HOME | DD

Description
It is often said that tolerance is necessary in a free and democratic society, but there is considerable debate about what tolerance is. One standard is that tolerance means putting up with others and respecting their basic rights. Others regard this as insufficient, and consider almost any expression of negative attitudes on the basis of factors such as race or religion to be intolerant. The focus of this essay is religious tolerance. This is the form of tolerance that was most significant to the founders of the United States. It will become clear, however, that religious tolerance is not as special a case as it may at first seem.

Religious tolerance cannot reasonably be rooted in a belief that all religions are equally correct, or that religious beliefs are somehow above criticism. In fact, it is impossible to offer meaningful commentary without suggesting that at least some religions are wrong on at least some things. Clearly, those who advocate for gay rights are not intolerant simply because in doing so they must oppose the teachings of many religions. Neither are atheists intolerant simply for explaining why they do not believe any religion to be correct, or for pointing out flaws in holy texts. If these things are intolerant, then tolerance is not a virtue. Those who advocate stifling discussion in the name of promoting tolerance are properly regarded as authoritarians. A free society must permit discussion of ideas, including those that are intolerant by any standard.

Tolerance, rightly construed, is not opposed to freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or any other basic freedom. Rather, it is the value that underlies them. A free society promotes the right of people to practice their religion, but not to be protected from criticism of their beliefs. A society that regards one religion's beliefs as above criticism is a theocracy. A society that regards all religious beliefs as above criticism is one where no one is allowed to speak at all. It is no less reasonable or tolerant to be forceful in one's criticisms of religious beliefs than to be forceful in criticizing political or other beliefs. Tolerance, at a basic level, makes such criticisms possible, and when tolerance is interpreted to prohibit such criticisms, it is self-defeating. There are some on the left who would stifle freedom in the name of tolerance and equality. Some feminists believe that they can liberate women by banning them from entering "degrading" professions. This is not tolerance, but ideological insanity. Conservatives often overuse and misuse the term "political correctness", but they are referring to a real phenomenon. Those who would make it a crime to say anything bigoted are not friends of democracy.

Tolerance is about respect. Respect does not mean silent reverence for a person's most irrational beliefs. It is intolerant for France to prohibit people from wearing religious headgear, but it is not intolerant to criticize the practice of wearing a burqa. Those who say it is intolerant to criticize other religions necessarily create a backlash. In a society where tolerance is pitted against freedom, bigots present themselves as freedom fighters. Those who promote the right of all to express their views are far more tolerant than those who seek to ban all hate speech.

Tolerance is necessary for a free society, but to achieve its goals, we must understand what tolerance is, and what it is not. Tolerance is about balancing interests. People are permitted to be racists, but not to discriminate. Discrimination infringes upon equal rights, but holding bigoted beliefs does not. We must avoid turning into the kind of society that has thought police to stamp out all forms of prejudice. The United States is unlikely to take this path, as long as the First Amendment remains intact and the Supreme Court continues to interpret it in something like the current way. The Supreme Court has held, for the last several decades at least, that the First Amendment applies to all levels of government and strongly protects political speech. Laws restricting speech must, by numerous rulings of the Supreme Court, be content neutral. For instance, a law making it illegal to deny the Holocaust would be struck down as failing this test. Several countries that are generally regarded as democratic have precisely such laws.

Freedom of speech has not always been so strongly protected in the United States. The First Amendment begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law". At first, this was taken more or less at face value. Throughout the 19th century, many states made it illegal for atheists to hold public office or testify in court. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bound the federal government but not the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted as extending the Bill of Rights to the states (though a constitutional literalist might challenge this interpretation). Even with this, however, we must be vigilant. Even if the Constitution were amended to expressly apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states and ensure content neutrality, it is not a self-enforcing document. The Supreme Court has stood by on many occasions in the face of blatantly unconstitutional laws or government actions, such as segregation (until well into the 20th century) and the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Tolerance requires a certain level of deference. It requires letting people do things one may not approve of, so long as no one else's rights are violated. Sometimes it means bending a law to accommodate a religious practice. We do not first ask if the underlying religious beliefs are reasonable (in many cases, they are not) but only if their accommodation would undermine the rights of others, including minors within religious communities who cannot stand up for themselves. We do not allow human sacrifice or let children die without medical treatment because it is mandated by some religion. However, we do allow certain exceptions to rules in order to accommodate religion, such as conscientious objector status (which is less relevant now since the military draft has not been used in decades).

One might question if it is unfair not to give similar deference to strongly held nonreligious beliefs, such as those of an atheist who is an ethical vegetarian or strong pacifist. Religious beliefs are often quite strongly held, but many people are barely religious, or do not accept all of the tenets of their religion, and nonreligious people can have beliefs as strongly held as those of the devout. Religious tolerance surely requires accommodating atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious people. However, a proper view of tolerance makes the question easy. If a society is generally intolerant and hostile to freedom, then religious freedom and tolerance must be treated as exceptions. For instance, religious tolerance is a profound issue in our prisons precisely because prisons are rigid and intolerant places. On the other hand, if freedom and tolerance are the norm, then religious freedom and religious tolerance will be nearly automatic. For instance, in a society where people are free to ingest whatever they choose, tolerance for religious diets or the use of drugs in religious ceremonies will be a nonissue. Conscientious objector status is irrelevant in the absence of a military draft. Furthermore, broad freedom may lower resentments by reducing the number of instances in which religious people get what may be seen as special treatment.

Thus, religious freedom and tolerance are best seen not as special protections but as instances of a general value on letting people live as they choose, to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Religious tolerance remains quite relevant, though, in a society where private employment remains as a bastion of authoritarianism. However, religious freedom and tolerance have no place where the practice of religion infringes upon the rights of others.

