Jean-Claude Pecker

Tolerance ... but what kind, and to what extent?

Jean-Claude Pecker is a leading astronomer and representative of the Union Rationaliste for IHEU.

United Nations, and UNESCO, have decided that 1995 will be the 'Year of Tolerance'. This seems entirely justified, in the sense that we see around us in the world, and in our own countries, alarming and often dramatic signs of rejection, of hatred, of xenophobia and racism .... of 'intolerance' to be short.

The concept of tolerance has always been one very much developed by the philosophers of the Humanist Renaissance, such as Erasmus or Montaigne, or, closer to us, by the philosophers of the Enlightment, such as Voltaire. In particular Voltaire (born in 1694, and celebrated this year) wrote, at the occasion of the trial and death, 1762, of Jean Calas, his magnificent Treatise on Tolerance. It was of course centred on the idea of religious tolerance, as Calas was judged and executed, in essence, because of false accusations of murder by the Catholic authorities of his time, Calas being a Calvinist. Voltaire's action led to the post-mortem rehabilitation of Jean Calas.

With time, as properly emphasized by the Dictionnaire Rationaliste published in Paris by the Union Rationaliste, the word 'tolerance' has taken a pejorative connotation. Let us recall that, at the times of the religious wars, during the Renaissance, the Catholic Church first tried to eradicate the heresy through a tough repression (remember only the French Saint-Barthelemy! ... ) But they realized soon the sheer impossibility of this goal. Therefore, in the most traditional Jesuitic spirit, what you cannot avoid, you accept, and you 'tolerate', as a lesser evil. Tolerance became a sort of acceptable last resource, a strategic withdrawal so-to-say.

In the same way, during centuries in the upper and middle classes, sexual relations outside the sacred links of marriage were to be banned for young marriageable girls, not out of moral considerations but because a marriage was first of all an alliance, a union between two families; and virginity had, so to say, a trading value within a contract. This attitude was still more drastic during the Victorian period. The same demand did not apply to men. Hence the existence of brothels, hence in France the name of 'tolerance houses' given to brothels. Always the same underlying motivation: what you cannot avoid, you 'tolerate'. No need to tell that the word tolerance in French still calls forth a smile. In a famous French play by Marcel Pagnol, Cesar (1946), a scene shows the whole ambiguity of the word tolerance. I quote:

-- Cesar: Marius m’a dit: 'je te croyais plus tolerant'. - Cesariot: Et alors? -- Cesar: Alors, tu penses!! -- Cesariot (etonne): Non, je ne pense pas du tout. - Cesar: Ecoute, ne crie pas comme ca ... -- Cesar: tu essaies d hbuser de ma faiblesse! - Cesariot: ta faiblesse, en effet, fait peine ~ voh:. Ecoute-moi! Tolerant... -- C~: Toi aussi? -- Cesariot: Tolerant, ca veut dire large d'esprit, piein d'indulgence, plein d'indulgence, plein de bienveillance pour les fautes des autres - Cesar: Allohs donc. Je connais la langue £rancaise - C~sariot: Mal. Tu la connais real...'

Pagnol's Cesar is a bartender, in an old part of the Marseilles' harbour. He still uses the concept of tolerance in its 'Victorian' meaning. It is true that the concept has since deeply evolved, in a favourable direction. Voltaire already used the wording: 'tolerance universelle' (universal tolerance), and to quote the Dictionnaire Rationaliste of U.R., it is less often a concession granted with contempt and resignation, than it was in the past. The tendency nowadays is to keep the Voltairian meaning of the concept, almost synonymous of freedom of conscience, and of freedom of expression.

But, truly, it has been used mostly in a religious context, even by Voltaire himself; in his famous deistic universal 'prayer to God', chapter XXIII of the Treatise on Tolerance. In its conclusion, Voltaire sticks very strongly to the idea: 'I disagree with what you said, but I shall fight it out to the finish so that you could say it'.

Because of the ambiguous semantic scope of the word tolerance, when we see UNESCO and UNO adopt the concept of tolerance as one for which we have to fight, we cannot avoid being frightened in several ways.

The signification of the word tolerance might be limited to tolerance with respect to adepts of other religions (not implying tolerance with respect to the atheists) and tolerance subsequently considered as a concession granted, as I said, with contempt and resignation. We must be aware that, in such a form of passive tolerance, of indifference (which I would even consider as a negative tolerance), one grants to others the right to exist, while, in the same time, granting to oneself a certain superiority to them. There may be some positive aspects in this limited type of tolerance. However, it is no doubt the mould for development, in proper circumstances, of more contempt. It is the mould for the true intolerance, or at least for passivity in front of intolerance. It is the mould indeed for more violent conflicts. In the recent and dramatic case of Bosnia, neighbours, who used to live with good nature, were to enter in a pattern of hatred, and soon became the worst enemies. There are no worse enemies often than brothers!

