The Limitations of Tolerance

In early August 2010, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s new Museum of Tolerance opened in New York, the second one after the first in Los Angeles. The theme of the museum is tolerance, human rights and diversity, with the objective to improve and promote communication and mutual understanding among people with different religious and cultural backgrounds.

Right before its opening in New York, Los Angeles Museum of Tolerance Curator Liebe Geft said he would not support the plan to build a mosque in New York near ground zero. The proposed “Cordoba House” is promoted as a cultural center, but carries historical implications of religious conflict. Cordoba is a city in southern Spain, conquered and occupied by a Muslim army in 711 A.D. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, with its Jewish background, alongside the Jewish Rights Alliance, opposed the proposed Cordoba House — highlighting the issue of religious tolerance in American society.

One commentator directly criticized the Museum of Tolerance as being not tolerant; “I do not know how the Museum Tolerance can tolerate (its own) intolerance. Do they want to exhibit their own intolerance?” Geft, however, explained, “It’s not a mandate to accept everything … There are limits to what a civil society should tolerate. And when the human rights and dignities of others are being trampled and denied, that’s not acceptable in a country that advocates rights and freedoms and dignity for all.”

Tolerance is not abstract; it is a specific judgment of reality. The Museum of Tolerance is equipped with four polling stations for visitors to express their views on current affairs. The issue on Aug. 18 concerned support for the Cordoba House. As of Aug. 20, 37 percent supported and 62 percent opposed the building.

Tolerance of religion, freedom of expression and sexual orientation are three of the most sensitive issues, with religious tolerance directly correlating to the basic order of pluralistic American society. In early American history, the founding fathers were mindful of the religious prosecution in Massachusetts in the 1692 Salem trials, and made tolerance a core value in the young American republic.

In a letter from the rabbi Moses Seixas to President George Washington in 1790, he wrote, “Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People — a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

President George Washington replied in his letter, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

As to why the concept of “tolerance” has different answers in the U.S, the reason is that there are two entirely opposite views of tolerance in a free and democratic society. One view is to see tolerance as part of a rational consensus that all pluralistic societies will necessarily experience. The other view is to regard tolerance as a condition for peace; hence, tolerance is not inherently “good”, but a means of achieving “goodness” in life.

The main difference between the people who support and oppose the Cordoba House is not being tolerant and intolerant. They merely hold a different understanding and opinion of the concept of tolerance. Supporters see tolerance as a value for self-enrichment and tolerate unconditionally, and they believe those who oppose the building of the Cordoba House are intolerant. In contrast, opponents see tolerance as a way to maintain peace, and believe tolerance cannot be quantified, but merely a minimum standard to achieving peace and mutual respect in a pluralistic society.

As Brad Stetson wrote in his book “The Truth about Tolerance,” “Governing bodies at various levels of a deeply pluralistic society like ours have a duty to consider the range of public sensibilities … a given decision affects, and not merely reflexively grant the naked exercise of rights upon request.” In this issue, the mayor of New York and the U.S. president used “rights” as the main reason for their support, which is constitutionally correct, but they had clearly neglected the fact that this matter involved “public sensibilities.”

Now, Barack Obama has amended his previous support, saying that he did not consider the decision to build the Cordoba House “wise.” As can be seen from this, to engage in a discussion on “rights” and “tolerance” in America has been a useful exercise in civic education for both the president and the general public.