Tolerance
R.
Gaspard
October
15, 2006
This is the "Church of the Open Mind." -- Now, what exactly does that mean? --- As Unitarian Universalist we pride
ourselves on being tolerant. But we are never presented with a
definition as to exactly what being tolerant means.
Digging into this subject's and reading
various definitions and comments on I am left with the conclusion that
being tolerant, deciding on what we wish to tolerate, and pushing back
when faced with actions that we do not tolerate, is in, reality, a very
personal decision based on the actions that we are faced with and on
the situation that we are presented with.
In the reading this morning, which I took
off the Internet from the online encyclopedia, "Wikipedia," we heard a
definition. There are others that I also gleaned from the Internet.
Historically, political and religious
tolerance have been the most important aspects of tolerance, since
differences of political and religious ideology have led to innumerable
wars, purges and other atrocities. The philosophers and writers of the
enlightenment, especially Voltaire and Lessing, promoted religious
tolerance, and their influence is strongly felt in Western society.
Unfortunately, they failed to treat with sufficient rigor the equally
important issue of political tolerance. While a lack of religious
tolerance causes problems in many regions of the world today,
differences of political ideology caused hundreds of millions of deaths
in the twentieth century alone. A considerable amount of contemporary
scholarship, therefore, is attempting to develop a more expansive
critical theory of political toleration. Some feel this is particularly
urgent in the West, where the influence of religion in public policy
making continues to decline, especially in Europe.
It is a common charge among critics that
tolerance is only a "modern virtue" or a "secular virtue." A related
issue is the defense of historical figures accused of intolerant acts
(i.e. anti-Semitism or witch-burning). Such criticisms are at least
partially answered by the many examples of prominently "tolerant"
individuals and societies throughout world history, such as the
multi-religious society that existed under the Muslims in Al Andalus,
or, as we call it now, Andlusia, in Spain. The early Ottoman Empire was
multi-religious too. The US during Abraham Lincoln's administration
became, to some degree tolerant (insofar as he consciously changed the
purpose of the American Civil War from mere reunification of the nation
to one of granting equal citizenship to all Americans).
And, at least early in her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England
promoted a multi-religious society.
It is helpful often when studying a
concept to push the concept to the boundaries and see if there are
outer limits to our understanding.
Philosopher Karl Popper's assertion, in
The Open Society and Its Enemies, that we are correct in refusing to
tolerate intolerance, which illustrates that there are limits to
tolerance.
In particular, should a tolerant society
tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society
destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new
thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is
difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always
agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society
also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany
is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in
Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant.
Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section
of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the
problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the
intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any
society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not
tolerated.
Rawls concludes that a just society must
be tolerant, therefore the intolerant must be tolerated for otherwise
the society would then be intolerant and so unjust. However Rawls
qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions
have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the
principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but
only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its
institutions.
Similarly, continues Rawls, while the
intolerant might forfeit the right to complain when they are not
tolerated, other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty,
to complain on their behalf, again as long as society itself is not
endangered by these intolerant members. The ACLU is a good example of a
social institution that protects the intolerant, as it frequently
defends the right to free speech of such intolerant organizations as
the Ku Klux Klan.
Other sources suggest that the meaning of
tolerance can take on shaded nuances.
Religious tolerance means: To extend
religious freedom to people of all religious traditions, even though
you may disagree with their beliefs and/or practices.
Religious tolerance does not require you:
To accept all religions as equally true.
Religious freedom means that you can:
Without oppression, believe, worship and witness (or practice
freedom from belief, worship and witness), as you wish; change your
beliefs or religion; and associate with others to express your beliefs.
In general, our church feels that it is
just in working to:
Promote religious tolerance and freedom.
Objectively describe religious faiths in
all their diversity.
Objectively describe controversial topics
from all points of view."
We tend to believe that: "Study of the
world's religions will lead to an understanding of religious diversity.
That this understanding will lead to inter-religious dialogue.
Dialogue will
lead to peace among religions. Peace among religions will lead to peace
among nations."
Are there other views for tolerance? Oh
yes! And it is further instructive to review some of them.
Anon: "Religious tolerance is
not religious indifference. It
consists of valuing the right of another person to hold beliefs that
you know absolutely to be wrong."
Anon: "Religious tolerance means to
refrain from discriminating against others who follow a different
religious path. Tolerance is more difficult to maintain when you know
that your religion is right and their religion is wrong."
Bumper sticker: "Truth, not tolerance."
Published by Harbor House Gifts of Fullerton CA. The bumper sticker
also shows a clenched fist on the left side and a cross on the right.
Paul Copan: "Contrary to popular
definitions, true tolerance means ‘putting up with error’ -
not ‘being accepting of all views’…It is because
real differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary
and virtuous." "True for You, But not for Me"
Robert Fleishmann: "When it comes to
fundamentally wrong behavior (called "sin" by the Word of God), there
is no tolerance. Wrong is wrong!,"
Hagar: "My son, always respect and honor
the other fellow's point of view. Unless it's different from yours, of
course." From his comic strip on 1999-MAR-3.
Arthur J. Kropp, former U.S. Surgeon
General: "The American ideal is not that we all agree with each other,
or even like each other, every minute of the day. It is rather that we
will respect each other's rights, especially the right to be
different..."
The one thing that seems to be missing
from all of these discussions is the one question that I feel is
absolutely necessary when viewing a situation and making a decision
about how much I will tolerate. The question they leave out is the one
that I always try to ask myself, "Is my position wrong? Am I ignoring
evidence that supports an opposing conclusion?"
