Beyond tolerance
Jan. 27th, 2003 01:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenWe talk a lot about 'religious tolerance', as if it were a virtue to 'tolerate' other people's beliefs - which, compared to intolerance, it most certainly is. At the most basic level, tolerance allows people of different beliefs to live together without killing one another, which is a good thing as far as it goes.
But a conversation I had today with a friend reminded me that there are higher things to aim for than just 'tolerance'. Somewhere above and beyond, lies 'respect'.
What's the difference? Well, 'tolerance' is really the bare minimum. Tolerance says: Okay, I don't believe what you believe, but I'm not going to go to war over it.
Problem is, 'tolerance' very easily becomes a patronising thing, a way for the Great Tolerant to feel smug: "Look at me: I am so noble, I can be polite to people even when they're wrong." It's the same sort of attitude one might have towards that 'special' cousin: you play with them a while, you do your best to keep them happy, and you never ever tell them that they're mentally retarded, because that would be ever so inconsiderate. And afterwards, you can feel proud of your Tolerance.
There's a reason why Pride is considered the worst of the seven deadly sins: it's the most insidious.
Handing out tolerance, like a condescending owner tossing the dog a bone... well, it's better than religious war, but it's a long long way from respect. If you end up patting yourself on the back every time you talk to somebody of another faith without being rude to them about it... that there is only tolerance, not respect. Because if you respect somebody else's beliefs, the thought of denigrating them isn't a temptation to be resisted; it's a foreign concept. It's not even on the menu.
Maybe I can illustrate this best with a parable. Your parents invite you around to dinner one night, and your partner with you. They're friendly to you, because you're family... and they're polite to your partner, because manners are important.
But when you leave, your parents talk to one another: surely you could find somebody better? They have tolerated your partner, for your sake, but they do not respect your choice in partners. And odds are, you will have picked up on the difference within about five seconds of sitting down to eat.
Been in that situation? Remember how demeaning it felt? That's just how demeaning it is when you throw somebody the bone of tolerance, putting up with their religion for the sake of their feelings.
The usual stereotype of a religious bigot is a Christian one. There are reasons why this stereotype exists; while all religions seem to produce their share of bigots, Christianity - being the most powerful and the most visible religion in Western society - naturally produces the most powerful and the most visible bigots. Nothing surprising about that.
What does intrigue me is that this stereotype has become so pervasive that people forget bigotry is not the property of any one religion (or indeed of religion - there are most certainly bigoted atheists too, just as obnoxious as any other brand.) It's like believing that only white people are capable of racism.
But in other ideologies, it takes different forms. A Christian living in Western society can refuse to do business with Buddhists much more easily than a Buddhist can refuse to do business with Christians. I know a number of people who are very good at identifying narrow-mindedness and insensitivity in Christians... but completely fail to see it in their own faith, because they don't know what to look for.
So, just once in a while, stop and ask yourself whether what you show other people's beliefs is genuine respect... or only tolerance.
But a conversation I had today with a friend reminded me that there are higher things to aim for than just 'tolerance'. Somewhere above and beyond, lies 'respect'.
What's the difference? Well, 'tolerance' is really the bare minimum. Tolerance says: Okay, I don't believe what you believe, but I'm not going to go to war over it.
Problem is, 'tolerance' very easily becomes a patronising thing, a way for the Great Tolerant to feel smug: "Look at me: I am so noble, I can be polite to people even when they're wrong." It's the same sort of attitude one might have towards that 'special' cousin: you play with them a while, you do your best to keep them happy, and you never ever tell them that they're mentally retarded, because that would be ever so inconsiderate. And afterwards, you can feel proud of your Tolerance.
There's a reason why Pride is considered the worst of the seven deadly sins: it's the most insidious.
Handing out tolerance, like a condescending owner tossing the dog a bone... well, it's better than religious war, but it's a long long way from respect. If you end up patting yourself on the back every time you talk to somebody of another faith without being rude to them about it... that there is only tolerance, not respect. Because if you respect somebody else's beliefs, the thought of denigrating them isn't a temptation to be resisted; it's a foreign concept. It's not even on the menu.
Maybe I can illustrate this best with a parable. Your parents invite you around to dinner one night, and your partner with you. They're friendly to you, because you're family... and they're polite to your partner, because manners are important.
But when you leave, your parents talk to one another: surely you could find somebody better? They have tolerated your partner, for your sake, but they do not respect your choice in partners. And odds are, you will have picked up on the difference within about five seconds of sitting down to eat.
Been in that situation? Remember how demeaning it felt? That's just how demeaning it is when you throw somebody the bone of tolerance, putting up with their religion for the sake of their feelings.
The usual stereotype of a religious bigot is a Christian one. There are reasons why this stereotype exists; while all religions seem to produce their share of bigots, Christianity - being the most powerful and the most visible religion in Western society - naturally produces the most powerful and the most visible bigots. Nothing surprising about that.
What does intrigue me is that this stereotype has become so pervasive that people forget bigotry is not the property of any one religion (or indeed of religion - there are most certainly bigoted atheists too, just as obnoxious as any other brand.) It's like believing that only white people are capable of racism.
But in other ideologies, it takes different forms. A Christian living in Western society can refuse to do business with Buddhists much more easily than a Buddhist can refuse to do business with Christians. I know a number of people who are very good at identifying narrow-mindedness and insensitivity in Christians... but completely fail to see it in their own faith, because they don't know what to look for.
So, just once in a while, stop and ask yourself whether what you show other people's beliefs is genuine respect... or only tolerance.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 07:58 am (UTC){ponders}
I'm not sure what you mean by respect in this context. If tolerance is 'Okay, I don't believe what you believe, but I'm not going to go to war over it', then what's respect? 'I don't believe what you believe, but I'm sure you must think you have a valid reason to believe it?'
I'm not even sure that respect is an appropriate response in some cases. Does creation science (or intelligent design, or whatever it is this week) deserve respect? I don't think so, because however sincere a believer, it's entirely based on deliberate lies about evidence. How about people who believe that John Edwards and other grief-exploiting parasites can really talk to the dead? I'm going to have a hard time generating respect or tolerance for that.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 01:29 pm (UTC)Hmm. I certainly accept that people believe whatever the hell they want to. Doing anything else would only give me stress, as what the can I do about it anyway? But, no, on reflection, I can't respect people who choose to believe in things are that patently and provably untrue. At least, I don't repsect them for their choices in that area -- they may be perfectly wonderful people in other respects.
On the other hand, I don't tolerate those kinds of beliefs in order to spare people's feelings, either, so maybe I cancel out there.
But I still don't think I really understand what Geoffrey means by respect, which is probably why I'm having trouble working out exactly what I think on the issue.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-26 03:53 pm (UTC)It's relatively easy to respect someone believing something that you don't personally believe but that might be true; but respecting someone's choice to believe something that not only do you not believe but that is patently irrational is significantly harder (In my case, at least, virtually impossible. But I'm kind of hard-line that way.).
Sometimes, you just can't help not respecting irrationality, to use the politest term for it I can muster.
not sure
Date: 2003-01-26 12:58 pm (UTC)