tolerance [tol-er-uh ns], noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
respect [re·spect, rəˈspekt], noun
1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
2. a particular aspect, point, or detail.
verb
1. admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
There was a discussion in the monastery, last evening, concerning the difference between tolerance and respect. Basically, it centered around not wanting one's tolerance, but, rather, one's respect. Tolerance in this context is definition number 4, above. I am willing to endure you, or, I am willing to put up with you. The concern of this minister is well founded were that the definition the monastery is exercising. It is not. The monastery is defining tolerance using definitions 1-3. The minister pointed several "intolerant" individuals to review the mission statement of the ULC, of which I have included the following excerpts, highlighting and italicizing pertinent parts:
The ULC has also become renowned for its role as a champion of religious freedom, social justice, and spiritual expression. While the Universal Life Church Monastery has become a global leader in these fields, it largely attributes that status to the commitment and competence of the millions of empowered ministers brought together in a world tent of togetherness.
The Universal Life Church was founded on the basic belief that we are all children of the same universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by which it expects its ministers to conduct themselves:
1. Do only that which is right.
2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws.
-- Excerpts from the "About Us" tab on the homepage of the Universal Life Church Monastery
I cannot, necessarily, admire someone, or something, deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements, if I do not know them. Until I do know them, however, I can show them tolerance, listen to their views, and accept their right to their beliefs and opinions, until I know the kind of person they are. Sociopaths can be very intelligent and adept at making people like them by saying all the right things people want to hear. They may even believe their own bullshit, but this doesn't make them any less a sociopath. In this day and age of questionable news facts, questionable government representation, and even more questionable personal and public agendas everyone seems to find need to tout, it is good to hold back your respect until you really understand what, or who, you are about to respect.
Tolerance, in the monastery's context, demands that we "do that which is right," regardless of our personal beliefs. Doing what is right, for this purpose, is practicing tolerance by the first three definitions. It does not mean you have to accept the viewpoint, it simply means you must be tolerant of the fact that there is a multitude, a great diversity, of spiritual belief in our world. This tolerance demands we recognize and respect that "every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws."
One has argued that to tolerate is to put up with something, and this is viewed as condescending. This view of tolerance is one of the four definitions and is, probably, the most narrow definition offered. The other three definitions are what ministers, and all persons of faith, all people as a whole, should be concerning themselves with. If we anchor ourselves to the narrow view of tolerance we, by definition, have no expectation of participating in the other three, broader, definitions. And without this participation how can we ever have, have any expectation of, respect?
I can understand the view that tolerance can seem condescending, however, I can also understand there may be times when a condescending view of tolerance might be preferable to no tolerance at all. Don't we all wish Adolf Hitler had been a bit more condescending of the Jews? I think a bit more "condescending" tolerance on his part may have saved millions of lives. But, let's not be too tolerant of the Jews; let's not waste our time with condescension but, rather, let's move straight to the "final solution." Let's not recognize a possible need for tolerance, in lieu of the horrific alternatives? I think the entire German nation, after coming to grips with the horrors of the Nazi leadership, all wish they'd been a bit more tolerant; a bit more willing to have "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own... a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own," and had shown an "interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint."
God bless the first three definitions for providing a middle ground, a buffer to the, possible, insane alternatives of intolerance.
I think we all wish this was a perfect world, though we constantly prove, through our own ignorance and prejudices, it isn't. People will not change overnight. The best we can hope for, in this world of emotional, cultural, and political extremes, is to find some middle ground where we can exist in peace and understanding. Where we can learn about each other's beliefs and cultures, debate and discuss, communicate and listen until we learn enough about each other to respect each other. If we can be tolerant of each other long enough to develop respect for each other's peaceful culture, beliefs, and faith, perhaps we can find respect for each other, for who we are as people, and learn to love each other.
Or, we can always look for another, more permanent, "final solution."
Editor's Note:
Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.
It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth. After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.
We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
One has argued that to tolerate is to put up with something, and this is viewed as condescending. This view of tolerance is one of the four definitions and is, probably, the most narrow definition offered. The other three definitions are what ministers, and all persons of faith, all people as a whole, should be concerning themselves with. If we anchor ourselves to the narrow view of tolerance we, by definition, have no expectation of participating in the other three, broader, definitions. And without this participation how can we ever have, have any expectation of, respect?
I can understand the view that tolerance can seem condescending, however, I can also understand there may be times when a condescending view of tolerance might be preferable to no tolerance at all. Don't we all wish Adolf Hitler had been a bit more condescending of the Jews? I think a bit more "condescending" tolerance on his part may have saved millions of lives. But, let's not be too tolerant of the Jews; let's not waste our time with condescension but, rather, let's move straight to the "final solution." Let's not recognize a possible need for tolerance, in lieu of the horrific alternatives? I think the entire German nation, after coming to grips with the horrors of the Nazi leadership, all wish they'd been a bit more tolerant; a bit more willing to have "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own... a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own," and had shown an "interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint."
God bless the first three definitions for providing a middle ground, a buffer to the, possible, insane alternatives of intolerance.
I think we all wish this was a perfect world, though we constantly prove, through our own ignorance and prejudices, it isn't. People will not change overnight. The best we can hope for, in this world of emotional, cultural, and political extremes, is to find some middle ground where we can exist in peace and understanding. Where we can learn about each other's beliefs and cultures, debate and discuss, communicate and listen until we learn enough about each other to respect each other. If we can be tolerant of each other long enough to develop respect for each other's peaceful culture, beliefs, and faith, perhaps we can find respect for each other, for who we are as people, and learn to love each other.
Or, we can always look for another, more permanent, "final solution."
Editor's Note: Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.
It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth. After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.
We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
Pastor Frank Anthony Villari
Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of the Congregation's official blog site, "The Path."
Well, when you put it that way.... lol Very nicely said, and I concur.
ReplyDelete