Neither I, nor anyone at the Boniuk Center at Rice University, will ever define tolerance with reference to these beliefs. Rice is a secular research university, and our Center there has no theological commitment one way or the other. We don’t do theology. We don’t promote it, nor do we condemn it. Only when it calls outright for the direct harm or death (in this world, not the next) of individuals or groups do we question it. Believing your god is the only true god, or that your religion is better than all the others does not, in itself, contradict the principle of tolerance. Our promotion of tolerance does not demand that anyone renounce those beliefs.
Nor do we promote tolerance as an ideology. Unlike Marxists, fascists or other ideologues, we do not have a grand vision for the world that we are now organizing and implementing through socio-political processes. Tolerance, for us, is not a doctrine or dogma; it’s not an agenda. People are not “with us” or “against us” based on their acceptance or rejection of tolerance. As I said above, the only litmus test to which we would submit anyone is whether or not they are calling for direct and measurable harm to anyone, especially in matters of belief. Words like “kill them” or “kill him” are red flags for us, no matter who speaks them.
Instead, we promote tolerance as a civic and personal virtue, mostly for practical reasons. The demographic reality of our lives – in Houston, in America and in the world – is that we are destined to share the planet with people who are radically different from us in belief, perspective and lifestyle. Some may not like this fact, but it is a fact nevertheless. And each of us has to decide how we will live and act inside this reality.
Don’t react to the word – take a minute to read her reflection. It is quite good. She looks at tolerance more as an attitude than as a statement of ideology or policy.
And Kendall is right – read the comments, too. Interesting what heat can be generated by this word.
My comment about her excellent but slightly problematic essay:
[blockquote] Your definition of tolerance is absolutely fantastic!
But the problem is one of semantics. Unfortunately, you are a tiny island of reason. The whole business is touting the word “tolerance” is to paint those that disagree with you as being intolerant. It goes like this:
“I promote tolerance. You disagree with my views so therefore you are intolerant. From which we can conlude you are hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited and small minded.”
As such, tolerance is simply a conversation stopping ad hominem.
Now this game that the majority of the promoters of “tolerance” are playing should be obvious to anyone that hails from the great Rice University. (OK, I am class of ’79. And yes, there are a few Rice alumni that are evangelical Christians.) You promote a very different tolerance which is actually respectful of views that differ from yours. But by using the same terminology, you side with and encourage those that abuse the terminology.
The solution: you need to come up with a different term and disavow “tolerance”.
[/blockquote]
I hope that she responds.
Whoa! I loved that comment, robroy… my middle-aged eyes didn’t spot that it was by you (teeny tiny font on that blog).
From the Revisionist_Dictionary:
TOLERATE
(1) Traditionally, to respect others’ freedom (e.g., of speech, belief, and conscience) even when you disagree with their views: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.†These words, attributed to Voltaire, underscore the traditional distinction between upholding someone’s freedom to speak and agreeing with the speaker’s message.
(2) For Progressives, to acknowledge the substantive validity of others’ views, consistent with a worldview of moral relativism. To be “tolerant†of others’ views, you must regard those views as valid—indeed, regard all views as equally valid. “If you believe Jesus is uniquely the Way, the Truth, and the Life, you are ‘intolerant’ regardless of your willingness to defend others’ freedom to believe otherwise.â€
Thank you, I, you took the words out of my mouth. “Tolerance” used to indicate disapproving permission, but it’s been widened to scrub it of any disapproval at all.
Tolerance and civility are grand ideals…but the Church must not be intimidated into denying the truth or ceasing to speak and praise His Name and offering the ‘more excellent way.’
This is the way our Lord has commanded us to follow, even at the cost of friends, family, persecution or even our life.
If we disavow Him and allow His words of Life, Truth and Love to be distorted, misappropriated, removed from the Church, from our beliefs and actions, we will fail in our mission and in love for our neighbor and our Lord.
“A faithful witness delivers souls from death.” Proverbs
‘Live and let live’ works for me.
“We don’t promote it, nor do we condemn it.” If you believe in their declaration of absolute impartiality, I have a brick of pure gold which I will sell you cheap. They themselves, limit their impartiality because they limit their “tolerance” when direct or measurable harm is involved. But why this limit to tolerance? Does this mean they will accept intolerance in the matter of ssm, for example? Is there harm done there? And to whom? Are they intolerant of war? Of imprisonment? Of abortion? You don’t need me to extend this list.
The entire statement is a perfect example of that greatest of sins, intellectual vanity. This program is acting as if it existed in a vacuum, the ivory tower with a vengeance. This is so perfectly the contemporary academic, so perfectly the pseudo-scientific social scientist explaining why they are absolutely above the fray.
Some of these notions are noble and worthy enough, to be sure. We do have to live with people who hold radically different beliefs.
