TOLERANCE: JOY OR CONCERN?

[Volume II, update]

 

 

 

Good morning!

I’ve titled my talk today, Tolerance: Joy or Concern?  An appropriate subtitle might be: What does it mean? What are its limits? And, are we happy using it?  My distinct impression is that today there are many different, and sometimes contradictory, answers to those questions.

 

Tolerance has been an essential part of Unitarianism since the beginning, and it certainly was when I became a UU almost a half century ago. However, a couple of decades ago I had detected a decline in fervor for the word tolerance.  I believed it was being put on a very back burner. I began to read up on tolerance when I could over the years, and in the late 90’s, in a modest effort to revive interest in it, I gave a talk to the UU congregations  in Fort Lauderdale, and later in Miami and Boca Raton.  About five years ago I gave a talk here to the NCUU.  The talks were well received, but, alas, my efforts were singularly unsuccessful.

 

I should mention, for instance, that we recently submitted a revision of our Principles and Purposes to the Association, and the word tolerance does not appear[1].  Likewise for our Hymnal.  There are several brochures available in the back, but only one mentions the word, Tolerance.

 

So, naturally, I was quite delighted, back in July, to hear the President of the UUA, Reverend Sinkford, tell the press that UU’s believed in tolerance.  He did this at an interview in connection with the shotgun murders at the UU congregation in Tennessee--that we can all agree was intolerance, in spades.

 

This prompted me to do some more reading to try to find out what he and others mean by tolerance these days. The last two books increased my bibliography for this topic to forty.  I also noted that a search of the White House Web site brings up 611 hits--mostly used by President Bush and VP Cheney.  I wondered if we were all talking about the same thing.  On June 6, 2006, for instance, President Bush used the word tolerance in defending the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution. For a lot of people, the use of the word tolerance in that speech would be an interesting topic in itself.  This is definitely not just a UU issue.

 

Given all this activity, I decided to prepare another talk, revised and updated, for the purpose, as stated earlier, of seeing what it means, or has come to mean. As I suspected a lot is happening out there, indeed of the latest books have an historically revisionist bent that I find very alarming. On top of that, I have the distinct impression that truth, and any pretence to know the actual truth about any subject or thesis, is more likely to branded as intolerant rather than tolerant, associated with haughtiness and bigotry, rather than intellectual good faith or interest in human welfare.  I’d like to explore this and other trends about tolerance with you today.

 

My plan, with your kind indulgence is to give a brief overview of its usage and history, showing the spectrum of meanings and their effects.  As always, I look forward to hearing your ideas as well during our discussion.

 

Let’s start with a quote from 1784:

 

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.  What has been the effect of coercion?  To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”[2]

 

With these words, Thomas Jefferson began his plea for Tolerance before the Virginia House of Delegates.  As we shall see, this idea is essential to the founding of our Country and to our freedom of conscience as Americans and as UU’s.

 

To abandon its use might well be a tragic negation of an important tradition that takes its sustenance from the rivers of blood of thinking individuals, martyred for their beliefs during  periods when Tolerance did not exist. 

 

A Definition of terms is always in order: Let’s see what the dictionary tells us:   Tolerance is the “diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.”  Of course, this is a definition a doctor might give.  What has it to do with religion or politics? Nothing!

 

 Or, Tolerance can mean:  the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece of metal: e.g., plus or minus 0.025 of an inch. This is a definition an engineer or a machinist might give.  Again, nothing to do with religion or politics.

 

These are two from among the nine definitions given in Webster’s Unabridged. They are obviously the wrong choice when we’re talking about a  religious/political principle.  However, I mention them by way of example because I have noticed a persistent tendency among UU’s and the public at large to regard the principle of Tolerance as meaning what it does in common parlance, namely:  to put up with (reluctantly) as, for instance, a barking dog outside your window; or as in:  “How can she tolerate his constant drinking?”  Therefore, those who choose this meaning conclude that the concept is negative, or a put-down of others; that it smacks of haughty arrogance and condescension, it suggests that some others give us pain, and we would prefer that they not even exist.  To be sure, “put up with” is also one of the nine choices given in the dictionary.  But, alas, like those of the doctor and the machinist, it is the wrong choice for our context. 

 

I would like to suggest that an excellent choice is as follows: 

 

          Tolerance [ please see your handout later for the correct choice as expressed by three different dictionaries]: as a religious and political principle means:

          The Capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. [Am. Heritage Dict., 1992]

 

Now, strange as it may seem, in presenting this and similar definitions to friends and acquaintances over the years, the usual response is not, “Gee, Joe, how interesting; thanks for making things clear.” Not at all;   it’s usually something like, “Well, you can find anything in a dictionary!”   I’ve been out of academia too long to still be able to hear ears snapping shut, but I suspect that is what often happens.  They remain unconvinced.  They still think it means put up with. I hasten to inject an important caveat, often missed by those misusing this word. The dictionary  DOES NOT SAY “RESPECTING EACH AND EVERY BELIEF AND PRACTICE OF OTHERS, NO MATTER HOW UNREASONABLE AND REMOVED FROM TRUTH AND COMMON SOCIAL NORMS.”

