemanes, belgas, holandeses, franceses e italianos a la hora de poder adquirir una vivienda, una finca, un terreno, un amarre,... en cualquier parte de España. Pero el hecho de que España ocupe el ante penultimo lugar de la relación, sólo superando a Portugal y Grecia, indica claramente que no se mantuvo el ritmo de crecimiento. Efectivamente, el 18 de julio de 1936, un grupo de militares golpistas, junto con el recién creado agrupamiento fascista español, la falange, y la derecha más caciquil y la más reaccionaria dieron un golpe de estado, seguido de una guerra fratricida y una represión brutal infrahumana que supuso una frenada en seco al proceso que progresaba (escuelas, inteligencia, desarrollo científico, cultura, derechos sociales, respeto y derechos para la mujer, y economía) en tiempos de la República. Sólo tuvo cinco años de vida (de abril de 1931 a julio de 1936), de posibilidad política, social y cultural. El golpe de estado, guerra y represión fue el mayor daño que ha recibido España y los españoles (excepto la minoría con privilegios) en todos los siglos XX y XXI, además de hundir a todo el país en la miseria y el hambre ("los años del hambre"), así como en el universo del principio del 'todo aquel que no comulgue totalmente con los principios del "Movimiento salvador de España" -Cuando, en realidad lo que hizo fue todo lo contrario: condenar a España y a los españoles a la miseria, hambre, vergüenza, ignominia, muerte -más de 600.000 muertos- y miedo- lo que debe hacer es desaparecer'. Fue una oportunidad perdida, que se perdió en 1936 y que hoy, aquí y ahora, 89 años después, seguimos sin recuperar. Yo nací después del golpe de estado y guerra de traición española, cuando España ya era un estado fascista y ahora, cerca de visitar a San Pedro estoy convencido de que no veré restiuida la República violentamente usurpada. Toda una vida con la vergüenza. Me hacen gracia los patrioteros que dicen estar orgullosos de ser españoles. Si miran la tabla siguiente pueden estar avergonzados de serlo. Podrían estar orgullosos si fueran monegascos, irlandeses, suizos, daneses, belgas, holandeses... ¿pero de ser españoles? Me dan vergüenza estos que hablan de "amigos de repúblicas bananeras". Y nosotros, ¿qué somos "monarquía favera"? ¿Aquella en la que había un rey que pelaba habas y las babas le caían dentro del barreño?. En una palabra, una oportunidad perdida. Y en esto somos especialistas.

Tolerance: a necessary but dangerous virtue. Bartomeu Bennassar

Tolerance: a necessary but dangerous virtue

Towards a "Civil Ethics" in Times of Crisis
Bartomeu Bennassar

Dedicated to the intolerant Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump

The title itself may perhaps risk being misunderstood at first glance.

In this reflection, I would like to make this statement understandable, however, acknowledging the connotations and complexities it certainly includes.

In times of democracy, the key word can be tolerance; therefore, it is appropriate to define it from the outset so that, amidst the complexities, we do not lose sight of its essence or become fixated on aspects that stray from what is truly intended. It is necessary to clarify this so that "civil ethics" (the experience and formulation of morality in and by a secular, democratic, and pluralistic society) is correct.

In a positive sense, it can be said that it is the virtue or attitude that promotes and includes respect, acceptance, openness, magnanimity, dialogue, nobility, peace, patience, understanding, reconciliation, forgiveness, rights, and freedom... Freedom is, indeed, a condition for tolerance and a natural consequence of tolerance. Freedom, democracy, pluralism, tolerance—names that are not identical but inseparable.

Dictionaries speak of the disposition to accept, allow, or tolerate in others a way of thinking, believing, and acting that is different from our own, even if we do not like it.

