Defining Tolerance

While the blending of races, cultures, genders, age groups and nationalities, among other distinctions, has always existed, the distinctions between them were more often pointed out than in modern times. In ancient Greece, for example, the difference between a free Greek male, an inferior Greek woman, a worthless slave and a barbaric foreigner were very clear in their minds, for both the enforcers of that mentality and the victims. But the activism of modern times has inspired many to ignore those distinctions to the point that the social scene of today's developed nations can consist of a Catholic Scottish woman, a Lutheran white man from Missouri, a Rastafarian teenager from Jamaica, and an atheist man from China, without any of them giving much thought to their differences beyond mere curiosity or even admiration.

The ability of modern people to co-exist in such a way as this derives from the idea of tolerance. This is an oft-used word, often counted as the cornerstone of human rights, feminism, gay rights, religious coexistence, etc., but the reasons and specific uses of tolerance can become contradictory. Tolerance is usually considered to be mutual respect for the freedom of individuals to make their own choices and to be what they naturally are without judgment, ridicule or discrimination. An African-American atheist woman should, according to this definition, be respected for her atheism, her race, and her gender without anyone treating her in any negative way based on these factors. While this is certainly a good thing, there are three questions that, when unanswered (as they usually are) can cause many problems: 1. Why do people deserve this respect? 2. Should wrong things also be tolerated? 3. What exactly does tolerating someone involve on a practical level? I believe for true tolerance to exist, and to fix many of the errors that have arisen due to confusion with these questions, they must be answered.

1. Why do people deserve respect?

On the surface, this seems to be an easy-to-answer question, usually with human rights, dignity, freedom, and equality given as answers. But these things themselves are taken as presumed truths without any real justification. What we believe about the human person is very important to determining how we treat others. If I believe people's worth depends on how well they treat me, then I will be more likely to not tolerate those who offend or abuse me. And if I believe those who are different than me deserve punishment, I would find it immoral to tolerate them. Respect for others can rest on only one attribute: dignity, which is the quality of deserving respect.

But what grants dignity, and what are its qualifications? Human dignity cannot be seen simply by a biological examination of a homosapien. There is no part of our physiology that grants us dignity. Human dignity must be recognized by other human faculties, such as reason, faith, or feeling. Many derive their belief in human dignity from the simple intuition of their own worth. They fear abuse, and so believe abuse is wrong. Fearing retribution, they say it is wrong to disrespect others. But this is obviously very simplistic. Some part of the human person must be identified as the justification, if not the source, of our dignity, whether it be our consciousness, our individuality, our capacity for love or compassion, or our capacity for religiosity. Everyone who examines this idea beyond the simplistic intuition described above must make this decision, pinpointing the reason human beings deserve respect.

Beyond this, one must then identify the ultimate source of human dignity. If a specific human attribute make us deserving of dignity, something else must grant us that dignity. Often times, it is not taken this far. If consciousness makes us deserving of dignity, it is immediately assumed that we have dignity because we deserve it. But the physical human animal cannot give itself dignity. Even if we are capable of it, this power must derive from a larger source, unless human dignity is purely an illusion of self-worth or species preservation, in which case our dignity is not truly real. If we can give ourselves dignity, the human person must have a spiritual authority to elevate our mortal selves beyond the material of our bodies to something deserving of respect. If another spiritual force or entity is identified as the giver of our dignity, this must be explained - very few religions throughout history have believed in any supernatural entity which cared anything for humans, much less enough to grant us any real dignity.

For Catholicism, human dignity derives from the love of God. Within the context of His love and His creativity, we are given the dignity of a creature. But through Revelation, God has shown us even more. Humanity is not merely a creature of God - we are children of God, with an eternal soul made in His image. This raises human worth exponentially, for even the mirror reflection of God has more worth than any material creature. However, it is the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ which gave humanity ultimate and inalienable dignity. Now, our existence as body and soul, all our actions in life (spiritual or physical), and even our death has been raised to a divine level, sanctified by Christ.

2. Should wrongs also be respected?

This is perhaps an even more intriguing question than the first, and one just as often misunderstood and thus misapplied in relation to tolerance. As in many things, people tend to use tolerance in extremes - either complete acceptance of all wrongdoing, or violent hatred of acts believed to be wrong. Neither are in accordance with tolerance, which is neither accepting nor hateful by its definition. It must be understood that tolerance does not necessitate agreement on the part of the tolerating person. For example, one must not necessarily believe the gay lifestyle to be moral for one to be able to tolerate gay people. However, it is common amongst gay activists in modern times to be of the opinion that any disagreement with the gay lifestyle, even made in a polite and tolerating manner, is slanderous, defamatory and a violation of the human rights of gay people. Accordingly, religious people, whether in a spirit of charity or hate, can believe that to tolerate the gay lifestyle means accepting it as morally permissible, to create injustice in doing so, and to harm gay people by approving of their sins. Neither positions are true tolerance.

Again, this particular issue goes back to the question of the source of human dignity - why should people be respected? However, this question takes it a step further - is human dignity inalienable? Can a specific condition, choice or belief of an individual remove or lessen the respect they deserve, and does human life deserve respect throughout its life or only at certain times and to certain extents? I believe this is a question that fundamentally divides many groups in modern times, and has in different ways throughout history. If human dignity is based on a specific quality of the human person, such as consciousness, breathing, moral choices, etc., our dignity becomes alienable. For example, if human dignity is based on consciousness, then the unborn fetus (especially at certain trimester developmental states), the vegetative or extremely mentally retarded patient, or other with limited or no consciousness can have their dignity taken away from them. Thus is one justification for abortion and euthanasia. These qualifications often involve further stipulations, such as the idea that the potential for or past existence of consciousness gives people the same dignity as the normal conscious person. But in all these cases, there are situations where human dignity can go away.