 

Now, when we study  a new field, say science, law, medicine, we must humble ourselves before the vocabulary of that discipline.  We learn new words and accept new meanings for words we may have previously used in a different sense. We do this willingly. But, when it comes to religion and politics, we are all already “experts.”  The meaning we already have for a word is the only valid  meaning, and--as George Wallace used to say--no pointy-headed, bearded professor who can’t even park his bicycle straight is going to tell us different!

 

But the problem is even more complex.  Emotions, personalities, egos, erroneous convictions get involved.  Such willful arbitrariness of language could never be allowed in the sciences or in concrete applications.   Words must have universal applicability for each particular usage, otherwise the language falls apart.

 

Allow me to digress slightly to make a general linguistic observation about that point.  During the last twenty years or so, I have noticed some cases of language usage which have seemed outrageous by their arrogance and egotism.  I have concluded that this is a trend.  People are tending to give meanings to words that are unique to themselves; and they expect everybody to go along with them because they believe it and their belief, I guess if we are tolerant, should be respected.

 

I won’t bore you with a long list, but let me cite just a few--and you see if I have a point, and if you can’t think of other examples:  “That depends on what the meaning of is, is.”  “A bailout isn’t a bailout, it’s a rescue.”  “When I say the fundamentals of the economy are strong, I mean the American workers are strong.”[3]   “Spirituality means putting window screens on houses in malaria-infested areas.” 

 

Now, of course, as people are fond of telling me, words often change meaning over time, and many words have multiple meanings, but, I must point out that they do not have multiple meanings at the same time.  Context tells us which is to be understood.  However, if, for instance, when someone uses a word to a group of fifty and each understands it in a different way, I submit to you that communication is an illusion.

 

Given this trend, the word tolerance may be simply falling into a new--and I daresay unprecedented language libertinism. People are using the word, Tolerance, with meanings totally beyond its legitimate history and rationality.  Let’s go a little deeper and see if my meaning becomes clear.

 

For clarity I should point out that I am using the words tolerance and toleration interchangeably; in doing so I am following the usage of virtually all writers on the subject. A few authors have claimed to make the traditional distinction, but they are not consistent in so doing.  Indeed, the dictionary defines one in terms of the other.

 

My research has shown that in spite of over five hundred years of usage and much political commentary arguing for Toleration, meaning respect in law for the right to hold different opinions, there are today at least two conflicting trends that persist in giving Tolerance many erroneous  meanings.  One interprets Tolerance so broadly that you can read comments in the media (including UU World) intimating that we should not even critique another philosophy because such criticism goes against our belief in Tolerance.

 

In effect, that we should never make a judgment about anything anybody says they believe or think is the right thing to do, no matter how patently absurd.  Many commentators call this the “neutrality” position.  I call this the: I don’t really know anything about anything, so I’m not qualified to say if something is right or wrong position.

 

 

Linda Beyer, when Editor-in-Chief of UUWORLD, indicated that some UU’s had written her claiming that  “fighting, even verbally,” the religious right affronts our ideals of tolerance.” [4] 

 

Permit me to cite just two among hundreds in this first trend that appear in all media regularly.

The first is from a “Letter to the Editor” in the UUWorld:

 

. . . ‘We need to invite people to move beyond tolerance to mutual respect and understanding.’ I have often felt that tolerance, though valuable, is not enough.  To tolerate something is to put up with it.  Respect, on the other hand, brings to mind reverences, esteem, honor, and consideration.  In short, it’s more consistent with our belief in everyone’s inherent worth and dignity.[5]

 

This writer, like too many others, clearly does not know that tolerance already means, and has meant for over 500 years, to have respect for other’s beliefs.  It would appear that the editors of the UU World, do not know that either, or they might have corrected the writer, and pointed out the UU’s believe in Tolerance--that is, if we do.

 

An even more outrageous example of this first trend is shown in an article by Professor Herbert London of New York U. is titled, “Don’t let (the) tolerance madness take over America” Ft. Laud. Sun Sentinel, July 7, 1997, p. 11A.)  He rightfully laments that people are interpreting Tolerance erroneously to mean that we should not judge others by our standards.  In effect, we should never criticize anything. This seems to me to be political correctness run amok.  He gives several examples of how this “madness” is being taught in our schools.  One such:

 

A discussion at a university led to the censure of a young woman who, during her prom, gave birth and threw the infant into a Dumpster.  The baby was later found dead.  The discussion leader, adopting a stance different from that of his class said: “Who are we to judge this young woman? We don’t know what was going through her mind.”

