Tolerance

Tim Raridon

What do we think of when we think of the word “tolerance”?

Tolerance. Many thoughts come to mind… Acceptance? Similar, but not quite the same thing. I may tolerate someone’s opinions and accept that person as a friend, and yet I might not accept the opinions they hold. Tolerance has many nuances of meaning and gives rise to thoughts of many important concepts.   
Tolerance. Putting up with. Cooperation. Forgiveness. The right to be wrong.

Broadmindedness. Open-mindedness. Religious freedom. Tolerance is certainly an important underpinning of religious freedom, as every good Unitarian who has had to put up with the rest of those other wrong religions for so long will certainly attest. Peaceful co-existence. Lenience. Patience. Diversity. 

Tolerance. Freedom. Democracy. Tea parties. Town halls. Live and let live. Agree to disagree. Freedom of the press. Freedom to assemble. Freedom of speech.

The word “tolerance” is derived from the Latin tolerare which means “to bear,” like bearing a burden. There are many diverse uses of uses of the word based on bearing burdens of all kinds, but I am primarily talking about tolerance as it relates to our reaction to those who believe differently than we do. And be aware, there is a “word thing” involved here. Semantic interpretations of what is meant and implied by “tolerance” abound. What do you think of when you think of “tolerance”? 
The great enlightenment thinker Voltair—known for his advocacy of religious and philosophical tolerance—said:  “What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature.”

This is the kind of interdependent, peaceful, cooperative notion that others of the enlightenment—like Thomas Jefferson—eventually developed into a central philosophical pillar that supports our religious and democratic freedoms. Tolerance. Perhaps Joshua Liebman explains the fundamental concept best: “Tolerance is the positive and cordial effort to understand another's beliefs, practices, and habits without necessarily sharing or accepting them.” Live and let live. Agree to disagree.

The idea of tolerance is not always held in such high regard, however. Some believe that “tolerance” is symptomatic of a certain moral or philosophical arrogance held by those doing the tolerating. For example, Mahatma Gandhi—yes, that Mahatma Gandhi—said, “Tolerance implies a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one's own.” Gandhi’s sentiment is echoed by Father Domonique Pire, who similarly said, “Let us not speak of tolerance. This negative word implies grudging concessions by smug consciences. Rather, let us speak of mutual understanding and mutual respect.” I must say, these perspectives on the subject do give one pause and provide an opening to a deeper discussion of tolerance as a concept and the ways we resolve and deal with moral, religious and philosophical differences. Let’s dig into this a bit more and see what we find.



First, tolerance can be thought of as being the very essence of egalitarian thinking, and does not, from my perspective, imply a superiority or inferiority on either side of the equation between the “tolerator” and the “tolerated”. It seems, therefore, that I am in the rather dubious position where I must take issue with Mahatma Gandhi and Father Pire. Actually, it is merely a matter of semantics. 

There is not a hierarchy with righteous smug consciences on top and inferior lower minded consciences on the bottom at work here. Tolerance is horizontal, not vertical. It implies accepted differences, not overbearing disputes based on religious or political hierarchies and status. All men and women and children are created equal as far as this view of tolerance goes. Superiority and inferiority are not at issue. Equality of rights prevails in a free democracy and in a free church built on tolerance. Father Pire, sage and great wise teacher Gandhi, we are talking of mutual understanding and mutual respect when we speak of “tolerance”. We also understand your message of humility. In today’s reading, Thomas Jefferson, like Gandhi and Father Pire, reminds us to be humble in our tolerance, saying: “I know too well the weakness and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results.” Tolerance is intrinsically humble and egalitarian, because we know we are all individuals—we are all fallible human individuals. 
Some have equated tolerance with passivity and weakness. ”Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions,” said GK Chesterton. William Somerset Maugham just as tersely said, “Tolerance is another word for indifference.” The thought here is that if you do not stand strongly in firm, righteous opposition to those with whom you disagree, you are somehow inadequate or do not care enough to fight for your beliefs. Maugham’s equating of tolerance with indifference is perhaps a bit strong, but there does seem to be a point here. We should guard ourselves against an aloof indifference. To this point, Margaret Chase Smith said, “We should not permit tolerance to degenerate into indifference.” We ignore those with destructive views at our own risk. Left unchecked, some elements can cause the corrosion of the whole fabric of society.

Tolerance is not necessarily indifference. In fact, it is often the opposite of indifference.

When we tolerate we not only recognize another‘s right to their opinion, but we also declare our right to our own opinion. My tolerance declares that I have made a stand, but that others may freely differ. Again, the idea is that you or I may strongly disagree with the ideologies or political views or religious views of others, but if I wish to have and exercise my freedoms, I must allow others their freedoms and beliefs. I really like the way Eleanor Holmes Norton put it: ”The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with.” 
Tolerance is not an expression of indifference. It is an expression of my individuality and it is an invitation for further discussion and growth.  JFK said: “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.” This is a great distinction. Tolerance, in this view, is an expression of opposition—opposition to the oppression of others for their beliefs. Jerome Nathanson’s perspective expands this idea further. He said, “The price of the democratic way of life is a growing appreciation of people's differences, not merely as tolerable, but as the essence of a rich and rewarding human experience.”
Tolerance. This word evokes many thoughts and emotions, especially in this time of intense political and social discord. We are witnessing a very turbulent and contentious time for tolerance right now, a time in which we, all of us—as individuals, as a community, and as a country—are profoundly re-examining many of our fundamental—sometimes conflicting— concepts regarding, among other things, how our society should be organized and the role of government and leaders in solving a multitude of social and financial difficulties. Opinions are plentiful. The most basic aspects of civilized society and democracy are now being scrutinized

and vigorously fought over, and we are currently as challenged as any previous generations have ever been in attempting to resolve disputes peaceably. 

