D
The word tolerance is widely used in liberal democracies. It indicates a positive meaning. Politicians urge us to be tolerant towards minorities. Educators teach us to be tolerant towards the other. The press is full of references to the need to display tolerance when faced with individuals or groups espousing a different view or holding a different religious belief. A tolerant society is an objective sought after by anyone who believes in the values of democracy. A tolerant individual is attributed with virtuous qualities.
The question we must ask is whether we have been using the word tolerance fully aware of its meaning and whether we have applied it correctly to reflect what we really wish to convey?
The word tolerance means to bear, or to bear with. If I tolerate something or someone, I basically say that I am ready to bear it or him. I can tolerate a bad smell or a noisy neighbor. The act of toleration forces me to desist from conveying my objection to the existence of a phenomenon, which I find difficult to bear. A bad smell or a noisy neighbor is considered by me to be an objectionable phenomenon. By tolerating either of them, I am not transforming the bad smell or the noisy neighbor into positive phenomena. Let's be honest: I don't have a different taste when it comes to bad smells. I simply dislike it and wish that it disappears. I don't respect the noisy neighbor. I would rather have him stop at once the noise he is making so I can live in peace.
To try to remove the bad smell or take reasonable action in order for the noisy neighbor to stop bothering me would most probably not be considered an intolerant act by most people.
Now, let's try to apply the word tolerance in reference to a person who is law-abiding and holds a legally acceptable different view from my own. I may have a strong view, which is opposed to his. Quite frankly, I may decide to tolerate his view. By so doing, I would be attributing to it a negative characteristic. I would apply the same attitude to his view as to the bad smell or noisy neighbor. Thus, to try to take action in order to make his view disappear would be considered an intolerant act. To tolerate his view the way I would a bad smell or a noisy neighbor, could hardly be considered virtuous.
The subject tolerating is by nature not equal to the object being tolerated. If I tolerate you, I essentially say that I am above you and am prepared, although unwillingly, to bear with your presence or with your practices or opinions. That may be true in the case of an individual who is ready to tolerate the other. However, this attitude by such an individual, though empirically true, is hardly a virtue. Certainly, the fact that an individual, in reality, may merely tolerate the other or his opinion does not justify a government or any official authority promoting tolerance as a virtue. One cannot tolerate an equal being. True equality involves respect, not toleration. To respect the other as a distinctive person is hardly to tolerate him. This is the true meaning of equality: diversity existing in a mutually-respectful socio-legal setting.
The danger with tolerance is that it can lead to the acceptance of individuals or groups bent on destroying the foundations of democratic systems. We have seen such cases with regard to political parties or destructive religious groups that have been treated in a liberal manner under the guise of tolerance.
A tolerant attitude involves the grant of a favor, not a right. The question we should ask ourselves is whether we would ever wish a parliament to make laws according to us, as individuals and as part of a collective entity or a permission to pursue certain actions interpreted as a favor rather than a right? Indeed, would we ever wish anyone to listen to our views and accept us the way we are simply because he is kind enough to tolerate us?