Tolerance should not mean acceptance

By JOE MIXIE/Guest columnist

03/25/200

I recently received a letter in the mail asking me to sign the "Declaration of Tolerance." Although I am against discrimination and injustice, I see several very serious flaws in this "declaration."

First, there is no reference to any standard of morality in this document. Without a moral foundation, the virtue of tolerance becomes nothing more than a vehicle to further erode community morality and promote moral relativism.

Without a moral foundation, all beliefs have the same truth value because there is no standard by which we can evaluate them. It is one thing to ask people to recognize and respect beliefs that are different from their own, it is quite another to ask people to accept and approve beliefs that are different from their own.

Second, without any reference to a standard of morality, this declaration sends a confusing message to our citizens. This document states that "To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make Milford a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristics are different from my own." It concludes, "For all our differences, we share one world. To be tolerant is to welcome the differences and delight in the sharing."

According to the declaration, I am not only to respect, but also to embrace and delight in the sharing of different beliefs. Is that really what the Milford Anti-Hate Task Force and all the Community Coalition Groups desire?

Let's consider just one example. There are some citizens of Milford who have the belief that it is acceptable to produce, sell and purchase pornography.

Does the Milford Anti-Hate Task Force and the Community Group Coalition, which includes several churches, CPAC and The Milford Respect 2000 Committee, really want to "welcome the difference and delight in the sharing" of pornography?

There are many citizens of Milford who believe that pornography exploits men and women, depicts them as sex objects, and degrades humanity. Does the Milford Anti-Hate Task Force and the Community Group Coalition really believe that Milford is a "better place" for all the pornography and XXX video and bookstores currently located in Milford?

The argument could be made that Milford would be a much better place if we were more intolerant of the belief that pornography is acceptable and had not allowed these businesses here in the first place. But according to the "Declaration of Tolerance" as currently written, diversity of beliefs, any beliefs, is a "wellspring of strength and makes Milford a better place." Do you see the problem?

I recently remember reading in a local newspaper about the efforts by some of the leaders of Milford to try to stop the Penthouse Boutique from locating in Milford . According to this declaration, they should have been tolerant of this legal business locating in our community.

I also wonder if the Declaration of Tolerance extends to the White Wolves group who seem to have beliefs quite different from the Anti-Hate Task Force. As I read this declaration, we should all be tolerant of the White Wolves and "delight in the sharing." Is this really what the founders of the Declaration of Tolerance desire?

There are many other more extreme examples I could give. My point is that without any foundation in a standard of morality, calls for tolerance can actually become a platform for eroding the community's morality because it dictates that all beliefs and moral standards are to be viewed as equal.

In fact, calls for tolerance can themselves become methods of prejudice and discrimination as those who refuse to sign this "Milford Declaration of Tolerance" might be viewed as possessing "ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry."

The letter I received requesting me to sign this Declaration made it clear that a list of names would be kept of all who signed this Declaration, which also implies a list of all who refuse to sign it.

Another problem with this declaration is that it fails to differentiate between characteristics we are born with, such as race, and those we voluntary choose, such as sexual orientation and beliefs.

Surely we should accept and approve of those differences that we are born with because we have no control over them, but should we accept and approve of any differences that are caused by our choices? Here again, without reference to a standard of morality, there is no basis for evaluating these differences.

I would like to recommend that the effort to get as many signatures as possible to sign this Declaration be stopped immediately and that any future Declarations of Tolerance be clearly grounded in a standard of morality.

Perhaps our community could engage in several community forums that address the issue of establishing a standard of morality for Milford.

The Rev. Joe Mixie is the Senior Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Milford and teaches Philosophy and Ethics at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield.

