Toleration Paper Ft. Notes.docx1

IS TOLERATION ENOUGH? 1

IS TOLERATION ENOUGH? WHY MINORITIES MUST MAKE THEMSELVES INDISPENSABLE

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai Stevenson, Speech in Detroit, Michigan (7 October 1952)

INTRODUCTION

While many in society advocate toleration as a panacea for a peaceful society, I contend

that toleration alone is obsolete in a secular society. Toleration of any given cultural or

ethnic group no longer exists from a sense of morality or justice, but rather because of

political and economic incentive.

I contend that minorities must gain acceptance through political and economic means, or

marginalize themselves so as not to be a considered a threat, or do nothing and rely upon

protective legislation that is enforced through the police or military.

The word “toleration” has a connotation to many Americans as a positive and virtuous

word. To tolerate one another is, in fact, virtuous. Throughout antiquity, philosophers,

political scientist, and government officials have called out for tolerance within society.

However, the word “tolerate” is neutral at best, as it represents a state of a society that is

only one level above violence, contempt, and bias. In modern society the clergy calls out to

“love thy neighbor”, not to “go forth and tolerate your neighbor.” Nevertheless, this has


not always been the situation. While religious leaders desired tolerance, the tolerance

desired was with respect to their own religious denomination. 1

The word “tolerance” comes from both Latin and Greek. The Latin words tolerare and

tolerantia, translates to “ending suffering, bearing and forbearance.” The Greek word

anektikos means bearable sufferable or tolerable.2 Yet, the word” tolerance” is misused if

one were to say that one has a high tolerance for gourmet food, but would be used

correctly in the context of one having a high tolerance for pain. This paper will show that

as Western Society has moved from a religious to a secular society the concept of toleration

has changed from Locke’s treatment of toleration to a modern and secular approach.

Additionally, this paper will discuss the definition and application of toleration with regard

to freedom of worship, the change of the perception of toleration from a moral to a political

concept, and governmental function and obligations in creating a tolerant society.

LOCKE’S SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

The word “toleration” has changed its connotation from a moral issue to a political issue

as society has become less religious oriented and more secular in nature. Historically,

toleration was a concept that involved the freedom to practice one’s own religion without

interference or criminalization by the government. Pre-modern philosopher’s concern was

limited to the practice of religion and did not include liberal democracy, human or natural

rights, nor did they attempt to connect the concept of religious tolerance with the concept

of justice.

1 It is a myth that religious groups came to America looking for freedom. Religious groups, such as the Pilgrims, came to America to obtain real estate that became a refuge for them. The Pilgrims, and other religious groups that came to America had tolerance for no one. Hasson, Kevin S.. The Right To Be Wrong, Ending the Culture War over Religion in America. First ed. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005. 2

"Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary." Web. 16 Dec 2009.


In Locke’s time, warfare between religious groups was not a result of individual nation

states fighting for their security. Locke’s concept of toleration had a narrow definition that

applied to freedom of religion only. Locke does not perceive the concept of toleration as a

political issue. In fact, Locke does not speak of toleration in the sense of individual conduct

because to Locke “civil government” or commonwealth, is an institution “. . . only for the

procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests” and not in the salvation of

souls. 3

Locke supports his position on three grounds: Souls are not committed to the civil

magistrate, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, and, the care of the

salvation of men’s souls cannot belong to the magistrate. While Locke cries out that

government should tolerate religion or to be more accurate what he considers “Christian”

religions,4 nothing is discussed about how toleration will be enforced, except by the moral

convictions of the state’s inhabitants, given that according to Locke, religion is of no

concern of civil government.

Locke discusses the concept of “Toleration” as it applies to theology in order to secure

freedom of religious practices. It is reasonable to conclude that, Locke’s conception of

“Toleration of Religion” stopped at the church’s door. Locke spends considerable time

discussing various religious traditions such as the time and place of worship and religious

rituals such as sacrificing a calf. As long as no civil law is broken then it is of no concern of

3 Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Library of Liberal Arts. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall, 1950.

4 It is interesting to note that even Locke had his limits when it came to toleration. Locke had four groups of people that had no right to be tolerated by the state. The four are, those who opinions undermine the interests of civil society, the intolerant, those who serve a foreign power, and atheists. Those serving foreign powers actually refers to Catholics. Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Introduction by Patrick Romanell. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1950. 10. Print.


the commonwealth, or any individual, no matter how repugnant the ritual may appear to

others.