 

After several such illustrations, Professor London concludes:

 

Tolerance that recognizes qualitative differences and cultural norms is what students should imbibe.  But a tolerance, now prevalent in our schools, that avoids judgment is propelling the society into an abyss of anarchy and amorality.

 

Needless to say, I concur that this is pathology, and it has nothing to do with the  principle of Tolerance.  Indeed, it is dangerous--for truth.   Some religious conservatives believe Tolerance means accepting all religious faiths as being equally true.  This is a complete distortion of Tolerance.  Reason tells us clearly that two opposites cannot both be true. If two numbers add up to 7 they cannot also add up to 8. The dictionary definition of Tolerance, to repeat myself, does not say we must recognize and respect each and every belief of other people. Reason has to be the guide, we are not going against Tolerance when we reject or denounce patently false, absurd philosophies or positions, or those that are advocating violence or the like.

 

So, while many people are extending Tolerance to a point where we cannot express a judgement as to the reasonableness, validity or morality of behavior or belief, the other extreme wants to get rid of the word Tolerance altogether.  It is epitomized by the title of an article I discovered on the Internet: “Stop the Hate.  Don’t Tolerate.”  How can recognizing and respecting other peoples’ beliefs be considered hate?

 

To cite just one example: A few years ago Newt Gingrich suggested extending tolerance to gays.  His gay sister, Candace, responded, “A dripping faucet, a barking dog, those are the things you tolerate.”[6] Obviously, not all gay people feel that way, but anyone who says such things has likely never studied its history or even taken the trouble to look up the word in the dictionary.  I guess dictionaries are so 19^th Century.  Or course, if a group is offended by a word, we should be very careful about using it.  But, let’s say a foreigner comes to America and is learning English, and doesn’t understand when someone suggests that his religion or beliefs and practices or lifestyle should be given toleration.  If that person looks the word up in the dictionary and finds that it means to recognize and respect, why should he or she be offended? Would that person logically say: I don’t want to be tolerated?

 

Dictionaries are there to help us understand what other people are trying to say. If, for instance, you are a psychology major taking a chemistry course, and you persist in understanding the word, sublimate, as having  a biological or sexual impulse connotation, you are not understanding. If you want to learn chemistry, you will have to look it up and find that it means that a substance changes from a solid to a gas without going through a liquid state. (A handy word you can use when your grandkids ask you where the camphor balls went.)  This does not mean that the psychology usage is wrong; it just does not apply to the context, and is not the intent of the chemistry teacher. Anyone who persists in using the wrong meaning should be flunked.

 

On the other hand, ladies and gentlemen, I am not asking you to accept the meaning of tolerance as defined earlier just because it’s in the dictionary, but because, as John Stuart Mill believed, the road to truth is the road of toleration, and also because of its long and bloody history and of its extensive and important connotation for our basic freedoms--both of which I would like now to explore.

 

In his History of Unitarianism (Beacon Press, 1945, p. 377) the Reverend Earl Morse Wilbur indicates that three fundamental principles of Unitarianism are: Reason Freedom and Tolerance. He goes on to say,  “The last step to take, and the hardest one to achieve in religious progress, is that of Tolerance.”  He’s right.  I think we can also deduce from current trends that it is also very difficult to keep.  Let’s take a very brief look at History and see what lessons about Tolerance we can draw, examine a few examples of its absence, and then decide if we want to keep it or not.

 

A good early example of Intolerance is the execution of Socrates.  He didn’t kill anybody or advocate that anyone else do so. He simply couldn’t believe that Zeus was in the sky throwing down thunderbolts.  He was executed for using his reason, and sharing his “reasonings” with others. Accused of corrupting the youth he was also officially charged with “impiety”. This, in effect, was a thought crime.

 

Moving forward a few centuries, though it may seem strange given the many revisionist pseudo-histories presented in movies  and books over the years,  it has been effectively argued that the Ancient Romans were generally religiously "tolerant".  Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788) develops this idea at length. Many other writers of note concur.  Rousseau indeed so argues in the Social Contract (1762). He indicates that conquered peoples were usually allowed to keep their religion which Rome often adopted or adapted[7]. (That’s why, for instance, in studying ancient mythology, you have to learn the Greek and the Latin name for characters: Poseidon---Neptune, etc.)  So paganism became really one and the same general religion throughout the Empire[8].  St. Paul, for instance, was in a Roman jail for two years, yet he was allowed to continue to preach to his congregation.

