The word tolerance is an oft thrown about word these days. It’s rather easy for us to be tolerant of like-minded people or ideas, but becomes increasing difficult when people differ.
The dictionary definition (according to Merriam-Webster) is “willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.” The secondary definition is a bit more interesting: “the ability to accept, experience, or survive something harmful or unpleasant.”
Pope Francis this past week, very eloquently spoke about religious tolerance and that sometimes folks need to tone it down a bit. Not through censorship but of a show of tolerance and respect for the feelings of others.
“If my good friend Dr. Gasbarri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said half-jokingly, throwing a mock punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God’s name couldn’t be justified and was an “aberration.” But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.
“There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others,” he said. “They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasbarri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.” (KSL)
The very liberal or progressive seek tolerance for those whose lifestyles, ideas, politics and way of life may not be mainstream. The very conservative, on the other hand, seek tolerance for the religious views, political positions, ideas and way of life could also be deemed untypical of the majority. Yet, it seems in those quests for tolerance of their points of view comes a general lack of tolerance for the opposing points of view.
Think of the first definition of tolerance and then the second. Does that not cover the situation completely?
Tolerance for something different, even if you deem it harmful or unpleasant?
A poster at the rally in Paris last Saturday contained this famous quote from Voltaire:
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
(BrainyQuote.com)
How many of us take the right of free speech so seriously that we would be willing to defend it to the death? Very few, I think.
And yet, as Christians, we read this:
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
And this:
“But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.” (Moroni 7:47)
I was also dismayed somewhat over the brouhaha about the TV show, “My Husband’s Not Gay” shown on TLC this past Sunday. I did not see the show, but did read about it and saw the trailer. And while I understand that TV shows are produced, shot and edited with a particular point of view, it is hard to be critical of something one hasn’t seen.
I also understand the consternation about what message might be sent by the show regarding advocacy of mixed-orientation marriages particularly in light of societal and Church views of the past and controversial sexual orientation change methods and practices.
Knowing all this, where was the tolerance for people who may have made a decision for themselves and were showing it on a TV show? Having not seen the show, how can people make such harsh judgments about others even if they vehemently disagreed with the other’s choice?
I saw it as a complete lack of tolerance. I know others may disagree. But, to be tolerant is to accept those ideas that you not only disagree with, but find harmful or unpleasant.
The world would be much better off with a lot more tolerance and charity than we see, as a people, we are willing or able to muster.
Wheat & Tares 
I agree with the sentiment of this post but I think it’s also important to point out that today things are often not what they seem to be, our hate or intolerance is being provocatively stirred and manipulated by others: http://vimeo.com/116191117
Great post Jeff. “Tolerance for something harmful.” I think thats the rub. When we see things in society we perceive as harmful or evil, we cannot withhold our moral indignation. This emotional response often leads us astray. We judge people unfairly all the time, subjecting them to our own morals and cultural values, rather than recognizing that God works on multiple dimensions according to people’s individual light and knowledge.
However morality is a natural emotional state, and I don’t know if suppressing it in the name of tolerance is always a good idea. Otherwise we might become emotionally disconnected, unable make important value judgements about good and evil.
I think ultimately there has to be a balance between our righteous indignation and our liberal deference. “There is evil ever around” as Evita sings, but it is often not where we think it is. We should often stop and think before letting our moral indignation carry us away.
Tolerance is a tricky thing. I tolerate the right of KKK members to believe that people of other races are inferior to white people. I do NOT tolerate them taking political action to attempt to infringe upon the rights of people of other races to live full and completely integrated lives in which they are accorded the same dignity and self-respect as white people, nor do I tolerate the behavior of an individual KKK member who wishes to deny service to people of color in his or her business establishment. See the difference? There is a difference between extending tolerance to freedom of speech and freedom of thought and expression, vs. standing up against those who would tyrannically attempt to harm and dominate those whom they do not like, and being accused of being “intolerant” for doing so.
I will defend your right to believe what you wish and to express your opinions (though with expression come natural consequences, such as people disagreeing with you, or people boycotting your place of business), but I will not tolerate you taking harmful actions against other people, to deprive them of equal rights in society, or to publicly advocate that they be directly harmed in some way.
