RSS
Living With Differences
Rights of Man: Being an Answer to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution (G.P. Putnam: 1894), p. 74.
Toleration is not the opposite of Intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of with-holding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it.
James Madison in Gospel Advocate and Impartial Investigator, Vol. 7 (An Association of Gentlemen: 1829), pp. 61-4.
In 1784, a bill was before the House of Delegates of Virginia for a publick Act, "establishing a provision for the teachers of the Christian religion," which had for its object the compelling of every person to contribute to some religious teacher. The bill was postponed to the next session of the legislature and ordered to be printed, and the people were requested to signify their opinion respecting its adoption. Among the numerous remonstrances against the passage of this bill, the following one drawn by Mr. Madison, stands pre-eminent. It is certainly one of the ablest productions of that great statesman, and deserves to be widely circulated. To use the language of the authour of the work from which it is extracted — Benedict's "General History of the Baptist denomination in America," — its "style is elegant and perspicuous and for strength of reasoning and purity of principle, it has seldom been equalled, certainly never surpassed, by anything on the subject in the English language." It is hardly necessary to say that the bill never passed the House. ~ Hartford Times
The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends On It (HarperCollins: 2008), pp. 1-2.
It would be a safe but sad bet that someone, somewhere in the world, is killing someone else at this very moment in the name of religion or ideology. ¶ Currently, the world's newspapers give us each day our daily read of the Sunni Muslims ferociously slaughtering Shia Muslims in Baghdad, and of Shia Muslims ferociously slaughtering Sunni Muslims in revenge. Elsewhere it might be Muslims and Hindus killing each other in Kashmir, or Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka, or Muslims and animists in Sudan. Earlier it would have been Protestants and Catholics in Ulster, and Muslims, Orthodox, and Catholics in the Balkans. ... But before anyone drifts off into the well-rehearsed litany of blaming it all on religion, we should remember that modern "terror" began in France in 1789 in the name of secular Reason, killing several million in its wars and committing a near genocide in the Vendée on its first outing. Nearer our own time, close to a hundred million people were slaughtered in the twentieth century by secularist ideologies — far more than the deaths from all the religious persecutions and repression in Western history combined.
"Commencement Address at American University" (Washington D.C.: June 10, 1963).
So, let us not be blind to our differences — but let
us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by
which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our
differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all
inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish
our children's future. And we are all mortal.
The Innocents Abroad (Hippocrene Books: 1869), p. 650.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things can not be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. ¶ The excursion is ended, and has passed to its place among the things that were. But its varied scenes and its manifold incidents will linger pleasantly in our memories for many a year to come. Always on the wing, as we were, and merely pausing a moment to catch fitful glimpses of the wonders of half a world, we could not hope to receive or retain vivid impressions of all it was our fortune to see. Yet our holyday flight has not been in vain — for above the confusion of vague recollections, certain of its best prized pictures lift themselves and will still continue perfect in tint and outline after their surroundings shall have faded away.
John Locke
in Letters Concerning Toleration, Latin orig. 1689 (J. Brook: 1796), pp. 29-66.
John Locke here sets a clear purpose: "to
distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of
religion, and to settle
the just bounds that lie between the one and the other". Specifically,
the concern of the state is the commonwealth, especially the protection
of property, and the just use of force to that end. The concern of the
church, on the other hand, is the care of souls, to which force is
ill-suited. What is essential is toleration: the state's toleration of
the church, and each sect's toleration of another. Indeed, Locke argues
that the mark of any truly Christian church will be toleration; this,
because of Christ's "Gospel of peace" and of the impossibility of
forced belief. "Whatever profession we make,
to whatever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied
in our own mind that the one is true, ... such profession and such
practice, far from being any furtherance,
are indeed great obstacles to our salvation." Whenever a church or
minister reaches for powers of the state, the
power to dispossess others of freedom or property, their true ambition
is betrayed, "what they desire is temporal dominion". State authority
is also circumscribed, "The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate,
because his power consists only in outward force: but true
and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind..."
It is refreshing to see in Locke that the obvious incongruity of
Christian coercion is not a recent realization. For example, Locke
notes Jesus' prediction that Christians will suffer persecution, but
far be it that Christians become persecutors, to "force others by fire
and sword, to embrace her
faith and doctrine". One could object to Locke's claim that "the only
business of the
church is the salvation of souls", if that in effect precludes the
church working towards a just and civil society in the here and now.