 

Rousseau continues that when the Christians arrived in numbers, however, the Pagans mistrusted them because they were talking about a kingdom not of this world, and gave no respect to Roman Civil Authority.  The Pagans viewed them as really seditious rebels who were just waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and become masters.  That was the real cause of the persecutions.  Alas, the Christians were persecuted, but eventually took over and, Rousseau explains:

 

                   What the pagans had feared took place.  Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms. . . . (Social Contract)

 

In short, with Christians in power, tolerance ended.

 

It is worth pointing out that the Edict of Milan (313)[9],declared by Constantine I, had guaranteed religious toleration for Christians,--they were very glad to get it.  Unfortunately, they did not extend it to the pagans and later of course not to “heretics”.   And so the "Dark Ages" of intolerance were upon us. I will spare you a discussion of the horrors during more that sixteen centuries when "faith" dominated virtually all independent thought and progress ceased, freedom was practically unheard of and intolerance, later formalized by the Inquisition, reigned supreme.

 

With the Renaissance and the Reformation in the  XVI Century, things began to change--for the worst at first.  An important date for UU’s is October 27, 1553, when Michael Servetus, who had written that the Trinity was not in the Bible was burned alive at the hands of Jean Calvin. His story is not news to you.  Yet, for me there is a curious irony in his death in that Jean Calvin had once written a treatise[10] arguing that toleration was the “hallmark of a true leader.”  Unfortunately, for Michael Servetus, in 1553 Calvin had acquired power and, like the Christian Emperors of Rome before him, was no longer interested in tolerance”.[11] Small wonder then that the memory of that fatal fire that "purified " their founder gave Unitarians a deep and abiding desire for Tolerance[12].

 

Unfortunately, the Reformation did not of itself bring Tolerance, indeed both Catholic and Protestant authorities generally applauded the murder of Michael Servetus.  There was some enlightened movement in some areas[13]  however, especially in Transylvania, and this puts Unitarianism at the heart of the evolution of this principle.  A “Toleration Decree” (1557) enacted by the Diet of Torda[14].  is an important document in the history of freedom of conscience--which Toleration supports in law.  Unitarians led the way.  I know you know most of this, but I’m just trying to bring it to the front burner.

 

A later and extremely important document giving Toleration was the Edict of Nantes, 1598[15].  France remained a Catholic country, to be sure, but with the Edict of Nantes, after more than thirty years of brutal bloodshed, Protestants were at last granted legal Toleration to practice their religion.  A horrendous example of what had been going on previously is the Saint Bartholomew’s day Massacre, August 23, 1572[16].  Over 3000 unarmed Huguenots, men women and children,  were slaughtered in Paris in three days; 70,000 more in the countryside in the next two weeks. This, in a country of less than 18 million. Just like 9/ll: the perpetrators were without conscience. t

 

The Pope (Gregory XIII) was ecstatic at the news; he commanded a great festival, and he caused a commemorative medal to be coined, and commissioned a painting as well--still on display at the Vatican.  The memory of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre certainly helped get the Edict of Nantes enacted. The Huguenots were very glad to get it; they did not consider it a put-down or a form of hatred.

 

No indeed, for before, that they had no civil rights at all.  Their marriages were not recognized in law, their children were considered illegitimate, and no inheritance was possible. Does this remind us of any issue in the news today?  I think for most of us it does. For lots of people in and outside of the Unitarian tradition it is a natural evolution to expand Toleration to include women, gays, and other minorities.

 

I hope that anyone who thinks we should get rid of the word, Tolerance, will remember St. Bartholomew’s Day as well.  Of course, memories fade, as attested by the fact that in just a few decades (1685) Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes.  Whereupon, to keep from getting persecuted and possibly slaughtered, a half a million Protestants left France for Holland and elsewhere; on the road again, looking for a little Tolerance. 

 

Incidentally, Protestants arriving in Holland would have found John Locke hiding out there as well, from the Catholic King of England. While hiding, Locke wrote the first draft of his now famous Letter Concerning Toleration. ( Eng. trans. Pub. 1689). Here Locke  presents a brilliant argument for Toleration, by  which he means specifically that people’s religious beliefs and practices should be protected in law against acts of the state: that is, that tolerance should be codified. The argument for the separation of Church and State begins here[17].  Our Founding Fathers were very familiar with this work..[18]

                  

Locke got himself in some difficulty because of his Letter.  He even endured the horror of being called a Unitarian. 

 

Under William & Mary, Parliament enacted a Toleration Act (1689).[19] The Act made it legal for some non-conformists to hold public worship.  This right did not apply to Catholics, Quakers, Jews or, of course, Unitarians.

