MUSHY LIBERAL VALUES, PART ONE: TOLERANCE

Tolerance is the mushy liberal value conservatives love to mock. We should be proud to be intolerant of those who break God’s commandments, proclaimed James Dobson’s son on the Focus on the Family radio broadcast. Why are so-called tolerant liberals so intolerant of us, ask the social conservatives.

James Dobson is fond of quoting young college students as saying things like, “Well, if you believe in animal sacrifice, that’s okay for you but it’s not okay for me.”  I don’t doubt that there are loopy college kids out there who have said such things, but that kind of truly mushy thinking is not at all what is classically meant by “tolerance.”  I fear that social conservatives have succeeded in making “tolerance” a dirty word.

“Tolerance” does not mean “anything goes.”  I strive to be “tolerant” but I have no problem criticizing other people’s belief systems and world views.  And I don’t believe the value of “tolerance” need include tolerance of injustice.  I don’t tolerate rape, murder, theft, unjust discrimination, or a whole host of other evils.

What “tolerance” as a virtue really means is that we don’t hate or exclude or restrict people just because they are different from us or unattractive to us in some way. To give an easy example:  I am happy to welcome people from North Africa and the Middle East into my country and into my home, even though their religion and their customs and their appearance is often quite different from my own.  I will not, however, tolerate practices like honor killings or female genital mutilation.  I would certainly insist that such occurrences be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in this country and I would like to see such customs eradicated throughout the globe.  (By the way, I don’t mean to imply that honor killings and female genital mutilation are universal throughout North Africa or the Middle East but they are certainly prevalent in many quarters, in countries like Somalia, for instance.)

Similarly, I am happy to have friends who are very conservative Christians.  I would, and I am sure almostany liberal would agree with me, vigorously defend freedom of religion for Christians in this country if I felt it was threatened.  I am appalled by stories of the persecution of Christians in other countries.  But I also believe that Christians have no right to insist that their religion be treated as a privileged religion in our public sphere. I am also quite willing to criticize aspects of Christian belief. (I should note, however, that tolerance strikes me, in fact, as very much a Christian virtue, although it not necessarily unique to Christianity.)

Tolerance is hard work.  Often people with different customs or different lifestyles scare us or turn us off in some way.  I can understand why people with a more sober outlook on life might feel threatened or turned off by the flamboyance one often sees in a gay pride parade.  I can understand why social snobbery exists.  I can understand why we might be frightened of people who talk differently, dress differently, and worship differently than we do.  Unjustified intolerance is a fundamental aspect of human nature.  Liberals are certainly not immune.  I view tolerance as a “liberal” value but that does not mean that liberals are always great at it.  I recall in college that liberal students used to steal stacks of the conservative student paper from outside the dorms right after they were delivered -- a most illiberal act of intolerance towards the conservative students’ right to express their views.  Another classic example was the fictional yet true-to-life classic film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” in which the white liberal parents were none too pleased at their daughter’s engagement to an African-American.

All that having been said, the notion of “tolerance” has value and should not be mocked.  It is an important aspirational goal.  If someone else’s beliefs or manners or language or customs do not hurt you or others, welcome them with open arms and learn from them no matter how alien or discomfiting they may seem.

Comments

[Sydney]

I don't know Happy. I'm not such a fan of the word "tolerance." It has sort of condescending connotations, at least to me. It's kind of like you're saying, "You have different beliefs than I do, and though I do not agree with you, I will tolerate (put up with) your presence in my life." It's an icky word. I know this is not your intent, but to say you "tolerate" another person's beliefs is to imply that you think your own beliefs are better. Of course, you DO think that, otherwise you wouldn't hold the beliefs you have in the first place. This may be what non-Liberal people (conservatives?) find objectionable.

I would argue that you don't just want to "tolerate" people with different beliefs and backgrounds anyway. I'm not sure what the right word is, perhaps, "mutual understanding" or "respect" works better.