Freedom and tolerance go hand in hand. Historically, it was asserted that "liberalism is a sin," and so was the regime of tolerance. Today, we do not say that freedom is a sin, but rather the opposite, but we do criticize the economy that, in practice, favors unequal and unjust freedoms, that is, individualistic and unsympathetic liberalism. Currently, we affirm that tolerance is a virtue, but... we immediately discern a potential danger. Unfortunately, in Spain, we are now experiencing things that are already old in neighboring countries. This delay allows us to look at ourselves in the mirror of our neighbors so that we are not dazzled by seemingly flawless virtues without any harm or danger. Tolerance has gone from being considered an absolute evil, then a lesser evil, to being magnified as an absolute good. We have just abandoned intolerance, which was considered a manifestly Catholic virtue, in service of the truth against all error and any heretic; We have just embraced the concept of religious freedom—tolerance has always been intertwined with religious background—at the Second Vatican Council; and as soon as we begin to implement it... we are already warning about the dangers and pitfalls.

I believe that this approach contributes to a necessary but clarified moral "rearmament" and a clear and decisive "civil ethics." (It should not be confused with "moral majority" or similar terms, which in the United States often refer to religious-based groups, primarily but not exclusively evangelical and fundamentalist, and right-wing, conservative, and authoritarian social and political movements that are very intolerant.)

1. Tolerance: a dangerous virtue?

In what sense can we say that tolerance is a dangerous virtue?

Is tolerance dangerous because it can unjustly introduce and allow intolerance of one group towards another? The power of the strongest against the weakest...; because it can "bless" evil with the veil of silence and the guise of patience and resignation; it can become cheap pacifism and comfortable passivity; it can tolerate any dictatorship.

Is moderation—a word always praised as a virtue—the path, however long, to justice? Doesn't it hide irrational fears? Doesn't it make the path impassable with a "that's good enough"?

Doesn't prudence sometimes hide deep crises of powerlessness or neglect? At least, phrases like these can be attributed to prudence: "Leave it alone!" "Don't get involved!" "It's not the right time!"

Patience—part of tolerance—does not encompass the full spectrum of personal and social behavior when confronted with the time necessary for the growth of individuals, institutions, and things.

Struggle and, indeed, sensible impatience, are also appropriate.

The question of unity does not solve either the problem of the truth that is the foundation of genuine unity, nor the question of sincere love. Everything can lead to a very harmful neutralism, eclecticism, skepticism, and indifferentism (relativism, arbitrariness...).

Does social peace or the pact and consensus (more secular terms) demand tolerance at any cost? The necessary, well-founded peace cannot make us forget the facts or the culpable actions—but not the name of the sinner—so that history does not repeat itself in a bloody manner. Turning the other cheek, as the Gospel teaches, does not imply silent acceptance of wrongdoing, nor complicit passivity in seeing one's brother being hurt, nor the distant and insensitive advice to resign oneself to the situation.

Doesn't tolerance—by expressing the opposite—demand the death of dissenting communication in the sea of ​​silence? Wouldn't that be a moral regression? Tolerance is often a form of domination disguised as concessions, privileges, or exceptions—motivated by pity or a sense of obligation, or simply out of fear or resignation. The majority group, or the stronger one, organizes society more or less as it sees fit. The dominant group is then considered tolerant for "allowing the other group to live." The other group, the weaker or smaller one, is considered tolerant for "allowing the dominant group to organize itself as it sees fit."
Is this really the true virtue of tolerance?

The tolerance that governs society as a whole, and the granting of specific privileges, can, depending on the circumstances, be shown to be partisan, restrictive, disdainful, even oppressive, to the point of stifling the voices of minorities. It can also manifest itself as respectful, liberal, accepting, compassionate—benevolent, even docile. It can also take the form of a weak, submissive, evasive, hypocritical, indifferent attitude, wavering with the prevailing winds of opinion. For this reason, I strongly doubt that tolerance, in and of itself, is a sound principle for fostering healthy and just coexistence. Tolerance is undoubtedly a good principle for individual behavior... Perhaps one could say that it means "being Jansenist (intolerant) with oneself and Jesuitical (tolerant) with others." Intolerance, it is true, produces horrific results, leading to the most brutal violence, wars, the most savage acts of contempt, and the most fanatical dictatorships.

