TOLERANCE: JOY OR CONCERN?
Good morning!
“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.”
With these words, Thomas Jefferson began his plea for Tolerance before the Virginia House of Delegates in November of 1776. 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.
My topic today is Tolerance: Joy or Concern? I think it should be a joy. But, my concern is that I find more and more UU’s (Unitarian Universalists) and the public at large are not very joyful about the word Tolerance. The motive for wanting to study Tolerance in depth and for sharing my research with you stems from my belief that this concept is being misunderstood, neglected and is in danger of being lost or relegated to a secondary position. I would view that as 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. I plan to examine this important principle in depth with you this morning; and I trust that when I am through you will all be more joyful about it than you were before.
What I have to say today is the very condensed result of about ten years of intermittent research. During this period I have reread some of the classics, such as John Locke’s Letter(s) on Toleration (1684) and I have read more than a thirty books on the subject. (For those who want to pursue the matter further copies of a suggested bibliography will be handed out later. Allow me to point out parenthetically that this is a very hot topic. Two substantial books were published on Tolerance last year alone. It seems hardly a year goes by without several more appearing.
Let’s begin with a definition: one could say, 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 growing 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 others give us pain, and we would prefer that they not even exist, or that we are indifferent to their fate. 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. It has nothing to do with religion or politics. With your kind indulgence I hope to demonstrate that the right choice is essentially 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, the usual response is not, “Gee, Joe, how interesting; thanks for making things clear.” No, 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 believe I understand why this would be so. When we study a new field, say science, law, medicine, we must humble ourselves before the 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 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. If you say battleship when you mean bicycle and make other such unhappy transpositions you will soon find yourself talking only to yourself. Words must have universal applicability for each particular usage, otherwise the language falls apart.
For instance, imagine an irate parent who would call up his child’s law professor and say, “Are you that cockeyed Zen Guru who’s trying to tell my son that my automobile is not real property? Well, by crackey, you just come out here and git in front of it, and I’ll show you how real it is. I’m going to withdraw my son from your school and send him to one where they speak English.” I hope no one would take such an ignorant attitude seriously. Likewise for those who mistakenly claim that the UU principle of Tolerance means put up with, etc., they are simply wrong . It means: the recognition and respect for beliefs different from one’s own: Further, how can respecting someone else’s beliefs be a put-down?
Yet, 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 two conflicting trends that persist in giving Tolerance an erroneous meaning. They both exist inside and outside of the UU community. 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[1].
[Permit me to cite just one among hundreds in this first trend: From a “Letter to the Editor” who begins by quoting an article in UUWorld with which she agrees.
. . . ‘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.[2]
This writer, like too many others, clearly does not know that tolerance means to have respect for other’s beliefs.]
An even more outrageous example of this first trend is shown in a recent 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. He gives several examples of how this “madness” is being taught in our schools. One such:
A discussion at a university led to 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 a misunderstanding that we should all strive to rectify.
The other extreme wants to get rid of Tolerance altogether. It is epitomized by the title of a recent article I discovered on the Internet: “Stop the Hate. Don’t Tolerate.” How can recognizing and respecting other peoples’ beliefs be considered hate? A few years ago Newt Gingrich was suggesting extending a hand of tolerance to gays. His gay sister, Candace, responded, “A dripping faucet, a barking dog, those are the things you tolerate.”[3] Obviously, people who say such things have never studied history or even taken the trouble to look up the word in the dictionary.
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 Unitarian-Universalism 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 lesson 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”.
Moving forward a few centuries, though it may seem strange, it can be 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. 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[4]. So paganism became really one and the same general religion throughout the Empire. Rousseau continues that when the Christians arrived, however, the Pagans mistrusted them because they were talking about a kingdom not of this world. The Pagans viewed them as really 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, 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)[5],declared by Constantine I, had guaranteed religious toleration for Christians,--they were very glad to get it. Of course 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 elsewhere during that period where "faith" dominated 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, a physician who had spent his life trying to heal human bodies, speculated about how best to heal their souls, and for this he was burned alive. His story is not news to you. Yet, for me there is a curious irony in his death. That is, Servetus had been put to death mainly at the instigation of Jean Calvin. Surprisingly, twenty years earlier, Calvin had written a learned study of Seneca's De Clementia (1532), wherein Calvin himself had argued for toleration as the “hallmark of a true leader.” Of course, when he wrote that treatise Calvin was himself a friend of the Humanists, like Erasmus, Guillaume Budé, etc., and was in danger of being persecuted for his own beliefs. 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. Indeed, Calvin defended this murder vociferously, and he answered his critics with: “Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime...”.[6] Small wonder then that the memory of that fatal fire that "purified " their founder gave Unitarians a deep and abiding desire for Tolerance[7].
