On the other hand, is it enough to merely
"tolerate" you, your presence, your race, color, creed, your thoughts and ideas or your quirks, attitudes, grammar or even the sound of
your voice? Tolerating doesn't seem to take much more effort than standing near
or even ignoring your presence. It almost assumes a quiet level of passive
annoyance: internally, I think, "You annoy me, but I'll put up with it …for
awhile, at least."
In the religious sense, tolerance is, as one dictionary puts
it, "permission granted by authority" to worship and express a
variety of creeds (or no creed). To seek or enforce tolerance means that others,
including the majority, must leave or make room for other voices and creeds,
and not to try to dominate or silence them. Tolerance means that the laws and
rules, as well as the use and symbols of power, should not interfere with, annhilate, favor, or force expressions
of specific faiths.
Some overbearing groups do not abide by the rules of
tolerance; they do not--on their own--make room. They dominate, they impose,
they assume. They also take offense easily and feel persecuted when policed by
others or by the appointed authorities.
Sometimes the majority is ...over policed. Occasionally, in
the name of "tolerance," we create an atmosphere of intolerance for the
expression of specific or any religious beliefs. Tolerance does not seek to
"silence" groups from the public sphere, not even the majority group,
but to give equal access for all to that sphere, equal right and permission to speak,
or to remain silent.
More than that, if we take the etymology of
"tolerance," which means to lift or carry, then we,
as a conglomerate, do more than passively "put up" with each other.
We lift up! We encourage. We support. We listen and challenge. We want to hear and learn from different creeds, ideals, beliefs and
unbeliefs. We allow others to challenge us, without taking offense. We have
enough courage and trust in greater truths outside of ourselves to speak and
offer what we believe, but also enough humility and forgiveness to listen and
learn. Tolerance calls for curiosity. It confesses imperfection. It also hopes for returns.
Yes, there is risk. You could
sway me! You might influence me! On the other hand, you might be influenced or
swayed. There are also risks to insulating or cocooning ourselves within our own
beliefs, too. I think the risk is worse. In doing that, as religious people, we
easily create gods and idols in our own personal or collective images.
From my own belief system tolerance embodied by Christ trusts God, and stands open and self-assured among different groups, people and beliefs. Tolerance trusts
that we, our human future, and all the universe rest in the best, most merciful,
just, and forgiving hands. It trusts that, given shared space among the cacophony of
voices, many people will hear what they need when they need to hear it, and
that I will, too.
Wow, that faith and tolerance would be refreshing! I don't need or expect
tolerance in any utopian form. But I would hate for
us to move further from it, whether by an enforced silence, or by social robots,
and constructs.
If our use of social networks and technology can avoid the
pitfall of isolation mentioned in Part 1, then it is also possible that many
will use technology and connection to develop a greater tolerance (in its best sense) for the
variety and expanse of human belief and experience. Perhaps some will even more frequently start applying social awareness and discovery to looming dangers and solutions. There is so much more to learn about the world, life, the universe, and ourselves.
There is so much in this creation that needs our cooperation, care, and attention, but how will we figure out what those dangers and solutions truly are? We need to talk, share, argue, and act.
There is so much in this creation that needs our cooperation, care, and attention, but how will we figure out what those dangers and solutions truly are? We need to talk, share, argue, and act.
It’s exciting. It’s scary.
It always has been.