2. Fanatical intolerance.

Intolerance and fanaticism share many common elements, although they cannot be considered the same thing. They are similar, coinciding in many points, and their effects can easily be cumulative and multiplicative. Fanaticism consists of an attitude of ideological domination over others, based on pathological, almost sacral or mystical, and visceral, irrational stances, employing despotic, tyrannical, aggressive, and violent means. Fanaticism adds a note of "missionary" zeal, an almost sacred fervor, and a strong propensity for violence to intolerance. For this reason, in this section I have described intolerance as "fanatical." It disrupts and corrupts pluralistic and democratic social coexistence, and consequently, any attempt at civil ethics.
Fanaticism adds to intolerance the inevitable element of violence, victimhood, and bloodshed. This process begins with the denigration and discredit of the victim, and with the exaltation of the fanatic as a messianic savior.  Fanaticism (and, logically, the fanatic) is, therefore, theologically blasphemous, psychologically domineering, and morally intolerable.  We are already familiar with the causes of fanaticism: the external pressure (sometimes very subtle) exerted by large political parties and the Church on individuals and small groups triggers these fanatical dynamics. Are we, as women, moving towards a kind of stupid, passive, uncritical tolerance—could we even call it a form of fanaticism?

3. Fanatical tolerance?

However, I don't think we need to assume tolerance as the almost sole value, but rather focus on the contradiction between lived tolerance and asserted intolerance. The principle and practice of tolerance, as formulated by Enlightenment thinkers, is only possible within the bourgeois class...; thus, it can easily result in a compromising, "bourgeois" behavior, one that placates consciences and, more seriously, perpetuates unjust systems. Tolerance is a good principle for maintaining things as they are.

The theoretical stance of tolerance gives us a democratic position of peoplehood, coexistence, and equality...; but, in fact, this stance favors those who can be "more tolerant" than others, "more equal than others," that is, it favors the strongest, those who can look down on things and people.

I don't want to think of tolerance as a virtue exercised only by those who have no other choice but to practice it, that is, by those at the bottom, enduring the actions of those above. Nor should tolerance be confused with impotence, weakness, "loyalty," or servility. Nor should intolerance be confused with immaturity, lack of critical thinking, fleeting impatience, or conspicuous displays of adolescent independence...

Therefore, it is not strange that someone might morally—and also evangelically—advocate cutting and breaking rather than uniting and tolerating.

This is a more combative, less easy morality. The tendency towards homogenization, the concrete that levels all structures, standardization, is very problematic. We must confront it.

The true "game" of life and coexistence is not played on the field of tolerance, which may be a legal norm and a norm of tranquil peace, albeit debatable, but rather on the field of positive, perhaps intolerant, intolerable decisions...

We can listen to what Paul affirmed about speaking the word at the right time and the wrong time, opportunely and inopportunely, with intolerant tolerance.

I have not come to bring you any kind of peace, but a war, to change and transform humanity and the world. Tolerance cannot condone, hide, or mask the continuation of wrongdoing or injustice. Tolerance cannot allow evil to go uncorrected, nor can it leave situations that violate human rights and the rights of peoples unchanged. Therefore, tolerance must be accompanied by transformative efforts and struggle. This possibility of exercising tolerance, or of experiencing tolerance from different perspectives—a concept enshrined in law or the constitution—is embodied in free, secret, and periodic elections. But it is also important to understand that tolerance implies and requires a willingness and capacity for negotiation and compromise. And the stronger party should be the one most willing to compromise. Numerical strength or majority rule is not the best criterion for a tolerable social order. A society becomes livable when its members strive to understand each other, to recognize each other's rights, to empathize with one another, and to support one another.