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[8] however, especially in Transylvania, and this puts Unitarianism at the heart of the evolution of this principle. An important early “Toleration Decree” dates from 1557, just four years after Michael’s death, enacted by the Diet of Torda, at the instigation of Francis Davide. It recognizes faith as a “gift from God,” and makes it the law, therefore, that preachers should not be punished in any way if they preach something that differs from the “faith” of the listeners. This is an important document in the history of freedom of conscience--which Toleration supports in law.
A later and extremely important document giving Toleration was the Edict of Nantes, 1598[9]. This was enacted by Henry IV of France. 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. Thousands of French Huguenots had come (unarmed) to Paris for the marriage of Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot (the future Henry IV), to Marguerite de Valois, a daughter of Catherine de Medici, a Catholic. This was to have ended the years of strife. Unfortunately, at Catherine’s instigation, when the bells started to toll in the feast day, the well organized assassins struck. Hundreds of Huguenots (men, women, children) were slaughtered in their beds. Thousands of others, awoken by the screams and the fracas were pursued and butchered. Some, still alive, were sewn into sacs and thrown into the Seine. Feeding on itself, the carnage went on for days; it spread to the provinces. Some estimates say that over 70,000 perished; modern historians agree that a minimum of 3,000 died in Paris alone.
Philip II of Spain and Pope Gregory XIII welcomed the news[10] of this massacre as a great step in the defeat of the Protestant cause in France. Who in authority spoke for Tolerance? No one. The memory of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre certainly helped get the Edict of Nantes enacted twenty-six years later by Henry IV himself, who had narrowly escaped the Massacre. The Huguenots were very glad to get it; they did not consider it a put-down or a form of hatred. 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 just eighty-seven years later, in 1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes. This deprived Protestants of both civil and religious liberties. 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. Prompted partly by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and by suspicion that James II was planning persecutions in England, he 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. Our Founding Fathers were very familiar with this work, and if someone wants to repudiate Tolerance, they cannot really consistently argue for the separation of Church and State.[11]
Locke’s essay is more than 20,000 words long. I’ll give you just a few lines to give you the flavor: He says that Churches should teach “...that liberty of conscience is every man’s natural right, equally belonging to dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled in matters of religion either by law or force.”
Since the general practice in England and elsewhere at the time was just the opposite, namely that the civil authorities regularly punished, jailed and tortured people for aberrant religious beliefs--and also confiscated their property--Locke got himself in some difficulty because of his Letter. He even endured the horror of being called a Unitarian. He persevered, nevertheless, and continued to revise his Letter for the rest of his life.
The 1662 “Act of Uniformity” was mitigated somewhat when Parliament passed the Toleration Act--1689, the same year Locke’s Letter appeared in English. The Toleration Act made it legal for some non-conformists to hold public worship. Of course, this right did not apply to Catholics, Quakers, Unitarians, or Jews.
Meantime, to return to our survey, what was happening in America? Well, let’s take a few samples. In 1642, Oliver Cromwell had prevailed upon the Puritan factions in England to stop trying to exterminate each other and 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 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 1649, the Maryland Toleration Act was passed, this was designed to protect the ruling Roman Catholic minority. As you will recall, instead of advocating “toleration” it basically spelled out the death penalty—quoting Leviticus and Deuteronomy—for things like blasphemy, homosexuality, and any act that did not conform to Catholic beliefs.[12] 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.
And so it goes. We could mention many, many more instances, such as the total massacre in 1565 of the French Huguenot Colony at St. John’s River, Florida. After the massacre, the Spanish expedition, under Pedro Menendez de Avilis, proceeded to found St. Augustine, near the decimated settlement. Pedro Menedez bragged that he had not slaughtered the French for their nationality, but rather for their religion. (Encl. Britannica,. Vol. 7, p. 424). We will stop the dark survey here, but does any one contend that any of the victims of these laws and atrocities would have felt slighted to be treated with the outstretched hand of Tolerance that David Niven’s Bishop spoke of earlier?