 

Meantime, to return to our survey, what was happening in America?  Well, let’s take a few samples.  When Oliver Cromwell had prevailed upon the Puritan factions in England to tolerate each other's doctrinal differences, such religious latitudinarianism profoundly shocked the Puritans of New England. In protest, Nathaniel Ward, the minister at Aggawam (Ipswich, Massachusetts), completed his still famous book (1645), The Simple Cobbler of Aggawam in America, which affirmed the Massachusetts’ way of religious orthodoxy.  A few quotes will illustrate how much Tolerance we would have today in America if his views, the Puritan views, had prevailed:

 

                   ...I dare aver that God does nowhere in His Word tolerate Christian states, to give tolerations to such adversaries of His truth, if they have the powere in their hands to suppress them.

 

For me, the key words here are  “if they have the powere in their hands”.  If such minded people get power again, what principle will be used as a basis for laws protecting freedom of conscience?  You guessed it, the principle of Tolerance.

 

Our “Cobbler” continues:

 

                   Frederick, duke of Saxon, spoke not one foot beyond the mark when he said he had rather the earth should swallow him up quick than he should give a toleration to any opinion against any truth of God.

                                                                                                                            

                         There is talk of universal toleration, I would talk as loud as I could against it . . .”.

                                                             [Annals of Am. Vol. 1, pp. 185 passim}

 

In mid 17^th Century (1649), the Maryland Toleration Act was passed.  As you may recall, instead of advocating anything like “toleration,” it basically decreed the death penalty—quoting Leviticus and Deuteronomy—for things like blasphemy, homosexuality, and any act that did not conform to Catholic beliefs.[20] This Act and many others like it were quite the opposite of what John Locke was talking about. We can be grateful the Founders followed Locke[21].

 

There were a few rays of hope, however[22].  Among others, there was Roger Williams, in Rhode Island. And William Penn, of course, whose Colony of Pennsylvania was indeed founded on religious Toleration[23]. Also, we have the magnificent early example of Medieval Spain, where Muslims, Jews and Christians created a culture of tolerance for over 700 years--ended by Queen Isabella in 1492.

 

I have given this brief horror show of the intolerance that raged when the Church was in charge, not simply to criticize past unpleasantness, but to demonstrate the fact that the Enlightenment made Toleration respectable. I also wanted to counter a serious trend by historical revisionists today that contends that Tolerance of our Founders was a Christian idea, and we should thank Jesus and the Bible for it. The most outlandish of these that I have found so far is titled: The Truth about Tolerance, published in 2005.  Excepting a few outrageous and historically ignorant gaffs[24], the book seems to make its case in very erudite and lawyerly fashion.  But, I believe, it will not stand up under cross examination.  Certainly, Jesus did say, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; he was the “Prince of Peace,” etc.  Yet, the authors fail to explain why it wasn’t until the Enlightenment that those precious words were treated simply as some ink stains that had dried upon some lines. They also fail to mention that the Church condemned the authors who promulgated Toleration. This book constantly reminded me of Nietzsche’s quip, “The Last Christian died on the Cross.”   Looking at history, I believe he was right. 

 

Church apologists like  Saint Thomas Aquinas, for instance, known officially as the Angelic Doctor, the Interpreter of God’s Will, makes it clear that the Church has an absolute right to torture heretics and apostates, and to execute them or have them executed by the secular authorities.  He even states that the only reason the Roman Christians “tolerated” Julian The Apostate, was because they lacked the power to overthrow him[25]. 

 

Finally, the authors fail to mention the obvious fact that the Church’s’ sudden desire for Toleration occurred at the precise moment in history when they no longer had the power to be intolerant and punish impious thoughts and deeds[26].  I hope I’m not overstepping any bounds of courtesy if I suggest to you that if we UU’s are going to claim Tolerance as our own, we’d better hurry.  On the other hand you may want to get rid of it altogether[27].                 

                  

Allow me to recapitulate: We’re not talking about putting up with anything: What we are talking about here is freedom of thought and freedom of conscience being protected in law. Yet, as Professor Alan Bloom says in his best selling book, The Closing of the American Mind, “The right to freedom of thought is a political right, and for it to exist, there must be a political order that accepts that right.”[28]  By their belief in Tolerance UU’s would support the basis for such a political order. People who oppose Tolerance with statements such as, “ I don’t want you to tolerate me, just give me my rights!”, besides completely misunderstanding the concept, simply never lived in or apparently never even heard of the bad old days, so they have no idea what getting rid of tolerance would mean to minority religions. Like the Bill of Rights, tolerance is there to protect us from the Government.

 

Some people, however, contrast to the contention of the Reverend Sinkford, might be satisfied with the “Right of Conscience” that does appear in our statement of Principles and Purposes.  Or, you might feel that “acceptance” is good enough.