4. The challenge of Christian tolerance.

Everyone who promotes peaceful coexistence today deserves support. Everything that fosters harmonious living should be supported. Intolerance leads to violence and can result in nuclear holocaust. Therefore, tolerance seems to be the way to ensure that humanity does not become a threat to itself, or that we do not collectively create a living hell on earth. But we must go beyond mere tolerance. The true challenge for every citizen, and especially for Christians, lies not in simply tolerating others, but in valuing them, in embracing fraternity. Knowing how to lose, to sacrifice oneself for others—this ultimate expression of tolerance—is essential to the Christian life and a sign (and a source of power) of a new society. It is a remarkable and perhaps unsettling sign in a world and a society that teaches us to be competitive and aggressive, to be winners, to maximize profits, to triumph, to dominate. The value and practice of knowing how to lose, of self-denial, of giving without expectation of reward, of selfless service, of total commitment, of acknowledging mistakes, of accepting failure, of renouncing fame, success, and power—this is the path to Calvary and death on the cross. Christian tolerance is not merely about accepting or tolerating others; it is about allowing oneself to be taken in by others and dedicating oneself to their well-being. It is interesting to note the sensitivity of Father Carles Cardó—and it should be ours as well—when he asks that "intolerance, which has caused so much devastation, be replaced, not simply by tolerance—a term that implies judging the other as flawed—but by respect and, if we are Christians, by love." Was Jesus tolerant or intolerant? Were the early Christian communities uncompromising? The answers lie in the synthesis of both attitudes: tolerance and intolerance, both directed toward the ultimate good: life and the life of God for humanity.

5. Tolerance: constant stress.

It is true that tolerance could refer to attitudes ranging from minimal behavioral standards—which border on indifference and skepticism—to the highest ideals that verge on heroism and martyrdom, involving selfless dedication to others, even to perceived enemies. Along this spectrum, a range of positions can be found, constituting the diverse richness of this virtue we have identified as "dangerous," due to the potential for confusion. At one extreme, indifference, apathy, social conformity, and skepticism would not fall within the definition of tolerance. Tolerance means learning to coexist, to collaborate with diverse and divergent individuals, to accept differences, to recognize others, to relativize one's own ideas, institutions, and projects, to alternate periods of silence and marginalization with times dedicated to dialogue and visible action, to fight against hegemonic power structures for a more equitable society... Tolerance is not incompatible with the constant tension between the moral ideals offered by certain groups or churches and the minimum standards required by the State, as O. González de Cardedal expresses: "For us, civil ethics arises as a result of the constant tension between the highest moral ideals (which, based on their own worldviews, are desired and actively pursued, whether political, social, or religious) and, on the other hand, the minimum moral standards that the State must provide to society, so that, by accepting and living by them, it can remain a human society." Nor does tolerance require renouncing one's own thoughts, attitudes, or religious beliefs, nor missionary activities. Tolerance does not demand social consensus as the only or best way to seek truth, nor does it deny that dissent, opposition, conscientious objection, and disobedience can be forms of social contribution to building a democratic society. This is what O. González de Cardedal, representing the Church, states: "Generous and truly inclusive tolerance for all does not mean for the Church renouncing its explicit witness and sacred mission, even if the institutional and political channels through which it previously carried out its evangelizing work are no longer available. For the Church, social consensus is not the ultimate source of truth.  In specific cases, it may maintain a complete disagreement, even when the majority opinion is otherwise."

6. Pluralism and tolerance in disguise.

I have emphasized the inherently contradictory and often militant aspects of tolerance to avoid the superficiality that comes from talking too much about a tolerant society, because in practice it is very rarely so, or so that, as I have already stated, those in power of all kinds can more easily be intolerant under the guise of what is preached and blessed—and thus manipulate.

The same applies to pluralism, a topic and issue relevant to our discussion. Talking about pluralism in our society can ideologically mask the homogenizing and uniformity-promoting tendencies of society and culture. This is a trap that we must be careful not to fall into. We could distinguish between tolerance and pluralism. The former would be the correct ethical attitude for living and coexisting in a pluralistic society. However, pluralism also refers to this stance that accepts and promotes the coexistence of all, without excluding or subordinating different social groups (social pluralism), different political and partisan forces (political pluralism), different worldviews and religious beliefs (ideological, cultural, religious, and moral pluralism).

It is not surprising that Christian thought opposes all forms of monolithism, "monotheism," and uniformity. The one and only Triune God is the radical antidote to any homogenizing, standardized, sweeping, and leveling assertion about society. Where plurality exists, there is a real possibility for differences and a real possibility for exercising moral freedom.

