Jump to content

Toleration: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Popular misconceptions: Edited Chesterton quote
Erpel13 (talk | contribs)
40 edits
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:CrossMenorahOxford 20051225KaihsuTai.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Christian cross|cross]] of the [[war memorial]] and a [[menorah]] for [[Hanukkah]] coexist in [[Oxford]].]]
{{Mergeto|tolerance|date=July 2006}}
'''Toleration''' is an [[individual]] and [[collective]] [[attitude (psychology)|attitude]] and a [[practice]] of allowing people to be and act differently from oneself or one's group. It is often seen in terms of [[religious toleration]], a.k.a. religious tolerance.


'''Religious toleration''' is the condition of accepting or permitting others' [[religion|religious]] beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own.
:[T]oleration is the virtue of refraining from exercising one's power to interfere with others' opinion or action although that deviates from one's own over something important and although one morally disapproves of it." (Nicholson 1985)


In a country with a [[state religion]], ''toleration'' means that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. Historically, toleration has been a contentious issue within many religions as well as between one religion and another. At issue is not merely whether other faiths should be permitted, but also whether a ruler who is a believer may practice or permit tolerance. In the [[Middle Ages]], toleration of [[Judaism]] was a contentious issue throughout [[Christendom]]. Today, there are concerns about toleration of [[Christianity]] in [[Islamic law|Islamic states]] (see also [[dhimmi]]).
In terms of a definition.
*To tolerate requires having the '''''power''''' to dissuade an action or belief. We do not "tolerate" something if we can’t do anything about it. Because it concerns [[Power (sociology)|power]], toleration is a [[political]] concept. Ultimately, therefore, questions of toleration appeal to action or inaction on the part of a governing [[authority]]. The [[state]] has a [[monopoly]] on coercive power and can therefore exert the most coercive influence against whatever it refuses to tolerate. But it can also limit the coercive influence of non-governmental groups or individuals against things they don't want to tolerate.
*To tolerate something we must '''''refuse to use that power'''''. To use our power to stop something is to refuse to tolerate it.
*To tolerate something it must have some '''''importance'''''. Toleration concerns issues considered to be of consequence. Generally speaking, we don’t "tolerate" people who wear several kinds of plaid at the same time, for example, or who have other trivial differences with us.
*To tolerate something it must involve a '''''[[deviance|deviation]]''''' from our own position. There is disagreement.
*To tolerate is to consider an opinion or action '''''wrong'''''. We do not tolerate something if we are indifferent about it. Nor do we tolerate those things that we see as good.


For individuals, religious toleration generally means an attitude of acceptance towards other people's religions. It does not mean that one views other religions as equally true; merely that others have the right to hold and practice their beliefs. [[Proselytism]] can be a contentious issue; it can be regarded as an offense against the validity of others' religions, or as an expression of one's own faith.
Specifically, to tolerate an opinion or an action it must be something of which we '''''[[morally]] disapprove'''''. This qualification builds on the previous one and eliminates disagreements over issues that are important but not moral. You and I may disagree concerning whose football team is superior, and the question may be of great importance to us both. But this is probably not a moral disagreement and therefore does not concern toleration.


==Timeline==
To tolerate is a '''''virtue'''''. But what kind of [[virtue]]? It is a form of [[wisdom]] ([[prudence]]). Although the thing tolerated is seen as morally wrong, it is seen as wise not to stop it, all things considered. These other considerations might include concern over civil strife, harm to the person otherwise coerced, or worries over the consequences should the political fortunes change.
*[[303]], [[February 24]] - [[Galerius]], [[List of Roman Emperors|Roman Emperor]], decreed the persecution of [[Christianity|Christians]] in his portion of the Empire.
*[[1552]] - first English [[Act of Uniformity]]
*[[1571]], [[January 11]] - religious toleration was granted to Austrian nobles;
*[[1573]], [[January 28]] - [[Warsaw Confederation]] granting religious toleration;
*[[1598]], [[April 13]] - King [[Henry IV of France]] issued the [[Edict of Nantes]], allowing religious toleration of the [[Huguenot]]s;
*[[1609]], [[July 6]] - [[Bohemia]] was granted religious toleration;
*[[1657]], [[April 20]] - [[New Amsterdam]] granted religious toleration to [[Jew]]s;
*[[1685]], October - the [[Edict of Fontainebleau]] was issued, revoking the Edict of Nantes and making Protestantism illegal in France.
*[[1689]], [[Act of Toleration]] - England
*[[1829]], [[April 13]] - [[British Parliament]] granted [[Catholic Emancipation]] in the spirit of religious toleration;
*[[1864]] - [[Pope Pius IX]] condemned as an error the belief that "[e]very man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Pope Pius IX. (1864). Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. In the ''[[Syllabus of Errors]],'' http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM)
*[[1988]], [[April 29]] - in the spirit of [[Glasnost]], [[Soviet Union]] leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] promised increased religious toleration.


