Tolerance

I've been thinking more and more about this subject, and what my response to it should be. What does it mean to be "tolerant"? Does it mean accepting anything and everything that is presented to us, just because someone else holds it near and dear?

First, I need a good, common definition of what it means to be tolerant, and, after peeking around the Internet, I think that UNESCO's take on the subject seems to be rather typical and "authoritative". I'll be analyzing the four points of the "meaning" section of it's Declaration of Principles on Tolerance.

1.1 Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.

I believe it is imperative to understanding, not only one another but, life itself that we remain open-minded (more on that subject for another post) about other peoples of the world. We cannot pre-judge and we cannot assume our ways are indeed the best or even better than another's. It's clear to me that being different is not necessarily a bad thing and can almost always be a good thing. "Harmony in difference" is a great principle. Tolerance does, indeed, make peace possible. There are some controversial issues though in this paragraph that makes gives me pause that what is commonly called "tolerance" truly is tolerant.

1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

The values of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms for all should not be infringed; that seems reasonable as well. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this one. Again, it all sounds quite good on paper. Putting up with other people's foibles and idiosyncrasies is not the same as accepting them as true.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

"Pluralism"? Rejection of "dogmatism" and "absolutism"? Here's the meat of it. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by these terms, especially considering the context. What if a culture is based on "dogmatism" and "absolutism"? How does one resolve the problem of conflicting values? My best take on this is to say that we shouldn't shove our own ideas down the throats of others. Fine and good. No one should be subjected to such things. But if I am to understand this to mean that we cannot have opinions that we feel are correct, even if it means others are wrong, then I find this intolerable (in a medical sense) at best and laughable at worst.

1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.

Unless you are being "dogmatic" or absolutist, right? How do we determine "social injustice" if we are to be tolerant of other's ideas and actions? What if "to be as they are" is actually a bad way of living?

A distinction must be made here: there may be a difference between tolerating other's cultural and physical idocycracies (style of clothing, speech, skin color, etc.) and tolerating different ideas. For the most part, if I read it right, UNESCO's focus is on cultural and biological diversity. It seeks to give some breathing space between the experience of something different and any judgments about those differences.

The word "tolerance" doesn't seem to be the right word for what it commonly describes. Tolerance is a medical term. It is a decreased responsiveness to negative stimuli. It is the capacity to endure the effects of poison, viruses, mosquitoes or drug side effects. In short, it's the ability to put up with something that is abrasive, annoying, invasive or plain wrong, something that does not agree with you. It has nothing to do with being open-minded to the wonderful possibilities of something strange or even offensive. Thus, under this more reasonable definition, one cannot tolerate something that is already acceptable; one can only tolerate those things that are annoying, hazardous, painful, unacceptable or wrong.

On the other hand, I think it is a Christian duty to accept diversity in thought and action. It's clear to me--especially being married for fourteen years now--that playing to my strengths will not always be the best way of doing things. I have a responsibility as a Christian to love and accept all people, no matter how unlovable or strange they may seem, yet I have not obligation to accept any idea or point of view that strolls down the pike. In other words, as the folks over at The Rebelution blog point out, the most reasonable Christian position "dicates that one tolerate persons, not their ideas." Having opinions about other peoples' beliefs does not constitute imposing ourselves on them, rather it is a process of proposing alternatives in a compassionate manner.

It's my opinion that the common idea of tolerance may actually hinder the process of discovering truth. If I have to "tolerate" anything anyone thinks or says the way UNESCO appears to want, there may be times when I simply must be quiet (un-dogmatic?) about an issue. It does no one any good to assume that all ideas are of equal value.