Revisiting The Notion of Tolerance
Philip F. Harris
August 23, 2006
As a society we are frequently admonished to be tolerant. What exactly is tolerance? According to Webster’s to tolerate is “to not interfere with; allow; permit…to recognize and respect (other’s beliefs, practices, etc.) without sharing them…to bear, or put up with (someone or something not especially liked).”
On the surface tolerance appears to be a noble objective. To allow others the freedom to believe the way they desire is a foundation stone of a free society. But where is the dividing line between tolerance and appeasement? At what point does tolerance end and overriding principles begin? Does tolerance mean that one does not stand up for their own beliefs at the expense of allowing another to practice theirs?
There are some things that I believe most would agree are intolerable. Murder, rape, incest, racism, bigotry, greed, slavery and religious persecution would be among the more common areas of agreement. And yet, even these lines are not clearly defined. Murder in a war setting is acceptable. Greed seems fine for the oil companies, banks and credit card companies. Genocide appears to be okay since the world rarely does anything about it. Even religious persecution is acceptable as long as it is not your religion that is under fire.
Things that we do not tolerate on a personal level are tolerated at a societal level. If a friend loaned you $10 and said he wanted $40 in return; that would be intolerable. But if a bank loans you $100,000 and wants $400,000 back as part of a mortgage; that is acceptable. A thief that steals money from your home is not acceptable; but it is okay for the government to take your money in the form of taxes. If someone came to your home and said that your religious beliefs were in error and that you must convert to a new theology; that would not be tolerated. However, it is perfectly tolerable to send missionaries to convert the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or those of other religious persuasions.
If the government started to murder white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, all hell would break loose. But we can tolerate the mass murder of Cambodians, Sudanese, Kurds, Africans, Jews, Albanians or other ethnic groups-as long as they are not a part of “our” group.
We tolerate, appease, many Arab nations because they have oil. We tolerate, or appease many African dictators, because they have oil. We tolerate nuclear weapons in Israel because they are our friends. We will not tolerate them in Iran or North Korea because they are, or may be, our enemies. We grow more tolerant of China because they are a great potential for economic growth; but no tolerance for Fidel because Cuba is small.
Tolerance is also something that we like to lie about. To be “tolerant” is to be modern and liberal-at least in theory. What would happen in the US if Mosques began to pop up in every town? Would our notion of religious tolerance run deep or would we find it is only skin deep? Are we really tolerant of differing political and social values or are they only acceptable as long as they are a minority? If one culture begins to impinge on ours, is that tolerable or do the red flags begin to rise?
If, by definition, being tolerant is to allow opinions that may be offensive and divisive, are we then forever destined to live in a world that, while allowing for diversity of opinion, will always be in turmoil? Is that the price of a free society? Is that the price of a world of tolerance? Or, is tolerance just another way of giving in and not standing up for one’s beliefs? It really boils down to whether or not you are in the majority or part of a minority. Tolerance may make sense as long as no one tries to convince another that their views and beliefs are the only right ones. But the moment someone tries to impose ideas or convert others to their way of thinking, the notion of tolerance must be revisited.
On the surface tolerance appears to be a noble objective. To allow others the freedom to believe the way they desire is a foundation stone of a free society. But where is the dividing line between tolerance and appeasement? At what point does tolerance end and overriding principles begin? Does tolerance mean that one does not stand up for their own beliefs at the expense of allowing another to practice theirs?
There are some things that I believe most would agree are intolerable. Murder, rape, incest, racism, bigotry, greed, slavery and religious persecution would be among the more common areas of agreement. And yet, even these lines are not clearly defined. Murder in a war setting is acceptable. Greed seems fine for the oil companies, banks and credit card companies. Genocide appears to be okay since the world rarely does anything about it. Even religious persecution is acceptable as long as it is not your religion that is under fire.
Things that we do not tolerate on a personal level are tolerated at a societal level. If a friend loaned you $10 and said he wanted $40 in return; that would be intolerable. But if a bank loans you $100,000 and wants $400,000 back as part of a mortgage; that is acceptable. A thief that steals money from your home is not acceptable; but it is okay for the government to take your money in the form of taxes. If someone came to your home and said that your religious beliefs were in error and that you must convert to a new theology; that would not be tolerated. However, it is perfectly tolerable to send missionaries to convert the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or those of other religious persuasions.
If the government started to murder white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, all hell would break loose. But we can tolerate the mass murder of Cambodians, Sudanese, Kurds, Africans, Jews, Albanians or other ethnic groups-as long as they are not a part of “our” group.
We tolerate, appease, many Arab nations because they have oil. We tolerate, or appease many African dictators, because they have oil. We tolerate nuclear weapons in Israel because they are our friends. We will not tolerate them in Iran or North Korea because they are, or may be, our enemies. We grow more tolerant of China because they are a great potential for economic growth; but no tolerance for Fidel because Cuba is small.
Tolerance is also something that we like to lie about. To be “tolerant” is to be modern and liberal-at least in theory. What would happen in the US if Mosques began to pop up in every town? Would our notion of religious tolerance run deep or would we find it is only skin deep? Are we really tolerant of differing political and social values or are they only acceptable as long as they are a minority? If one culture begins to impinge on ours, is that tolerable or do the red flags begin to rise?
If, by definition, being tolerant is to allow opinions that may be offensive and divisive, are we then forever destined to live in a world that, while allowing for diversity of opinion, will always be in turmoil? Is that the price of a free society? Is that the price of a world of tolerance? Or, is tolerance just another way of giving in and not standing up for one’s beliefs? It really boils down to whether or not you are in the majority or part of a minority. Tolerance may make sense as long as no one tries to convince another that their views and beliefs are the only right ones. But the moment someone tries to impose ideas or convert others to their way of thinking, the notion of tolerance must be revisited.
Print
Email