Description
It is often said that tolerance is necessary in a free and democratic society, but there is considerable debate about what tolerance is. One standard is that tolerance means putting up with others and respecting their basic rights. Others regard this as insufficient, and consider almost any expression of negative attitudes on the basis of factors such as race or religion to be intolerant. The focus of this essay is religious tolerance. This is the form of tolerance that was most significant to the founders of the United States. It will become clear, however, that religious tolerance is not as special a case as it may at first seem.

Religious tolerance cannot reasonably be rooted in a belief that all religions are equally correct, or that religious beliefs are somehow above criticism. In fact, it is impossible to offer meaningful commentary without suggesting that at least some religions are wrong on at least some things. Clearly, those who advocate for gay rights are not intolerant simply because in doing so they must oppose the teachings of many religions. Neither are atheists intolerant simply for explaining why they do not believe any religion to be correct, or for pointing out flaws in holy texts. If these things are intolerant, then tolerance is not a virtue. Those who advocate stifling discussion in the name of promoting tolerance are properly regarded as authoritarians. A free society must permit discussion of ideas, including those that are intolerant by any standard.

Tolerance, rightly construed, is not opposed to freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or any other basic freedom. Rather, it is the value that underlies them. A free society promotes the right of people to practice their religion, but not to be protected from criticism of their beliefs. A society that regards one religion's beliefs as above criticism is a theocracy. A society that regards all religious beliefs as above criticism is one where no one is allowed to speak at all. It is no less reasonable or tolerant to be forceful in one's criticisms of religious beliefs than to be forceful in criticizing political or other beliefs. Tolerance, at a basic level, makes such criticisms possible, and when tolerance is interpreted to prohibit such criticisms, it is self-defeating. There are some on the left who would stifle freedom in the name of tolerance and equality. Some feminists believe that they can liberate women by banning them from entering "degrading" professions. This is not tolerance, but ideological insanity. Conservatives often overuse and misuse the term "political correctness", but they are referring to a real phenomenon. Those who would make it a crime to say anything bigoted are not friends of democracy.

Tolerance is about respect. Respect does not mean silent reverence for a person's most irrational beliefs. It is intolerant for France to prohibit people from wearing religious headgear, but it is not intolerant to criticize the practice of wearing a burqa. Those who say it is intolerant to criticize other religions necessarily create a backlash. In a society where tolerance is pitted against freedom, bigots present themselves as freedom fighters. Those who promote the right of all to express their views are far more tolerant than those who seek to ban all hate speech.

Tolerance is necessary for a free society, but to achieve its goals, we must understand what tolerance is, and what it is not. Tolerance is about balancing interests. People are permitted to be racists, but not to discriminate. Discrimination infringes upon equal rights, but holding bigoted beliefs does not. We must avoid turning into the kind of society that has thought police to stamp out all forms of prejudice. The United States is unlikely to take this path, as long as the First Amendment remains intact and the Supreme Court continues to interpret it in something like the current way. The Supreme Court has held, for the last several decades at least, that the First Amendment applies to all levels of government and strongly protects political speech. Laws restricting speech must, by numerous rulings of the Supreme Court, be content neutral. For instance, a law making it illegal to deny the Holocaust would be struck down as failing this test. Several countries that are generally regarded as democratic have precisely such laws.

Freedom of speech has not always been so strongly protected in the United States. The First Amendment begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law". At first, this was taken more or less at face value. Throughout the 19th century, many states made it illegal for atheists to hold public office or testify in court. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bound the federal government but not the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted as extending the Bill of Rights to the states (though a constitutional literalist might challenge this interpretation). Even with this, however, we must be vigilant. Even if the Constitution were amended to expressly apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states and ensure content neutrality, it is not a self-enforcing document. The Supreme Court has stood by on many occasions in the face of blatantly unconstitutional laws or government actions, such as segregation (until well into the 20th century) and the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Tolerance requires a certain level of deference. It requires letting people do things one may not approve of, so long as no one else's rights are violated. Sometimes it means bending a law to accommodate a religious practice. We do not first ask if the underlying religious beliefs are reasonable (in many cases, they are not) but only if their accommodation would undermine the rights of others, including minors within religious communities who cannot stand up for themselves. We do not allow human sacrifice or let children die without medical treatment because it is mandated by some religion. However, we do allow certain exceptions to rules in order to accommodate religion, such as conscientious objector status (which is less relevant now since the military draft has not been used in decades).

One might question if it is unfair not to give similar deference to strongly held nonreligious beliefs, such as those of an atheist who is an ethical vegetarian or strong pacifist. Religious beliefs are often quite strongly held, but many people are barely religious, or do not accept all of the tenets of their religion, and nonreligious people can have beliefs as strongly held as those of the devout. Religious tolerance surely requires accommodating atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious people. However, a proper view of tolerance makes the question easy. If a society is generally intolerant and hostile to freedom, then religious freedom and tolerance must be treated as exceptions. For instance, religious tolerance is a profound issue in our prisons precisely because prisons are rigid and intolerant places. On the other hand, if freedom and tolerance are the norm, then religious freedom and religious tolerance will be nearly automatic. For instance, in a society where people are free to ingest whatever they choose, tolerance for religious diets or the use of drugs in religious ceremonies will be a nonissue. Conscientious objector status is irrelevant in the absence of a military draft. Furthermore, broad freedom may lower resentments by reducing the number of instances in which religious people get what may be seen as special treatment.

Thus, religious freedom and tolerance are best seen not as special protections but as instances of a general value on letting people live as they choose, to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Religious tolerance remains quite relevant, though, in a society where private employment remains as a bastion of authoritarianism. However, religious freedom and tolerance have no place where the practice of religion infringes upon the rights of others.