Us and Them

Us and Them: the Burden of Tolerance in a World of

Division

By SERGE SCHMEMANN - December 29, 2002

FEW

of

the

participants

at

a

recent

conference

on

multiculturalism

and

children

would

have

disputed

Al

Gore's

declaration in 1991 that ''seeing ourselves as separate is the

central problem in our political thinking.''

The

gathering,

at

the

Interfaith

Center

in

New

York,

opened

with

an

invitation

to

chant

and

dance

to

an

African

song. Tolerance was, by unspoken assent, an absolute virtue,

right

up

there

with

Faith,

Hope

and

Diversity.

It

was

the

opposite

of

racism,

anti-Semitism,

sexism,

ageism and

every

other

divisiveism.

Then

one

participant,

with

radical

Islamist

groups in mind, raised a question: Must we be tolerant of those

who are intolerant of us?

The

question

revealed

the

enormous

burden

that

tolerance has been made to bear in our society, and not simply

since

Sept.

11,

2001.

The

word

is

a

fixture

of

campaign

speeches

and

other

claims

to

political

virtue.

There

was

no

evident irony in a commentary that said, ''Senator Trent Lott is

in

trouble

for

a

political

past

(and

present)

that

shows

too

strong a tolerance for intolerance.'' Indeed. There must be zero

tolerance for intolerance.

Tolerance

was

not

always

so

burdened.

To

tolerate

means

little

more

than

live

and

let

live.

Just

try

vowing

to

''tolerate,

honor

and

obey''

next

time

you

marry.

Toleration

entered the political lexicon with the waning of religious dogma

and the rise of humanism, and applied specifically to religion.

John

Locke,

who

in

1689

first

propounded

tolerance

as

a

governing

principle,

argued

that

since

''every

church

is

orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical,'' it was best

for governments to let religion be.

The

idea

was

not

to

add

Tolerance,

or

Diversity,

to

the

many truth claims, but to allow everyone to enjoy their favorite

truth in safety. As Thomas Jefferson told the Virginia House of

Delegates in 1776: ''It does me no injury for my neighbor to say

there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor

breaks my leg.''

Today that would seem a cynical view. But Stanley Fish,

dean

of

the

College

of

Liberal

Arts

and

Sciences

at

the

University

of

Illinois

at

Chicago,

argues

that

Jefferson's

analysis is still sound.

''It seems to me that tolerance, like diversity, amounts to

moral

flag-waving,''

he

said.

''No

one

is

for

tolerance

as

a

general

value,

because

in

any

situation

that

actually

arises,

one's tolerance is extended only to those groups you wish to

include. What tolerance is, is a solution to a political problem, a

policy usually urged in a culture which is no longer monolithic.''

Usually,

but

not

always.

A

thousand

years

ago,

when

Islam reigned supreme in the Middle East, it was arguably the

most self-confident and progressive of the major monotheistic

religions, and gave Christians and Jews considerable leeway

to practice their faiths.

Jaroslav Pelikan, a historian of Christianity at Yale, noted

that

two

of

the

most

important

doctrinal

expositions

in

Christianity

and

Judaism

--

''An

Exact

Exposition

of

the

Orthodox

Faith''

by

John

of

Damascus

and

''Guide

for

the

Perplexed''

by

Moses

Maimonides

--

were

written

under

the

protection of Islamic rulers (the latter in Arabic).

''So

toleration

is

at

least

in

part

the

byproduct

of

a

tremendous

sense

of

security

--

political

as

well

as

religious

and military,'' Professor Pelikan said.

Politically,

tolerance

was

initially

focused

on

the

legal

status of various religions and denominations, rather than the

accepted

prejudices.

Race

segregation,

anti-Semitism,

anti-Catholicism,

exclusion

of

women,

homophobia

and

the

like

only

came

under

the

purview

of

tolerance

much

later,

largely in the radical 1960's.

FROM

a

passive,

even

reluctant

accommodation,

tolerance

metamorphosed

into

a

pillar

of

the

American

way,

something

to

be

taught,

defended

and

promoted.

Yet

pure

tolerance, Dr. Fish said, ''would necessarily involve an absence

of

judgment

--

different

strokes

for

different

folks

taken

to