TOLERANCE

Copyright 2003, Kenneth W. Phifer


From the beginning of human history, individuals have had to struggle to get 
along with each other. The tale of Cain and Abel illustrates how different we 
are from one another and how much that matters. "Abel was a keeper of 
sheep and Cain a tiller of the ground."  Making sacrifices to the Lord, Abel's 
was accepted but Cain's was not. "So Cain was very angry, and his 
countenance fell...(and) he rose up against his brother Abel and killed him."

Jealousy, anger, contempt for another's ways, humiliation, tiredness and 
hosts of other problems make personal relationships hard, often verbally 
brutal, and not infrequently violent.

Larger groups like religions and ethnic clusters and nations do not find it any 
easier than individuals to be in harmony. The result is dislike, hatred, 
stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, oppression, violence, and war.

The truth of life is that we are very different, as individuals and as groups. 
We have found an astonishing number of different ways of understanding 
life, of doing that which is necessary for existence, and of enjoying 
ourselves. Diversity is a fundamental and unchangeable fact of life.

Unless we are to live entirely by force of physical or financial or emotional 
strength, we must learn how to tolerate one another. Without mutual 
tolerance of our varied philosophies and practices, fear will make us 
malicious, uncertainty will fill us with dread and hatred, and self-
righteousness will cloak our ugliest deeds in a mantle of piety.

Peppermint Patty bragged to Linus that she had convinced the kid who sat 
behind her that her religion was better than his. Linus asked her how she had 
done this, and she replied, "I hit him with my lunch box." 

That is an all too typical way for people to treat each other. So was it 
historically and, sadly, so is it today.

A headline in last Sunday's New York Times described tolerance as a 
"Burden..In a World of Division." The article goes on to ask if tolerance is 
an absolute virtue or just a solution to a political problem. In either case, it 
queries, how can we be tolerant of those who are intolerant of us, especially 
those whose intolerance extends to violence?

To appreciate the significance of these questions and to give at least 
tentative answers to them requires an understanding of what tolerance is all 
about.

The first thing to note is the dangers that lurk on either side of tolerance.

On one side, of course, is intolerance. 

Intolerance grows out of our desire for safety and for comfort. That which 
and those who are different can make us feel threatened or uncomfortable. 
Far easier just to carry on in the old ways and not examine a new idea or a 
new way of doing things or welcome and get to know a person previously 
unknown to us. 

By assuming the superiority of our views and our methods, we never expose 
ourselves to the possibility of a better notion and a better means of getting 
things done. We miss the chance to meet interesting people and learn from 
them.

Intolerance can be found in minor things like how to make a bed or how to 
load a dishwasher or how to fix a meal or set a table when adults new to 
living with each other have to make some adjustments to the different habits 
of another person. Fixed ideas, even about such insignificant matters as 
these, can bring tension to a relationship.

Intolerance is also found in very important ways, such as the white people 
who in city after city across America in the 20th century fled when people of 
color moved in next door or joined their church or became schoolmates or 
won political office.

Intolerance leads to injustice, blinds us to our shortcomings, and inflates our 
self-evaluation.

Ogden Nash pointed to this in his poem, 'Seeing Eye To Eye Is Believing."
          When people reject a truth or an untruth it is not because
                    it is a truth or an untruth that they reject it.
          No, if it isn't in accord with their beliefs in the first
                   place they simply say, "Nothing doing," and refuse to
                   inspect it.
          Likewise when they embrace a truth or an untruth it is not
                    for either its truth or its mendacity,
          But simply because they have believed it all along and
                    therefore regard the embrace as a tribute to their own
                    fair-mindedness and sagacity.
          Naturally I am not pointing a finger at me,
          But I must admit that I find any speaker far more convincing
                    when I agree with them than when I disagree.

Intolerance is an agreeable vice to us because it keeps our lives safe and 
small. Phillips Brooks was right: "We should be more afraid of the littleness 
than of the largeness of life." Intolerance is always a threat to tolerance.

