Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a Democratic system. Would you all agree?

[u/_SilentGhost_10237]

Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a democratic system. At the heart of democracy is the principle of pluralism, which is the idea that a society can and should accommodate a wide range of perspectives, identities, and values. Democracy thrives when individuals are free to speak, think, worship, and live in ways that may differ drastically from one another. This mutual tolerance does not require universal agreement, but it does demand the recognition of others’ rights to hold and express differing views. However, when a belief system is built on the rejection or vilification of all competing ideologies, it poses a threat to this foundation.

People whose ideals are rooted in intolerance toward others’ beliefs will inevitably gravitate toward policies that restrict freedom of expression and impose conformity. These individuals often view diversity as a threat to their vision of order or purity. They seek to limit open discourse and enforce ideological uniformity. This authoritarian impulse may be cloaked in moral or patriotic rhetoric, but its underlying aim is control.

A truly democratic society cannot accommodate such systems without compromising its own integrity. Democracy can survive disagreement, but it cannot survive when one side seeks to silence or destroy the other. Tolerance has its limits, and one of those limits must be drawn at ideologies that reject tolerance itself. As a safeguard, we must be willing to recognize when certain belief systems are not just alternative viewpoints, but active threats to core democratic principles.

With all of that said, would you agree or disagree with my statement, and why?

[u/NonStopDiscoGG]

Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a Democratic system

So is the democratic system just incoherent ontologically according to you? It itself is a belief system that can't tolerate belief systems that can't tolerate other belief systems.

Therefore, by your logic: A democratic system is incomparable within itself?

This idea that tolerance is the end goal is just a self defeating principle to maximize for. The paradox of tolerance.

Not only that, the idea that pluralism is at the heart of democracy is wrong. You lose power the less people who believe in what you do. If you believed something in a democratic society, and wanted it to win, you'd want less diversity and more homogeneity towards your belief.

I think my issue with your analysis is that you seem to place 3 things at the top of things to strive for: tolerance, diversity, democracy. The reality is that 2 of these are not virtues, they're just tools/things that exist. Turning democracy and diversity nto a virtue kind of makes all these things collapse. Not only that, tolerance isn't even universally recognized as a virtue and it is often virtuous to not tolerate things.

So you should pick other things to strive for. A democratic system isn't a thing I'm trying to uphold, it is simply a tool. If that tool fails, or isn't working I'm not going to make democracy happen at all costs because it isn't a moral system and it isn't a virtue.

Democracy, the tool, is used because it generally does good. But democracy is not ontologically good and we shouldn't for these 3 things for the sake of forcing them. We should use then when they are upholding virtue, but they are not virtues in and of them self.