1. The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. I think that when most people speak of "tolerance," they want others (and themselves) to believe that this is what they mean by it. People talk about religious tolerance, by which they mean, "The Christians ought to be tolerant of the beliefs of Wiccans" or "Muslims ought to be tolerant of the beliefs of Jews," etc. The thing that often gets missed is that this definition presupposes that there is some disagreement about something. A person can have a moral objection to homosexual acts and remain tolerant of homosexual people themselves. He may have no problems working with homosexuals, going to school with them, serving them at a restaurant, or being served by them. If his moral objection becomes public knowledge, however, he is usually accused of intolerance.
2. The allowable amount of variation in a specified quantity, especially in the dimensions of a machine or part. Engine builders sometimes make the choice between building a motor with loose tolerances or with close tolerances. Loose tolerance allows the engine rev faster and thus make more power. In this sense, the analogy between engineering tolerance and social tolerance works. When people who disagree don't live in very close proximity, there is usually minimal friction. On the other hand, an engine that has very loose tolerance is not going to be as reliable or long-lived as an engine with tighter tolerances. The application of this definition for our purposes is thus limited.
3. Resistance to the effects of a substance, especially a drug, after repeated exposure. This definition is the one in which I am most interested. A person who repeatedly uses a certain drug, such as cocaine, will often begin to show a diminished reaction to it. I think that this definition is the one that best explains the way modern people use the word "tolerance."
Notice that when someone decries intolerance, often what they are decrying not the intolerance of a different opinion, but the difference itself. In the case of Rabbi Walter Homolka's response to the prayer for the Jews during the Good Friday liturgy, what he's asking for is not for Catholics to tolerate the Jews, who disagree with Catholics about the person of Jesus Christ. What the Rabbi is demanding is that Catholics no longer have a certain reaction to Judaism - namely, disagreement. Notice that he does not stop at requiring that Catholics and other Christians not persecute Jews or blame them for the murder of Christ (I think it's understandable that he worries about that), but he goes on to require them to not voice their disagreement with Jews at all. Basically, he's telling the Pope, "Do what you do, but don't disagree with us about Jesus. Tell us that Judaism is right for us and Catholicism is right for you" (which is what the current English form of the Good Friday prayer does) The result is a complete negation of both Judaism and Catholicism.
No comments:
Post a Comment