Is there a point at which I will no longer
tolerate another person's views and push back? Oh yes!
For example: there are many groups of
people that hold a view that life forms that we see on earth were
created in some fashion by an "Intelligent Designer"; in other words a
thinly disguised form of creationism. I do not dispute their right to
hold this view. I question, but do not act, when they teach their
children this view. I wonder if it might not be considered a form of
child abuse since in teaching this philosophy they are closing the door
into certain fields for their children.
However, when they act to impose their
beliefs outside of the world of philosophy and into the world of
science for all children besides their own then I must drop any
pretense at further tolerance and fight against such a imposition. Why?
Am I absolutely sure that the scientific community has it right? No!
However, the scientific community, by very definition, relies on
evidence and research and continually testing of its theories in an
effort to find out if they're wrong, or if they are in the need of
adjusting so that the model they present fits more closely with the
facts as they are found.
This is contrary to the philosophical
approach that an explanation is to be accepted purely on faith and that
no further testing is needed, or, in fact, even allowed.
Now I ask each one of you to consider a
situation that during one of our services here an individual quietly
seats themselves in the rear of the Church while they are wearing a
head scarf and a veil. I daresay there would be no one here that would
object in any manner or form. And yet we have someone in our midst who,
apparently, can not be expected to accept our world view.
Now let us further suppose that a second
individual, carrying a sign proclaiming that Jesus, or some other form
of deity, is the only true icon worthy of worship and begins chanting
"heresy, heresy, heresy," would we not react? Would you? I most
certainly think I might.
So our level of tolerance, having been
tested at two different limits, is obviously capable of being breached.
As we move from one boundary to the other I suspected each one of us
would begin to feel more and more uncomfortable until finally some
boundary, as yet undefined, would be overtopped and we would react.
Consider a situation in which you are on a
tour at our meeting in Constantinople. Of course we would have to be
very careful because our tour group would be waiting in the Istanbul.
Why they changed it I don't know, but that's nobody's business but the
Turks.
In any event, as you stroll the streets of
Istanbul, you see a man berating, what appears to be a woman in a veil
and robe, quite violently. In our culture this would be intolerable but
you're not in our culture. You are a visitor and, after the initial
culture shock, you may, I hope, realize that it would be improper to
act; you would be out of line because you are the cultural stranger.
If, however, you were to see the same scene on Central Street here in
Winchendon, you would be quite justified in reacting. After all the
ancient dictum, "When in Rome do as the Romans do" remains applicable.
So again, it appears that "tolerance" is
not only dependent on our internalization of what is right or wrong,
but also on the environment. Any reaction, justifiable in one instance,
may be inherently wrong in another.
Finally, in the political arena, is it
unacceptable, as some politicians in power seem to think, to be
intolerant of individuals with opinions that differ from theirs? I
believe that there is a document, which many of us hold in quite high
esteem, that actually provides for the freedom to hold and express an
idea that is opposed by others. The document, the Constitution, is not
one that we accept as having been delivered to us as a revealed word of
some higher power. In fact we know who wrote it, they have names,
Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton, William Samuel Johnson, Rufus
King, and James Madison, produced the final version. Morris is credited
now, as then, as the chief draftsman of the final document, including
the stirring preamble..
We also know who accepted and promulgated
this document. It says so right at the beginning: "We the People." We
also know, or at least we should, to whom this document applies. A
careful reading of the Constitution reveals that it applies to anyone,
any individual, that comes into the jurisdiction of this country. There
is no statement anywhere that suggests that this document applies only
to citizens, or citizens above a certain age, or individuals of any
particular ethnic group. Anyone, anyone that comes into the
jurisdiction of this country is supposed to be provided with all of the
freedoms and protections that this document provides.
An examination in more detail reveals that
there was only one civil right that was deemed so important that it had
to appear in the body of the Constitution. That right is spelled out in
Article II section 9 and, to be specific, is:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
Invasion the public Safety may require it." Now that's a rather arcane
right, why is it so important. Because without that right all others
can be violated at a whim. To understand the importance of that right
we need to understand what it means. Specifically, it is the right for
you, or anyone, being held by an authority, to have a duly constituted
court of this country order that authority to deliver you to the court
along with any charges that that authority has and show evidence
supporting those charges. In other words, anyone within the
jurisdiction of this country is supposed to be able to put any
restraining authority to the test and that authority must prove that
they have sufficient cause to hold you for a violation of the law of
this country. Failing that test means that anyone in custody must be
released.
Why do I bring this up in a discussion of
tolerance? Because the act of tolerance must be examined in all arenas.
Consider the question: "Are we to be tolerant of all acts of a
government?" Is the act of governing so as to protect some citizens so
important that, if there is an law enacted that removes from certain
individuals a key provision of the protection that they are entitled
to, as provided by a document over two centuries old, are we to
tolerate that? Or are we to realize that the right of Habeas Corpus,
which has been a key provision of English common law for over six
hundred years, is absolutely fundamental to the foundation of all other
rights, and say, "An act that has removed that right from a group
arbitrarily designated as enemies without proof, has stepped over the
bounds of our tolerance and we are going push back. Remember that you
should not be afraid of your government, your government should be
afraid of you.
Or, is this a situation that requires us
to tolerate something that, at other times, might be considered
intolerable? That, of course, as a decision that each of you must make.
I have discussed a small aspect of the
word "tolerance." I have come to no conclusions as to the boundaries of
this word except to say that each of us must approach the question
based on our own intellect and the situation and decide where the
boundaries lie.