[The Happy feminist]

Well, that's a darn good point.

I would never say that I "tolerate" homosexuality or bisexuality, because these are actually things I endorse.

But I think to the extent one does find another person's customs or viewpoints off-putting, tolerance is an important baby-step. At the very least, one should be tolerant of those things that one finds off-putting if they don't hurt others. I used the term "tolerance" to include "mutual respect and understanding" but I think that "tolerance" short of that is the first step.

[Joel Monka]

The only problem I have with tolerance is that so many seem to confuse "tolerance" with "acceptance". Some people think that one is intolerant if one does not agree that their opinions are equally as true or valid as one's own. I have friends all along the political spectrum, for example, and I tolerate their views- but that doesn't mean I accept their views, or grant the validity of their views.

[TangoMan]

Another problem with extolling tolerance is the resultant bending, or abandonment, or standards. Clearly, as you point out, not all standards are targeted, and the most egregious and dispicable acts can still be condemned. However, the erosion of common cultural touchstones by the open armed embrace of "no standards" in the guise of tolerance, often leads to the dismantling of tolerance in action as tolerance in posture increases. Consider the case of Sweden, which made the principle of tolerance a national religion. They started with a homogeneous society in which there were high levels of generosity to fellow citizens and tolerance for deviation from cultural norms. These successful principles were then applied to diversifying the demography of Sweden and the results are dangerous levels of erosion for tolerance, for it's difficult to support the toleration of having to pay high taxes so the people you welcomed into the country can live off of your expense:

In some neighborhoods, children grow up without ever seeing someone who goes to work in the morning. Pockets of unemployment and social exclusion form, especially in areas with many non-European immigrants. When Swedes see that so many immigrants live off the government, their interest in contributing to the system fades.

The upshot here is that tolerance in Sweden was most successfully applied, and had the greatest levels of support, when the community to which it was targeted was more exclusionary.

This lesson, of course, goes beyond the case of Sweden, and there are numerous studies which indicate that support for social welfare spending decreases as the hetereogeneity of a population increases. The lesson for those who worship tolerance, is to limit the boundaries in which the worship is applied, for expanding those boundaries also weakens the foundation which supports the attractiveness of tolerance posturing.

[The Happy Feminist]

I don't think anyone is advocating "no standards," except maybe some kids who haven't really thought it through. Nor does my description of tolerance imply that "ONLY the most egregious and dispicable acts can still be condemned." The very simple and rather elementary point is that you don't condemn others JUST for being different. While it may seem that this is so basic a principle that it shouldn't even have to be said, history and current events prove otherwise.

I am really confused by your conflation of "social welfare" with "tolerance." The resentment of paying tax dollars to support other people strikes me as a quite a different issue than tolerance or intolerance of those who are different. I suppose preferring to support certain racial or cultural groups with social welfare rather than others derives in part from intolerance of difference, but there are other issues at play.

Good use of prejudicial rhetoric, but no one "worships" tolerance. We "value" it.

[TangoMan]

The very simple and rather elementary point is that you don't condemn others JUST for being different.

Your statement, I would argue, should be context dependent. For instance, the peoples of the Middle East are far removed from my daily life, and I'm extremely tolerant of their cultural practices for they don't impinge on my life whatsoever. However, when those cultural practices are transplanted to the West, then my tolerance for them decreases, for they negatively affect the society within which I live, and the tolerance for their cultural practices often erodes the institutions which were built upon foundations of different cultural traditions. To help illustrate this principle, consider the case of Muslim immigrants to the UK, specifically Pakistanis:

Britain's huge Pakistani community should be legally prevented from marrying first cousins, a Labour Party MP has declared, after new research showed Pakistani families produced an alarming 30% of the UK's genetically diseased children.

The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin.

This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.

The research found that while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births, they had 30% of all British children with recessive disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality.