On the other side of tolerance is the threat of indifference, of a tolerance that 
is too broad, too open, too forgiving.

To refrain from commenting on or working against injustice in the name of a 
misguided tolerance is as bad as or worse than being intolerant. At least 
intolerance can sometimes be rooted in a wrong-headed caring. A tolerance 
that abides wickedness without flinching does not care at all.

We should not be tolerant of such things as murder or torture or poverty or 
ecological destruction or the abuse of children or the squashing of the rights 
of any human being. 

Part of the power of a group like Amnesty International is that it reminds us 
of people who are being mistreated and that we need to help them.

Part of the power of the Christmas appeals by various charitable groups is to 
remind us not to be uncaring of those without shelter or food or clothing or 
medical treatment. 

Part of our humanity is our caring for one another, doing what we can to 
ease the burdens of others and make life sweet and interesting and fair for 
everyone.

Tolerance should not lead us never to be critical of anything or anyone. 
Walter Kaufmann was right to say that those who never find fault or flaw in 
any of life's circumstances "do not show tolerance but only that in some 
ways they resemble vegetables."

Tolerance calls on us to reject both intolerance and indifference, to care for 
neighbor and for stranger, even those who are very different from us.

Secondly, the beginning of tolerance is toleration, or negative tolerance.

Toleration means that we accept behaviour or ideas that we regard with 
distaste or discomfort. Toleration means that we recognize that, within broad 
limits, it is all right for other people to act in ways that we never would and 
that we think wrong or foolish. 

Toleration is forbearance for the sake of harmony.

Any of us who have had the experience of being a parent understands 
toleration. There have been moments, for some of us those moments are 
very present, when our daughter's or our son's hair, clothes, posture, 
language, music, schoolwork, or even friends were not exactly what we had 
in mind when we chose to become parents. We learn as parents, however-
we learn or we go mad or drive our children mad-that some things it is just 
wiser to permit or ignore, awful as they appear to us to be.

The same principle applies in our social dealings.

In the later years of American colonial history, religion was increasingly a 
divisive force. Nine of the thirteen colonies had established religions, and 
none of them wished to give up its power. 

The Great Awakening had stirred up the evangelicals, who desired most 
heartily to convert all to their cause, using whatever powers of government 
they could lay their hands on. 

The Anglicans assumed that since their religion was the religion of the 
Mother  Country and of most of the colonial governors that they had a right 
to the benefits of  rule and authority. 

The Enlightenment had won over many people to Deism in which piety was 
oriented to Nature. They likewise did not want to sacrifice their beliefs or 
their practices to another religious understanding.

Our nation became possible only because all of these and the other 
competing religious forces recognized, albeit grudgingly, that no one 
religion was strong enough to dominate or destroy the others. They had to 
tolerate each other, as much as they disagreed with and disliked each other, 
or there would be no nation. 

If there were no nation, then England with its restrictive laws would once 
more be the colonial master. The cause of liberty made this an intolerable 
thought to those who had fought a Revolution to gain that liberty. 

Toleration was the solution, and a remarkable solution it was. Until the end 
of the 18th century, the primary meaning of toleration was, as it had been for 
centuries, "a lax complacency toward evil."

Toleration is embedded in the United States Constitution, a document that  
enables every religion to survive and no religion to be dominant.

There is no direct or allusive reference to deity or religion in the original 
document or its amendments, with two noteworthy exceptions. In Article VI 
are these words: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to 
any Office or public Trust under the United States." The first words of the 
First Amendment read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Toleration is the law of the land. 

We may not like other forms of Christianity or Judaism or Islam or 
Hinduism or any other of the nation's several thousand religions,, but we 
must allow those other forms to exist as freely as our own religious 
community does. 

We may not like religion at all, but we still must give those who do the full 
opportunity to practice as their minds and consciences dictate. 

We may be very offended by those who are not religious at all, but that too 
is part of the freedom of religion we Americans hold dear.

Toleration is the law of the land.

