We Can Build a Beautiful City: A Free Society Requires Tolerance (Part Three)
This is the third of a four-part series called “We Can Build a Beautiful City.”
How do we build a beautiful city when we are so divided and increasingly hostile to each other? In this four-part series, I am seeking to address a set of challenges that will hinder our ability to rebuild our communities: outsourcing, ambivalence, intolerance, and tribalism.
There are solutions to each of these challenges that require courage and creativity.
The solution to outsourcing: Each of us must take personal responsibility for our collective freedoms
The solution to ambivalence: Each of us must hold firm and true to our personal beliefs
The solution to intolerance: Each of us must tolerate disagreement
The solution to tribalism: Each of us must desire to be a blessing to all
In the first part of this series, I proposed that each one of us, as individuals and as local people, need to take responsibility to solve those complex issues our governmental institutions cannot. Legislation has its limits. Further, our local communities should not be held captive to the divisive national rhetoric. We can and should tackle vital issues head-on together.
In the second part of the series, I encouraged our communities not to give in to the spirit of ambivalence and apathy, but seek the truth together. We need not fear where the truth will take us because finding the truth will set us free. Individuals and groups need to be free from the fear of holding and expressing their beliefs. This free expression of belief will enable us to have civil dialogue and learn together so that our communities might grow and thrive.
The beautiful city is not void of disagreement, but she is free
“We should not be frightened by the prospect of disagreement, but welcome it as one of the gifts of a free society.”
We need not be naive about the pursuit of truth. Civil dialogue can lead us to better understanding, empathy, and even compromise, but there will inevitably be disagreements. We should not be frightened by the prospect of disagreement, but welcome it as one of the gifts of a free society.
Each of us comes to crucial dialogue with preexisting beliefs, presuppositions on which our beliefs rest, and even implicit bias and blind spots. The pursuit of truth is necessary to eliminate bias and prejudice. The truth will set us free!
A beautiful city is one brimming with peace, diversity, equality, and freedom. The continuation of such a society is tenuous at best. If we are not careful to nurture the right practices of tolerance, forms of intolerance will emerge.
One of my former seminary professors used to say, “Heresy is the unpaid bills of the Church.” When we have not pursued the truth, questioning it, considering all angles and perspectives, heterodox beliefs emerge. This is especially true when questions are shut down. Heterodox means “not conforming to orthodox (ie right and true) beliefs.”
His point was that when the Church neglects to teach the full truth and stifles the discovery of it, wrong and false beliefs start to form. Intolerance of questions does not lead to more truth but to deeper error.
“A beautiful city is one brimming with peace, diversity, equality, and freedom”
There is a type of dogmatic intolerance in our communities that will become destructive if left unchecked. Such intolerance creates enemies instead of pursuing peace. It seeks to force and coerce uniformity of thought, belief, and practice, instead of valuing diversity and freedom of conscience.
Unchecked, intolerance can create new social hierarchies of authority figures and a new class of subjects who are forced to think like those with power. Intolerance can lead to the obliteration of freedom.
Free people should be suspicious of those who seek to oppress dissent and disagreement. Refusal to defend other’s rights to free conscience may result in the loss of your own freedoms.
A free society necessitates degrees of tolerance and toleration
Free societies encourage tolerant attitudes and enshrine practices of toleration.
Definitions of tolerance suggest that it is more attitude than action. “I respect your difference of religious belief even though I disagree.”
Toleration is a more permissive action in practice. “Turkey tolerates the practice of Christianity in its country.” A society can have widely held beliefs considered “orthodox” (ie “It is good to be generous”) while tolerating what it considers “heterodox” (ie Ebenezer Scrooge is greedy and mean but allowed to be so).
An important distinction is in order. The public square in the US does not operate in a hierarchical or vertical manner, that is one in which there are superior authorities who dictate and enforce social orthodoxy to inferiors. In such an arrangement, the authority would have to “permit” dissent by society’s inferiors. One might think of the Roman Catholic Church or various denominations as hierarchical institutions that may or may not permit its ministers or members to hold differing beliefs from the Church. Such institutions hold the power of ex-communication to cut off the dissent of their members.
Instead, our public square operates on a horizontal model of coexistence. The Constitution enables everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The First Amendment guarantees the pursuit of religious beliefs: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Though not necessarily binding on US citizens, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Our conception of tolerance and toleration are horizontal and not vertical. Because we desire mutual peace, diversity, equality, and freedom, we choose to horizontally coexist with each other by tolerating disagreement with each other.
Tolerance does not equal approval or affirmation
There are a variety of choices we have to make as we assess ideas and beliefs in a free society.
We affirm beliefs and practices (ie “We ascent, approve, endorse, and promote X belief”)
We tolerate beliefs and practices (ie “We disagree and object to X belief but are willing to live with and honor the right of others to affirm it”)
We reject beliefs and practices (ie “We disagree and object to X belief, may tolerate such beliefs, but will block and outlaw practices that threaten the safety and security of other people”)
It is important that we do not confuse affirmation and tolerance. Tolerance cannot and does not necessarily mean that we approve or affirm varying beliefs. Tolerance is a separate choice from affirmation.
This important distinction is highlighted in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy:
First, it is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44–54 on the components of toleration) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.”
Did you notice the importance of upholding that some beliefs are objectionable? If this prospect is eliminated, then we are left with only two options: indifference, or what I would suggest could be rejection (ie “I don’t care about your belief and therefore forcibly reject it”), or affirmation (ie “I endorse your belief”).