Locke was not concerned with the issues of freedom of thought, speech, the press, or

natural rights, since he considered these issues civil issues alone. On the same hand, Locke

also recognized that religion should have no place in public affairs since the church is

separate and distinct from the commonwealth, leaving “ . . . “the boundaries on both sides

as fixed and immovable.”

There are legal scholars today, who agree with Locke’s position on the issue of

“separation of church and state”, which has been an ongoing controversial issue, argued

over many years in cases before the United States Supreme Court. The extent of Locke’s

position of religion and state having separate and distinct places in society is

indistinguishable with the legal concept that a wall must exist between the separation of

church and state. The term “separation of church and state” is not mentioned anywhere in

the United States Constitution, and the Establishment Clause is open to interpretation by

the Courts, resulting in different outcomes depending on the fact situation that is before the

Court. The case of Zelman v Simmons-Harris 536 U.S. 639 (2002) set a precedent where

the Supreme Court held that the State of Ohio school voucher program does not violate the

Establishment Clause. The Zelman Court ruled that,

The program does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that, because Ohio's program is part of Ohio's general undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients and the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or any perceived endorsement, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government.


Continuous filings before the highest Courts confirm that the interpretation of the

Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which

defines “church and state” relations, is still a major issue that divides the courts.5

As can be seen simply by looking at the judicial system, Locke’s plea for tolerance of

religion by civil government through complete separation of jurisdiction over the other

clearly has not happened. However, others have come forward with different ideas about

how toleration can exist.

THE STATE AS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

Benedict de Spinoza, a contemporary of both Locke and Hobbes,6 takes a position quite

different from Locke’s, that is remarkably prophetic in its inference and implication to

minorities and ethnic groups in modern secular society. In his Theological-Political

Treatise, 7Spinoza takes the position that a “. . . dual sovereignty of church and state would

be completely unintelligible.” For Spinoza, the church is subordinate to the state, thereby,

making the state the only legitimate authority. This does not mean, however, that religion

has no place in government.

5

6 It is interesting to note that Spinoza studied with Thomas Hobbes. Although it is said that there is little difference between the two, there are other philosophers such as Leo Strauss who asserts that there are differences. Levy, Z. "Spinoza and Mendelssohn on Tolerance, Liberty and Equality." Logs 8.2 (2009): 3-4. Web. September 8, 2009.7

All references to “The Theologico-Political Treatise’ in Spinoza: Complete Works ed. Michael L. Morgan and trans. Samuel Shirley (Hackett, 2002) pp. 387-583 are taken from the paper “Law and Sovereignty in Spinoza’s Politics” Susan James, ‘Law and Sovereignty in Spinoza’s Politics’, in Feminist Interpretations of Benedict Spinoza ed. Moira Gatens (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), pp. 211-227.


Benedict de Spinoza’s “Theologico-Political Treatise” is, according to Dr. Susan James,

“the first attempt in the history of European philosophy to offer an account of law as an

entirely human construction.” 8

Since government passes and enforces law, the state must be a factor in any useful

definition of Toleration. If we take Spinoza’s contention, that divine law is merely a

command that one can obey or not, the agent in question must possess enough power to be

capable of issuing orders that others will obey. 9 In this situation, the only agent can be the

state. According to James, Spinoza’s view is that, “Only human agents, whether

individual or collective, can impose rules of conduct on one another.” 10 To Spinoza, in

order for a divine law to become an enforceable order, it has to become a law by a human

agent, and then imposed by human power.

Although Spinoza does not write about freedom of religion in his Political Treatise, other

works of Spinoza makes it clear that there can only be a state religion that is not in the

form of Christianity, but an idealized philosophical religion. Religious organizations should

be permitted to build churches that are small and dispersed, whereas, the state church is to

be large and magnificent. 11

A MODERN DEFINITION OF TOLERATION

8

Susan James, “Law and Sovereignty in Spinoza’s Politics’, in Feminist Interpretations of Benedict Spinoza ed. Moira Gatens (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), pp. 211-227. 9

James, pp. 211-227.

10 Ibid.

11 Israel, J.I. (1999). Locke, Spinoza and the Philosophical Debate Concerning Toleration in the Early Enlightenment (c. 1670-c.1750). (1999). Amsterdam.