Thomas Jefferson told the Virginia House of Delegates in 1776 that "It does 
me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither 
picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Jefferson was later to proclaim his attachment to the Unitarian movement, 
and that is the sentiment of both the Unitarian and the Universalist 
movements throughout our history.

For example, in 1568 the only Unitarian king in history, King John 
Sigismund of Transylvania, wrote in his Act of Toleration and Freedom of 
Conscience that "...in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the 
Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like 
it, well, if not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be 
satisfied...no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone...and it is not 
permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by 
removal from his post for his teaching..."

Our practice has been to have a free pulpit, freedom of individual belief, 
support for the separation of religion and government, and a toleration of a 
wide variety of beliefs and practices within our congregations. 

Toleration is the law of our religion.

Embedded in all religions is an understanding of the importance of toleration 
because of the limitations of our own knowledge. 

Judah Loew ben Bezalel urged his fellow Jews to encourage those who were 
opposed to religion and faith "to say whatever they want."  Such allowance 
can only help us to strengthen and clarify our own ideas, he observed.

The Koran reminds its readers that "To each among you have We prescribed 
a law and an open path. If God had so willed, he would have made you one 
community. But (His plan is) to test you in what He has given you. So strive 
as in a race in all the virtues." Sohail Hasmi comments that this verse helps 
the Muslim to understand toleration not just "as a necessary evil, but as a 
necessary good to be embraced by all who sincerely strive for the truth."

Toleration, a negative virtue, is an essential part of the spirit of tolerance.

In its richest meaning tolerance is about being open to the ways of others 
because we feel they have something to offer us.

Tolerance in this sense is a positive virtue. It is an act of the imagination and 
of the will. It has two aspects.

The first of these is that tolerance is the key to learning. Tolerance means 
being open to new ideas and new methods that challenge what we are used 
to. We change and we grow because we are open to the new and the 
different.

Abraham Maslow wrote of this process in his description of "the farthest 
reaches of human nature": "The highest attitude toward individual 
differences is to be aware of them, to accept them, but also to enjoy them 
and finally to be profoundly grateful for them as a beautiful instance of the 
ingenuity of the cosmos." 

Maslow urged us to stand in wonder before the awesome fact of difference.

George Williams took this thought a step further, suggesting that over the 
course of the millions of years of human evolution, many formulations have 
been developed to explain the outer world of the universe and the inner 
world of the human being. None has comprehended all that is. None has 
exhausted the meaning of life. 

Each however has added some measure of truth to aid us in our struggle to 
understand the nature of reality. Each of the formulations can help guide us 
towards a deeper understanding of the world. 

This kind of engagement with the new and the strange and the different 
gives substance to tolerance. It is a significant part of what Unitarian 
Universalists mean by tolerance, especially over the last century.

From the encounter with other world religions at the World Parliament of 
Religions in 1893 and the decision by American Protestant denominations in 
1908 to embed a creed in their national organization, thus shutting us out, 
UU's have been looking at, listening to, and learning from all the religions 
of humanity. 

Congregations across the country celebrate a range of holidays from 
Buddha's birthday to the Jewish Passover to pagan festivals of the earth. 
One of the courses we offer our children in religious education is Holidays 
and Holy Days, which provides respectful knowledge of the holidays and 
holy days of different religions. 

UU ministers preach on the religions of the world and draw sermon 
illustrations from the many sacred texts of the world. Our hymnal is a rich 
resource of songs and teachings from Taoism, Confucianism, native 
American religions, Humanism, Sikhism, Christianity, and many others. 

Part of the meaning of tolerance is to see difference not as a threat but as an 
opportunity. Part of what tolerance involves is being willing to enlarge our 
understanding and appreciation of humanity and the world.

Tolerance is about learning, and tolerance is about love.

Such love may be impersonal, a way of looking at how other people see life 
and being able to value that way of living as an authentic human expression. 
Sam Keen says it nicely: "Love your neighbor's truth as much as your own."

Love the lawn that your neighbor keeps better than the greens at the U.S. 
Open, even though your lawn has a bit of wildness in it.