Tolerance in a horizontally coexistent and free society does not mean that you have to affirm or even like my Christian beliefs, practices, and ethics. It simply means that you do not infringe on, but rather respect my freedom. I choose to do the same for my non-Christian neighbors.
Intolerance is dangerous in the free market of ideas
A free society that seeks the horizontal coexistence of its members is tenuous to uphold. This is especially true in an age when so much information and analysis is available at our fingertips. This has become a pressing cultural question with the awareness that big tech companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have substantial power to remove or silence dissent.
One might argue that we have a duty to stop the dissemination of lies and misinformation. At the same time, others might propose that we should be careful how far we allow the reach of organizations who control public dialogue to stamp out dissent.
I believe there are ideas, beliefs, and practices that are morally unacceptable, objectionable, and even repugnant. Racism is wrong. So are sexism and classism. Should we allow people to hold these beliefs even if they are disgusting beliefs? The Constitution allows the freedom of speech and conscience.
What the Constitution does not protect is the use of your belief to harm other people. We tolerate beliefs that we find objectionable, but we reject practices that are hurtful, harmful, or infringe on another person’s rights or civil liberties.
Should we be intolerant and reject more beliefs that we consider dangerous?
Part of the challenge in this horizontal coexistence model is that we may not agree on what is dangerous. Take for instance Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. Harris argues that religion is dangerous and should be rejected and blocked by society. Matthew Simpson notes in his analysis,
Harris' argument for the abolition of religion goes like this: people act based on what they believe, and religious beliefs are especially apt to make people act violently; thus, since the prevention of violence is the overriding ethical imperative, religion should be done away with.
Where would we draw the line? Which authority would determine what beliefs are safe or even orthodox and which beliefs are dangerous and therefore heterodox?
“Should we be intolerant and reject more beliefs that we consider dangerous?”
What if a religious majority gained power and determined that atheism was harmful to individuals? For instance, Albert Camus said, “There is only one really serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that.” Imagine if Camus’ belief led young people to a wave of suicides. Would the religious majority be justified in burning and banning his works?
Intolerance of Camus’ absurdist philosophy would end up crushing diversity of perspective, belief, and analysis. It would kill the prospect of civil dialogue that helps us pursue the truth that frees us. We might miss a valuable perspective that Camus had to offer. Intolerance will lead to the death of inquiry and to the birth of tyranny.
Conflict is inevitable in a free society
The reason tolerance and toleration are so important to uphold in a free society is due to the impossibility of avoiding conflict. In a pluralistic, multi-cultural society that embraces free thought, the free exercise of religion, and even the right to protest its governing bodies, disagreement is inevitable and even encouraged.
“Intolerance will lead to the death of inquiry and to the birth of tyranny.”
There are some ideas and beliefs that will never be relinquished despite the very best efforts at negotiation. Some beliefs will never be given up through compromise. People will literally die for these beliefs.
Unless we are willing to pursue violence or war to eradicate those who hold such beliefs, we only have one choice in a horizontal society: tolerant horizontal coexistence.
Such coexistence is encouraged by Jesus in the parable of the wheat and the tares found in Matthew 13.
He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30, NRSV)
Bishop Wazo of Liege (c. 985–1048) taught from this parable that "the church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge them.”
There is apparently a great danger to the wheat in attempting to pull out the weeds even though it was sowed by the enemy. Jesus embraced coexistent tolerance as the best form of human existence. He recognized that humans are not divine, and therefore limited and potentially dangerous in our pursuit of the truth. That reality should give pause to zealous efforts of forceful coercion.
Embracing tolerance is to trust the power of the truth
The truth will set us free. The truth does not need power, violence, or forceful coercion to win the day. If your argument requires dissent to be crushed so that only one view is favored, then perhaps the argument you are advancing is not that strong. The truth can withstand the onslaught of error.
“Jesus embraced coexistent tolerance as the best form of human existence. He recognized that humans are not divine, and therefore limited and potentially dangerous in our pursuit of the truth.”
I sincerely believe that God exists and that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. I acknowledge that many find these beliefs silly, childish, and laughable. I choose to tolerate this dissent and seek to coexist with people who disagree. Given time and dialogue, I believe my ideas and beliefs will be shown to possess merit and weight. I believe these truths will be compelling to a nonbeliever who seriously considers them.
What will not be persuasive is for me to angrily, forcefully, or violently coerce free minds and consciences to hold my beliefs. To embrace tolerance is to trust the power of the truth.
As we seek to do good in our local communities, we should encourage the free exchange of what we believe is the truth. When we arrive at conflict and disagreement, we should embrace a tolerance that allows us to peacefully coexist.
There is a Latin phrase that I find beautiful and helpful:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
It translates: “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.”
There are essential beliefs on which we should seek unity. This would include fundamental rights and civil liberties that guarantee the life and security of every human being.
There are non-essential matters on which we can disagree and tolerate dissent and disagreement. We can promote varying religious beliefs and economic and political policies. We can look down our noses at people who wear pre-tied bowties because they can’t tie their own. We can advocate for the perfect carpet color in our churches. We can prefer local stores to chains. We show liberty in non-essential matters.
But in all things, we should show charity, kindness, and love. Sebastian Castello concluded:
We can live together peacefully only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith.
It was Voltaire in 1763 who wisely said,
It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?
We can build a beautiful city together even when we disagree. When we respect each other’s freedom and trust in the power of the truth, we have the tools necessary to help us maintain tolerance so that we can enjoy the kind of free society we all long to inhabit.
