Putting to one side the title of this blog, and any thoughts you have about what you should say or do, read this statement and ask yourself whether you think this practice is something that should be celebrated and encouraged:
Apply this statement to a variety of scenarios. The child being bullied in the playground, the X-Factor winner claiming Christmas number one yet again, the tyranny of a country by an oppressive regime, a friend who always interrupts you as you chat with others at the pub, the ever-increasing belly that pertrudes from your torso as age takes its toll on your body's metabolism.
Each of these situations will, for many people, involve things that the individual strongly dislikes or disagrees with, things that really gripes them or drives them to despair. Obviously the extent to which they do will differ, and so too the reasons why. But in each of them, how many of us would turn, look at someone shrugging their shoulders and saying "oh well, not my business", and think to themself "wow; what a guy". And yet to me it seems that to hold up as a beacon of dignity, class and humanity this value of 'tolerance' is to do exactly that.
Some would say these signs each depict somewhat contradictory messages.
Now, we only have a limited amount of time and energy from which to act and, as such, for some things we might have to say maybe it really doesn't matter. In some cases our dislike may be down to a trifling matter of taste, and perhaps on these occasions diversity of taste is something to be embraced (although arguably whilst we might be inclined to think "yes, let the masses have their way and in droves buy the latest manufactured pop mush" perhaps instead we could make an effort to introduce them to the delights of the more acquired tastes of the latest offering of our favourite Philharmonic, or our idolised punk-thrash-metal band).
The main issue, I feel, is that people mix up arguments of tolerance versus intolerance with deciding how to express that intolerance. The desires that drove a million people to protest against the war in Iraq stem as much from intolerance as those that drove the armed forces of nations to depose Saddam Hussein and conduct the aforementioned war in the first place. Of course the action that resulted from those two incidences of intolerance differed dramatically, but, nevertheless, intolerance it was. Similarly, when faced with a playground bully you wouldn't think to tolerate it, but this intolerance could, on the one hand, mean giving the boy a thump, on the other letting a teacher put him in detention to write some lines and tell him not to do it again, or alternaitvely to seek to understand why he wants to do such a thing (has he been bullied previously, does he feel isolated, are there family troubles at home?) and help him to change and improve his life and those of them around him.
Interestingly, not many of the other Times articles mentioning tolerance (see below) have such a positive view.
As you can probably tell, my inkling in response to the question I pose in the title is that tolerance isn't all it's cracked up to be, something I was reminded of when reading the leading article in yesterday's Times ('A Time for Tolerance'). The writer brings up in his article the role of tolerance within the dynamics of the established Church - something I'll return to later in the week - but it is his closing statement that really puzzles me. He says that to fight the falsehood of other people's views is not the message of Christ, but rather that it is that "we are all, as children, equally blessed and must tolerate and respect what is good in each of us". This is the same Christ that said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". Not really the language of someone saying "so basically do yer best and try not to annoy anyone". No, Jesus wasn't a tolerant chap, as witnessed in his turning of the tables in the temple, in the countless occasions he confronted the religious leaders of the day and, outrageously, stood up for the marginalised and down-trodden, and most importantly in how he allowed himself to be arrested, tried and executed, that he might die for the sins of the world.
Jesus could have looked at the wrong doings of people everywhere and said "that's OK", he could have let people go on their merry way, walking to their death oblivious to the consequences of their choices and actions, but instead he chose not to tolerate it, taking the one action that could actually do anything to change things and reconcile us to God. Even the nativity stories we may have read in the last few days make this clear.
So I wonder; is tolerance just the easy way out? Are we called to be intolerant of the things we see to be wrong and unjust and to make a difference? I have a feeling the answer is yes, but that still leaves the uncomfortable and much, much harder question - what are we then going to do about it?