The definition of the word “toleration” must expand in a secular society to include not

just differences in religion, but in a multi-cultural society that consists of a variety of

cultures, traditions, ethnicities, and life styles. As Jenkins explains,

“Since the 1960’s, American politics has been dominated by issues of identity, conceived in terms of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In conventional argument, racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-ethnic prejudice are all social problems, grave manifestations of a broader social phenomenon that is characterized as ‘hate’ or bigotry. In keeping with other social movements through the centuries, rising groups have tried to express their newfound power through legislative change, notably the prohibition of discrimination and hate speech.” 12

Although Jenkins analysis applies to anti-Catholicism in the United States, the lack of

legislation protecting a significant percentage of the population is quite accurate in

describing the position of minority groups in present day society. It also demonstrates that

religion in and of itself, is not as pressing as groups not recognized by society but rather

marginalized, disliked as a group, with difficulty integrating into society.

To define Toleration only in the context of respect for the practices and beliefs of others in

a world where religious conflict are rare, is simply, “not enough.” 13

Preston King, a Professor of Political Science at the University of New South Wales gives

three options that minorities can take:

1. Accept powerlessness,

12Jenkins, Philip. The New Anti-Catholicism, The Last Acceptable Prejudice. 1st. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 5-6. Print. 13 Although religious conflicts do exist around the world, Northern Ireland being the first to come to mind, it is actually land that is driving the conflict. There are also civil conflicts in Africa because of clans’ and tribes that were displaced from their land as a result of the Treaty of Berlin of 1885. “At the time of the conference, 80% of Africa remained under traditional and local control. What ultimately resulted was a hodgepodge of geometric boundaries that divided Africa into fifty irregular countries. This new map of the continent was superimposed over the one thousand indigenous cultures and regions of Africa. The new countries lacked rhyme or reason and divided coherent groups of people and merged together disparate groups who really did not get along.” Rosenberg, M. (2009). About.com: geography. Religious and tribal wars exist to this day. However, although there may be religious overtones to these wars they are still political in nature with secular states the key players. Land, minerals, food, and security is driving these wars.


2. Achieve power through protests, demonstrations and rebellion, or,

3. Conceive of their power, which is inadequate taken on its own, and join with the

majority in helping to constitute that of a dominant power.

I find that King’s three options that minorities can choose compelling because it

constitutes a convincing understanding of toleration in modern society. A minority can

separate itself from society through keeping their own culture, traditions, language,

religion, and neighborhoods, if they so choose. However, King’s third option calls for

minorities to also become a part of and contribute toward the interest of the state.

Another example of a philosopher taking a modern approach to the issue of toleration is

Andrew Fiala, a professor at California State University, Fresno, who developed a modern

definition of toleration that attempts to break down the word toleration into components

that will aid political scientists in using the word in a political context. Professor Fiala

offers the following as a working definition of toleration:

The general definition of toleration involves three interrelated conditions. When an agent

tolerates something:

1) He holds a negative judgment about this thing;

2) He has the power to negate this thing, and

3) He deliberately refrains from negation.

Fiala’s definition of toleration is a good working model that defines Toleration in

modern society. However, a mere definition is not sufficient for an understanding of how

Fials’s definition of toleration would work in the violent, immoral, and secular society in


which we live. There are questions that must be answered prior to its general use as a

definition of toleration such as why an agent would refrain from negation of a minority.

Another example of a philosopher taking a modern approach to the issue of toleration is

Andrew Fiala, a professor at California State University, Fresno, who developed a modern

definition of toleration that attempts to break down the word toleration into components

that will aid political scientists in using the word in a political context. Professor Fiala

offers the following as a working definition of toleration:

The general definition of toleration involves three interrelated conditions. When an agent

tolerates something:

1) He holds a negative judgment about this thing;

2) He has the power to negate this thing, and

3) He deliberately refrains from negation. 14

14

Andrew Fiala, Ph.D. is the director of the Ethics Center at Fresno State University. His definition of toleration appears on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011) A Peer Reviewed Academic Resource, Fieser, James and Dowden, Bradley, editors.


Fiala’s definition of toleration is a good working model that defines Toleration in

modern society. However, a mere definition is not sufficient for an understanding of how

Fials’s definition of toleration would work in the violent, immoral, and secular society in

which we live. There are questions that must be answered prior to its general use as a

definition of toleration such as why an agent would refrain from negation of a minority.

According to Fiala, Toleration occurs when an agent can negate or destroy the person or

group in question, but chooses not to do so. Dr. Fiala does not describe the manner which

negation would take place. If toleration in our society fails to exist, as defined by Dr. Fiala,

then does violence become a certainty or will government step in and control it?