This idea is often more subtle than such an intellectual level as this. When we treat others differently when they abuse us, we do not give them the same respect we would someone who treats us well. Thus, the dignity of abusive people is removed or lessened by their actions. This is very common, often unnoticed on an intellectual level, but it is very important to the practice of tolerance. Answering this question, whether and how human dignity can be removed or lessened, depends on the beliefs of the individual.

The idea that people who do wrong things should not be tolerated for their own good, but rather should be punished, derives from a misunderstanding of tolerance, as well as the error of taking justice into one's own hands and believing that a wrong response to wrongdoing is justified by the other person's sin. If someone is doing something wrong, if I ridicule them or gossip about them, I may do so out of a desire to point out their errors and correct them. However, the gravest sins can often lie beneath the purest excuses. If someone can be treated with disrespect, then their dignity is alienable, regardless of the justifications given. No sin someone can do can justify treating them without dignity. On the other hand, tolerance does not remove or replace justice. Even though I may not ridicule, hate or judge someone for their choices, if their actions are deemed wrong or criminal, they will face consequences. This does not remove freedom or dignity - in fact, it respects it. By never punishing anyone for their wrong choices, we are not respecting their freedom, but rather treating them as helpless and unaware, as if their choices were not made intentionally or freely. Justice affirms freedom; it does not disrespect it or human dignity.

Accordingly, that which people do not choose - such as race, gender, age, etc. - are even more dependent on respect than an individual's choices. It is very easy and all-too-natural to prefer one's own likeness. Many do this, even unconsciously. If I am a straight, white, southern American, Christian male, then I have a tendency to like those who share those traits. This can also be applied to a gay, English, atheist woman, or anyone else. While people do choose the gay lifestyle, homosexuality is not chosen; nor are race, age, etc. To treat people as if they are inferior (or even superior) based on these traits is an infringement on human dignity and contradicts tolerance. By giving moral guilt to people for things they did not choose contradicts freedom, equality and justice, accordingly violating human dignity. It is gravely disrespectful and is both immoral and criminal. But, this is based on the idea that human dignity is constant and inalienable. Variations on this belief are the main cause of intolerance, especially for conditions a person does not choose, such as race, gender, etc.

3. What does tolerating someone involve on a practical, daily level?

This is perhaps the most difficult question of the three, for me at least, as my mind tends more towards the intellectual and philosophical than the practical. But I firmly believe that the practical derives from and depends on one's beliefs. As I said above, tolerance is neither acceptance nor a violation of justice. I believe the idea of tolerance is the greatest achievement of modern democratic culture, but in modern times its application has become skewed, perhaps from the growth in liberal political ideology in modern times, particularly visible in Europe. If human dignity depends on the conditions of a political or economic ideology, when those conditions are not met, that dignity quickly disappears.

As I said above, tolerance is not agreement - it is respect. When we encounter those who make choices we disagree with, tolerating it can be difficult. We naturally feel that we should correct them persistently, punish them in some way, or at least marginalize them. While it can be respectful to correct someone, once is sufficient - doing so continuously disrespects their freedom and attempts to force ourselves on them. To tolerate these people, we must treat them just as well as we would anyone else, with respect, compassion, attention and honor. We must not ridicule their wrong choices, only giving our straightforward belief about it when asked, with calm and without pride. Even in our mind, we must not deride others whom we may disagree with. As Catholics, we believe human dignity is God-given and inalienable, as is freedom and equality. Thus, our mind should also be pure and respectful.

However, it must be understood that not everyone to whom we give respect and tolerance will respond accordingly. Nor will they stop their actions, or keep it private. Often, they will do the opposite. By nature, people desire to love and be loved, as is our God-given purpose. When people are wraithed by sin, the loneliness, sadness, and anger (towards themselves, others and God) is very deep and potent. We are all sinners, and as participants, we should all be able to understand this state. All of us have a great dirty treasure in our hearts, sins for which we cannot shun our affection, despite the pain it gives us. People, especially after learning that we disagree with their actions, will often try to justify themselves, whether rationally or vehemently. They will also ignore our corrections, and even take offense at them, calling us judgmental or intolerant. Which, as I have explained, is untrue, but unless they are acting rationally, there is no use trying to explain this to them. It is also common for them to push it in our faces, specifically telling us what they are doing or taking part in, out of a desire for approval, attention, for us to join in their sin, or even for our disapproval, acting as a masochistic self-punishment for them and thus merely compounding their imprisonment in sin. It is best to smile, nod, and continue acting kindly and respectfully, regardless of what they do.

Tolerance, like all human actions, can be easily corrupted. We must be mindful to keep it true, pure and to practice it consistently. We must also examine what we truly believe about human dignity, whether our beliefs are founded on preference, reason or sentiment, and we must also continually assure that our practice of tolerance is moderate, without extremism, rooted in genuine respect for the dignity of other human beings as well as ourselves. Otherwise, tolerance can disappear in this world easily and quietly as the spark of a candle.

God bless.