Editor's note: See related column by the Rev. Paige Besse-Rankin, founder of the Milford Anti-Hate Task Force.

copy;Milford Sunday 2004

Post your opinion and share your thoughts with other readers!         ©Milford Sunday 2004

Name: Steve Bruzik Date: Mar, 27 2004

We need to identify the foundations of our morals; what we base our opinions on. They can be on biblical principals, or a person can rely on the general acceptance in their community. To tolerate, also means to accept. To accept means to approve. Allowing personal behaviors as a community can't be based on each individuals ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't, in that case everything becomes acceptable as long as one person wants to behave in that manner. What is and isn't acceptable needs to be based on truth. If we continue to generalize what is moral, we will find ourselves in a society that accepts any kind of behavior. How can you define morality if it is based upon individuality? Both pastors discussed the topic of pornography, but what worries me is that the "Declaration of Tolerance " leads to the assumption that if one person seeks their individual right to be morally diverse then we should accept that. By doing this, we are also telling our children that this kind of behavior is correct. I base my opinions on the same book both pastors use The Holy Bible. In the bible we are told to love one another unconditionally, but nowhere in the bible does it say live and let live. We have a responsibility when we witness someone in our church, or community, behaving unmorally. It is our task to lead that person to the truth, and support them as they develop based upon that truth. Pastor Besse-Rankin states that in dialogue there can be change. Let the "Declaration of Tolerance " be changed to a " Declaration of Love ". You can tolerate someone and despise him or her at the same time. If you truly love someone you will cherish him or her and help them grow.

The Prophet Elijah was intolerant of Jezebel, The Apostle Paul was intolerant of Witchcraft books, Thomas Jefferson was intolerant of King George III, George Washington was intolerant of British troops, Frederick Douglass was intolerant of slavery, Susan B. Anthony was intolerant of only men voting, Amy Carmichael was intolerant of child prostitution, Dietrich Bonhoffer was intolerant of anti-semitism, Winston Churchchill was intolerant of Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr was intolerant of segregation, Lech Walsea was intolerant of communism, Mother Theresa was intolerant of abortion. Intolerance is a beautiful thing!

Reflections on Declaring Tolerance

By PAIGE BESSE-RANKIN/Guest columnist

3/25/2004

It is a wonderful thing to be engaging in energetic dialogue in the community of Milford about ways we can reduce prejudice and eliminate discrimination and hatred.

The Milford Anti-Hate Task Force was founded in 1999 by residents of our community who were concerned by the appearance of Ku Klux Klan members recruiting in our city and other racial incidents going on in our community.

Our hope has always been to educate and increase awareness in ourselves and others around issues of prejudice, to provide support and friendship for victims of hatred, and to share information with one another about incidents and resources.

Luckily, we are not alone in doing this work. We are blessed to have community organizations across this country that are doing similar work. There are also wonderful national organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the Study Circles Foundation and the "Not in Our Town" Project, who provide wonderful informational resources and suggestions about what has been working in other communities.

The "Not In Our Town" Project has a slogan: "Silence is Acceptance. Speak Loudly." This slogan is based in the understanding that victims of hate crimes, prejudice and discrimination often feel isolated and alone.

They wonder if everyone agrees with the sentiments expressed by extremist groups unless a community finds a way to speak out against hatred and bigotry. At the Milford Anti-Hate Task Force, one of our goals is to provide mechanisms by which members of the Milford community can "Speak Loudly" and take a stand in meaningful ways.

The Declaration of Tolerance is one of ways we are living out that goal.
Encouraging communities to sign "Declarations," "Pledges" and "Statements" is a strategy used and encouraged by many who are doing this work across the country. Our Declaration is adapted from one used by the "Teaching Tolerance" program of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

One of the things we appreciated about this particular Declaration was the values it explicitly stated: "Every person is a treasure," " America 's diversity is its strength," - tolerance and respect make Milford and our world a better place to live.

Rev. Mixie has raised the concern about whether the values stated in this document are enough and feels it needs to be grounded in a "standard of morality." I think the declaration does have moral values grounded, in part, in the foundational documents of this country which value freedom for each to pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," along with the freedom of religion and freedom of speech and many others.

Of course, there are some limits to that freedom - limits set in the law with the needs of the community in mind. We recognize in this country that each of us needs a "standard of morality" and that for some of us, those standards are grounded in forms of religion or philosophy which offer moral guidance that often go beyond what is "legal."

We also recognize we do not always agree on moral issues - even those of us in the same faith traditions!