Pluralism, then, or the tolerance of plurality, does not have to degenerate into the relativism of those who spin wildly in all directions without any orientation or organization, without any projects or roots in hope or love. Pluralism, or the tolerance of plurality and difference, means a positive kind of relativity, one that implies and is expressed in relationships, and is therefore never absolute, but always relative to, or connected with, something else. Pluralism is neither monotheistic monolithism nor a demonic, chaotic, or uncooperative relativism. Hence the moral effort to eliminate—intolerantly—the systems and ways imposed by autocratic regimes: war, the arms race, economic and social inequalities, terrorist totalitarianism, etc. Is there any room for tolerating what everyone considers intolerable?  Hence also the moral effort to cultivate a source of originality, to maintain personal and cultural differences, creativity, and enrichment—social, personal, and ecclesial. This is respect for genuine pluralism and a keen awareness of not imposing one's own views.  Nor can social or ecclesial expediency serve as a standard for pluralistic tolerance. If, as K. Rahner says, "it is evident that the current pluralism within the Church, far from being a phenomenon to be avoided, has a clear positive meaning,"12 it is also evident that this pluralism cannot be a neutral universalism, nor an abstract ideal, nor a manipulated and confused unity. As E. Schillebeeckx, applying this to the magazine "Concilium," aptly stated: "A magazine like 'Concilium,' with its mutual and patient approach, would be a rather poor platform, a kind of theological supermarket, in which, without any specific orientation, religious perspectives would be offered like merchandise from various countries." After the euphoria of the "pluralism slogan," we should delve deeper, without resorting to new dogmatism, into the boundaries of "Christian pluralism."  One cannot play with the Gospel—not even in the political sphere—in such an ambivalent manner.

7. Active, preferential, partisan tolerance.

We must acknowledge and confess that pluralistic tolerance can lead to chaotic, complacent, or even repressive situations. For those individuals or groups who feel secure in their current position, pluralism and tolerance seem to represent nothing but chaos. For those who see differences as a positive thing and unjust inequalities as a negative one, tolerance can mask a great deal of complacency and a lack of commitment to changing unjust realities. For others, pluralism can degenerate into "repressive tolerance" (Marcuse) when real intolerance is disguised by maintaining the formal aspects of tolerance. True pluralism and healthy tolerance are rooted in differences, conflicts, disagreements, tensions, as well as complementarities, commonalities, shared roots, and peaceful coexistence.

Promoting a tolerant pluralism—within the Church, between different churches, and beyond—to enable a rich, healthy, and democratic coexistence does not exclude the struggle to revitalize, advance, correct, and improve society and the Church. Perhaps it would not be amiss to recall at least the rights of personal and group moral conscience, even of erroneous conscience. The right to discussion, criticism, opposition, dissent, and disobedience. The key to understanding and living this shift in an evangelical way—that is, moving from obeying those above to obeying those below—lies in the fundamental conversion needed today: moving from the words "Whoever listens to you, listens to me" (Lk 10:16) to these other words (Mt 25:40). In this second phrase lies the true meaning of listening and obeying. This second phrase reveals the depth, urgency, and power of dissent and disagreement. Christian pluralism and tolerance are valid—they are virtuous—to the extent that they foster the development of a new humanity. In the social and political sphere, it translates into the ongoing struggle against despotism—as it was originally—against an absolutist ideology, and against the perpetuation of privileges held by individuals or dominant groups. Tolerance means formal democracy, but it means much more: emancipation, participation, genuine democracy, equality, social justice, and fraternity. For all these reasons, it speaks of preferential or discriminatory tolerance in favor of the vulnerable—even more so if they are minorities struggling to change an unjust and discriminatory society. Undoubtedly, this attitude and action can be called just, moderate, transformative intolerance. If tolerance implies and is explained by freedom, then when freedom is truly lacking, the path of tolerance translates into active social liberation. When a tolerant society produces economic and social marginalization and marginalizes ideologically dissenting groups, this marginalization is a clear indictment of a society that needs the marginalized groups to lead it—even through forceful means—towards higher and broader levels of genuine, tolerant coexistence. The greater the misery of some and the more imminent the danger of nuclear war—just to recall two scandalous facts—the more special care must be taken, never enough, not to confuse tolerance with permissiveness towards privileges and the privileged who maintain and live off the power they wield in the face of the appalling misery and dreadful resignation of those suffering from hunger and the threat of nuclear war. Tolerance then becomes the ideal atmosphere for totalitarianism and fascism.