By tolerating this cultural tradition within the UK the strong family networks are maintained and when combined with coercive "diversity" legislation which mandates proportional workplace representation, we see, as reported in this weekend's papers, that:

A secret high-level Metropolitan police report has concluded that Muslim officers are more likely to become corrupt than white officers because of their cultural and family backgrounds. . . .

The main conclusions of the study, commissioned by the Directorate of Professional Standards and written by an Asian detective chief inspector, stated: "Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family ... and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality." . . .

The report argued that British Pakistanis live in a cash culture in which "assisting your extended family is considered a duty" and in an environment in which large amounts of money are loaned between relatives and friends.

So, I'm completely tolerant of diversity and disparate cultural traditions, so long as they don't affect my traditions. Whenever I have a hankering for a dose of diversity I can hop on a plane and within hours be immersed within it. I can tolerate the corruption that goes hand in hand with the strong family/tribe networks which use cousin marriage to cement family bonds for I do not have to bear the consequences of such open ended tolerance. However, when the consequences of eroded cultural traditions and their replacement with the cult of tolerance do have a negative impact upon a host society, and the lives of those who live within that society, then tolerance comes at too high a price.

[TangoMan]

My personal favorite illustration of the inanity of tolerance is the IKEA Affair. Actually, tied for first place are the tolerance arguments of social anthropology professor Uni Wikan. She argues that:

The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (who was described as having "lived for many years in Muslim countries") as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims, explained the professor, was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

To place the above into context, consider:

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year.

Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.

Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments.

While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

Larsen said that since this was the initial study examining ethnic make-up there were no existing figures to put the numbers into context.

"Meanwhile, it is our general experience that this is an increasing tendency. We note this by the number of time we need to use interpreters in the course of an investigation," Larsen said.

The point is that you can't pick your tolerance from a buffet line and many times to be tolerant means to embrace the entirety of another culture. Further, to be tolerant of another, can sometimes result in the loss of freedom for oneself. Simply ask Norwegian women if they feel safer on the streets now, or 30 years ago.

[The Happy Feminist]

You have completely missed the point of my post.

You are buying into the notion that when liberals talk about tolerance, they mean "anything goes" if it's from another culture.

I said the precise opposite in my post. I am utterly tolerant of difference up to the point that it impinges on others. And I'll even go a step further than you. I will butt in and express my opinion on the standards in other countries like Saudi Arabia, even though they have no bearing on my life here in the U.S., because those standards deprive women in those countries of basic human rights.

[h sofia]

Well, the indigenous peoples of North America may have erred in tolerating the arrival of the Spanish, Portugese and British explorer/settlers. Then again, the explorer/settlers weren't doing much to reciprocate. Perhaps it helps when the tolerance is mutual.

But apart from that, I agree with you, Happy. Building better relations means rescinding some power and even offering it at times. Unfortunately, the desire to maintain one's upper hand makes tolerance difficult. Human beings, including liberals, do not have a good track record on this. I do believe we can learn how to do better, though.

[The Happy Feminist]

I will throw you a bone Tango Man. I will amend my statement that the "anything goes" mentality is really only prevalent among loopy college students. Apparently, it can be found among loopy Norwegian anthropology professors as well.

But I do think this is a fundamental understanding of "tolerance." The idea of "tolerance" has real value. Obviously, it is context dependent and we can argue about when someone else's very different lifestyles and practices impinge upon others and when they don't. But the value of "tolerance" remains, even if we may not always agree on what that means in practice.

[The Happy Feminist]

And no, I don't think "tolerance" requires tolerating conquest of one's land. Native Americans would have been within their moral right to throw us all out way back when.

[TangoMan]

Happy,

You've mapped out the extremes in which tolerance shouldn't apply, ie genital mutilation. In my objection I've countered with some real world examples as well. To illustrate your point a bit more fully could you point to some examples where you think tolerance is a positive. For instance, are we talking tolerance of people having different hair styles, or are we talking about tolerance where it applies to liberals and the great "ethnic restaurants" that they've discovered and which add verve to their life, or are we talking about the rise of Bilingualism where Spanish services are offered alongside English services, or are we talking about making accomodations at school so that young Sikh lads can bring Kirpans (knives) to school as a celebration of their religion but all other children are expelled if they too bring knives.