Love the discipline of the Muslim praying five times a day, even if we do 
not follow that example.

Love the beauty and order in a Jewish home that follows the laws of kashrut, 
even though such rules are not ours.

Love the truth of the Asian religions that teach acceptance more than 
ambition, letting things be rather than demanding that things be our way, 
even if we are ambitious people who, however gently, do very much want 
our own way.

Love as an aspect of tolerance may be impersonal, but it can also be 
personal.

Tolerance gives us an enlarged vision. It calls on us to be self-transcending 
rather than self-focusing. It teaches us to value the person above any 
inconvenience or annoyance they bring to us. In that way, we can connect 
and communicate with others. 

The Friends speak of tolerance as having the patience and the determination 
to find the Inner Light in the other person, that which is sacred in all human 
beings. To find that Inner Light and connect with it is what love is about.

In 1939, at a small private school in New Hampshire, tolerance was badly 
needed and it was forthcoming. The school had cared for two Jewish refugee 
students during the summer. They asked for more. What they got were three 
Nazi youths, cold, arrogant, imperious.

Stranded temporarily by the start of World War Two in Europe, these 
brilliant young men disdained any relationship with their schoolmates and 
scorned the courses they were offered. They were met with hostility and fear 
by the school community, until one night a nasty prank was played on them 
that shook even their equilibrium.

The Dean immediately gathered the faculty and students without the three 
guests. She urged on everyone a different approach to this awkward 
situation. She urged everyone to see and to respond not to the fascist that 
each of the three students was but to the person inside the fascist. She argued 
that to be thoughtful, kind, and polite to them was not to approve their 
Naziism, but to see behind the wickedness to three lonely, homesick, 
frightened 17 year old youngsters.

Over the next six months a transformation took place. The three youths were 
accepted as human beings. They were welcomed as persons. They were 
enjoyed as fellow residents of the school. They were respected and sought 
out for their learning. They were even listened to when they spoke glowingly 
of their Nazi faith. 

Their Naziism was never approved, but they were. 

Each of them became an integral part of the school community, so it was 
with a measure of sadness on both sides that in the summer of 1940 they 
were forced to leave and return home. Two of them were soon in uniform 
and were killed in the war. The third survived, and came back after the war 
to live in this country.

Each of them had been moved by their experience, as letters sent from 
Germany on their return made clear. Each had indeed become a different, 
even a better person.

Each of the members of the school community had also been changed. They 
had learned how to accept the person without agreeing with that person's 
philosophy.

This kind of tolerance is the very essence of strong individual human 
relationships and worthy community life.

Learning and love are vital elements in tolerance. They enable us to grow. 
They help us to become better people, finding new depths of goodness in the 
human spirit.

Tolerance begins by rejecting intolerance and indifference.

Tolerance is partly a negative virtue, toleration, allowing others to think and 
act as they want despite our disagreement with those ways.

Tolerance is also a positive virtue in which we learn and we love. 

Is tolerance an absolute virtue? 

No, tolerance of evil is not a virtue. We must oppose wickedness even if all 
we can do is to name it. In any case, human beings cannot speak of absolutes 
with any real knowledge. Tolerance is a significant virtue, not an absolute 
one.

Is tolerance merely a solution to a political problem? 

No, far more than that, it is a way of living that can bring contentment to the 
individual person and harmony in the larger society. It applies in personal 
relationships, in group enterprises such as religion, as well as in larger issues 
of governance.

How can we be tolerant of those who are intolerant of us, especially those 
whose intolerance extends to violence? 

Not easily, that is for sure. But to do so is what I think Jesus had in mind-
and Gandhi and King and Schweitzer and Abdul Gaffer Khan and other 
leaders of non-violent movements-when he said that we should love our 
enemies and turn the other cheek when we are struck across one cheek and 
go a second mile if asked to go one mile. That is the highest form of 
tolerance. 

In a world that often goes mad with hatred and violence, tolerance is the 
high road of hope. It is on that road that our Unitarian Universalist faith 
urges us to walk, and I invite you to join me in doing so.












1