The Trouble with Tolerance

Humanist, Nov, 1999 by J. Eric Hazell

In keeping with the policy of the Humanist to accommodate the diverse social, political, and philosophical viewpoint of its readers, this occasional feature allows for the expression of alternative and dissenting views of issues previously broached within these pages.

FEW VALUES, if any, have more widespread acceptance today in the United States than tolerance. Religious tolerance is especially lauded and has had its staunch supporters in this country since early in the colonial period. Today, although some advocate it more strongly and more often than others, people of nearly all beliefs and political persuasions can be heard arguing in favor of tolerance. The principle seems inherent in a pluralistic, democratic society.

In its most basic sense, tolerance means respect for the practices and beliefs of others--whether or not we agree with them. What thinking person could disagree with such an idea? No community or culture could exist, and neither could coexist, without some tolerance. A major reason the idea has such widespread acceptance is because we can all believe in respect for others.

Those today who most frequently and strongly advocate tolerance usually do so based on the idea that truth is relative; no one person, group, or culture--the argument goes--has a monopoly on truth, so one can believe what one wants but cannot impose that belief on someone else. By maintaining your own truth without seeking to force it on others, you are showing the respect characteristic of a tolerant person.

This relativism is applied in many areas. We say that what is right for the Christian isn't necessarily right for the Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, and so on. Similarly, the tolerant view on abortion says it's fine to believe abortion is wrong but it's intolerant to tell other women it's wrong for them. Or if you are against interracial marriage then don't marry someone from a different race, but don't try to stop someone else from doing so. The tolerant view says that if you find homosexuality unappealing then don't practice it, but don't condemn others for being homosexual.

At first glance these arguments are appealing; so apparently respectful of others, they appear obviously valid. They seem democratic in the sense that they endow equality of opinion and preference. They seem self-effacing in that they claim your belief is as legitimate as mine. They seem impartial. So on the surface toleration appears to be a fair-minded, democratic, modest approach that looks at the world based on the ideal of respect for others. No wonder its virtues are so frequently acclaimed.

But might there be a few problems in this outlook? For one, at some level it seems to tell people how they can and cannot act--for example, by saying one can disagree with abortion but cannot stop others from having one. This circumscription of behavior can be especially problematic in the case of evangelical Christianity, an area in which tolerance is perhaps most often discussed.

Evangelicalism is the belief that salvation is the most important moment in life and that leading others to salvation is the most important activity. Secular defenders of tolerance say, fine, believe in Jesus but don't try to impose your belief on me. But if you take the proselytizing out of evangelicalism--which is what advocates of tolerance desire--what exactly are you tolerating? Not much. Instead you are telling people they must act in accordance with your relativistic outlook.

A typical expression of this view occurred a couple years ago in a Washington Post story on the decision of the Southern Baptist Convention "to intensify its efforts to convert Jews to Christianity." Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and frequently quoted in the Post, decried this "direct attack," saying, "We've been moving toward a position where all major faiths recognize the fundamental integrity of each others' beliefs." Well, as stated in the article, Southern Baptists believe that "all people need a personal vital relationship with Jesus Christ." Where is Yoffie's respect for, his tolerance of, the belief of those fifteen million people? He's telling them how they can and cannot act--in essence saying that he'll be glad to tolerate evangelicals as long as they don't evangelize.

Conservative Christians have often pointed out this double standard, arguing that fair-mindedness should be applied to their beliefs as well as everyone else's. I believe they have succeeded. The media today seem much more objective toward, more tolerant of, evangelicals than ten years ago. In fact, traditional Christians have succeeded so well that they often condemn even simple criticism as an act of intolerance. They have been effective in part because they have seized on tolerance's internal contradiction of telling people how to act in the name of being hands-off.

In addition to telling people how to act, the ethos of tolerance also tells people what they should and shouldn't think. First, you should think your truth is relevant to you but not necessarily to someone else. Second, you should realize that no single group of standards is valid for everyone. Third, you should believe it is inappropriate to try to pressure someone else to think like you do.