Obviously different hairstyles as a form of diversity don't impact on anyone so tolerating that form of diversity really comes with no cost. The rise of a 2nd language, with national, rather than regional, scope ups the ante a bit, but it still doesn't deprive one of one's own culture, though it likely does deprive one of tax dollars, for I'd venture the guess that the Spanish services are being subsidized. The problem occurs when you have a different valuation scheme on how to define "impinge on others" than do others, for your toleration of something may not impinge on your values, but may well impinge on someone else's values. Cultures have norms and when you choose to relax the enforcement of norms, in the name of toleration, you deprive others of the ability to live according to the cultural norms which they value. Think of it this way - we in the West abhor rape culture. Granted, feminists don't think we've made enough progress on this front, but as a whole we've made remarkable progress on delegitmizing such violence against women. Now, when a fellow liberal traveller, let's say a man, elevates the toleration of Muslim culture above the cultural norm of independent women, because female subserviance isn't directly harming the body politic, what they've done is contributed to the erosion of a Western cultural ideal and partially legitimized the Muslim cultural ideal, and as the middle is legitmized it puts into play ideas and values that are a bit further removed from the middle.

So yeah, I agree that tolerance is the grease the lubricates society, and it's a nice and vague concept, but to elevate the prinicple into some grand liberal mantra requires an explanation of why a social grace has now come to define a political/ideological position.

Building better relations means rescinding some power and even offering it at times.

1.) Prove it.
2.) Instead of offering up someone else's power, why not start by offering up your own? It's always easier to give away something of no cost to you, but why not quit your job so that someone else can enjoy the benefits you possess?

[The Happy Feminist]

I have been intentionally vague about tolerance. Obviously, the way in which it should apply will differ in various circumstances. If you can rationally justify a position that is contrary to a group different than yours, then I think you are okay, as long as your rational justification isn't a pile of obfuscation.

You can justify prohibiting Sikh boys from bringing knives to school-- that would not be intolerance. You cannot justify prohibiting Sikh boys from wearing turbans to school -- that would be intolerance.

You cannot justify an opposition to gay marriage -- that would be intolerance.

We can certainly disagree in practice as to what constitutes tolerance. But I still think it is useful to ask myself when I assess different issues, "Am I on point on this? Or am I just being intolerant?" The idea does have value in the abstract, just as the term "feminism" has value in the abstract.

[TangoMan]

You can justify prohibiting Sikh boys from bringing knives to school-- that would not be intolerance.

The trouble here is that these issues of tolerance, and their definitions, seem to be international, and a standard that is accepted in one Western nation kind of takes root in the US. Witness gay marriage, and also this high court ruling on Kirpans:

A Montreal school board went too far in imposing a blanket ban on the wearing of Sikh ceremonial daggers by students, says the Supreme Court of Canada.

In an 8-0 judgment Thursday, the court overturned a decision that barred teenager Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing the dagger, known as a kirpan, to class. The court said a total ban can't pass muster under the Charter of Rights, because the policy infringes the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. . . .

The rules often include a size limit on the dagger, or a requirement to keep it sheathed and to wear it under clothing and out of sight.

So, if the knife is visible, then that's bad, but so long as it's concealed, then we're all hunky-dory. I know that this type of ruling should make the kids who want to pack guns to school quite happy, so long as their weapons are concealed, but this is simple nuttery that is likely to be picked up and advanced by the ACLU sometime in the near future.

Like I said, tolerance is a very useful social grace, but to elevate it to be one of the prime definers of an ideological movement, liberalism, is irrational.

[The Happy Feminist]

I have never said that "anything goes" should rule the day. I am not sure that the court's reasoning is necessarily unreasonable, but I could see a court going the other way as well and that would be fine.

