I was reading a reflection by Monsignor Charles Pope concerning beliefs, philosophies, and God. He opens by stating that

There is a tendency in the modern age, at least in the Western world, to trivialize the human person. One of the ways we do this is to say, in so many words, that it does not really matter what a person thinks or believes.

This is by no means a new sentiment (in the sense of being unique to today), but rather has permeated the "modern" era. For example, writing about 100 years ago, G.K. Chesterton said that this was often the attitude of the day. He continued by writing that

“It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages….But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period.” (Heretics)

The true root of tolerance is charity, the greatest of virtues. Unfortunately, it is also the virtue which is most frequently absent in every era and among every people. Worse yet, it is far too often misunderstood when present. For example, in a previous age people may have been burned at the stake for heresy*. On the surface, this looks like a lack of tolerance for "different ideas," but I think a case can be made that the root is a twisted sense of charity: burning a person at the stake kills the body, but heresy may kill the soul; throw in a dash of utilitarianism (in an nascent, pre-articulated form), and some people concluded that for the sake of the entire believing community, the heretic must be killed. Exile even would not do, since said heretic may go to another community and poison them with his beliefs.

I'm not here defending this proposition, nor did every member of every inquisition (there were more than one) act in such a way. Some really were concerned with the good of souls--not only of those who were orthodox believers, but of the soul of the alleged heretic himself--and so attempted not only to root out and expose heresy (a work of mercy in itself), but then to evangelize and convert the heretic (and to spare his life). Saint Dominic was such a person, which is perhaps why the order which he founded was eventually placed in charge of some of the inquisitions. There were, unfortunately, a number of inquisitors with less noble intentions (see, for example, the Spanish Inquisition, which was often used by the Monarchs of Spain to root out political enemies rather than actual heretics).

So much for the excesses of the Middle Ages**. In our modern age, we rarely if ever kill dissenters--at least not in the West (with a few exceptions)--but is this necessarily because we are more tolerant of (let alone more charitable towards) views which differ from our own? In a sense, the answer might be "yes," though it is in an ironic sense. Our attitude towards the beliefs of others very closely resembles the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US military: we won't ask about anyone's beliefs about, for example, God, morality, and religion, nor will we often volunteer any of these (at least not in person). The policy may keep some fights from breaking out, but it is done so not only from the desire to "maintain the peace" but from the desire to not listen to anyone else. The military has "don't ask, don't tell" because it's not politically correct to bar gays from the military, and yet there are many people who are uncomfortable with serving next to said gays. Modern society has a similar (albeit unspoken) policy towards philosophy, metaphysics, and religion in general because we can't ban certain beliefs, and yet we don't want to be exposed to them.

Chesterton once argued that (in a way) the most contemptuous crime against humanity that the average person may commit is a suicide, because he is in effect saying that his own death is preferable to living in the world with other men. If a murder ends the interaction between one man and another, then suicide is meant to end all interaction between that man and all other men. The next best thing from such a egoistical man's view to ending the lives of all other men is to end his own life, for the effect from his own point of view is approximately the same: no more contact between himself and anyone else. No more attempts at reconciling himself with the rest of mankind.

What does all of this have to do with tolerance and charity? Well, the modern tendency of ignoring the philosophies of others--indeed, ignoring the minds of others--is really apathy masquerading as tolerance. This ignorance of others is akin to a suicide (or an extermination) inasmuch as it strips away the dignity of other people, if only in such a person's mind. In religious terms, it means that the faux-tolerant modern man does not care the least about the other person's philosophy, his metaphysics, his beliefs, his lifestyle, his religion; in short, he does not care about anyone else's faith, nor (as a consequence) their salvation. This may be excusable in an atheist (who does not believe in salvation or an afterlife), or a Bhuddist (who believes in a cycle of reincarnation in which everyone may eventually reach nirvana).

