Tolerance

Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve. It is closely related to the political concept of toleration. Authoritarian systems practice intolerance, the opposite of tolerance. Tolerance is seen as a more widely acceptable term than "acceptance" and particularly "respect," where the application to controversial parties is concerned. Respect has two quite distinct meanings which are often confused to the detriment of commonsense: see respect. Tolerance implies both the ability to punish and the conscious decision not to. It is usually applied to non-violent, consensual behavior, often involving religion, sex, or politics. It rarely permits violent behavior.

In the wider sociological sense, "tolerance" carries with it the understanding that "intolerance" and conformity breeds violence and social instability. "Tolerance" has thus become the social term of choice to define the practical rationale of permitting uncommon social practice and diversity. One only tolerates people who are disliked for their differences. While people deemed undesirable may be disapproved of, "tolerance" would require that the party or group in question be left undisturbed, physically or otherwise, and that criticism directed toward them be free of inflammatory or inciteful efforts.

Politics and religion
Historically, political and religious tolerance have been the most important aspects of tolerance, since differences of political and religious ideology have led to innumerable wars, purges and other atrocities. The philosophers and writers of the enlightenment, especially Voltaire and Lessing, promoted religious tolerance, and their influence is strongly felt in Western society (see pluralism). Unfortunately, they failed to treat with sufficient rigor the equally important issue of political tolerance. While a lack religious tolerance causes problems in many regions of the world today, differences of political ideology caused hundreds of millions of deaths in the twentieth century alone. A desideratum of contemporary scholarship, therefore, is to develop a more expansive critical theory of political toleration. Some feel this is particularly urgent in the West, where the influence of religion in public policy making continues to decline, especially in Europe but also in North America.

It is a common charge among critics that tolerance is only a "modern virtue" or a "secular virtue." A related issue is the defense of historical figures accused of intolerant acts (i.e. anti-Semitism or witch-burning). Such criticisms are at least partially answered by the many examples of prominently "tolerant" individuals and societies throughout world history, such as the multi-religious society of Al Andalus (Spain) under the rule of the Umayyads and Almoravids, the early Ottoman Empire, Abraham Lincoln (insofar as he consciously changed the purpose of the American Civil War from mere reunification of the nation to one of granting equal citizenship to all Americans) and, at least early in her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England.

Tolerating the intolerant
However, the unattributed quote "there's only one thing I can't tolerate - and that's intolerance" illustrates that there are limits to tolerance.

In particular, should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant. Issues that are controversial in various countries include the separation of church and state, homosexuality, the consumption of tobacco, alcoholic beverages and other drugs, reading disapproved political tracts, and deviant sexual acts as well as the correct reaction to disorderly conduct and misdemeanours (for example, see zero tolerance policy).

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant, therefore the intolerant must be tolerated for otherwise the society would then be intolerant and so unjust. However Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

Similarly, continues Rawls, while the intolerant might forfeit the right to complain when they are not tolerated, other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty, to complain on their behalf, again as long as society itself is not endangered by these intolerant members. The ACLU is a good example of a social institution that protects the intolerant, as it frequently defends the right to free speech of such intolerant organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

Tolerance as a virtue
As an Aristotelian virtue, tolerance is a middleground between softheadedness on the one hand (overtolerance) and narrow mindedness on the other (undertolerance).