What exactly is tolerance?
There’s a lot of talk about tolerance out there – and in here. But what exactly is tolerance? Is tolerating something the same thing as accepting it? Does tolerance imply agreement? Can you tolerate something without respecting it?
I started thinking about what tolerance is – and isn’t – after a comment on one of my earlier posts. The commenter noted that all roads – all religions – lead to the same place, and that all gods, no matter what their name, how they are worshipped or what is believed about them – are God. She called that tolerance. Religious tolerance.
I don’t agree with that definition of religious tolerance.
There is but one God and God is his name. And the only way to the Father is through the Son, Jesus Christ. Through the grace of God – not through obedience to laws or acts – I am both forgiven and saved. That’s my Christian perspective and I am uncompromising on it.
Other people have other beliefs – I understand that. I tolerate those differences, but what I do not do is agree with those differing beliefs. In my mind, tolerating someone’s religious beliefs – respecting their right to have difference ideas –is a whole lot different that saying those beliefs are valid or even respecting what is at the foundation of those beliefs.
In my mind, tolerance speaks to the right to have differing opinions, but does not speak to agreement or validation of those opinions. And there's an enormous difference between the right to have an opinion and the opinion itself.
Harvard professor David Little has spent much of his career defining tolerance in terms of religion, and even he admits it is a “thorny” issue.
According to Little, there are two parts to tolerance, one is the repression of the impulse to punish, change or coerce people we do not agree with. The other part goes one further, saying that in showing tolerance, we are not only repressing the impulse to change the other person, but also respecting that which we don’t agree with.
It's that second part I have trouble with. I can respectfully disagree with someone. I can respect their right to have different ideas, values and beliefs. But, when it comes right down to respecting the things I believe are not just different but wrong - tolerating them - things get a little harder.
That's when religious tolerance isn’t easy.
And it’s not just religious tolerance that’s tough sometimes, it’s cultural tolerance as well – although, as my husband is quick to point out, here in Saudi Arabia, the two are so tightly entwined that it’s hard to see where one ends and the other begins.
There are some issues that I just don’t agree with – that are contrary to everything I believe and know to be personally true and right. For example, I believe that polygamy is wrong, that it destroys the social fabric, is demoralizing to women and most importantly, that it is against the teachings of God, no matter what Muslims or Mormons might want to say.
Would I like people on the other side of polygamy to “come to the light” as it were? Sure. Do I feel the need to drag them kicking and screaming to that light? Nope. I respect that they have their opinions and I have mine. It doesn't mean that I agree with polygamy - I am intolerant of the act, but tolerant of the rights of others to have different values, morals and beliefs.
I believe that there are some things that we can't compromise on, that tolerating those things is a slippery slope toward acceptance and acceptance is not - well - acceptable.
If that makes me intolerant, then I guess I am. But I'd hope that I'm not alone in believing that some things - murder, rape, abuse, domestic violence, terrorism, oppression, gender apartheid, poverty, slavery - shouldnt be respected and can't be tolerated.
I respect others might not agree with me, I show tolerance toward their right to hold differing opinions. But I don't agree with those opinions, I don't value them as accurate. I'm not that tolerant. And I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.
17 comments:
I took a world religions class last fall and at the outset the professor was hammering a philosophy called "pluralism" which is a rather vague term, defined differently by different groups.
For us, we were to look at other religions not as though they might be true, or that all were equally true, but that each had a right to exist and worship their way... even if they were wrong.
To me it seems a concept in harmony with Islam to accept other religions--not to accept them as valid mind you, but to allow for their existence, to a point. (And you will find Muslims who disagree with this but please listen.) The belief in Islam is that God sent a messenger to every group of people, and that people were made differently so that we may know each other. So people are different but somehow all beliefs should point to the same place, although it's possible (perhaps likely) that the message of those original messengers has been diluted over time, lost, or altered.