There were a few rays of hope, however. We have the early example from Miantunnomoh, a sachem of the Narragansetts, who said to Governor Dudley in 1640: “When your people come to me, they are permitted to use their own fashions, and I expect the same liberty when I come to you." The Colonists could have taken lessons in Tolerance from the Native Americans.
Then there is Roger Williams, in Rhode Island. And William Penn, or course, whose Colony of Pennsylvania was indeed founded on religious Toleration.
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” (Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, Simon and Schuster, 1987, p. .258). 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--or majority religions if they lack political power.
Incidentally, I was somewhat surprised to discover that there have been several famous liberals who have spoken out against Toleration. Thomas Paine, for instance, preferred the French Constitution, which he says in The Rights of Man, “hath abolished or renounced Toleration and intolerance also, and hath established Universal Right of Conscience.” As a great admirer of Paine and of his reasoning mind, I believe that John Locke might have convinced him that when the French inserted the Universal Right of Conscience into their Constitution they simply codified the principle of Tolerance on which the articulation of that right is based. Indeed, they were following Rousseau’s idea expressed in the Social Contract that official Toleration should be granted to all religions.
Another famous liberal, Robert Ingersoll, in his essay, The Limitations of Toleration (1888), says, “When you say, ‘I Tolerate,’ you do not say you have no right to punish, no right to persecute. It is only a disclaimer for a few moments and for a few years, but you retain the right. I deny it.” Thus, Ingersoll as a student of History rightly saw that most previous “Toleration Acts” were usually not universally applied, and were indeed usually violated or revoked--remember the Edict of Nantes. However, this does not change the fact that Toleration, as defined by Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, John Stuart Mill and many other political thinkers was intended to be codified in law and applied across the board, permanently and fully to all religious persuasions. And that is certainly the intention of its use by Unitarian Universalists.
Nevertheless, some UU’s want to exchange the word, Tolerance, with another word, like acceptance. I hope that if they study the true meaning of Tolerance and its History they will change their minds. Furthermore, in deference to their feelings I have also researched the word acceptance and its social applications. “Acceptance of one another” is a very 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, 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.
[Another similarity of “confusion” with tolerance: I discovered numerous books out there that have Acceptance in the title but they are talking in engineering and scientific terms about quality control standards and quality control systems in factories, etc. Many other ones are talking about self-examination, and more about psychology and coping than with social principles. Some have titles like Acceptance Therapy, or Integrative Couple Therapy: Promoting Acceptance and Change, and even Beyond Acceptance--which I believe, and hope to show later, is best expressed by the word, love.]
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.)[13]
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[14]. 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."[15] It does not mean to be politically correct, or a pacifist or a vegetarian.
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 a law professor should acquiesce to an irate father and try to find another, “less confusing” word to distinguish real estate from other kinds of property. 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. [If your tax collector starts taxing your automobile the same as he does you house because they both seem “real” to him, you will see what I mean, in spades.]
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 Church 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 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. On the other hand, what about if religious fanatics gain power here? I say we should be for Tolerance, now and forever.
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 with Reason, Freedom and Tolerance written on each side and Love in the middle holding it all together[16].
With your kind permission, with Catherine’s help and inspired by Andrew Lloyd Weber, I shall now attempt to show you what I mean about tolerance being linked to love and love is the basis for positive change, and as the Buddha said earlier, only love can destroy hate.
Thank you .
[Sing “Love Changes Everything”, from “Aspects of Love,” Music by
Andrew Lloyd Weber, lyrics by Don Black and Charles Hart]
***********
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Adams, Geoffrey. The Huguenots and French Opinion, 1685-1787: The Enlightenment Debate on Toleration. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1991
2. Boswell, John. Christianity, social tolerance and homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, Press, 1980.
3. Cecil, Andrew R. Equality, Tolerance, and Loyalty. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1990.
4. Conyers, A.J. The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit.
5. Corbett, Michael. Political Tolerance in America. New York: Longman, 1982.
6. Drinkwater, John. This Troubled World. Freeport, N.York: Books for Libraries press, 1967.
7. Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1977.