So whose standard of morality do we adopt when trying to unite a community that includes diverse religions, cultures and experiences? When do we agree to disagree? And how do we treat those with whom we disagree?

Rev Mixie challenges us all to look at the extremes of this issue and asks us to consider what is out of bounds. Are there limits to what we should tolerate and respect?

In my mind, the answer to that is stated in the Declaration of Tolerance and would be activities that do not treat each person as a treasure, which in my mind would include such things as pornography and groups like the White Wolves when they encourage hate and discrimination.
If we sign the Declaration of Tolerance, I do not think it means we have to agree with or even approve those who have beliefs different from our own.

I agree with Rev. Mixie that "tolerating" and "respecting" is different from approving and agreeing. But I think that even if I vehemently disagree with another's beliefs, I should treat the person with respect. I should not beat them, kill them, or do harm to them, but I am welcome to debate them.

I believe the greatest tool we have to deal with differences is dialogue. When we dialogue with someone who believes differently than we do, we are asked to listen and try to understand what they believe and why.

Sometimes in that dialogue, one or the other adjusts their beliefs when they take another's perspective into account. Sometimes, neither dialogue partner changes their understanding, but both grow stronger in understanding, articulating and affirming their own beliefs. Asking and answering questions are essential tools when dealing with differences.

That is what I think is behind the last statement of the Declaration of Tolerance about welcoming differences. It is the sharing and the dialogue we embrace as a means to share one world and strengthen our community.

So even though I disagree with Rev. Mixie on a number of things, I welcome him to the dialogue and I know that Milford Anti-Hate Task Force will be approaching him to continue the discussion he has begun in the press.

I do want to clarify that with more than 50,000 residents in Milford, we can hardly generate a list of "those who don't sign" the declaration. We have asked signers if they want their name used publicly - for instance in a full-page ad in the news paper or in some public display we would create to "Speak Loudly."

Everyone also has the option to have their name kept anonymous and to be listed, for example, as part of "97 anonymous signers." Nor would we ever assume that anyone who does not sign this Declaration is necessarily "ignorant, insensitive, or a bigot."

I hope that everyone takes this Declaration as seriously as Rev. Mixie has taken it and engages in the issues it raises. We have much work to do in Milford in understanding the barriers - some of them invisible - to diversity.

People in our community have been harmed by hatred, prejudice and discrimination. We each have our prejudices. Hopefully we can all find a way to declare our intention to keep working on these issues in meaningful ways. And then, once we have declared our intention, hopefully we will follow-through with study and with action!

Paige Besse-Rankin is a pastor at Woodmont United Church of Christ and the founding member of the Milford Anti-Hate Task Force.

Editor's note: See related column by the Rev. Joe Mixie of Grace Baptist Church.

©Milford Sunday 2004

Letter from the Editor

04/012004

To the readers:

OK, I know this is a can of worms, but here it goes. A book audit? An attack on the Declaration of Tolerance? I've been around Milford a long, long time and never witnessed anything quite like this.

I can understand being careful about what books are in the public schools, and I'm sure our school librarians are not infallible (although I've met a few, and I believe they are wonderful people who work very hard to find books that are relevant, interesting and will encourage our youth to read.) I agree school is no place for books with sexually explicit content, but the "Berenstain Bears and The Ghost of the Forest ?" A Hardy Boys book? What's next, the venerable Harry Potter? I've read the entire series twice, as have my grown children. Yes, these are books with ghosts and magic (I guess we're calling it "the occult.") They are also books about friendship and loyalty.

Children love ghost stories. I love ghost stories. I've written many columns about the ghost that haunts our farm. Will the Weekly be labeled "occult" material and banned from school libraries on those weeks when I mention "Michael"? Sorry, but this would unquestionably open a door we don't want to walk through.

A big round of applause to our superintendent of schools, Dr. Greg Firn, for having the wisdom to quickly denounce this idea and move on.