Some religious scholars promote the idea that under all religions is a sort of 'oneness' which they find rather sublime. Huston Smith is an example, I think; a devout Christian he has a deep interest in Tibetan Buddhism, but is confident nonetheless that Christianity is the "right" way and the best way.
But there aren't many people in religions who say that all religions are perfectly acceptable paths to God. But there is a difference in thinking that you (individually) are right and other people are wrong and thinking that everyone is right.
With a bunch of religions though that say "Only we are right!" and that are conflicting in some beliefs... well, they can't all be all right, can they? Intolerance steps in when more than just thinking othe religions are wrong, a person thinks they have no right to exist.
As a Muslim, I believe that only God is going to judge who is going to "heaven" or hell--so it's a little bit presumptuous of me to say that anybody else is "wrong" when in fact even by my own beliefs, they may fare better than I although they aren't Muslim and I say I am.
But another way to overstep my bounds are to impose my own religious standards on other people. You gave polygamy as an example. As a woman in favor polygamous marriage in some situations, I'm not someone who finds it demoralizing to women or against the teachings of God. What I would find intolerant is someone else saying to me (suppose it were me) that I could not be married to my husband anymore because their scriptures don't allow polygamy. That's as intolerant as Muslims tearing down churches and synagogues, in my opinion.
The use of force is never an instrument of tolerance.
Religion is a domain of faith and belief, and not a domain of scientifical proof.
If I consider the religious point of view, I strongly believe in my faith, and someone else believes something else. And nothing but our inner beliefs and feelings is able to depart us.
In that sense, respecting other religions, for me, is accepting that their believers have exactly the same strong feelings for a definition of truth as I have for another, and accept that there is nothing to make my point better than their. It does not make me change anything, but it prevents me for example to try to convert them, of proove them I'm right.
The second level is how this religion is practised. To take again the example of polygamy, after reading many blogs, I came to the conviction that I never read any first wife who was truly happy in a polygynous marriage, all of them taking it as a test. And I did not read any description of a true Islamic husband. Maybe they exist, and don't blog... but my point is that as a Christian, I can stand that other people believe God authorizes polygamy. It was so in the Old Testament, maybe God changed his mind, maybe he changed it for Christians only. As a human being, I have difficulties in seeing something positive in polygamy when I see how it is practised (and that applies also to having mistresses when you can't have another wife). Men are just men, everyone has his own weaknesses, and I'm not the one to condamn (and that also is in my religion, "who never sinned can throw the first stone"), but I have my opinion on the social practice of polygamy, and if I had daughters, even Muslim, I would warn them against it.
My tolerance stops when I think the basic needs of a human being are denied. Things like slavery, sexual mutilation, etc.. are things that I cannot accept, whatever the ground, cultural or religious. It does not mean I don't respect the person practising them... (well, depends...), let's say I can understand social pressure, and context. I don't respect the people enforcing them. Theyhave a power and they misuse it. And as far as I understand the religions of the Book, these points were never recommended. So even if they were not forbidden, with everything we know now, people should refrain.
And in these cases, I think it's legitimate to voice my opinion. In a respectful and argumented way, not something like "you're a morron" but something like "here are the dammages, do you really want to do that".
My level of tolerance is also strongly dependant on where am I. I'm a strong adept of "in Rome do as Romans do", and when in a country somethings are forbidden... I think nobody forced you to come in this country, so you should respect the law. When a citizen of this country, you can try to change it, but in all cases you should respect it.
So in the case of a polygynous marriage in a country that does not authorized polygamy, the point is that, from a religious point of view, in the view of God and religion, the second wife is a wife, and she is still married. But.. she cannot benefit from the equality of treatment with the first wife, some legal advantages are denied to her. What are the impact of that on the marriage, from an Islamic point of view ?
I'm not sure all religions are equal, and to be honest, at the end, I don't care. What counts for me is how someone behaves, and not how he prays. I will be much more respectful of a Muslim who follows his religion than of a Christian who steals, lies, cheats and so on...