We can fear indeed that UNESCO and UNO insistence on the subject could lead some, the Catholic NGO's, the Islamic NGO's, also some governments even, to claim to be front-line fighters for 'tolerance'. But their concept of tolerance is quite narrow... It may be a strategic attitude, in some areas, where the development of integrism or fundamentalism is destroying the power of the official faith. This attitude can be suspected for the very reason that the religions are indeed rather tolerant towards some intolerant behaviours ... Have they condemned the death penalties which Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin are threatened with? Have they condemned the anti-abortion manifestation of intolerance? When a movie theater was destroyed in France because it showed a movie by Martin Scorsese, which was iconoclastic with respect to the Catholic dogmas, was it strongly condemned by the 'tolerant' church of France? Cardinal Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, said: "If one does not respect the sacred, one lets loose the devils'. Such a comment justifies, and even may incite to the "auto-da-fe", like in the worst times of the Spanish Inquisition.

Another fear we cannot avoid feeling, especially those amongst us who suffered from the Nazi atrocities, would be a tendency to tolerate everything and anything. But there are intolerable behaviours, all those which have constantly been condemned by IHEU, but also by UNESCO or UNO, such as racism, xenophobia, sexism, apartheid, segregation, etc .... all in essence intolerant attitudes. The 'ethnic cleansing', which takes place in the ex-Yugoslavia, or the daily horrors in Rwanda, are typical of what we shall never accept and tolerate. Intolerance, of which we gave a few typical examples, is indeed nothing but a reduced and reducing vision of the other or of a human group.

So what kind of tolerance would we fight for? An open tolerance, a positive tolerance, no doubt.

Tolerance is, first of all, the respect of individuals, of their freedom of expression, not the respect of ideas. A confrontation between ideas, in the mutual respect of each other is positive, in that it shows some hope in human reason. Everyone has the right to error, to the expression of contradiction. But only in the reference frame of the principles described quite adequately by the (French) D6claration des Droits de l'Homme (or by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations), or in the principles of the French Constitution of 1793, which expresses strongly the principle that 'no one can be prosecuted for their political religious, or philosophical opinions, unless they disturb the public order' (this is the implication of the 'laicite', -- in the French context).

We know that, year after year, science (genetics, anthropology, sociology, etc... ) is proving more and more the unity of the human species; and we are therefore, as humanists, in favour of the idea of a planetary human conscience.

We know also bad habits of thought, bad attitudes with respect to the others are starting very early in life. Education, staffing with elementary school, must teach our children, and children all over the world, from their earliest years, the true meaning of respect, whatever the familial or social origin, the gender, the skin colour, the religion, the absence or rejection of religion. They must be prepared to build together a better world for all.

Therefore, it seems to us that International Organizations should strongly encourage Member states, by all means in their power, to promote, in all basic educational systems, specific non-dogmatic programmes aimed at awakening a positive tolerance, based upon the fertility of human complexity, which we cannot deny the reality of, and promoting a society, necessarily planetary, and open towards others.

Therefore, we want to emphasize again that tolerance does not mean the acceptance of all human behaviours; there are intolerable behaviours, meant to ruin indeed the very expression of tolerance, such as the propagandas of the fascist, Nazi, or racist type, which indeed contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore no discrimination based upon geographical origin, language, skin colour, ethnic label, no discrimination based upon gender, no discrimination based upon political or philosophical, and religious or atheist convictions should anywhere keep anybody from having access to education, to culture, to work, or deprive anybody from one's dignity, one's physical integrity, or threaten one's life.

Last but not least, IHEU has shown on several occasions, and keeps on pushing along that direction, that it supports the International Organizations in their efforts to promote a rational, fundamentally humanist and world-minded approach of economical, social and political relations between peoples, in the respect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- which has defined for half a century most of their basic principles.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 'Cesar: Marius told me 'I thought you were more tolerant' -- C6sariot: And so what? -- Cesar: Well, just think! C6sariot: No! I cannot think at all

-- Cesar: Why? 'tolerant' indeed? House of Tolerance, you see! Tolerant, Tolerant, me! -- Ceariot: Listen; don't shout like that! - Cesar: You try to take an undue advantage o£ my weakness! - Ces'ariot: Your 'weakness' is indeed pityfull! Listen. Tolerant... Cesar: So, you too?- Cesariot: Tolerant, it means: broad-minded, full of forgiveness, of understanding for the other's errors - C6sar: Come on! I know the French language -- Cesariot: Badly. You know it badly...