 

Indeed, that is the feeling of Syria’s King Abdullah, who spoke to President Bush at the White House in February, 2006:

 

And we have to continue to ask ourselves, what type of world do we want for our children? I too often hear the word used as, tolerance. And tolerance is such an awful word. If we are going to strive to move forward in the future, the word that we should be talking about is acceptance. We need to accept our common humanity and our common values.[29].

That sounds nice, but he had just said that certain “disrespectful cartoons” had to be condemned.  I’m sure the people of Holland are deep in discussions about Tolerance these days as well.

 

Returning to “acceptance” I have extensively researched the word and its social applications.  “Acceptance of one another” sounds like a nice idea to be sure, and I support it. But I can state categorically that Acceptance is not a clearly defined political or religious principle.  There are certainly no “Edicts of Acceptance” that might protect us from another Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.  In addition, there are no books even attempting to explain what Acceptance means with respect to a church or other organization, except in the sense of  admitting individuals into the fold.   Therefore, it is not clear what we are “Accepting”.  Also, just as Tolerance can’t seem to shake the “put up with” connotation, acceptance seems to be stuck with an “approve of” connotation that makes some people uncomfortable with it.  Further, one of the eight meanings of Acceptance is: to endure resignedly or patiently: accept one’s fate.  Thus, if the advocates are trying to get rid of the word Tolerance because they think it means  “put up with,” they have not really improved matters.  [Footnote: My handout includes all the meanings of acceptance, and it might be interesting if, during our discussion, we could decide which one we intend by “acceptance of one another.”[30]

 

Incidentally, I came across a nice article on the Tolerance vs. Acceptance debate written following a symposium on Homosexuality and Culture put on by the Lambda Organization.  The author maintains that each of these concepts is important, but they are distinct and should be kept so. ( I have copies for anyone interested.)[31]

                  

In contrast to acceptance, it should be clear that the word "Tolerance" implies that we may disagree with or disapprove of the beliefs of others.  If we agree with them or approve of them or accept them, then the word Tolerance is not applicable.  This concept also underlies other freedoms such as freedom of the press.  The press is free to differ--not just repeat the party line[32].  This then is the principle of Tolerance, perhaps best expressed by Voltaire's (reputed)  dictum:  “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."[33]  It does not mean to be politically correct, or a pacifist or a vegetarian. It does not mean that all ideas are equal, that we should not judge. 

 

 In short, practicing Toleration does not mean that we throw reason out the window and silently let people distort history and tread over our principles, any more that the chemistry professor should find a “less confusing” word to distinguish the two meanings of sublimate. In short, it--by no means means--that we “tolerate” everything, but only those ideas that our reason shows are worthy of recognition and respect.   While it is certainly true—as I have often been told in this connection--that words in common usage do evolve and change meaning, if we start changing long-standing legal, scientific or religious principles to accommodate the ignorant, only chaos will ensue. 

 

Admittedly, since  no one ever said,  “Give me Tolerance or give me death!,” the principle of Tolerance is not terribly "exciting”.  Nevertheless, it is the invisible pillar supporting autonomy of others; it has to do with diversity and freedom of the individual; it has to do with plurality.  Those who practice it are humble in recognizing that they do not have a monopoly on truth, and might be wrong.  They want to hear and discuss other people’s beliefs.  They encourage free exchange of ideas and laws that ensure and protect that exchange.  This principle places us squarely on the side of freedom and against: dogmatism, infamy, tyranny, bigotry, censorship, fanaticism and hate.

                  

I believe it is an essential principle for the UU Congregations and for all free thinkers.  It is an amalgam born in blood and pain and forged by the unholy and unjust fires of intolerance, its opposite. So, I think UU's and America as a whole should keep the word Tolerance that has served us for so many centuries. It expresses one of our traditional principles.  It helps make us who we are.  To change it risks compromising our integrity--historical, intellectual and moral. If someone does not understand it, we should attempt to explain it.  Remember, History clearly shows that the idea of Toleration is not an essential part either of Judaism, Islam or Christianity.  To be sure, they all preach tolerance and many practice it, but they have all shown intolerance too many times when they had power.   History is replete with examples from the persecution of heretics, to the Crusades, to the modern extreme example of the Ayatollah and Salmon Rushdie--more thought control.  Tolerance does not mean we simply acquiesce in the face of such outrages.  Each of us must use his or her reason to determine what beliefs or practices are deserving of Tolerance.

 

Finally, is Tolerance enough?  NO!  In fact, John Locke says so in his essay:  “. . . we must not content ourselves with the narrow measures of bare justice: charity, bounty and liberality must be added to it.  This the Gospel enjoins, this reason directs, and this the natural fellowship we are born into requires of us.”