" So people are different but somehow all beliefs should point to the same place, although it's possible (perhaps likely) that the message of those original messengers has been diluted over time, lost, or altered."
Overall, a very interesting comment, Amy. It hits on a so many points. In reading the quote above, it makes me think long and hard: Isn't it possible, or even likely, that those messages (not just those of the prophets before Mohammad) have been diluted in all religions? Effectively, making all of them, in the very least, somewhat lost or altered?
Religion generally requires a dose of rightousness "My beliefs are the right ones" so-to-speak. It becomes a fine line between tolerant and intolerant with that mentality.
But.. she cannot benefit from the equality of treatment with the first wife, some legal advantages are denied to her. What are the impact of that on the marriage, from an Islamic point of view ? So it is the non-Islamic law mistreating her then, and not polygamy, per se. A Muslim family would ideally not need to rely on the state or legal system to ensure the rights of either wife. Islam mandates that certain rights be afforded her. Odd isn't it then, that a non-Muslim law can strip a woman of her rights? Fascinating...
Isn't it possible, or even likely, that those messages (not just those of the prophets before Mohammad) have been diluted in all religions? Effectively, making all of them, in the very least, somewhat lost or altered?
People very often fall into the habit or trap of trying to up-to-date their religion. Allah says:
This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.
Amy - thanks for the comments and I agree that pluralism is a close kin to tolerance, especially the way it is defined by the masses these days.
As far as the polygyny example, by law, polygamy is illegal in the United States (altho some polygynists get around that with so-called relgious marriages rather than legal marriages), as well as most developed countries. Should this illegal act be tolerated then?
Marie-Aude - Good points and yes, how a person behaves is as important as how they pray - or to whom.
Like you. I"ve never heard of a "successful" polygynist marriage, tho I'm sure I'll heard from women who claim to be in them! Living here in Saudi, I've gotten to know several co-called co-wives, and as you pointed out, they talk in terms of test rather than relationships.
In that sense, respecting other religions, for me, is accepting that their believers have exactly the same strong feelings for a definition of truth as I have for another... - Well Said!
Thanks for adding to the discussion.
Cairogal - true, there is a rightousness inherent in most religions that makes intolerance easy. When you are putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, you darn well better believe that you have the best basket on the market!
The quote got me thinking too...
Thanks!
Personally? I think the purpose of the law is to protect people.
The question is which is a better form of protection
1) prohibiting adultery and permitting polygyny, giving legal status to all wives
a) wives get rights
b) adulterers get punished
2) permitting adultery and prohibiting polygyny, and depriving women therefore of rights
a) adulterers get off free
b) wives are not guaranteed rights by the state
I'm biased, I'll admit. :-) I think the second scenario deprives women of their rights more so than the first. So I don't think it should be illegal.
Nonetheless it is. Should I decide to be polygynous in the USA where it is illegal to be so, I would hope the government would look the other way, and while not giving me the rights of a wife, at least not punishing my husband for marrying me.
(Mind you, polygyny in opposition to the "first" wife's wishes is just totally stupid and I don't support that at all.)
Amy - Islam is not immune from that trap. One need only look around here in Saudi Arabia to see that!
What's even more fascinating is how effectively Islamic laws here in Saudi have stripped Muslim women of their rights - regardless of her marital status.
I recognize that the brand of Islam here in Kingdom is different than the one most American Muslims see and experience. That in itself is pretty telling as far as religious updating.
Thanks for adding to this discussion!
Amy, there is just one thing I'm always wondering when I read people so positive about enforcing religious law in a secular country (and whatever is the religion) : people who are living in these country have the freedom to practice their religion because the state is secular.
Do you really think that would be good for Muslims in these secular states if they would come back to a religious state ? Because then it would not be a Muslim one, and liberties of Muslims and all non Christians would be diminished.