What does Fiala mean by the word agent? Is the agent a government, an individual, or

a group? Is Fiala speaking about individuals doing the “negating”? What is the place of

government? How or why would a government promote the negation of an ethnic group in

our society? I hope that this essay answers some of these questions but additional research

is needed to utilize Fiala’s definition in the literature.

However, it is clear that the definition of toleration is redefined to pertain to other than

just religion alone. Minority, cultural or ethnic groups in society can no longer rely on

religion, morality, or a sense of justice alone, in order to be tolerated, but must depend

upon the political, and economic benefits that they can bring to American society.

Toleration is a political and economic issue. Tolerance is no longer an issue of hatred or

bias against a person because of their religious beliefs, unless the religion involves itself

with criminal activity such as child abuse. In fact, the issue of toleration toward individuals

is no longer relevant due to the expansion of the powers of the federal government, and

Supreme Court decisions upholding civil rights to minorities, immigrants, and


homosexuals. So-called “hate crime” legislation is designed to deter violence against

minority groups that the majority finds to be outside of mainstream morality.

As Spinoza and other philosophers have found, a government cannot control ones

thoughts. The right of association will always be present. Whom people associate with

cannot be legislated. Toleration as the first step toward peace and harmony is a fiction.

Individuals will do well to stay out of other people’s affairs while the Courts and legislators

define the extent to which an individual may act toward others in society. Toleration has

become a political issue and, therefore, public. While many people in the work force work

within a multicultural environment, the chances, unfortunately, are likely that when they

go home they will live among others like themselves, go to dinner and events with their

family and friends, while thinking their own thoughts that no one can prohibit or identify.

Unfortunately, tolerance is not enough. However, tolerance may be all that society has to

work with. As the majority gradually comes to perceive minority factions as contributing

to society, then progress will be made. In the meantime, it will be the job of government to

see that all members of society are protected from physical and emotional harm.

Toleration is not a step on a ladder that eventually leads to justice. One does not move

from being “merely tolerated” to acquiring a just position in society. In order to

accomplish a higher position a group must not only be tolerated by society, but must

become a part of it, while still keeping the groups cultural and traditions intact.15

15 If a minority were to lose their culture and traditions then they would be so assimilated into the society that they would no longer be considered a danger to the majority and, therefore, there would be no need for intolerance to occur toward that particular minority. The reason for intolerance of a religion is not a result of a minority’s religious beliefs, liturgy, ceremony’s, dogma’s or prayers, but rather the fear of an elected official’s religious beliefs over riding the best interest or national security of a country. While Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Amish may occasionally become a victim of violence, they are not considered a threat to the majority as they do not vote and are self marginalized.


The perception of a minority group plays a major role in the lack of toleration of that

group in our society. Does this group help or hinder society? If the perception is to hinder

then it is the duty of the state to both protect the minority group and to keep the state

peaceful by protecting the minority group.

We can now state a viable premise for the existence of a tolerant society.

In order for the acceptance of any given minority group to occur by the majority, at

least one of the following circumstances must exist:

1) A government committed to protect minorities through rule of law, including Civil

Rights Legislation that also encompasses hate crimes,

2) A fear of disruption of society that may include violence from the group seeking

tolerance, or King’s second option of protests, demonstrations, and rebellion,

3) Assimilate into the majority to where the group loses its own identity, or,

4) become indispensable to the majority.

The first circumstance stems from King’s first option that minorities can take. The

acceptance of powerlessness leads to a situation where the majority will be intolerant to the

minority group, thereby, requiring the use of laws enforced by police or military.

The second circumstance also stems from King’s option of minorities achieving power

through protests. An example is the civil rights movement that obviously led to legislation,

but also caused fear and disruption of society. It can be reasonably argued that but for the

demonstrations and violence, the civil rights movement of the 1960’s would not have

succeeded.

The third circumstance, which stems from King’s writings, is where the minority group

assimilates into the majority whereby the perception of a minority group disappears.


Finally, a fourth circumstance exists where a minority group can become indispensable to

the majority, whereby, the group both has an identity and yet is tolerated by society as a

whole. We will discuss this circumstance below.

Let us look at two minority groups, Catholics and Jews, and see how each has fared in

modern American society apropos the above four choices a minority group can take.