 

It is in this very spirit that UU’s go beyond both tolerance and acceptance by our belief in love.  Why should I want someone else to be free?  Why should I support laws for Toleration?  Because of love.  This is my view, which I have tried to express in the little triangle I will hand out later [readers please see below]: with Reason, Freedom and Tolerance written on each side, and Love in the middle holding it all together[34].  I offer this personal view to show that each concept affects the other. 

 

As the Buddha has said so eloquently: “Only love can destroy hate”  

 

It is within the warm mantle of Tolerance that we can freely say: We don’t have to believe alike to love alike. And we do indeed have a great hymn about that: “Love is the Doctrine of this Church”.

 

Thank you.

 

                                                    SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

1.         Adams, Geoffrey.  The Huguenots and French Opinion, 1685-1787: The Enlightenment Debate on Toleration (Editions Sr, Vol.12) Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1991.

2.         Boswell, John.  Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, Press, 1980.

3.         Castiglione, Dario, ed. Toleration, Neutrality, and Democracy. (Springer) Kluer Academic Publishers,2003

4.          Conyers, J.J.  The Long Truce: How Toleration Mad the World safe for Power and Profit.  New York: Spencer Pub., 2001

5.         Cecil, Andrew R.  Equality, Tolerance, and Loyalty.  Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1990.

6.         Corbett, Michael.   Political Tolerance in America. New York: Longman, 1982.

7.         Drinkwater, John. This Troubled World.  Freeport, N.York:  Books for Libraries press, 1967.

8.         Dworkin, Ronald.  Taking Rights Seriously.  Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1977.

9.         El Fadl, Khaled Abou.  The Place of Tolerance in Islam. Beacon Press, 2002

10.       Guterman, Simeon Leonard.  Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1971.

11.       Fotion, Nick.  Toleration.  Tuscaloosa: Univ. Of Alabama Press, 1992.

12.       Heyd, David.  Toleration. Princeton Univ. Press, 1998.

13.       Justifying Toleration.  Edited by Susan Mendus.  Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988.

14.       Galeotti, Anna Elisabetta.  Toleration as Recognition.  Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.

15.       Kok-Chor Tan.  Toleration, Diversity, and Global Justice.  Philadelphia: Univ. of Pa. Press, 2002.

16.       Laursen, John Christian, Ed. Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment.   Uinv. Of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

17.       Levy, Leonard Williams.  Blasphemy: verbal offense against the sacred, from Mohammed to Salman Rushdie.  New York: Knopf, 1993.

18.       Locke, John, (1632-1704).  Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil govt., A letter concerning toleration. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966.

19        Locke, John. The reasonableness of Christianity, and part of a third letter concerning toleration.  Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1958.

20.       Maneli, Mieszyslaw.   Freedom and Tolerance.  New York: Octagon Books, 1984.

21.       Levine, Alan, ed.  Early Modern Skepticism and the Origins of Toleration.  Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

22.       McClosky, Hebert. Dimensions of Tolerance: what Americans believe about civil liberties.  New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1983.

23.       McDowell, Josh,et al. The New Tolerance: How a Cultural Movement Threatens to Destroy You, Your Faith, and Your Children.  Tyndale House Publisher, 1998.

24.       McKinnon, Catriona, ed.  The Culture of Toleration in Diverse Societies: Reasonable Toleration. Manchester Univ. Press, 2003.

25.       Mendus, Susan.  Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism.  Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1989.

26.       Mendus, Susan and David Edwards, eds.  On Toleration.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

27.       Menocal, Maria Rosa. The ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain.  Back Bay Books, 2003

28.       Mensching, Gustav. Tolerance and Truth in Religion. Translated by H.J. Klimkeit.  Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press, 1971.

29.       Newey, Glen. Virtue, Reason and Toleration.  Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2000.

30.       O Berdiek, Hans, ed.  Tolerance. Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

31.       Remer, Gary. Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration. Penn State Univ. Pres, 1996.

32.       Richards, David A.J. Toleration and the Constitution.  Oxford Univ. Press, 1993 (reprint)

33.       Stern, Susan, ed. The End of Tolerance? Nicholas Brealey Publishers, 2002.

34.       Schwartz, Sally.  A Mixed Multitude: the struggle for toleration in colonial Pennsylvania.  New York: N.Y. Univ. Press, 1987.

35.       Nederman, Cary J. Worlds of Difference: European Discourses of Toleration, C. 1100-1550.  Penn State Univ. Press, 2000.

36.       Newman, Jay.  Foundations of Religious Tolerance.  Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1982.

37.       Sullivan, John.  Political Tolerance and American Democracy.  Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 1982.

38.       Walzer, Michael.  On Toleration.   Yale Univ. Press, 1997.

39.       Tinder, Glenn E. Tolerance and Community.  Univ. of Missouri Press, 1995.

40.       Whelan, Ruth, ed. Toleration and Religious Identity: The Edict of Nantes and its Implications in France, Britain and Ireland. Four Courts Press, 2003.