The way things have shaken out, sustaining a healthy inter-personal democratic tolerance for opposing views is now becoming increasingly difficult and pragmatically challenging. Patrick Nielsen Hayden, said: “We tend to idealize tolerance, then wonder why we find ourselves infested with losers and nut cases.” It is difficult to argue with this sentiment right now.  Many of the strong currents that flow through the real world apparently reflect little interest in peaceful coexistence and harmonious disagreement. The politics of zero tolerance regarding opposing views and policies is upon us. It is not the first time in history that strongly opposing views have threatened to undermine peaceful coexistence. But the present twenty-first-century-post-nine-eleven-technology-age-first-African-American-president circumstance is like no other we have ever known. What is going on?  
It can be said that tolerance is the foundation of freedom and of our nation. This is something I have pondered for quite some time. The idea of mutual tolerance is in many ways the bedrock of our Constitution and a major tenet of the founding of our nation. It is also in many ways a monumentally simple concept. Yet, whole civilizations have warred and crumbled for lack of understanding the power and necessity of tolerance. They failed to see the value in a peaceful co-existence of people with conflicting individual views and their ability to live successfully in a tolerant atmosphere of diverse cooperation which ultimately creates a more stabilized civilized society and a more constructive governmental discourse for all. 

The truth is it is difficult to imagine democratic freedoms existing without tolerance. Perhaps this is the very core of what inspired me to talk about it today. Without some level of political tolerance and cooperation, we are left only with increased rancor and discord. As discord and enmity grow, division and confusion create vicious entrenched foes out of our leaders and our people. True democracy is undermined by anger, intolerant hatred and growing movement toward self righteous dissent and an increasing tendency for violence. As fear grows, the already powerful become more powerful and centralized, feeding on the inability of our democratic government act effectively. There is no quarter. Tolerance is not tolerated. Government freezes due to lack of cooperation and fear grows. And the downward spiral seems to continue endlessly. Tolerance dies. If tolerance dies, so does democracy. We feel like a motherless child. Democracy itself becomes a motherless child…a long way from home. 
The tolerance that supports and nourishes our free democracy is severely under attack. We should pay heed to Rene Dubos, who said: “Human diversity makes tolerance more than a virtue; it makes it a requirement for survival.” I believe this is very true. If it is, then we are currently at great risk. But there is more to this. 

The deep irony of tolerance is that it has limits. We do not, for example, tolerate murder. We did not tolerate Hitler. We did not tolerate King George in the 1770s. We humans have throughout history drawn certain lines in the sand and said we will not tolerate this or that based on our own collective beliefs. This is clear, and we need to recognize that such limits exist and are even quite necessary. Again, we strive to be tolerant, but we are not altogether indifferent. 

The question before us is: Do we still value tolerance as a pillar of our society and our democracy? To what degree of dissent must one or the other of our opposing political groups go before tolerance is no longer possible? Has one side or the other—or both—already passed that critical point? What action of intolerance is either side now willing to undertake in order to preserve a society that has been founded on principles of tolerance? Do we put our society at risk as a result of our stubborn belief in a cooperative democracy based on mutual understanding and mutual respect? Does our stubborn belief in tolerance prevent us from taking action to uphold our convictions and beliefs?   

These are difficult questions that I merely wish to raise here and which I will not now attempt to comprehensibly answer. However, I will add this. I genuinely believe that we all must be diligent and support the shaking pillars of our tenuous democracy by supporting the ideal of mutual tolerance and constructive discourse. Tolerance of many beliefs is a central part of the Unitarian tradition. I am drawn to close my thoughts on this matter by inviting you to ponder the beauty and simplicity of the Yin Yang symbol, and how well it represents the conflict and harmony of opposing forces. White spinning into black. Darkness spinning into light. Each containing an element of the other. Each surging forward. Each relenting. Both stay strong. The whole stays strong. And harmony is created.  

Quotes:
Eleanor
Holmes Norton:

The only way to make sure people you
agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree
with. 

Jerome Nathanson:

The price of the democratic way of life
is a growing appreciation of people's differences, not merely as tolerable,
but as the essence of a rich and rewarding human experience.

Margaret Chase Smith:

We should not permit tolerance to degenerate
into indifference.

Mark Twain:

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry,
and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these
accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot
be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's
lifetime. 

Ralph W. Sockman:

The test of courage comes when we are
in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.

Robert Louis Stevenson:

There is so much good in the worst of
us, and so much bad in the best of us, that it behooves all of us not
to talk about the rest of us. 

Rene Dubos:

Human diversity makes tolerance more
than a virtue; it makes it a requirement for survival.

Celebrations of Life, 1981

Voltaire:

What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence
of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally
each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature.

ARISTOTLE:

It is the mark of an educated mind to
be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

GK CHESTERTON:

Tolerance is the virtue of
the man without convictions. 

RUMI:

“Out
beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will
meet you there.” 
 

William Somerset Maugham:

Tolerance is another word
for indifference.  

Mahatma Gandhi:

Tolerance implies a gratuitous
assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one's own. 

Patrick Nielsen Hayden:
 

We tend to idealize tolerance,
then wonder why we find ourselves infested with losers and nut cases. 

JFK:

Tolerance implies no lack of commitment
to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution
of others.  

Joshua Liebman:

Tolerance is the positive and cordial
effort to understand another's beliefs, practices, and habits without
necessarily sharing or accepting them.  

Wilbert E. Scheer

Tolerance is the oil which takes the
friction out of life. 

Father
Dominique Pire:

Let us not speak of tolerance. This negative
word implies grudging concessions by smug consciences. Rather, let us
speak of mutual understanding and mutual respect.

Heinrich Heine:

Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow
the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more
strength than you possess.