APPLICATION OF A MODERN APPROACH TO TOLERATION

Hannah Arendt contends that Anti-Semitism is prevalent as a result of,

“. . . racism which offered a way of gathering uprooted people into a community that needed no stable institutional structures to hold them together. Within racist movements, claim to membership in a superior community rested on what one genetically is, not on anything one has done.”16

Moreover, Arendt contents that the Jews themselves had shown a want of political

responsibility. They appeared to be a rootless community, based upon race and secretly

working for global power, while keeping their identity without territory and without a

state. 17

We will now consider differences in causation of Anti-Semitism with Anti-Catholicism in

modern society.

Author Philip Jenkins refers to Anti-Catholicism as the thinking man’s Anti-Semitism.

Mr. Philip states that,

“In one crucial area, anti-Catholicism is different from other prejudices, and this difference is commonly used to justify the kinds of remarks and displays described. While a

16

Villa, Danna. The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt . 1st. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. pp. 32-33. Print.17

Ibid, p 33.


hostile comment about Jews or blacks is directed at a community, an attack on Catholicism is often targeted at an institution, and it is usually considered legitimate to attack an institution. Someone who speaks of ‘the evil Catholic Church’ can defend this view as a comment on the leadership and policies of the institution without necessarily denouncing ordinary Catholic people.” 18

In order to find the answer to why there seems to be more acceptance by society toward

the Jewish population may depend on where one lives, but the one thing that the Jewish

population has that the Catholic population does not have is a political identity.19

The Jewish population is small (3%) where the Catholic population is about 25% and

growing. However, the small population of Jews has influence in the political system

beyond their numbers. It is not by their vote, but by their commitment to one political

party, their willing to donate money to candidates and party organizations on a consistent

basis, and their place in very visible positions make the Jewish people more important than

just about any other minority group in America. Jews have assimilated into American

society and can still keep their identity as Jews. According to David P. Goldman, associate

editor of the journal First Things, “There are only two possible strategies for Jewish

survival in a gentile world.” 20 One method is to be tolerated and the other is to be

indispensable . 21

In contrast, Catholics have assimilated in American society, but their identity is nowhere

to be found. It is fair to say that American Catholics have assimilated into American

society but the Catholic Church as an institution has not. Since a religious organization

18 Jenkins, Philip. The New Anti-Catholicism, The Last Acceptable Prejudice. 1st. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 5-6. Print.19

20

Goldman, David. "Jewish Survival in a Gentile World." First Things. . (2009): 21-25.Print. Although the article only discusses religious toleration, the concept of toleration associated with being indispensable is still relevant. 21

Ibid.


cannot assimilate by definition,22 the problem for Catholics is that a majority has chosen to

assimilate, or rather accept powerlessness, rather than fight for a place at the table.

On the other hand, Jews are prominent in many areas of American society. The cause of

overachievement is complex and beyond the scope of this paper. However, there is

unquestionably a double standard. While Jews can support a foreign country, have dual

citizenship, and interfere in foreign policy without consequence,23 Catholics are scorned for

their support of the Pope. The fear of the Pope running the country can only be termed as

pretense for continued anti-Catholicism. Yet, there has been Catholic’s who have served as

Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, and other important and influential positions.24

However, if a Catholic takes a position that is contrary to popular thought Catholic

prejudice raises its ugly head. Jenkins offers a reason for the lack of protest or social

reaction by writing, “The reason that most Catholics are not concerned about anti-

Catholicism is that they are not hurting.” 25

Another explanation is while the Vatican is perceived as an institution that involves itself

in moral issues, the state of Israel is perceived as a political ally to the United States that is

important to American national security.26 The Vatican, therefore, appears by some to be

interfering in political issues while Israel is made to appear by many as essential to the

national security of the United States. Therefore, while anti-Semitism still exists, the Jewish

22

Show me a church that does not have dogma and I will show you a social club.23

Mersheimer 24

JFK does not fit into this category since the office of President is an elected position and JFK’s Catholicism was all too well known. Additionally, JFK went to great lengths to avoid his religion as an issue. 25

Jenkins, ibid pg. 6 is taken from ,Kushner, “Reply” ; Andrew Greeley, An Ugly Little Secret (Kansas City), MO: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977), 1.

26 Cite Pew poll and FP art.


community as a whole still thrives, while anti-Catholicism exists only on a political level but

rarely manifests itself in acts of violence toward individual Catholics, but rather in the

context of political protests by radical organizations such as Start Up who display their

protest by destroying church property and interrupting religious services.

