Tolerance is not Coexistence
I have to admit that I have been re-thinking some long-held positions I have had. That, I suppose, comes from being a pastor/teacher. Everything you teach has to be researched. And eventually you come to places where you have to re-evaluate your own ideas. It isn't always pleasant. Sometimes it is downright depressing or even frightening. But I feel it is a duty of life since an unexamined one is not worth the lack of effort.
I have been struggling with the ideas of tolerance. The word is a catch all for people these days - especially people who also wish to advocate peaceful coexistence. But are the two really the same? Coexistence doesn't necessarily mean tolerance, and tolerance doesn't lead to coexistence. I would feel that coexistence (itself a popular bumper sticker with regard to world religions) is a great ideal. Our collective religious histories demonstrate that we have been reluctant to coexist but have also learned how to do so - sometimes right next to each other. It is something of a live and let live point of view.
Tolerance, though, does not mean blanket acceptance. It is often utilized this way, however. That is dangerous. Because tolerance can foster inaction and allow some very nasty things to take place. It isn't that tolerance is a bad idea. The issue that I mean is using tolerance as a means to argue for a laissez faire approach to (in this particular instance) religion. While I understand the intention, one need only look at the crisis with the IS to see that tolerance of them does not reciprocate tolerance. Likewise, to tolerate their actions is to allow their murderous, history denying mentality that is a dangerous ideology.
The struggle then becomes one of coexistence and tolerance. There have to be certain basic guidelines that inform our coexistence. It also means that the idea of everyone being welcome to the table cannot be a reality. It may be the purview of God, and a Utopian idea, but it is not a feasible or even tenable idea, it would seem, for humanity.
This has to do with the fact that coexistence holds a level of accountability and respect for the other that tolerance does not. Tolerance may actually (if defined as blanket acceptance) be more respectful of the other at the detriment to self. We will, for example, allow someone to preach hate while refusing to be involved, even if that hatred is aimed at us. Hey, we have to get along right?
Right. And as such, we can't just tolerate everything. Conservatives would use this as an argument against homosexuals, perhaps, Liberals would use this as a means to limit trade perhaps. Religiously, though, it comes from a place of moral obligation. We cannot allow fanaticism and extremism to define coexistence. Coexistence might well define extremism and what we cannot tolerate.
Of course in this litigious society, those definitions are the fights we will die for - or certainly sue over. Therein lies the rub. To coexist is to define what is appropriate. That conversation has to come from a place of respect. To simply tolerate would be to allow which might endanger oneself or others.
So to be an advocate for coexistence is not the same as being an advocate for blanket tolerance. It simply cannot be. Blanket tolerance is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. So perhaps an all-inclusive welcome isn't as smart or as noble as we think. Maybe we do need to have clear definitions. Of course most religions can't agree on that internally, so external interfaith communities might be a far fetched idea anyway. I'm not sure.
I have no real concluding point here. I am just musing over some ideas.
I have been struggling with the ideas of tolerance. The word is a catch all for people these days - especially people who also wish to advocate peaceful coexistence. But are the two really the same? Coexistence doesn't necessarily mean tolerance, and tolerance doesn't lead to coexistence. I would feel that coexistence (itself a popular bumper sticker with regard to world religions) is a great ideal. Our collective religious histories demonstrate that we have been reluctant to coexist but have also learned how to do so - sometimes right next to each other. It is something of a live and let live point of view.
Tolerance, though, does not mean blanket acceptance. It is often utilized this way, however. That is dangerous. Because tolerance can foster inaction and allow some very nasty things to take place. It isn't that tolerance is a bad idea. The issue that I mean is using tolerance as a means to argue for a laissez faire approach to (in this particular instance) religion. While I understand the intention, one need only look at the crisis with the IS to see that tolerance of them does not reciprocate tolerance. Likewise, to tolerate their actions is to allow their murderous, history denying mentality that is a dangerous ideology.
The struggle then becomes one of coexistence and tolerance. There have to be certain basic guidelines that inform our coexistence. It also means that the idea of everyone being welcome to the table cannot be a reality. It may be the purview of God, and a Utopian idea, but it is not a feasible or even tenable idea, it would seem, for humanity.
This has to do with the fact that coexistence holds a level of accountability and respect for the other that tolerance does not. Tolerance may actually (if defined as blanket acceptance) be more respectful of the other at the detriment to self. We will, for example, allow someone to preach hate while refusing to be involved, even if that hatred is aimed at us. Hey, we have to get along right?
Right. And as such, we can't just tolerate everything. Conservatives would use this as an argument against homosexuals, perhaps, Liberals would use this as a means to limit trade perhaps. Religiously, though, it comes from a place of moral obligation. We cannot allow fanaticism and extremism to define coexistence. Coexistence might well define extremism and what we cannot tolerate.
Of course in this litigious society, those definitions are the fights we will die for - or certainly sue over. Therein lies the rub. To coexist is to define what is appropriate. That conversation has to come from a place of respect. To simply tolerate would be to allow which might endanger oneself or others.
So to be an advocate for coexistence is not the same as being an advocate for blanket tolerance. It simply cannot be. Blanket tolerance is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. So perhaps an all-inclusive welcome isn't as smart or as noble as we think. Maybe we do need to have clear definitions. Of course most religions can't agree on that internally, so external interfaith communities might be a far fetched idea anyway. I'm not sure.
I have no real concluding point here. I am just musing over some ideas.
Comments
Post a Comment