And about the attacks on the Declaration of Tolerance. The assaults on this simple, honorable document have twisted its meaning far beyond its original intent. How exactly does it promote tolerance of pornography? Prostitution? Hate groups? The declaration clearly states those signing it will strive towards respecting those whose "abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual orientation or other characteristics" are different from their own. Those denouncing the document insist there are scads of people we shouldn't be tolerant of. They quickly list those who have made a poor choice of vocation (pornographers) or social affiliation (White Wolves.) I'm kind of wondering where journalists fall on this list of immoral persons . . . I can only guess.

The traits listed in the declaration obviously refer to characteristics people are born with (such as a disability) or into (such as a religion.) If it was so easy to misinterpret these words, the White Wolves would have jumped on the chance to sign their own copies when they were given the opportunity after crashing the signing of the first declaration at City Hall a few months ago. Instead, they declined and left - they clearly understood the intent of the document.

In the end, I'm afraid "sexual orientation" is the phrase the vocal few are taking issue with. While some may be of the opinion sexual orientation is a choice, most experts disagree. Believing homosexual people are bad or immoral people is also merely an opinion, one that I, and most everyone I know, don't share. We have far too many friends and relatives who are gay and whom we really, truly like. Their sexuality is only a fragment of what defines their humanity.

Those who would like to see the document rewritten insist they want to see "morality" added to the wording. Should it become the Declaration of Morality? What exactly should it say? That we should only be tolerant of "moral" people? This terrifies me. Who gets to decide which of us is "moral" enough to be tolerated? Would a town committee do a study and make a list of everyone who passes the "Milford Morality Test," then take out an ad in a newspaper listing those who have earned the right to be "tolerated?" If we are at all honest, that ad would be about the size of a business card, if not smaller.

The last person I know of who might have been considered moral enough for Milford 's list was hung on a cross and murdered. Oddly enough, he often chose to spend time with lowlifes, tax collectors and prostitutes. Could it be he "tolerated" them, despite their vocations? Would he have made the grade in our city if he were alive today?

I've lived and worked in Milford a long, long time and I know far too much about far too many people (including myself.) Not a one of us has lived a perfect life. Not a one of us has escaped making an error in judgment, whether it be driving under the influence, slipping a pack of gum into a pocket in the drug store without paying for it, cheating on our taxes, spreading gossip, bullying, physically or mentally abusing a weaker person, or dumping an unwanted pet off the side of the highway.

We are human. We are flawed. Most of us work hard, trying to live our best lives despite our "abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual orientation or other characteristics that may be different" from the greater population.

Most of the people of Milford are wonderful, good people who, despite their own humanity and flaws, are accepting of others and all that comes with them. With or without the Declaration of Tolerance, Milford is a great place to live and work.

I happen to believe the declaration makes it an even better place.

I am 100 percent behind the Anti-Hate Task Force, and I sincerely hope their spirits and efforts are not dampened by the recent attacks. Please continue to carry your banner of hope.

Sincerely,

Kathleen M. Schurman

Editor

(Who may not be 100 percent moral all of the time, but hopes she will be tolerated, anyways)

©Milford Sunday 2004

Here is a preview of an article from Berit Kjos on Crossroad "Media Bias Matches UNESCO Intolerance" which may be read in full at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/tolerance.htm.

Cahill's New York Times article, "The One True Faith: Is it Tolerance?" (1/3/02) shows little love for the beliefs and values that inspired America's founding fathers. Instead, it fits the conclusions of another skeptical Thomas who also used the NY Times to point an accusing finger at the followers of Christ. Perhaps you remember the outrageous accusations in the article, "The Real War" (11-27-01) by Thomas Friedman.  Ponder his words:

"We're fighting to defeat an ideology: religious totalitarianism. World War II and the cold war were fought to defeat secular totalitarianism... and World War III is a battle against religious totalitarianism, a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated...."

Did you catch that?  He equates today's war on terrorism as "a battle against religious totalitarianism." If you take your Christian faith seriously, you are the enemy. He identifies this deadly totalitarianism  as "all faiths that come out of the Biblical tradition -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- [which] have the tendency to believe that they have the exclusive truth."

It's tragic that respected spokesmen like Thomas C. and Thomas F. so freely twist our history and dismiss our constitutional rights. Are they so blinded by their vision of oneness that they cannot see the worth of freedom? - Read on at above link