I 'misbehaved' by asking to be treated fairly when I was in the USAF, and I paid dearly for it. 'Civil' would not be the word I'd use to describe how my simple request was taken.

I think that part of our work here should be to point out these very medieval attitudes, this fake tolerance, and what happens to people (like the professor at Kansas University who was beaten earlier this week for daring to stand up to the ID onslaught) who decide not to behave or be civil.

by Lorie Johnson on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 10:08:45 AM EST

Gibson underscores the negative side of "tolerance" :   "as long as they're civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions."

Here some etymological background to the "tolerance" concept :

1517, "permission granted by authority, license," from M.Fr. tolération (15c.), from L. tolerationem (nom. toleratio) "a bearing, supporting, enduring," from toleratus, pp. of tolerare "to tolerate, lit. "to bear" (see extol). Meaning "forbearance, sufferance" is from 1582. Religious sense is from Act of Toleration, statute granting freedom of religious worship (with conditions) to dissenting Protestants in England, 1689. [ from The Online Etymological Dictioary

In the most accurate original sense of the word - which was still in force in 1689 it seems, and likely much later even, up to today perhaps - to "tolerate" another, or the beliefs of another, is to suffer the existence of those. The implication is that the very existence of the other, or the beliefs of the other, constitute a weight which the one who "tolerates" is unwillingly forced to bear. From that claim emerges the spurious notion that to "tolerate" is a noble act, as in :

"We tolerate your continued existence ( and we can of course kill, or do whatever we want with, you if we wish ) and for that we are nobly magnanimous. You are lesser, flawed, corrupt or sinful, but perhaps not completely beyond redemption though we may reassess that judgement at any time."

[ The modern day financial analogue of this sort of "tolerance" is a zero percent credit card with, written in the fine print, the provision that the lender may raise the card's interest rate at any time to any rate for any reason under the sun including bouts of flatulence, a bad night's sleep, or the stubbing of a toe. ]

"Toleration" suggests power over that, or those, who are "tolerated" and I'd suggest that the word "tolerance" tends to be used in cases where power relationships are skewed such that the party which is "tolerated" is in fact disempowered. So "to tolerate" can code, as a euphemism, for "to allow continued existance" or simply "allow to live".

Gibson's attitude could be called "toleration" then, but to drag that term and its inherent meanings up from the basement to let it air out  in the light of day and be seen for what it really is and does.....

I'd say this :  Gibson tolerates other beliefs. Yes. And in this case "tolerance" amounts to an attitude of religious supremacy*

______

*Religious Supremacy : this term, a close relative of "white supremacy", is the belief in the inherent superiority of one's religious faith over all others and even extending to the extreme that all other faiths but one's own are illegitimate suspect, invalid, or simply evil - even in the strong sense.

In the extreme, some manifestations of American Christian religious supremacy cleave the spectrum of human religious faith with a battle axe of Manichean dualism, into absolutes of good and evil, and so place large swaths of humanity and faith in the realm of absolute evil. How is one to confront absolute evil ? Well, attaching to the profane, Earthly realm what is actually an transcedendant - or theoretical - belief or construct, absolute good or evil, lays the groundwork for absolutist solutions that can extend far beyond the realm of forebearance and "tolerance".  

by Bruce Wilson on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 10:18:33 AM EST

I think you brought up an important point about Gibson's archaic idea of toleration: those expressing this attitude feel that they are bearing a burden, yet being noble in doing so. They are fully aware of the disparity in power between the tolerator and the tolerated, and they approve that disparity. This form of toleration does not accept the tolerated as equals. The follow up to this attitude is that it can quickly turn to anger and violence if they feel the tolerated are not recognising their nobility with the proper expression of gratitude.

When he says, "as long as they're civil and behave, we tolerate [their] presence" he is making an explicit claim to his majority being the only real Americans. Those who aren't part of his brand of Christianity are visitors who had damn well better behave, or else.

by John McKay on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:44:30 PM EST