For this very reason, tolerance must take sides. Tolerance, as a goal never fully achieved, is intolerant towards the obstacles that block or make difficult the common path for everyone and the project of a new coexistence.

In the Lord's vineyard, interpretations of the parable of the weeds and the wheat (the parable of tolerance) have been restrictive, primarily focusing on members of the church, that is, those within the fold, and on doctrinal matters; then "discipline" (intolerance) has seemed advisable and effective, even leading to the Inquisition. Will those who advocate replacing patience with anti-heresy repression continue to gain ground? Witch hunts, the requirement of a "certificate of purity of blood" (neo-scholastic purity of blood), censorship, prohibitions, scrutiny of writings, theologians, and theological doctrines, and the renewed inquisitorial mentality and style—these are not signs of either human or evangelical health. The growing power of a centralized, absolute monarch does not foster the advancement of freedoms and responsibilities, nor the unique strengths of individuals, intermediate groups, or Christian communities and churches.

Impartiality is often discussed, and we have also spoken about social consensus. Impartiality, even as an ethical stance of the so-called "impartial observer," must be subject to constant scrutiny and critique impartiality and bias towards the party that, with the supposed impartiality of that moment, circumstance, or system, suffers the most from the attacks of the other party. In this way, and only in this way—paradoxical as it may seem—can a tolerant ethic claim (and it is logical that it should aim for) universal validity.

The maturity and mutual acceptance of people and their values ​​do not come from a superficial consensus of opinions or through self-serving or unequal social agreements. Moving beyond divisive and antagonistic pluralisms towards an attempt at a pluralistic integration of ethical perspectives, social organizations, and moral actions can promote dynamic forces within the community and can be an important—ethically significant—moment of social communication. In this way, social consensus or political agreement, overcoming opposing partisan positions, justifies and supports civil ethics, because it upholds rational and tolerant pluralism. However, it must be borne in mind that a majority—simply because it has a majority of votes—does not imply greater truth. Nor does a minority—simply by being a minority—possess more truth or goodness.

Following this path, a good "negotiator" would be the best philosopher or theologian. If social consensus or consent (political or ecclesiastical) is established as the goal of all efforts towards coexistence, then dissent or social disagreement will be seen as the great evil, the worst antisocial attitude to be eradicated. The dissenter becomes a very sick person, a stubborn individual with no rights, a worthless parasite; not only a social danger but the most dangerous public danger, that is, public enemy number one.

Many names and issues are discussed or merely touched upon in these pages. Others have been left out. To recall some, these might serve as examples: uniformity, fundamentalism, intransigence, coercion, proselytizing, sectarianism, authoritarianism, exclusivism... on one hand; A complacent and complicit accommodation, marked by shame and embarrassment; a dissolution of identity, fragmentation, total indifference, opportunism, neutralism, and a suspicious and self-serving permissiveness that is pleasing to those in power... On the other hand: reconciliation, welcome, communion, solidarity, thought, reason, books, enlightenment... for every attempt to overcome fanatical intolerance with a living, dialogic, "missionary," hopeful form of tolerance.

May these pages be understood, first, as a call to attention against the despotisms of those in power—political, social, ecclesiastical, etc.—in favor of tolerance, freedom, and democracy, for the building of a pluralistic, respectful, and tolerant society and church. The utopia of respect and tolerance. Second, as a call to attention against blind obedience masquerading as virtue, against dictatorships, and against the "tolerated" plundering and exploitation of the weak, in favor of preferential intolerance, disobedience, and the struggle for justice, for the building of a more enlightened, dialogic, and egalitarian society and church. The utopia of clarity, critical thinking, and justice.

Bartomeu Bennassaar Vicens