|
Low Bandwidth Version
Is There A Limit to Tolerance?
by Joseph S. Willis
 We
who value tolerance sometimes behave as if we think tolerance is the ultimate
value of the liberal spirit, a cure for all the ills of society. But, tolerance
always has limits, and ultimately, tolerance ends in intolerance. For example,
we may tolerate wide differences in lifestyle and religious practice. We allow
people to follow their own faith even if it is not congruent with ours, as long
as they do not demand that we subscribe to their philosophy. If they insist that
women may not participate in the public life of their church, then their church
is the loser, but if the women do not object, we feel that we can ignore it. If
they demand that men wear long beards, or that all members refrain from wearing
bright colors, or that women veil themselves in public, again we may wonder how
anybody can subscribe to such ideas, but we agree that they can do what they
want.
Tolerance can allow for a wide range of beliefs and practices, provided that
we come from basically similar cultures. But what if your next-door neighbors
come from a part of the world where nuptial rites call for sacrificing a goat
and draining its blood on the ground? What if their homeland custom demands that
the man beat his wife if she does not obey him quickly enough?
There Is A Limit To Tolerance
There is a limit to tolerance within our own culture in America. For most
liberal-minded folks, gay and lesbian people are respected and welcomed; so are
neighbors of different races. We welcome Jewish neighbors, Gentile neighbors,
Muslim neighbors, Christian neighbors, as well as black, brown, or white
neighbors. But what about neighbors who are skinheads or neo-Nazis, and what
about those whose religion condemns all other spiritual practices and who strive
for a society governed by their own narrow vision? Shall we ignore their
efforts?
Some zealous religious believers often do a great deal of good in charitable
projects; they may be honest, trustworthy, and lovingly concerned. But do we
allow them to capture control of the local school board so that they can censor
the scientific curriculum?
Tolerance Is Not Endless
The paradoxical ethical reality that we must face is this: tolerance is not
endless, and ultimately, tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. As we decide to
live our faith, whatever the specific content of the commitment, we must make a
variety of interconnected decisions, and each person and each family must follow
its own personal integrity. Along the way, some things become clear:
• If any human society is to survive, it must have agreed-on rules.
• In general, it is better to follow the rules, but in some situations we
must break them in order to honor a higher principle.
• The proscription against murder must be a high priority.
• We must respect others' rights to their possessions and be honest in our
day-to-day lives.
• We must respect marriage and partnerships.
• The ability to trust your companions is a fundamental principle of
survival.
• Integrity is essential: we grow spiritually when we act from inner
authenticity in all situations.
In 1966, Episcopal priest Dr. Joseph Fletcher published a book entitled
Situation Ethics. The book was both roundly condemned and highly
praised. Some thought it was not stringent enough in setting forth a specific
moral code. Others, however, saw it as a watershed work in clarifying moral
theology.
Three Approaches To Making Moral Decisions
Fletcher distinguishes three approaches to making moral decisions, and
although his system grows out of the Christian tradition, it can work as a guide
for non-Christians as well.
(1) The legalistic stance approaches any decision-making situation with a
whole set of interlocked rules and laws. These laws are not guides, but
demands for obedience. Since life is complicated and situations change, there
are multitudes of additional sub-rules. Fletcher observes, "Statutory and code
law inevitably piles up ... because the complications of life (and the claims
of mercy and compassion) combine ... to accumulate an elaborate system of
exceptions and compromises, in the form of rules for breaking the rules! "
(2) Antinomianism (against all laws) approaches every situation afresh and
without any general principles: you just make it up as you go along. It is
totally unpredictable and it cannot be called an ethical system, for it has no
way to think of what might be better or worse and no approach to right or
wrong.
(3) Situationism acknowledges the rules and principles of the tradition in
which it seeks to operate. These rules may illuminate every decision. Yet, the
situationist is ready to modify or compromise if the situation demands it. He
allows the function of reason and natural law; he acknowledges the high values
of scripturally-based ethics. But the situationist abides by one central
value, namely, love of neighbor. She acknowledges that circumstances alter
cases; she knows that a specific situation may demand an unusual decision, and
she asks, "What does love say should be done here?" The basic strategy is to
apply love (or the highest good) to the situation, and reach a decision within
that context.
Love, the commitment to the highest good for all, is not to be bartered away.
Keep in mind that love for other people is not a feeling; it is an attitude by
which we approach choice, and it serves as the guiding principle in making
ethical decisions.
Let us consider, as an example, the heroine of the apocryphal Book of Judith.
It is set in the time of the Assyrian conquest of Israel, about 720 BCE. Judith
is a wealthy and pious widow. She is diligent in prayer, obedient to the rules
of mourning, observant of the dietary laws, and considered a saint by the people
around her. When her town is surrounded by enemy troops under General Holofernes,
Judith executes a daring plan: she dresses herself beautifully and makes her way
to Holofernes' camp. She is taken to the general by guards, and she (1) lies to
gain his confidence, (2) flatters and flirts with him, (3) gets him drunk so as
to (4) seduce him into thinking he can sleep with her, and when he is in a
stupor, she (5) cuts off his head. At the end she is regarded not only as a
saint, but also as a savior-heroine.
Judith set aside her personal piety and natural obedience to rules in order
to save the people of her village, and her story illustrates that when ethical
principles are in conflict, one must choose the way that will benefit the most
people. There is no such thing as a flawless set of rules that will always give
an error-free answer to ethical problems, but this principle can give guidance
even in complex situations.
Real Life is Complex and Far From Certain.
Yet we have many responsibilities,
and although the universe is not fair, we can seek fairness and justice in our
relationships. We are star-stuff with power to make decisions; we are a part of
the Universe that can make decisions and try to bring order out of its
perplexities. It will not be done for us; we must do it ourselves. And that is
how we live.
 This
article was excerpted from Finding Faith in the Face of Doubt, ©2001, by
Joseph S. Willis.
Reprinted with permission of the publisher, Quest Books, Theosophical
Publishing House, www.questbooks.net
Info/Order this book.
About the Author
JOSEPH
S. Willis is Minister Emeritus of Jefferson
Unitarian Church in Golden, Colorado. A former Presbyterian minister, he was
campus pastor at the University of New Mexico where he worked with Catholic and
Jewish groups to create the Interreligious Council. He taught college theology
courses and, now retired, still teaches at Unitarian and Methodist churches.
| 