#3 – Interesting that you “tolerate” the rights of the loathsome Klansman to believe what he (mistakenly) wishes, but not actually lives his life IAW said beliefs. Ergo, hypocrisy, and WHY “tolerance” is yet a mantra for liberals and the LGBT folk for “see it OUR way, or ELSE (we mis-use Government powers to enforce our views upon others). Lorian, if you KNEW that your local baker put on a bedsheet and hood at night (hence why the KKK is the original “Boys in the ‘Hood’), why, pray tell, would you even darken the door of his establishment, let alone worry about whether he served you? Seems that your exercising your God-given rights to freely (dis)associate, both with your company and your hard-earned cash, would do far more to speak for your values than anything “Gubmint” could supposedly do.
So-called “Conservatives” are often guilty of this insidious hypocrisy as well. Using the Government to promote “Family Values”, IMO, is self-defeating. Why turn to the one institution which you say is trying to destroy the Family? I’ll use the resources of VOLUNTARY associations, like the LDS Church, to promote whatever, IMO, promotes “Family Values” and is therefore of best utility to my family. Hence why I wasn’t all that gung-ho about Prop 8 back in the day. Appeal to “Governor Moonbeam” to protect MY family? That’ll be the day…
@”selfdo59″ – Why do you assume I would frequent the business of a known Klansman? Perhaps you entirely misunderstood my above comment.
Yes, I misunderstood, your prior statements WERE somewhat ambiguous.
Conversely, if some bedsheet-wearing cretins were to amble into your establishment, why shouldn’t you be able to promptly show them the door (and summon the po-leece if they won’t depart peacefully)? THe right to (dis)associate works BOTH ways (no pun intended).
Just imagine, if you will, the gruff proprietor of the Cantina at Mos Eisley (he’s likely proud of Obi-Wan’s description of his establishment as a ‘wretched hive of scum and villany’) being compelled to serve C3PO (for all practical purposes, Star War’s token ‘gay’ character although his voice, Anthony Daniels, is not)…not that I know what a droid would imbibe (Stoddard Solvent, perhaps?). Doesn’t work, does it? Likewise, if in real life I’m running a bar or other establishment, I’ll do business with whomsoever I please, thank you…or else I’ll ask the Madam Commissar if I have to share my house as well (“there was twenty meters of living space up there!”).
Excellent point. Obviously everything we disagree with is harmful to some extent. So what does tolerance really mean if it isn’t a buzzword for insisting on privileges for our own point of view?
“selfdo59,” I’m not sure you actually understand how anti-discrimination law works. You do not have to serve a member of the KKK in your establishment. There is no federal or state law protecting someone from discrimination on the basis of their sheet-wearing, cross-burning bigotry. While a KKK member has the right to wear a sheet and parade around in public and even to write books and give speeches about white supremacy, he or she is not protected from discrimination on the basis of being a member of a hate-group. S/he is protected from discrimination based upon his/her race, ethnicity, religion, disability status and, to a lesser extent, sex, and in some places sexual orientation or gender identity. I cannot discriminate against the KKK member for being white, or for being heterosexual, or for his/her ethnic background, or for being a member of a Baptist or any other church. But I can refuse him or her service for being a member of a hate group like the KKK. Nor do I have to print his hate literature for him or bake him a cake with guys in bedsheets burning a cross on the top.
The KKK (and other white supremacist groups) are not historical targets of discrimination in this country. Therefore membership in hate groups does not qualify for protection under anti-discrimination statutes at the federal or state levels.
#15 – Ah…so you admit that “anti-discrimination” is SELECTIVE (not that I feel sorry for Klansmen and the like being shunned), and not anything about “Equality”. That’s the essence of the so-called “Progressive” movement, a race or ethnic based spoils system. Au contraire, ma souer, I understand EXACTLY how “anti-discrimination” law works…it can be summed up with the phrase, “screw you, white boy!”
Amazing to see how INTOLERANT the ones calling for so-called “tolerance” prove to be. Of course, as an Engineer, I note that “tolerance” is a necessary EVIL, to facilitate production of machinery. Improvements over the last few decades stem as much from greater production quality control enabling production of engines with ‘tighter’ tolerances that run better AND last longer. A similar approach to human relations might just likewise yield positive results, instead of the past fifty or so years of LBJ’s failed “Great Society”.