==See also==
In light of this analysis, there are several popular misconceptions concerning toleration.
*[[Freedom of religion]]
*[[Status of religious freedom by country]]
*[[State religion]]
*[[Religious pluralism]]
*[[State church]]
*[[Tolerance]]


== Popular misconceptions ==
== Further reading ==
* {{cite book
'''''"To tolerate others, you must be willing to doubt your own beliefs. If you are sure that you are right, you will not tolerate others."'''''
| last = Beneke
| first = Chris
| title = Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism
| date = 2006-09-20
| publisher = Oxford University Press, USA
| id = ISBN 0-19-530555-8
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Coffey
| first = John
| title = Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558-1689
| date = 2000
| publisher = Longman Publishing Group
| location =
| language = English
| id = ISBN 0-582-30465-2
}}
*{{cite book
| last = Curry
| first = Thomas J.
| title = Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment
| date = 1989-12-19
| publisher = Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (December 19, 1989)
| id = ISBN 0-19-505181-5
}}
*{{cite book
| editor = Grell, Ole Peter, and Roy Porter
| title = Toleration in Enlightenment Europe
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| location = Cambridge
| year = 2000
| id = ISBN 978-0521651967
}}
* {{cite book
| last = Hamilton
| first = Marci A.
| others = Edward R. Becker (Foreword
| title = God vs. the Gavel : Religion and the Rule of Law
| date = 2005-06-17
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| id = ISBN 0-521-85304-4
}}
*{{cite book
| last = Hanson
| first = Charles P.
| title = Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England
| year = 1998
| publisher = University Press of Virginia
| id = ISBN 0813917948
}}
*{{cite book
| editor = Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary
| title = Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment
| year = 1997
| month = December
| publisher = University of Pennsylvania Press (December 1997)
| id = ISBN 0-8122-3331-X
}}
*{{cite book
| last = Murphy
| first = Andrew R.
| title = Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America
| year = 2001
| month = July
| publisher = Pennsylvania State University Press
| id = ISBN 0-271-02105-5
}}
*{{cite book
| last = Zagorin
| first = Perez
| title = How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West
| year = 2003
| publisher = Princeton University Press
| id = ISBN 0-691-12142-7
}}


==External links==
Toleration can never be based in [[skepticism]]. Toleration is always based in what we believe, not in what we doubt. To refuse to take a position on the rightness or wrongness of an opinion or practice gives no reasons concerning how to respond to that opinion or practice, one way or another. For this reason, [[G. K. Chesterton]]'s assertion--"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions"--is wrong by definition. (Other related misconceptions: ''"Toleration means not judging other people's actions." "Right and wrong are a matter of personal opinion. We should all just tolerate other people’s beliefs."'')
{{wikiquote}}

*[http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/miscinfo/carta.htm Background to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
'''''"Genuine toleration is a matter of [[principle]], not of [[prudential]] considerations."'''''
*[http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm Text of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights]

*[http://www.jw-media.org/rights/european_court.htm Jehovah's witnesses: European Court of Human rights, Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Association in Europe]
To the contrary, the decision to tolerate is ''always'' based on a prudential consideration, except for those who refuse ''all'' coercion as a matter of principle (e.g., [[Radicalism|radical]] [[pacifists]]). To claim that that some authority has the right to coerce is to claim that some things should not be tolerated (e.g., theft or murder). To claim that something should be tolerated is to claim that it is wrong, but should be permitted.
*[http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ncr/7vipiii.htm ''Vindicated by Time: The Niyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities'']: vol I.3 chapter I

* {{cite web
The assertion that toleration is based in principle, like many other misconceptions on the concept of toleration, involves a confusion of terms, or involves using the term in two ways. Those who advocate toleration as a principle are often in fact demanding freedom for opinions and practices that they find unobjectionable. Whether they are right or wrong to think so, their appeal for "toleration" by those who ''do'' object to the opinion or practice is actually an appeal for freedom concerning something that they themselves are not tolerating. They are not tolerating it, strictly speaking, because they do not believe that it is wrong. The appeal may gloss this difference of opinion over the permissibility of the opinion or action at issue and leverage the emotional reactions that "intolerance" carries.
| title = Religious Tolerance Roundtables

| work = Human Rights website of the Church of Scientology International
Notice, however, that none of the above yet helps us take a position on which opinions or actions should be tolerated.
| publisher = [[Church of Scientology]]

| url = http://www.scientology.org/humanrights/photo/religious-tolerance-roundtables/index.htm
== Why tolerate? ==
| accessdate = 2006-10-12 }}
Since to tolerate is to refuse to stop something immoral, some have condemned toleration. If something is wrong, they say, then it should not be tolerated. This position is extreme and can be reduced to absurdity. Not all wrongs should be considered crimes. It is wrong to insult someone unjustly, for example, but we rarely prosecute this behavior, and we are right not to do so.
* {{cite web

| title = Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
But if some opinion or action is morally wrong and it is important, then why should it be permitted? And how do we decide what to tolerate?
| work = Various information on sensible religious topics

| publisher = [[Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance]]
Political life in the real world involves compromises and trade-offs in the goods we want to achieve, both material and non-material. Toleration involves ranking things that are important to us. Some things are more important than others. Protecting the well-being of those close to us is more important than enforcing our preference in hair styles, for example.
| url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/}}