8. ElFadl, Khaled Abou. The Place of Tolerance in Islam. Beacon Press, 2002
9. Fotion, Nick. Toleration. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Of Alabama Press, 1992.
10. Guterman, Simeon Leonard. Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome. Greenwold Publish Group, 1971.
11. Heyd, David. Toleration, an Elusive Virtue. Princeton Univ. Pr., 1998
12. Laursen (Editor) John Christian, et al. Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. Univ. of Pa. Press, 1997.
13. Kok-Chor Tan. Toleration, Diversity, and Global Justice. PA State Univ. Press, 2002.
14. Levy, Leonard Williams. Blasphemy: verbal offense against the sacred, from Mohammed to Salman Rushdie. New York: Knopf, 1993.
15. Locke, John, (1632-1704). Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil govt., A letter concerning toleration. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966.
16. Locke, John. The reasonableness of Christianity, and part of a third letter concerning toleration. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1958.
17. Maneli, Mieszyslaw. Freedom and Tolerance. New York: Octagon Books, 1984.
18. McClosky, Hebert. Dimensions of Tolerance: what Americans believe about civil liberties. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1983.
19. McDowell, Josh, et. al The New Tolerance: How a Cultural Movement Threatens to Destroy you, Your Faith, and Your Children. Tyndale House Pub. 1998.
20. Mendus, Susan. Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1989.
21. Mendus, Susan and David Edwards, eds. On Toleration. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987
22. Mendus, Susan (editor). Justifying Toleration. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988.
23. Menocal, María Rosa, Ornament of the World. Little Brown, 2002
24. Mensching, Gustav. Tolerance and Truth in Religion. Translated by H.J. Klimkeit. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press, 1971.
25. Newey, Glen. Virtue, Reason and toleration. Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2000.
26. Nederman, Cary J. Worlds of Difference: European Discourses of Toleration, c. 1100- c. 1550. PA State Univ. Press, 2000.
27. Oberdiek, Hans (Editor). Tolerance. Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
28. Remer, Gary. Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration. PA State Univ. Press, 1996.
29. Schwartz, Sally. A Mixed Multitude: the struggle for toleration in colonial Pennsylvania. New York: N.Y. Univ. Press, 1987.
30. Newman, Jay. Foundations of Religious Tolerance. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1982.
31. Richards, David A.J. Toleration and the Constitution. Oxford Univ. Press, reprint ed. 1993
32. Stern, Susan, (Editor.) The End of Tolerance. Nicholas Brealey Publisher. 2002
33. Sullivan, John. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1982.
34. Voltaire. Essay on Toleration.
35. Walzer, Michael. On Toleration. Yale Univ. Press, 1997.
36. Whelan, Ruth, Bater, McCarthy (Editors). Toleration and Religious Identity: The Edict of Nantes and Its Implications in France, Britain and Ireland. 2003.
PASSIM: Various Classic Works by Voltaire, Montesquieu (Spirit of the Laws), Federalist Papers, Annals of America, etc.
RELATED: Johansen, Breuce E. Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, The Iroquois, and the Rationale for the American Revolution. Ipswich: Publishers of Ipswich, 1982.
[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, 13 vols., 1934, 1980
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,[17] 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.
[1] Linda Beyer, 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.” July/Aug 94, p. 3.
[2] Letter to the Editor by Cynthia Brackett-Vincent, UUWORLD, march/april 1997, p.8
[3] “Newsweek”, 3/13/95
[4] Some will no doubt be thinking of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Granted. But how much of this was political conquest as opposed to religious intolerance is a topic for another paper. In any case it does not disprove the generalization.
[5] Let us not forget the Edict of Toleration by Galerius (311 AD). This of course had no real effect since it was made by Galerius under the duress of a serious illness which he thought might have come from the Christian God as punishment for his horrendous persecutions of them. In the Edict Galerius asks the Christians to pray to their God for our (that is, his) safety. Apparently, the Christians did not do so, as Galerius died shortly after the Edict.
[6] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2v, Phila., 1928, v II, 19.
[7] I must point out a great example of bravery in pursuit of Tolerance: In spite of a very real threat to life and limb, two courageous souls: Sebastian Castiello and Caelius Curio published (March, 1554) the first modern classic on Toleration: De haereticis an sint persequendi (Should Heretics Be Persecuted?). This work presents very reasoned arguments indicating that history has shown that no one has a monopoly on truth, and they make their points by questions such as: Can we imagine Jesus Christ ordering a man to be burned alive for advocating adult baptism? Some scholars rate this work and others by Castiello as being the first , real, pre-Enlightenment start of the idea of “Free Speech”.