The odd thing is that Americans have always had to do this and have managed to scrape by with such divergences, century after century without the Rice Institute. In the real world, however, as Iranaeus has made clear, tolerance in FACT has come to mean accepting all views as equally valid, and this means that you cannot have distinct beliefs of your own, since all such beliefs are exclusive, not inclusive. To believe in A means that you refuse to believe in B. The perfectly tolerant Ricean believes in nothing, espouses nothing – is, out of necessity, entirely amoral.
I would be willing to listen if they were espousing forbearance, the willingness to without one’s legitimate power for some higher end, and this is really what they wish to espouse as a civic and practical virtue. But the institute runs into immediate trouble when we ask about a “virtue,” whence cometh it and for what reason. If they answer ” for comity’s sake, and no other, so that everyone will get along with others,” we praise such a politically correct and fashionable position, but we note that it does not touch reality, e.g., such a position leaves political parties out of the question – good luck with that undertaking! – and denatures the individual’s ability to make a decision that, when it benefits some, disobliges others – in short, the bulk of all judgments and decisions. The end of the Riceans utopia is a bland and faceless society – peaceful and orderly, but quite dead.
And at last we must ask about enforcing this civic and practical virtue. What of those who persist in wrongheadedness? What will the Riceans do with those who persist in fighting for their beliefs?
But I already know their answer, which is “social conditioning.” Watch out then! Some of you remember Walden 2, do you not? for those of you who don’t, you must read it, for this is where the socials scientists are headed. Stiff Necked and Contumacious Old
Sinner in Maine
Larry Morse [#8] writes: “To believe in A means that you refuse to believe in B. The perfectly tolerant Ricean believes in nothing, espouses nothing – is, out of necessity, entirely amoral.”
No. Tilly the Perfectly Tolerant Individual believes in A, and is willing to act on it. But she also acknowledges two possibilities: That she might be wrong, and that she doesn’t know everything — and therefore those who believe B just might have something to teach her.
You have misread my intent, D.C. If I believe in A, then I must exclude B. All beliefs are exclusive in some way. However, here is someone for whom B is essential, and this belief excludes A. Now we come to the intersection of this academic abstraction and the real world. Tilly, being a good Anglican finds the concept of the “savior sibling” (see blog entry above) a moral horror. The government makes it law. What shall she do? CAN they, SHOULD they live cheek by jowl? If Tilly says, “Well, I might be wrong and the gov. may have something to teach me,” so she does not fight the government, then she violates her own fundamental belief. Since she dare not act because of the tolerance principle, what will be the result? Little by little she will acclimate herself to the prevailing doctrine; to save herself pain in a cause she cannot go to war with, she will believe nothing. When the Tilly’s of America are surrounded by a thousand unacceptable evils, she at last tolerates (accepts) them all because she dare not go to the barricades over any of them. At last, she believes in nothing but the pleasure principle, and this, D.C., is exactly where much of America is right now.
Or else, she will fight the government tooth and nail, in which case she has become intolerant because she will sacrifice a loss of civil comity for the sake of doing what is right.
I might add that those who say, “Well, I might be wrong and my opponents may well have something to teach me,” we have a class of people who will not act because their wills are frozen. This is Buridan’s Ass with a vengeance. And so we have the Anglican world which talks and talks and never acts for fear of the consequences.
Some Anglican dioceses leave TEC. They are pursued by TEC furies, threatened and threatened. Should they not go to war to protect their own (as they see it) or should they say, “Well, TEC has a good case too, so we must let them do as they will and we will abide the issue because we are tolerant of disagreement?”
Tolerance is circumstantial and there are limited times and places when will will bear the assigned evil because warfare is worse than the evil. But these cases are commonly those in which the issues are of small consequence and do not affect us greatly. When they do affect us greatly, tolerance is cowardice.
And stake, of greater importance, is the hidden Ricean agenda wherein “tolerance” is enforced, and the most powerful enforcer is social conditioning. Have YOU read Walden II? If not, y ou had better. Larry
Larry Morse [#10], you might want to read a bit about fuzzy logic, which recognizes that our information is always imperfect (unless you’re God, that is, and maybe even then). We certainly have to make choices in life, but sometimes the best choice is “no bet.”
You write:
That’s actually a useful summary: it properly focuses the debate on whether something affects us “greatly” enough to warrant walking away, litigation, armed rebellion, etc.
And that, I submit, really does reduce to who likes X (or thinks they do), and why.
Is this Jill Carrol the same journalist who, while working as a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, was kidnapped by terrorists in IRAQ?
The report she wrote about her captivity (after she was released) was very interesting, it seems that she had to be very tolerant (or I would call it understanding) of her captors religious beliefs in order to survive, but I got the impression that she was sustained by her own beliefs during these very difficult times. It is one of the few things I have read about terrorists in IRAQ that really gave me an understanding of the way these people live and think.