Society has seen Jews and Blacks become indispensable over many decades. We have

seen acts of anti-Semitism decrease from to . The civil rights movement in the 1960’s

led to legislation that has promoted Black achievement and protected Black people across

the country to the point that violence against Blacks has decreased %. It is apparent that

Blacks are essential to society. They make up 20% of the population and their vote is

important to the Democratic Party in elections and fundraising. Black’s contribution to

sports, especially the NBA and NFL is indispensable. Like the Jews before them Blacks

have made it in society. Are there people in society that hate Black people? Of course there

are. But they are considered as hate groups relegated to the fringe of society or people who

purport to dislike Black’s but are physically harmless to the Black community. These

people are free to associate with whom they desire and think their own thoughts. Martin

Luther King’s dream of people judging each other by their character and not the color of

their skin has become irrelevant. Blacks are too important to the country on an economic

and political basis for segregation to come back into the culture. Furthermore, forty years

of laws and judicial opinions would need to be overturned.

Yet another minority group is proceeding in the manner of Jews and Blacks. The

homosexual community, have made tremendous progress in becoming a part of the

community as gays and lesbians. Gay bashing will continue to occur and the lack of

tolerance will continue among a large part of the population since religion alone forms the


basis of the lack of tolerance in the first place. However, since the homosexual community

has the added protection of hate laws, it shows that government and the judiciary now

places a respectability and responsibility toward the community. The U.S. Supreme

Court’s ruling in the case of has allowed for homosexual marriage further

adding to the respectability of the gay and lesbian community. We also are realizing

political power within the homosexual community along with many individuals who are

openly gay that are in high places in government and business.

IS A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR TOLERATION TO EXIST?


According to Spinoza, the purpose of the state is freedom. To most, freedom in and of

itself is a virtue. However, the reality is that most states are not free. Does this mean that

every state in the world must accept and thrive in a democracy?

Preston King in his book “Toleration”27 argues that a democratic form of government

must exist for tolerance to flourish. This argument is flawed for at least two reasons. First,

it is a misconception to think that all states will become democratic. Many states may

become democracies over time but the idea that a democracy must be present for toleration

to exist is unreasonable. What both Spinoza and King are missing is that they connect the

idea of freedom with the condition of toleration for people in any given country. Second,

King goes on to denounce nationalism as being a hindrance to a tolerant society. Again, this

is not accurate. Looking just at the United States alone we can find many cases of violence

toward a given ethnic, religious, or homosexual individual, yet it is dealt with by

government and the courts differently through an additional crime of violating hate laws

that has been established for aiding in the building of a tolerant society. There has been a

democratic form of government since the inception of the United States, yet the history of

non-tolerance is numerous. There are many examples, including Jim Crow laws, slavery,

Japanese internment camps, the displacing of hundreds of Indians out of Georgia to

Oklahoma and many other examples.

Nationalism in and of itself is not evil. That is why there are still Black, Hispanic, and

Chinese communities. People tend to live among themselves. The ability to do so freely is a

form of tolerance itself.

27

King, Preston. Toleration. 1st. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1976. Print.


Any strong government that wants a peaceful society will embrace Tolerance. The form

of the government is not relevant. One must remember that tolerance does not mean

fondness for any particular culture. It only means that a government in power, whether a

minority or majority, will protect its citizens and provide for a peaceful state. When a

person calls for a democratic election in a foreign state that person must be careful of what

he or she is wishing for because that person may receive it.

A free election held in Iran, for example, would be disastrous to the concept of toleration.28

Therefore, democracy is not relevant as to whether a society attains toleration.

C ONCLUSION

It is clear that toleration is not enough for minority groups to thrive and to be accepted

by society. Much more is required. Minority groups are tolerated as long as society’s

perception of that group is seen as politically and economically important to the majority of

American society. Toleration can only exist through strong government protection of its

entire people, or some substitute. It is also apparent that a society’s morality is irrelevant to

the safety of minority groups in today’s secular society. Locke’s hope that by appealing to

religious organizations intolerance will end has become pointless, and no longer relevant in

a society that consists of diverse ethnic, racial, gender, and cultural minorities. Religious

organization lacks the influence it once had in what is now considered a secular society.

Spinoza’s conviction that government must protect all members of society, by force if

28 It is more probable that an election in Iran would lead to a theocratic state rather than a democratic one.


necessary, as opposed to Locke’s concept of just leaving others alone through a change of

attitude, is the only reasonable approach that will lead to a tolerant society, unless,

minorities make themselves useful and, as David Goldman states, indispensable.

More research is essential if America is to survive, as we know it.

Toleration Paper Ft. Notes.docx1

Documents

Transcript of Toleration Paper Ft. Notes.docx1