[8] One could mention Casimir III in Poland, (d. 1370) whose Liber juris Teutonici, gave Toleration to Jews--alas, in a few years this was rescinded under pressure from the Church by Casimir IV, c. 1453. One could also mention the fact that the Moors had conquered Spain and had lived there for centuries, allowing Catholics and Jews to practice their religion, etc. Of course, since they were all physically expelled in 1492, that year has a different meaning for Moors and Jews in Spain then than it does for Americans today. ) A recent book brings this point home beautifully: Ornament of the World, by María Rosa Menocal. Back Bay Books, NY, 2002.
[9] Please bear in mind that in a simple survey I cannot possibly cite all the documents that had to do with Toleration. They are of interest of course, but most, I believe, are like the Toleration Act of 1562, (France) enacted at the insistence of Catherine de Medici herself. However, it simply recognized that being a Protestant was no longer a crime. Of course, they had to preach outside of town, in open fields--or on the estates of noble Protestants, where they were generally left alone. However, many Catholics resisted even this concession, and the “Edict” soon lost its effect.
[10] The Pope commanded a great festival, and he had a medal to be coined and a painting as well--still on display at the Vatican.
[11] Of course, those Americans who say get rid of Tolerance are presuming that the separation of church and state is a given, that it is part of the Law of the Land. However, as you know, some conservative groups maintain that the separation of Church and State is a misreading of our founding principles and the true intent of the Fathers, which they will no doubt make every effort to “correct” if they gain political control. So, those who want to throw out Tolerance are falling right into their hands. The principle of Tolerance is the basis for the separation of Church and State. Further, Tolerance is intended by UU’s to be applied universally, not just in America.
[12] FOR AS MUCH as in a well-governed and Christian commonwealth. . ., be it therefore ordered and enacted, . . .that whatsoever person or persons within this province and the islands thereunto belonging shall henceforth blaspheme God, that is curse Him, or deny our Savior Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy Trinity---the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . shall be punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heirs.
[Annals of Am. Vol. 1, p. 88]
[13] I should also point out that there are some inspiring books about acceptance, with respect to a terminal illness, or obesity or other personal or social problem that someone might be dealing with. Yet, if we are to extrapolate from those heroic examples any connection with freedom of religion or conscience or social status, we will, I believe, find ourselves on the same side as the Medieval Church telling serfs to “accept” their position. So, until some new John Locke comes along and writes a cogent treatise on Acceptance, my reason tells me that we should reject this word as too vague to replace tolerance, unless of course it means we are supposed to agree with and accept everything.[13]
[14] By the way, do UU’s who say that belief in Tolerance means we should not criticize outlandish religious beliefs believe in freedom of the Press? Or, is the Press guilty of “intolerance” when it criticizes anything or anyone? If the answer is that political correctness demands that “we” be held to a higher standard, then I am compelled to say that I am happy that the free-thinkers who protested, for instance, against the British and brought us our freedoms, and later those who criticized the slave-holders against Bible-thumpers who supported it were not of that persuasion.
[15] This statement certainly represents Voltaire’s philosophy, and he would certainly have agreed withit, but he never actually said it: It was coined by one of his biographers, S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall,) in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906.
[16] Reason and Freedom have won their day, and I do not see any groups likely to emerge any time soon advocating their opposites, at least not openly. Love is also often lauded on all sides. My view, however, is that love--as referring to humanity--must be tempered by the other concepts, and especially by Tolerance.
After all, Christians (among others) preach love too. However, and as we would do well to remember, sometimes their unfettered “love” historically has had horrendous consequences: Kindly allow me to point out that torture during the Middle Ages and the Inquisition (and after) was often done in the name of love--they wanted you to confess to your sin so that your soul would be cleansed, and you might reach Paradise. [They were from the Government, and they were trying to help you.] Indeed, it has been argued, that burning at the stake was necessary--in love--because only fire could sufficiently purify you for the life hereafter. Today, would it be unfair to say that inordinate "love" of the fetus has driven people to murder doctors and others at abortion clinics? Again, Tolerance proves its worth.
[17] Robert Lowth, 1710-1787. Church of England Bishop of London. Author of Life of fWilliam of Wykeham; A short Introduction to English Grammar. Eradicated abuses of the clergy in political and financial matters.