The other thing is that your way of reasonning is : "the law prevents me from exercizing my islamic rights, so let's change the law". after all, why not, as long as this remain within legal bundaries, that's just a normal democratic process ? But what about just now, when the law is what is is ? I'm not discussing polygamy in an ideal state, but as it is practises.
Cairogal, I think nobody can claim that he sticks to the puriy of the original message. As we are not perfect, we can always misinterpret, or forget something.
"People very often fall into the habit or trap of trying to up-to-date their religion."
I'm not even thinking present day. I thinking between the creation of the sacred texts and now.
SGIME--You're right that Islam is not immune, and that Muslims are in fact trying to change and update Islam. There's a few different movements, of which Wahhabism is only one. The Progressive Liberal whatever nonsense going on back here is another such "movement." They all have their own, alterior, not so benign motives.
Marie-Aude, a secular government, which we'll define as "non-religious" is one which by its very nature prevents the free practice of all religions. So no, I don't prefer it. The USA isn't precisely a secular nation... it's a hodgepodge of lots of things. And this post by SGIME is about tolerance. A secular state is not the only means to create a tolerant society. In my opinion, it creates the least tolerant one of all, because it forces religion to be a private matter when in fact (I know especially in Islam) it is a community affair. The secular states attempts to supersede religious dictates of all religions and I would not call that tolerant. So a secular society is corrupted with the same breed of intolerance as any other society which attempts to promote only one way of life. Tolerance is then the ability of all religions to practice equally freely, not with equal restrictions.
There are many people who would prefer to live in a society governed by the dictates of their own religion, and it's not just Muslims. Yet even "secular states" promote in a way a kind of religion, by ruling over the religions existing within it. I don't find that preferable.
Anyway, my point in sum is that secularism is not necessarily the bridge to tolerance, and it can breed as much hatred and intolerance as any other regime which restricts and oppresses its people.
"In my opinion, it creates the least tolerant one of all, because it forces religion to be a private matter when in fact (I know especially in Islam) it is a community affair."
It's an interesting point. To me, I believe Christianity can be community and still be private. There is nothing I wear that represents who I am or what I believe. Secularism is likely to work better in a society in which nothing 'phyisical' is used to illustrate faith. And that is a whole other conversation in itself.
I wonder if Hindu women are allowed to wear that little dot on their foreheads in a "secular" society which doesn't like to see religion?
Didn't we all hear those horror stories about Communist Russia (and still hear them about China) that nobody is allowed to practice religion? Christians would meet in basements and pray and read the Bible secretly because their gatherings were prohibited.
How very secular, and how very intolerant.
Amy -
Didn't we all hear those horror stories about Communist Russia (and still hear them about China) that nobody is allowed to practice religion? Christians would meet in basements and pray and read the Bible secretly because their gatherings were prohibited.
You have just described Saudi Arabia - the cradle of Islam, the place of Islam's holy sites. An Islamic state that claims to support Islamic tolerance.
Only add that Christians (and anyone not Muslim) are not only forced to hide their faith, but also often beaten, arrested and even put to death for it. And not years ago - today, in 2007.
That's the thing that people - especially Muslims - outside of Saudi Arabia fail to understand. This place, which is supposed to be the very center of Islam, the shining example of Muslim piety, is among the most intolerant, unhospitible places for faith in the world.
How Islamic and how very intolerant.
"I wonder if Hindu women are allowed to wear that little dot on their foreheads in a "secular" society which doesn't like to see religion?"
That's one reason I made the specific reference to Christianity. Wearing a cross/crucifix vs. not wearing one has absolutely no bearing on how you are judged by God. Just as the third eye in Hinduism (after some basic research on the topic) is not a religious requirement.
You know, sometimes dissecting things you don't agree with can sometimes add fuel to the fire...
Are you saying that Islam per se strips a woman of her rights?
Polygyny is in fact an exception, not a rule...
If you see that as a illogical act, kindly be reminded that it's a misunderstood and abused concept. I know it's hard for a Westerner like you to grasp it the other way. I agree with amy in this.
Post a Comment