Tolerance or Homogenization

I value tolerance. Even more, I value and celebrate diversity. But frequently I see definitions of tolerance that must be considered self-destructive.

I usually encounter these in the form of straw-man arguments. Someone may ask me if I believe in tolerance. When I acknowledge that I do, they will ask me then whether I will tolerate some form of intolerance or another. The answer to that is, “It depends.” Whereupon I’m informed that I really don’t believe in tolerance because I don’t tolerate everything.

I believe in tolerance as a value, not as an absolute. I don’t believe in tolerating everything, merely as much as it is possible to tolerate practically. If someone believes in firing a machine gun into a crowd of people, I find it quite appropriate not to tolerate his belief, at least if he has the intention and the means to act on it.

But I do believe that tolerance can go quite far. I believe that we should find a way, such as through civil unions, to provide civil rights for gay couples equal to those we provide to heterosexual couples. I believe that wouldn’t harm my happy, heterosexual marriage in the least. At the same time, I believe that we need to tolerate the speech of those who believe that such civil unions, or gay marriage, is wrong, or who believe that homosexuality is a sin.

I believe on the one hand that in public school we should create an atmosphere conducive to learning for people of any faith or of no faith, and thus should not have state sponsored religious activities, while at the same time I believe that our children should have freedom for religious speech (which, as I understand it, is the law today). In addition I believe in maximum freedom for private schools or for parents to homeschool their children according to their conscience. I myself was homeschooled for all but eight out of the first 12 years of my education.

(I can’t resist noting parenthetically that having been homeschooled in a Christian home, I completed my education through the MA level from Seventh-day Adventist schools, where the official position was young earth creationist. This causes me to chuckle every time somebody says that I accept evolution because I was brainwashed by the liberal educational system.)

Those are just examples. The critical example of what should not be tolerated is intolerance itself, but only when that intolerance is supported by force. Thus while I support free-speech for people who are racists, for example, if they engage in violence or the threat of violence to put their intolerance into action, it’s time to act effectively to stop them.

There will certainly be some who will think I’m too tolerant on these points, but I simply don’t believe that we will accomplish the intended goal by shutting off the expression of reprehensible opinions. In addition, the side-effects in the restriction of dialogue are in themselves dangerous.

But my main reason for writing this post was to discuss homogenization. There are two approaches that I call homogenization. The first is the search for an intermediate solution on which all sides can agree, and the second is the view that all opinions are equal, so we should just accept anything anyone says about any topic. The first seeks a blended position, homogenizing by moving everyone toward a sort of middle ground. The second goes ahead and treats substantial differences that have significant consequences as though they were all the same.

I believe that the intermediate solutions usually fail of the one thing they aim for–of being solutions. Instead, they become simply another position. In religion, I am a Christian. I have been invited to get involved in a kind of interfaith spirituality. Often those who suggest this approach to me see my tolerance for those of other faiths, and my dialogue with them, and believe that I should just “go all the way.” But in my view the idea that all spiritual paths lead to one divinity is itself a religious position. It doesn’t mediate anything; it simply provides another option.

When people who advocate such an approach say that all religions are really the same at the core, and thus they are all compatible, it’s important to note that they are defining what the core is. What they believe is essential about a particular religions mght not, and usually is not, the same as what the adherents of that religion believe.

There was a period of time during which I met with an Imam and we discusses scripture, and our respective religions. What was most enjoyable about these discussions was that neither of us held back from our positions. I didn’t claim that Islam and Christianity were really just the same, and neither did he. In fact, we saw substantial differences between our respective faiths. There were similarities as well, of course. Now someone else could have suggested a position combining our agreements, but that would have satisfied neither of us.

We were both tolerant of the other’s religion, but neither of us was going to yield on the essentials of our own faith. I think it’s important that we learn to tolerate people who disagree, because examining our disagreements is one of the best way to get at new ideas and new truths. But in order to tolerate those who disagree we need to be willing to disagree, meaning that we have to have convictions and be willing to support those convictions.

Which leads me to those who regard all ideas as being equal. Frankly, I have a hard time taking this seriously. In fact, I don’t think anyone actually holds this position. It’s usually quite possible to find some position they think is wrong, and thus in reality they simply believe in maximal tolerance. Nonetheless the idea that no idea is right or wrong, even if it is not held consistently, is dangerous.

I would suggest that we need to keep searching for the most accurate view, the truth if you please, while always having the humility to acknowledge that we have not yet attained. It’s that humility that is the driving force in tolerance as a value.