However, it matters immensely for us as Christians. In effect, to not care about another person's salvation is to not love that person. If in a physical sense it is far better from the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition or the Protestant Witch Hunts, it is a far cry worse in the spiritual sense. These were bad enough to cause the ends of many lives on earth; but they did not deprive their victims of a life in paradise, indeed they were at times geared towards helping to save souls (if not those of the victims). The modern apathy betrays a lack of love, because the ultimate meaning of this word is to honestly and sincerely desire the salvation of the other person's souls so that he may spend eternity with God. As the late and great Pope John Paul II taught us, to love a person is to desire the highest good for that person, which is to desire God for him.

If we, in our apathy, give not a care for the other person's beliefs, his faith, then we similarly give not a care for his salvation. At best, we may hope that he has orthodox beliefs, and that he sincerely believes these and acts upon them; or that he will somehow be saved through some form of "invincible ignorance." This is a far cry from acting to evangelize, or (in the case of a believer who has fallen away or whose faith is in error, or is incomplete) to catechize. It is not for nothing that the Church has long held that instructing the ignorant is one of the acts of spiritual mercy, but before we can instruct the ignorant (and assuming that we are not ignorant in the same way ourselves) we must know in what way they are ignorant. But this requires that we take at least some interest in their philosophy, that we make some attempt to "know their mind."

As for tolerance, this is only virtuous when it is based in charity. Similarly, tolerance is only really applicable when we are actually faced with something with which we disagree. We're never really faced with anything if we ignore the other person, if we ignore his philosophy. As a civic virtue, the point of tolerance is for us to be able to live peacefully in a "pluralistic" society. As a moral virtue, it enables us to listen to the other person's mind, and to learn enough about the other person's thoughts that if he is really in error, we can help him to find truth. Note that this also means not abandoning our own beliefs simply because they differ--indeed, to do so is to abandon tolerance by eliminating the differences***.

To return to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it seems to me that the chief complaint of gays in the military is that this policy strips them of dignity****. How much more, then, does the unspoken (and thankfully often unenforced) societal rule of "don't ask, don't tell" concerning a man's philosophy strip that man of his dignity as a person? For this is the key difference exhibited***** between men and beasts, which is that we can philosophize; from this comes our art, our architecture, and all the rest of the trappings of society and civilization. Thus, to ignore this function is, in a sense, to ignore a man's dignity. This is doubly true, by the way, for those liberals who have argued time and again that the concepts of "personhood" and "humanity" are separable based on some level of conscious (or cognitive) activity. What greater indication is there of intolerance than a lack of respect for the dignity of another person?

If the intolerance of past ages meant that the life of a heretic wasn’t valued at much, then it seems to me that in our present age the intolerance is of a different kind. Now it is the afterlife–for believer and unbeliever alike–which is accorded no value. This apathy towards belief is a reflection of that, I think. This indifference to belief is really at heart a form of intolerance, of a lack of charity, every bit as much as charity may be lacking (though in a different way) during the worst "decadences" of the Middle Ages.
_____

* Interesting aside: this practice of burning at the stake was instituted as a punishment for heresy by the Synod of Verona because Canon Law forbade clergy from spilling blood; the practice was later applied to witches and adopted (and in some places even expanded) by Protestants in the wake of the Reformation, and was also the legal means of execution for certain crimes in certain countries (e.g. women who were traitors were burned at the stake in England).

**Ironically, the Spanish Inquisition--often used as a hallmark of Medieval excess, was established in 1478, well after the "Middle Ages" had come to a close. By this time, the Renaissance was in full swing--indeed, the "Age of Discovery" was beginning--and the Reformation soon to begin.

***This is not to say that we must or even should focus only on differences. There is often much to be gained from looking at things held in common, too.

****I disagree with this point in the case of this policy, by the way. I don't think that a person's dignity is the least bit tied up with his sexuality. The problem in this case is that the gays (and more often the homosexualists) are trying to make sexual identity the basis of dignity, whereas the actual basis is their humanity, in which they bear the imprint of God, "Made in His image and likeness." I'm not arguing either way for the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" in the military; fr full disclosure, I think that this policy is not necessarily a moral issue either way, and that the best thing would be to listen to our actual military leaders; the purpose of a military is to defend a country and to fight wars, so whether or not we implement this policy should largely be decided based on how well it allows our military to do these things.

*****"Exhibited" does not imply that this is the only difference, by the way. It practically implies the opposite, in fact.