Nonetheless, Locke's argument, rooted in Christian ideals and natural
law, is rightly credited for the delineation of church and state
authority that later emerged in America. ~ Nate
"Political Theory and the Postmodern Politics of Ambiguity" in Political Theory and Partisan Politics (SUNY Press: 2000), pp. 180-1.
I have argued that if the ambiguists mean to be subversive about anything, they need to be conservative about some things. They need to be steadfast supporters of the structures of openness and democracy: willing to say "no" to certain forms of contest; willing to set up clear limitations about acceptable behavior. To this, finally, I would add that if the ambiguists mean to stretch the boundaries of behavior — if they want to be revolutionary and disruptive in their skepticism and iconoclasm — they need first to be firm believers in something. Which is to say, again, they need to set clear limits about what they will and will not support, what they do and do not believe to be best.
... In other words, a refusal to judge among ideas and activities is,
in the end, an endorsement of the status quo. To embrace everything is
to be unable to embrace a particular plan of action, for to embrace a
particular plan of action is to reject all others, at least for that
moment. Moreover, as observed in our discussion of openness, to embrace
everything is to embrace self-contradiction: to hold to both one's
purposes and to that which defeats one's purposes — to tolerance and
intolerance, open-mindedness and close-mindedness, democracy and
tyranny.
"A More Perfect Union", delivered in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or
excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is
not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this
episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss
Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed
Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as
harboring some deep-seated racial bias. But
race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore
right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright
made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and
stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts
reality.
Russell H. Dilday on Moderation said...
Higher Ground: A Call for Christian Civility (Smyth & Helwys Publishing: 2007), p. 104.
But moderation is not necessarily synonymous with lukewarm moral weakness. The word "moderate" and its noun form "moderation" actually convey something admirable when applied to civility in public discourse. The classic meaning of moderation is a position that avoids excesses and extremes; that is, temperate, restrained, prudent, fair, and reasonable. A moderate believes that the truth usually lies in the "golden mean" between extremes. Moderates aim for judicious tolerance, a calm willingness to listen to and consider the conviction of those with whom they disagree. Without surrendering convictions, moderation seeks truth in the center, which is not always marked by a cowardly "yellow stripe." The "radical middle," as Gordon Fee calls it, is not bland neutrality, but it's the path that avoids the dangerous ditches on either side of the road. It's a courageous position held by people some have called "flaming moderates."
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Ignatius Press: Oct 31, 2004), 284 pages.
Is truth knowable? If we know the truth, must we hide it in the name of tolerance? Cardinal Ratzinger engages the problem of truth, tolerance, religion and culture in the modern world. Describing the vast array of world religions, Ratzinger embraces the difficult challenge of meeting diverse understandings of spiritual truth while defending the Catholic teaching of salvation through Jesus Christ. "But what if it is true?" is the question that he poses to cultures that decry the Christian position on man's redemption. Upholding the notion of religious truth while asserting the right of religious freedom, Cardinal Ratzinger outlines the timeless teaching of the Magisterium in language that resonates with our embattled culture. A work of extreme sensitivity, understanding, and spiritual maturity, this book is an invaluable asset to those who struggle to hear the voice of truth in the modern religious world. ~ Product Description
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (W.W. Norton & Co.: 2004), p. 46.
Given the link between belief and action, it is clear that we can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene. There are still a number of cultures in which the germ theory of disease has yet to put in an appearance, where people suffer from a debilitating ignorance on most matters relevant to their physical health. Do we "tolerate" these beliefs? Not if they put our own health in jeopardy.
The End of Faith (Norton: Aug. 2004), pp. 18-19.
The only reason why anyone is "moderate" in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought... The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside. The moderation we see among nonfundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt.
Thomas More (Penguin Group: May 2003), 176 pages.
