Toleration

==Modern analyses and critiques==
Contemporary commentators have highlighted situations in which toleration conflicts with widely held moral standards, national law, the principles of national identity, or other strongly held goals. Michael Walzer notes that the British in India tolerated the Hindu practice of [[suttee]] (ritual burning of a widow) until 1829. On the other hand, the United States declined to tolerate the [[Mormon]] practice of [[polygamy]].<ref name=Walzer>{{Cite book |last=Walzer |first=Michael |url=https://archive.org/details/ontoleration00walz_0 | url-access=registration |title=On Toleration|series=The Castle lectures in ethics, politics, and economics |year=1997 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=0300070195 |location=New Haven |oclc=47008086}}</ref> The [[Islamic veil controversy in France|French head scarf controversy]] represents a conflict between religious practice and the French secular ideal.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Bowen |first=John |date=February–March 2004 |title=Muslims and Citizens |url=https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/john-r-bowen-muslims-and-citizens/ |magazine=The Boston Review |access-date=25 January 2011}}</ref> Toleration of or intolerance toward the [[Romani people]] in European countries is a continuing issue.<ref>{{Cite news |title=A long road |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/international/2010/09/16/a-long-road|url-access=subscription|date=2010-09-18 |access-date=2 January 2023 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> [[Pope Francis]] refers to the "admirable creativity and generosity" shown by people who put up with their lives in "a seemingly undesirable environment" and learn "to live their lives amid disorder and uncertainty".<ref>Pope Francis (2015), [https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf Laudato si'], paragraph 148, accessed 13 February 2024</ref>

===Modern definition===
Historian Alexandra Walsham notes that the modern understanding of the word "toleration" may be very different from its historic meaning.<ref name="Walsham06-233">{{Cite book |last=Walsham |first=Alexandra |title=Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700 |year=2006 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-0-7190-5239-2 |location=Manchester |page=233 |oclc=62533086}}</ref> Toleration in modern parlance has been analyzed as a component of a liberal or [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] view of human rights. Hans Oberdiek writes, "As long as no one is harmed or no one's fundamental rights are violated, the state should keep hands off, tolerating what those controlling the state find disgusting, deplorable, or debased. For a long time, this has been the most prevalent defense of toleration by liberals... It is found, for example, in the writings of American philosophers [[John Rawls]], [[Robert Nozick]], [[Ronald Dworkin]], [[Brian Barry]], and a Canadian, [[Will Kymlicka]], among others."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Oberdiek |first=Hans |title=Tolerance: Between Forbearance and Acceptance |year=2001 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers |isbn=978-0-8476-8785-5 |location=Lanham, Md. |page=vi |oclc=45604024}}</ref>

[[Isaiah Berlin]] attributes to [[Herbert Butterfield]] the notion that "toleration{{nbsp}}... implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Berlin |first=Isaiah |title=Four Essays on Liberty |date=1969 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-500272-0 |location=London |oclc=15227}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2023}}

[[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] states that "When we tolerate a practice, a belief or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false, or at least inferior; our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone."<ref>{{Cite book |last=John |first=Gray |title=Enlightenment's Wake: Politics and Culture at the Close of the Modern Age |publisher=Routledge |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-138-17022-3 |oclc=941437450}}</ref> However, according to Gray, "new liberalism – the
liberalism of Rawls, Dworkin, Ackerman and suchlike" – seems to imply that "it is wrong for government to discriminate in favour of, or against, any form of life animated by a definite conception of the good".<ref>Gray (1995), p. 20.</ref>

[[John Rawls]]' "theory of 'political liberalism' conceives of toleration as a pragmatic response to the fact of diversity". Diverse groups learn to tolerate one another by developing "what Rawls calls 'overlapping consensus': individuals and groups with diverse metaphysical views or 'comprehensive schemes' will find reasons to agree about certain principles of justice that will include principles of toleration".<ref name="auto">{{Cite web |first=Andrew|last=Fiala|title=Toleration| website = Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=https://iep.utm.edu/tolerati/ |access-date=2 January 2023 |language=en-US}}</ref>

[[Herbert Marcuse]], in the 1965 book ''[[A Critique of Pure Tolerance]]'', argued that "pure tolerance" that permits all can favor [[totalitarianism]] and [[tyranny of the majority]], and insisted on "repressive tolerance" against them.{{cn|date=September 2023}}

===Tolerating the intolerant===
{{main article|Paradox of tolerance}}
Walzer, [[Karl Popper]],<ref>{{Cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl |title=The Open Society and Its Enemies |isbn=978-0-691-21206-7 |volume=1 |chapter=chapter 7, note 4 |oclc=1193010976}}</ref> and [[John Rawls]]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice: Original Edition |year=1971 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-01772-6 |language=en|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=TdvHKizvuTAC&pg=PA216 216]}}</ref> have discussed the paradox of tolerating intolerance. Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects.{{r|Walzer|pages=80–81}} Rawls argues that an intolerant sect should be tolerated in a tolerant society unless the sect directly threatens the security of other members of the society. He links this principle to the stability of a tolerant society, in which members of an intolerant sect in a tolerant society will, over time, acquire the tolerance of the wider society.

===Other criticisms and issues===
Toleration has been described as undermining itself via [[moral relativism]]: "either the claim self-referentially undermines itself or it provides us with no compelling reason to believe it. If we are skeptical about knowledge, then we have no way of knowing that toleration is good."<ref name="auto" />

[[Ronald Dworkin]] argues that in exchange for toleration, [[minority group|minorities]] must bear with the criticisms and insults which are part of the freedom of speech in an otherwise tolerant society.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dworkin |first=Ronald |date=14 February 2006 |title=Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/14/muhammadcartoons.comment |access-date=2 January 2023 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref> Dworkin has also questioned whether the United States is a "tolerant secular" nation, or is re-characterizing itself as a "tolerant religious" nation, based on the increasing re-introduction of religious themes into conservative politics. Dworkin concludes that "the tolerant secular model is preferable, although he invited people to use the concept of personal responsibility to argue in favor of the tolerant religious model."<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 April 2008 |title=Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society |url=http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/dworkin.htm |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118151728/http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/dworkin.htm|archive-date=2012-01-18|access-date=21 March 2011 |website=Virginia Law School News and Events}}</ref>

In ''[[The End of Faith]]'', [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]] asserts that society should be unwilling to tolerate unjustified [[religious behaviour|religious beliefs]] about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity, especially beliefs that promote violence.
Description	What you type	What you get
Italic	''Italic text''	Italic text
Bold	'''Bold text'''	Bold text
Bold & italic	'''''Bold & italic text'''''	*Bold & italic text*
Description	What you type	What you get
Reference	Page text.<ref>[https://www.example.org/ Link text], additional text.</ref>	Page text.^[1]
Named reference	Page text.<ref name="test">[https://www.example.org/ Link text]</ref>	Page text.^[2]
Additional use of the same reference	Page text.<ref name="test" />	Page text.^[2]
Display references	<references />	↑ Link text, additional text. ↑ Link text