Hullo Folks.

Many people speak of "tolerance" as though it were some sort of Holy Grail of American Society. That is (supposedly) what makes America great; ours is a land where diverse opinions and beliefs can coexist, because we tolerate one another. These "peaceful relations" are hardly peaceful, however, as tensions are constantly flaring and this shining beacon of tolerance is tarnished by events such as the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller. The Middle East is not the only place from which modern terrorists hail, and a signature feature of terrorists is that they don't tolerate anyone. Tolerance, as can be readily seen, degenerates quickly. When it does, we have violence on our hands. With it, everyone has the right to speak; without it, people die. It seems rather important, but do we know exactly what it is? As easy as it may be to fling fancy words around with only a general idea of their significance, I think it is important to know what we are saying. After all, our ability to say it seems to hinge on what this word means.

Using  the online resource etymonline.com, I have looked up a few words. I'd like to share with you what I found, and what I perceive to be their importance in this matter.

Toleration: from the Latin tolerare, meaning to bear, forbearance, sufferance.

That sounds like loads of fun. Still, it's better than being persecuted for our beliefs. However that is where its usefulness ends. It brings us out of the mire of physical violence (in theory at least) and allows some measure of freedom to be different. And this is all I see on either side of the "Culture War" (a term which I find to be rather fitting, since the conflict has produced and continues to produce so many casualties). Advocates from both sides of the front seem to merely tolerate each other - that is, so long as they get an even louder megaphone with which they might assault our ears and intelligences. This helps to pave the way for ad-hominem arguments and attempts at censure, and bars successful communication. The problem with toleration is that it implies a time limit. "For how long do I have to tolerate your misguided sentiments?" It also implies an intrinsically superior position. "I am right, but you don't know it, and the law that says you have to tolerate me says I have to tolerate you, so I will." This doesn't get anyone anywhere. If we place ourselves on pedestals where no one else can reach our ears, let alone our heads or hearts, how can we NOT expect others to do the same? And in that case, everyone's message will fall on deaf ears (except those ears attached to heads which are already in agreement).

Might I suggest another word, which might give us a more adequate - and dare I say more human - way to approach the situation?

Respect: from the Latin respectus, meaning to look back at, regard, consider.

Hmmm. You mean, we actually have to give consideration to these views which are contrary to our own? Well, considering does not mean agreeing. Giving consideration to opposing views, rather than tolerating the sounds which come out of other peoples' mouths, sets us on more equal footing. And, because the best way to get respect is to give it, respecting and giving consideration to opposing viewpoints and the people who espouse them is more likely to earn the respect of others than denunciation and tongue-lashings. There is something very important embedded in what I just said: "... giving consideration to opposing viewpoints AND THE PEOPLE who espouse them..." Giving consideration to people... like considering who they are, what they are, the things which make up this particular individual... the things which make up any particular individual... it complicates this whole "respect" issue. But let's follow this through. When you take time to consider another human being, since you are yourself (if we may make the assumption) a human being, you're going to find some similarities. And this is the crux of the problem. We find it disconcerting to look at people who seem to embody all the things which we don't like and see ourselves reflected back. But, it is going to happen. In the immortal words of William Shakespeare (yes, the bard himself wrote on this very subject), "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh?" I know it is cliche, but cliches are cliche for a reason. They contain truth. So... to consider the pain and joy of another human being and to recognize it as your own...

well, that leads us to the punchline, folks:

Compassion: from the Latin com- meaning together; and pati, meaning to suffer.

Well, we're back to suffering, but this time we don't have to do it alone. To suffer with someone else, to look into what it is that drives this other person, what makes him suffer, you may just get some insight into the nature of his suffering. And, by virtue of being human yourself, perhaps get an insight into the nature of your own suffering. And this insight might lead to understanding. And understanding may just lead to a better way to cope... a better way to live. Giving consideration to those things that make up a human being - taking inventory, so to speak - we find that certain things are more important than others. There are certain things which are consistent, common to all of human experience. Not only suffering, but joy. Not only anger, but love. Not only fear, but courage. The list goes on.
Resting all our estimates of life on the things which make us different from one another, as important as those can be, blinds us to the things that we share, the things which bring us together.