Selfdo59,
It appears that you, like many others, miss the point of tolerance. It does not mean agreement, sympathy or anything else other than a willingness to accept that some have ideas, thoughts and beliefs different for our own.
You can fight against them, protest against them, express disgust, and any other form of disapproval.
The fact is, in a free society, we have to allow that and to “tolerate” it, even if it is the most abhorrent idea we can imagine.
We are mainly discussing the tolerance of ideas, but in some cases the actions of others must also be tolerated, even if we do not agree, provided they do not violate established laws.
Stephen,
“So what does tolerance really mean if it isn’t a buzzword for insisting on privileges for our own point of view?”
Has it turned into that? It may have. In some cases, the true meaning of words have been co-opted for a particular purpose, whose meaning is not as originally intended.
Tolerance that leads to a multi-cultural diverse society is beneficial. Tolerance of people doing harm to each other without consequences doesn’t seem like a virtue to me or the grounds for a positive society. The real problem with the second definition is that as wealthy first-worlders we don’t have as many real ills to deal with, so people manufacture grievances. Unfortunately, it seems those who are the most privileged can be the worst at this. They haven’t suffered any setbacks as a “group” but they want their “group” to be privileged the way the groups that have been harmed are privileged. It’s a very self-centered, ignorant, anti-social stance. We should strive to be proud of how the least of us are treated, not ignore it in a fervor to get our own.
@”selfdo59″ –
Actually, selfdo, it becomes clearer with every comment you write that you really *do not* understand how anti-discrimination law works. Anti-discrimination law does not protect only certain *people* within a society. It protects on the basis of *characteristics* — characteristics which each of us has, such as skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so forth.
You have a skin color (presumably white, or some shade of pale tan?). You can no more be legally discriminated against because of your skin color than a person with dark skin can be legally discriminated against because of his/her skin color.
Likewise you have a sex (I’m thinking male?). You cannot be legally refused a job, denied housing or public accommodations on the basis of your sex, than I can be (legally) denied those things because I am female.
You have a sexual orientation (pretty sure it’s heterosexual?). In states like CA, where there are civil rights protections which outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, you can’t be legally fired or refused a job, housing or public accommodations because you are heterosexual, any more than I can because I am gay.
The reason you mostly only hear about cases where people are suing for protections against discrimination because they have been refused a job because they are black, or denied public accommodations because they are gay, or Muslim, etc., is because there are disproportionate levels of discrimination against people of minority status. Certain groups have historically faced more discrimination and mistreatment than others because in the area of one or more of those characteristics — skin color, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status — they do not resemble the group in power (“white boys,” to borrow your eloquent turn of phrase).
You are protected against discrimination on the basis of the same characteristics as I am — your race, your ethnicity, your religion, your sexual orientation, etc. You just don’t happen to need those protections, because no one refuses you jobs or services on the basis of the fact that you are a white male.
Hawk,
“Tolerance of people doing harm to each other without consequences doesn’t seem like a virtue to me or the grounds for a positive society.”
Depends on how you’re defining it. Physical, definitely, yes. No one needs to tolerate that. Written or spoken words, not so sure.
Sticks and stones……
Generally speaking, I believe the line between what qualifies as “free speech” vs. what qualifies as actual “harm,” is when the speaker attempts to incite others to cause actual harm to people — like urging people to go out and commit acts of violence against a certain ethnic group, for instance, or trying to whip a crowd into a frenzy against Muslims or gays such that they will go to a gay person’s home or to the local mosque and burn and pillage..
However, free speech rights, even when someone is not using those rights to incite others to violence, do not protect a person from discrimination for expression of hateful views. As I said earlier, a Klansman has a right to express his hatred of black people, Jews and gays in public speeches on street corners, at rallies, on printed literature passed out on the street, etc., and his freedom of speech, protected by the constitution, means that he cannot be arrested, jailed or otherwise legally punished by the government for expression of those views. He can even publish them in a book or newspaper, if he can find one which will publish on his behalf.
But he *can* be legally fired from his job or refused service in a restaurant by those who disapprove of his hate-speech. He’s not being fired or refused service because of his race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion. He’s being fired or refused service because he has made enemies through the public expression of his bigoted, intolerant viewpoints. You can’t be fired for being a white guy. You *can* be fired for being an a**hole. There are no legal anti-discrimination protections for assaholic behavior.