Sixteenth-century classic by English ecclesiastic and scholar envisioned a tolerant, patriarchal island kingdom free of private property, violence, bloodshed and vice. Forerunner of many later attempts. Since its publication in 1516, Utopia has provoked a hailstorm of debate. The minute details More ascribed to his "perfect world" make Utopia still a work of the future. • "There were utopias before this book that Thomas More wrote in the early 1500s, including Plato's Republic. This, however, is the book that gives us the word 'Utopia.' The book is brief, barely over 100 pages, and only 60-some describe the place itself. That is enough, and makes me nostalgic for the habit of writing briefly and to the point. It's easy to sum up More's heaven-on-earth in a few words. It portrays a communal, democratic society. It is paradoxically unregulated and tightly regulated — overwhelmingly, More's citizens just want to do what is best for their society, and that covers a remarkably narrow range of possibilities. There are, of course, some who break the laws of the land, and More deals with them harshly. "Harsh" is a relative term, though, and his punishments were hardly harsh in a day when it was a hanging offense to steal a loaf of bread for your starving family. It's also a strongly religious society. Religious tolerance is a matter of law, a novelty by the standards of More's day and the standard of his own behavior. 'Tolerance', however, meant tolerance of any monotheism that wasn't too animistic, and certainly didn't tolerate the unreligious. This translation from More's original Latin is modern and smoothly readable. Even so, I wonder how another translator would have handled some of More's neologistic names, like the unpleasant 'Venalians' who are the Utopians' neighbors. No answer is right, but other renderings may convey more and grate less. Those are quibbles, though. It's a good book as well as being a Great Book, and casts an interesting shadow into modern communism, theocracy, and ideas of the good life. I recommend it highly." ~ wiredweird at Amazon.com
David Heyd (Princeton University Press: July 1998), 280 pages.
If we are to understand the concept of toleration in terms of everyday life, we must address a key philosophical and political tension: the call for restraint when encountering apparently wrong beliefs and actions versus the good reasons for interfering with the lives of the subjects of these beliefs and actions. This collection contains original contributions to the ongoing debate on the nature of toleration, including its definition, historical development, justification, and limits. In exploring the issues surrounding toleration, the essays address a variety of provocative questions. Is toleration a moral virtue of individuals or rather a pragmatic political compromise? Is it an intrinsically good principle or only a "second best-solution" to the dangers of fanaticism to be superseded one day by the full acceptance of others? Does the value of toleration lie in respect to individuals and their autonomy, or rather in the recognition of the right of minority groups to maintain their communal identity? Throughout, the contributors point to the inherent indeterminacy of the concept and to the difficulty in locating it between intolerant absolutism and skeptical pluralism. Religion, sex, speech, and education are major areas requiring toleration in liberal societies. By applying theoretical analysis, these essays show the differences in the argument for toleration and its scope in each of these realms. ~ Product Description
Miroslav Volf (Abingdon Press: 1996), 336 pages.
Life at the end of the twentieth century presents us with a disturbing reality. Otherness, the simple fact of being different in some way, has come to be defined as in and of itself evil. Miroslav Volf contends that if the healing word of the gospel is to be heard today, Christian theology must find ways of speaking that address the hatred of the other. Reaching back to the New Testament metaphor of salvation as reconciliation, Volf proposes the idea of embrace as a theological response to the problem of exclusion. Increasingly we see that exclusion has become the primary sin, skewing our perceptions of reality and causing us to react out of fear and anger to all those who are not within our (ever-narrowing) circle. In light of this, Christians must learn that salvation comes, not only as we are reconciled to God, and not only as we "learn to live with one another," but as we take the dangerous and costly step of opening ourselves to the other, of enfolding him or her in the same embrace with which we have been enfolded by God.
"To the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island", August 1790, in Peter Wiernik, History of the Jews in America (New York: 1931), pp. 99-101.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud
themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and
liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike
liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more
that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class
of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural
rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives
to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only
that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as
good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support ...
May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land
continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants,
while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and
there shall be none to make him afraid. May the Father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths and make us all in our several vocations useful here and, in His own due time and way, everlastingly happy.
On Liberty (Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer: 1863), pp. 144-7.
Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is
answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations
from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return
for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it
indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of
conduct towards
the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests
of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express
legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as
rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed
on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for
defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These
conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who
endeavor to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do.
The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due
consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating
any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly
punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a
person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society
has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare
will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to
discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question
when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides
himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons
concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding).
In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.
On Liberty (Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer: 1863), pp. 36-43.
We
can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility...
On Liberty (Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer: 1863), pp. 28-9.
The liberty
of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a
different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an
individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much
importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part
on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life
to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such
consequences as may follow; without impediment from our
fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even
though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.
Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty,
within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to
unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.
No
society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is
free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely
free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way,
so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their
efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health,
whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by
suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by
compelling each to live as seems good to the rest. Though this doctrine is anything but new, and, to some persons, may
have the air of a truism, there is no doctrine which stands more
directly opposed to the general tendency of existing opinion and
practice. Society has expended fully as much effort in the attempt
(according to its lights) to compel people to conform to its notions of
personal, as of social excellence.
On Liberty (Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer: 1863), p. 95.
If all mankind minus one, were
of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than
he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to
the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a
private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was
inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of
silencing the expression of an
opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the
existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more
than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of
the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.