[Mystical Seeker]

My feeling is that tolerance does not mean tolerance of intolerance. Some people from the religious right accuse religious liberals of contradicting their belief in tolerance when they criticize the intolerance and bigotry of the religious right. But there is no contradiction. It would contradict one's belief in tolerance if one tolerated intolerance--hence even those who espouse tolerance have to have limits, and that limit is that we tolerate other belief systems as long as those belief systems themselves are tolerant.

[TangoMan]

hence even those who espouse tolerance have to have limits, and that limit is that we tolerate other belief systems as long as those belief systems themselves are tolerant.

What ? ? ? You mean liberals don't tolerate Islam. Death for apostasy seems to hint at a bit of intolerance, don't you think? You should read some of my co-blogger's musings on his apostasy and his other writings on Islam.

[Mystical Seeker]

You mean liberals don't tolerate Islam. Death for apostasy seems to hint at a bit of intolerance, don't you think?

Saying that liberals don't tolerate Islam is like saying that liberals don't tolerate Christianity. It is as meaningless to stereotype one religion as it is to stereotype the other--there are tolerant Christians and intolerant Christians, just as there are tolerant Muslims and intolerant Muslims. There are fundamentalists and liberals and everything in between among both major religions.

[TangoMan]

It is as meaningless to stereotype one religion as it is to stereotype the other--there are tolerant Christians and intolerant Christians, just as there are tolerant Muslims and intolerant Muslims. There are fundamentalists and liberals and everything in between among both major religions.

Excuse me, I just swallowed a bit of throw-up here. This tendency to make equivalences without knowing anything about the topics makes me sick. How the hell do you "stereotype" something that is a foundational issue of a religion? Look, why not crack some books on Islam before you start arguing equivalence. Or simply go surf the web. Here, go to Wikipedia:

All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others.

Some contemporary Shi'a jurists, scholars, writers, and Islamic sects have argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among Islamic scholars.

Alternatively, seek out some apostates from Islam and see what they have to say. Ask them if they've ever received death threats.

[TangoMan]

You know, it just hit me that when you write "My feeling is that tolerance does not mean tolerance of intolerance" that a good liberal, whose entire self-identity is directed towards tolerance, can solve the problem of having to actually be intolerant towards intolerance, simply by redefining intolerance as tolerance or simply wishing away the intolerance that they don't want to acknowledge, and presto chango, they can then hold that "we tolerate other belief systems as long as those belief systems themselves are tolerant" and thus remain good tolerant liberals to the end.

It really saddens me that jabberwocky like this seems to be a universal. Is it the infection of post-modernism that binds together Intelligent Design, Vedic Science, and liberal posturing where opinion takes on the stature of fact?

[The Happy Feminist]

Good lord, Tango Man, what is so difficult about this?

There is no hypocrisy here. I don't think it is hypocritical to define tolerance in such a way that it has inherent limits, while preserving the basic concept of it. I have been pretty up front about my intolerance of certain aspects of certain Islamic cultures (I say "culture" because Saudi Arabian Wahabbism is not synonymous with Islam). I wouldn't hesitate to criticize many aspects of the Koran -- or the Bible, for that matter.

But what I think is important is to tolerate those practices -- no matter how different or distasteful I may find them -- that do not harm me or harm others. I can tolerate the Muslim family next door. I can welcome them into my home without endorsing the notion that apostates should be executed. I can tolerate the Christian family without endorsing the most intolerant notion of eternal damnation. There are positive apsects to both Christianity and Islam, and I can recognize that without completely endorsing either religion.

With a belief like neo-Nazism, I probably would not welcome the neo-Nazi family into my home because the entire belief system is predicated on intolerance. The whole point of neo-Nazism is intolerance.

[mythago]

Good lord, Tango Man, what is so difficult about this?

Nothing's difficult about it. He just likes to argue with you.