*{{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Religious_Tolerance/|Religious Tolerance}}
Whatever our ranking of goods, we only tolerate something we consider morally wrong if stopping that moral wrong would do harm to something of a higher rank. Of course, both the ranking and the calculation of harm are highly controversial and dynamic.
*[http://www.religiousfreedom.com/conference/Germany/stango.htm History of Religious Tolerance]

*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' "Religious Toleration"]
Do we tolerate littering, for example? In many countries the punishment for littering is relatively small. The cost of ''completely'' eliminating it is considered too great. In one country, however, people caught littering may be beaten with a bamboo cane, or otherwise publicly humiliated.
*[http://firmstand.org/ The Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities]

*[http://projecttolerance.org Project Tolerance]
There is another way to say this: we tolerate ''means'' in order to protect ''ends''. Any political structure, governmental or non-governmental, only tolerates what it calls evil if it believes that not to tolerate it would "cost" more.
[[Category:Human rights|Religion]]

[[Category:Religion and politics]]
On any moral understanding, then, "Evils must be tolerated in just those cases where their suppression would involve equal or greater hindrance to goods of the same order, or any hindrance at all to goods of higher order. More briefly (and less exactly): true tolerance is the protection of ends against means." (Budziszewski 1992: 269) We tolerate evils in order to protect goods.

So toleration requires judgment. This judgment is always debatable.

==Historically important documents ==
(Listed chronologically)
*[[Magna Carta]]
*[[John Milton]], ''[[Areopagitica]]''
*[[John Locke]], ''[[A Letter Concerning Toleration]]'' and the famous ''[[Two Treatises of Government]]'' (esp. the ''Second Treatise'')
*[[Bill of Rights]], the first ten [[amendments]] to the [[United States]] [[Constitution]]
*[[John Stuart Mill]], ''[[On Liberty]]''
*[[Dignitatis Humanae]]

== References and further reading ==
*Beneke, Chris (2006) ''Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press).
*Budziszewski, J. (1992) ''True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgement'' (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers).
*Kamen, Henry (1967), ''The Rise of Toleration'' (New York: McGraw-Hill).
*Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary, eds. (1997) ''Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
*Mendus, Susan and Edwards, David, eds. (1987) ''On Toleration'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
*Mendus, Susan, ed. (1988) ''Justifying Toleration: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives'' (New York: Cambridge University Press).
*Mendus, Susan (1989) ''Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism'' (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press).
*Murphy, Andrew R. (2001) ''Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America'' (College Park: Penn State University Press).
*Nicholson, Peter P. (1985) "Toleration as a Moral Ideal" in ''Aspects of Toleration: Philosophical Studies'' ed. John Horton and Susan Mendus (New York: Methuan).
*Walzer, Michael (1999) ''On Toleration'' (New Haven: Yale University Press).
*Zagorin, Perez (2003) ''How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

(Many of these authors are associated with the [Morrell Studies] in Toleration in the department of Politics at the [University of York] (UK).)

==See also==
*[[Pluralism]]
*[[Diversity]]


[[no:Religiøs toleranse]]
[[Category:Political terms]]
[[pl:Tolerancja religijna]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Social philosophy]]
[[Category:Social psychology]]

Revision as of 18:05, 23 January 2007

The cross of the war memorial and a menorah for Hanukkah coexist in Oxford.

Religious toleration is the condition of accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own.

In a country with a state religion, toleration means that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. Historically, toleration has been a contentious issue within many religions as well as between one religion and another. At issue is not merely whether other faiths should be permitted, but also whether a ruler who is a believer may practice or permit tolerance. In the Middle Ages, toleration of Judaism was a contentious issue throughout Christendom. Today, there are concerns about toleration of Christianity in Islamic states (see also dhimmi).

For individuals, religious toleration generally means an attitude of acceptance towards other people's religions. It does not mean that one views other religions as equally true; merely that others have the right to hold and practice their beliefs. Proselytism can be a contentious issue; it can be regarded as an offense against the validity of others' religions, or as an expression of one's own faith.

Timeline

See also

Further reading

  • Beneke, Chris (2006-09-20). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
  • Coffey, John (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558-1689. Longman Publishing Group. ISBN 0-582-30465-2.
  • Curry, Thomas J. (1989-12-19). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (December 19, 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
  • Grell, Ole Peter, and Roy Porter, ed. (2000). Toleration in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521651967.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • Hamilton, Marci A. (2005-06-17). God vs. the Gavel : Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
  • Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0813917948.
  • Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary, ed. (1997). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press (December 1997). ISBN 0-8122-3331-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • Murphy, Andrew R. (2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Zagorin, Perez (2003). How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12142-7.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Toleration.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toleration&oldid=102708651"