Tolerance is More Than Just Enduring Another Religion

Explanation: Perhaps this explanation should have been included in the previous article, but the author refrained from elaborating on the premise that "tolerance" as the Persian equivalent of the word (Toleration) is sufficiently established. A look at some comments shows that the Arabic terms "tasahul" and "tasamuh," which were used in older texts as equivalents of tolerance, are more familiar to some readers. Therefore, we emphasize that tolerance is equivalent to "tasahul" and "tasamuh," but the Persian word "tolerance" has a broader application and meaning. In the discussion of the boundaries of tolerance, it was mentioned that historically, the theory of tolerance emerged as a solution to the challenges posed by religious wars. Religious wars had devastated parts of modern Europe, and thus the theory of tolerance took the first step towards liberalism after the Protestant Reformation. Tolerance, in theory, was a strategy that recognized individual freedom in matters of belief, values, and ways of life, compatible with the freedom of every other individual, minimizing the potential for governmental repression. In recent decades, with the emergence of new violence stemming from religious and social intolerance in the world, the discussion of tolerance has resurfaced, perhaps to confront the challenges of democratic pluralism in the process of globalization by creating new commonalities. Despite the general agreement on the necessity of tolerance in the current political and social circumstances, there is no broad consensus on the nature, boundaries, and justification of tolerance. In other words, tolerance remains one of the important subjects in the debates of philosophers and political thinkers. Tolerance and homosexuality - Same-sex marriage has long been a topic of discussion among various communities. In many European countries and several states in the United States, there are regulations that either recognize the relationship between two homosexuals or officially accept it as marriage. The former is more common and is associated with numerous legal issues, including child custody (if a child has been adopted), inheritance, taxation or tax exemption, receiving retirement benefits, decision-making regarding the treatment of a dying person, and many other important medical decisions. Since 1993, many Supreme Courts in the U.S. have ruled either for or against same-sex marriage, but ultimately the general direction of the judicial path has moved towards its approval. Since 1994, Europeans have also discussed and legally addressed the issue, and the European Parliament has proposed that EU members recognize same-sex marriage. Currently, it seems that the struggle for same-sex marriage is the direct and final step in the tolerance of sexual orientation. Until the early 1980s, sodomy was legally prohibited and prosecutable. However, with the lifting of that prohibition, the issue of tolerance for same-sex relationships (man with man and woman with woman) emerged, and as previously mentioned, it gradually became recognized in European and American societies as a way of life. This way reflects individual freedom and choice, which should be treated in society based on the principle of neutrality. Of course, homosexual men or women are still not universally accepted in some societies, and in others, they are even reviled. However, at least in Western societies, these sentiments against such individuals are not widespread and cannot hinder other social activities; for example, a homosexual cannot be politically excluded for this reason. At the same time, we still see in some cases that a homosexual withdraws from their political position, while in another place, homosexuality or support for the rights of homosexuals earns more votes for a political candidate. On the other hand, if we consider tolerance, as Ramin Jahanbegloo interprets it, a virtue that "is the recognition of the 'other' and 'respect' for their human dignity," this "recognition" goes beyond merely allowing an individual’s sexual orientation to operate beyond legal prohibitions. In fact, the acceptance of the legitimacy of homosexual acts is equivalent to accepting the free presence of homosexual individuals at the same level and rank as heterosexual individuals. Tolerance and closed societies - The application of tolerance, as we have seen in the case of homosexuals, is not merely a matter of religious difference. In all dimensions of social life and wherever there is "difference," tolerance can apply. It seems that closed societies, authoritarian regimes, and totalitarians still struggle with the alphabet of tolerance and the acceptance of basic concepts and the application of it as a strategy. The main problem in these societies is the intolerance of difference. Outside of recognized systems in the international community, the peak of intolerance can be observed among terrorist and inhumane groups such as the "Islamic Caliphate," "Boko Haram," and "Al-Qaeda," or among extremist religious groups within other religions. They display their barbarity in the most brutal manner towards anything that is not like them. The murder of three Muslim students in North Carolina, although under judicial investigation, is essentially a symbol of intolerance at the street level. In the international community, it is natural that societies with low tolerance capacity will not be able to accept issues such as the existence of homosexuals without a renaissance and fundamental reform, let alone think about their marriage. Sometimes, these societies have very little tolerance for opposing political thought, while they may show slight leniency towards religious minorities in some issues, mainly those related to personal status classification. An example of this type of limited tolerance for official religious minorities in Iran can be observed and exaggerated. In Iran, Christian, Jewish, and Chaldean minorities have representation in the (non-political) parliament, and Sunnis are invited to celebrate Unity Week (the birth of the Prophet), but they do not get the right to hold their congregational prayers. In this same country, a completely negative example of tolerance regarding unofficial minorities (according to the constitution) and also regarding those who replace Islamic beliefs with other beliefs or who do not adhere to any religion at all, as well as regarding gender minorities - which, according to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim, do not exist at all - is also observable. Closed societies exhibit degrees of intolerance in other dimensions of tolerance and continuously either reject or ignore it. A glaring example of this type of intolerance is the official announcement by the judiciary regarding the prohibition of publishing any material or image of Mohammad Khatami, the former President of Iran. This prohibition essentially includes all media (the principle of the order violates the right to freedom of expression); and on the other hand, it includes Mohammad Khatami himself, who has previously been declared banned from leaving the country. Thus, what is almost unprecedented in other parts of the world will be applied to Mohammad Khatami, meaning that as a cleric, he cannot even read and interpret the Quran for a congregation, and have that news published in a magazine. This is part of the policy of intolerance towards dissenters, which has been applied in the most severe manner to Mir Hossein Mousavi, the last Prime Minister of Iran, his wife Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi, the former Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. A similar intolerance is also applied to a group of intellectuals and lawyers. The bitter irony of history here is that Mohammad Khatami, during his presidency, called for greater tolerance at the international level and established the Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, which was supposed to be the flag bearer of Iranian tolerance. Conclusion - According to Anna Elisabetta Galeotti, a professor at the University of Piedmont in Italy, the study of contemporary discussions on tolerance shows three different approaches: 1. An ethical analysis of tolerance that uses complex tools of contemporary ethical theories to appropriately define and justify the concept of tolerance. 2. A political and liberal analysis of tolerance that considers it as a political principle for coping with pluralism in its liberal form. 3. Another type of political analysis that revises the traditional concept of tolerance to appropriately address the conflicts of pluralism. The first two approaches each re-examine traditional concepts with their tools and propose "non-interference" in the behaviors and actions of others. From this perspective, it is necessary not to violate the rights of both parties, even if the behaviors are contradictory and undesirable. The third approach does not consider "non-interference" sufficient for resolving the issues of our age. This approach suggests that the concept of tolerance should expand from the private to the public sphere, and "non-interference" should be extended to "recognition." Naturally, the recognition of differences must extend to the recognition of the holders of those "differences." The reasons for tolerance must be acceptable to both parties (the party that is tolerant and the party that is the target of tolerance). In tolerance, the discussion is not about compassion and kindness, as some Islamists suggest. In tolerance, the discussion is about equal enjoyment of freedom of expression, opinion, behavior, and social conduct, and the discussion is about integration and unity versus separation and alienation.