[Mystical Seeker]

I think a really worthwhile book for getting a better understanding of the origin and history of Islam is Reza Aslam's recently published history of Islam, "No god but God", which points out. contrary to TangoMan's claim that this kind of intolerance is "foundational" to Islam, that much of the intolerance that we see in that religion emerged in the centuries after the death of Muhammed. For a long period there was a raging theological battle between the "rationalists" and the "traditionalists" among Muslim theologians, and ultimately it was the traditionalists who became dominant. The Shariah as we know it, for example, was the largely the product of the ascendancy of the traditionalists in that theological battle, who then rigidly codified a set of unchanging rules. The Quran was not a book of laws--the laws and rules of Islam were laid down essentially after that book was collected and written down. The fundamentalist mindset is not inherent in the teachings of Muhamed or in the words of the Quran, any more than the fundamentlaist mindset is inherent to the Bible.

If we look at the Bible, we find some incredibly intolerant expressions that were the product of a particular culture or time. We see the Holy War thesis of the book of Joshua, where it claims that God ordered the massacres of the entire populations of cities--genocide, in effect. And some of the stricturs in the book of Leviticus are particularly harsh. The Quran, which lays down no laws or is in many ways more tolerant than some parts of the Bible are. The reality is that the foundation and scriptures of each religion has and can serve as the basis for tolerance or intolerance, depending on who is listening or what they want to listen to.

[Mystical Seeker]

Just as a postscript to my previous comment, I should have qualified my statement that the Quran "lays down no laws". A better way to phrase that is to say that it is not a book of laws. Here is a quote from Reza Aslan's book: "The moral provisions of the Shariah are made concrete through the discipline of fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence, of which the Quran is its first and most important source. The problem, however, is that the Quran is not a book of laws. While ther are some eighty or so verses that deal directly with legal issues--matters like inheritance and the status of women, in addition to a handful of penal prescriptions--the Quran makes no attempt whasoever to establish a system of laws regulating the external behavior of the community, as the Torah does for the Jews. Thus, when dealing with the countless legal issues on which the Quran is silent."

The early Islamic scholars after Muhammed's death relied on various oral traditions, many of them highly suspect, to develop their concepts of Islamic law. This process of evolving oral traditions developing into codified dogma is nothing new--Christianity did the same thing, where oral traditions about Jesus evolved after his death and served as the source of the Gospels, which themselves reflected an evolving conception of Jesus and of Christianity.

[TangoMan]

I can welcome them into my home without endorsing the notion that apostates should be executed.

I think you have this flipped backwards - it's not about whether you endorse the notion of executing apostates, it's about whether they endorse such an intolerant notion. You do get it right when you focus on the Liberal Bogeyman - the Neonazis, in that you don't opine on whether you endorse their beliefs, rather you focus on whether they endorse those beliefs.

Alternatively, you may welcome a Muslim in your home if they break with their faith and renounce the execution of apostates, so will you welcome into your home a Neonazi who renounces her desire for the genocide of all Jews and who is a good girl scout leader?

And Mystical Seeker, let's continue on with the analogies to Nazis. Nowhere in Mein Kampf will you find any hint of the Nazi platform which advocated the attempted genocide of the Jews and the establishment of death camps like Auchwitz, therefore because Nazism was perverted from the original founding documents it's not foundationally intolerant. Is that right? I suppose, according to your logic, there can be good Nazis, those who believe in the founding document and whose conduct was true to Mein Kampf, alongside the bad Nazis, those who deviated from Mein Kampf and worked to further a genocide.

I know that you're trying to redefine the intolerant core of Islam so that you can maintain your posture of toleration - see no intolerance, speak no intolerance, hear no intolerance, and then you don't have to act when the evidence of intolerance has been wished away.

Look, if you're arguing that Nazi's should be condemned for believing in a philosophy that is intolerant, even though that philosophy diverged from it's founding principles, then you should do the same for other philosophies.