 

PASSIM:        Various Classic Works by Voltaire, Montesquieu (Spirit of the Laws), Federalist Papers, Annals of America 20 vols., etc.

 

RELATED:     Johansen, Breuce E., Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, The Iroquois, and the Rationale for the American Revolution.  Ipswich: Publishers of Ipswich, 1982.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDENDA

 

THE PRlN'CIPLE OF "TOLERANCE" IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS 1

Tolerance n. The Capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

[Am. Heritage Diet., 1992]

Tolerance n. Disposition to be patient and fair towards those whose opinions or practices differ from our own, absence of bigotry.

[Am. College Diet., 1979]

Tolerance: (3) The action or practice oftolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others ...

[Oxford English Dictionary, 13 vals., p. 3,343.]2

Toleration n. (1) Tolerance with respect to the actions and beliefs of others. (2) Official recognition of the rights of individuals and groups to hold dissenting opinions, especially on religion.

[Am. Heritage, Diet.} J 992l

 

I Prepared by Joe Wetzel

2 First recorded with this meaning in English in the year 1539

1 First recorded with this meaning in English in the year 1517. Kindly note that spoken usage generally precedes written usage. So, it is safe to say that the words, tolerance and toleration, have been used with these meaning for close to 500 years.

[Handout]

The Word, TOLERANCE, Some History

 

Historically, most writers and political philosophers have used Toleration and Tolerance more or less interchangeably.  Indeed, one is usually defined in terms of the other. This essay follows that practice.

 

DEFINITION: according to Webster’s Unabridged, 1976, Tolerance has nine (9) meanings. It comes from: [ME tolerance, fr. MF tolerance, fr. L.  tolerantia, fr. tolerant-tolerans (pres. participle of tolerare, to endure, bear, put up with.)]  Most of the meanings relate in some degree to this root, however, when used as a religious/political principle it means:

 

The disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others;  freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others.

 

“The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others” [Am. Heritage Dict., 1992].

 

HISTORY OF THE WORD, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 20 vols., 1934, 1989

Tolerance:

First used in Eng., 1418, to mean endure pain: Chronicle of Troy , LVDG

First used in Eng., 1539, to mean “allowing, license, permission granted by authority. Act 31 Henry VIII, c. 13 & 19. [Shakespeare]

 

Toleration:

First used in Eng. 1531, to mean  sustaining or enduring , evil, suffering,

First used in Eng.  1517, to mean action of allowing, permission granted by authority

                                    Rec. St. Mary at Hill, 297

First used in Eng.  1765, to mean:  the action or practice of tolerating, toleration: the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others;  freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others,   Lowth,[35] Letter to Warburten

 

This last meaning is the one intended by Unitarian-Universalists.  Let it be noted at the outset therefore, that it definitely does not mean “put up with” or in any way imply a superior or condescending attitude.  It is not negative, not a put down.

 

 

 

 

 

ac·cept ~ (ak sep{), v.l.

1.     to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a

present; to accept a proposal.

2.     to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.

3.     to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.

4.     to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of

president.

5.     to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.

6.     to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.

7.     to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.

8.     to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.

9.     to receive as to meaning; understand.

10. Com. to acknowledge, by signature, as calling for payment, and thus to agree to pay, as a draft.

11. (in a deliberative body) to receive as an adequate performance of the duty with which an officer or a committee has been charged; receive for further action: The report of the committee was accepted.

12. to receive or contain (something attached, inserted, etc.); This socket won't accept a three-pronged plug.

13. to receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without adverse reaction. Cf. reject (def.

7). -v.i.

14. to accept an invitation, gift, position, etc. (sometimes fol. by oj).

[1350-1400; ME accepten < MF accepter < L acceptare, equiv. to ac- AC- + -cep­take, comb. form of cap- + -t- freq. suffix]

-Syn.2. concede. 7. acknowledge.

-Ant. I. reject.

-Usage. ACCEPT and EXCEPT are sometimes confused as verbs because of their similar

pronunciations, esp. in rapid speech. ACCEPT means "to take or receive" (I accept this trophy), while EXCEPT means "to exclude" (Certain types of damage are exceptedfrom coverage in this insurance policy).

ac·cept·ance ~ (ak sep/tns). n.

1.     the act of taking or receiving something offered.

2.     favorable reception; approval; favor.

3.     the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory.

4.     the fact or state of bein~ accepted or acceptable.

5.     acceptation (def. 1).

6.     Com.

a. an engagement to pay an order, draft, or bill of exchange when it becomes due, as by the person on whom it is drawn.

b. an order, draft, etc., that a person or bank has accepted as calling for payment and has thus promised to pay.

[1565-75; ACC