On tolerance and Intolerance

One of the principle teachings of Freemasonry is tolerance. We don’t speak of it in lodge much, but it is inherent in the way a lodge operates, it is custom. The most “visible” evidence of tolerance in lodge is the unwritten custom of not allowing proselytizing or the discussion of politics.

The teachings on prudence, justice and temperance, though, it could be argued, are directly related to tolerance, as is brotherly love. But the most definitive discussion on tolerance can be found in Morals and Dogma by Wr. Br. Albert Pike, Sovereign Grand Commander of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction.

…it (toleration) inculcates in the strongest manner that great leading idea of the Ancient Art, that a belief in the one True God, and a moral and virtuous life, constitute the only religious requisites needed to enable a man to be a Mason.

Masonry has ever the most vivid remembrance of the terrible and artificial torments that were used to put down new forms of religion or extinguish the old. It sees with the eye of memory the ruthless extermination of all the people of all sexes and ages, because it was their misfortune not to know the God of the Hebrews, or to worship Him under the wrong name, by the savage troops of Moses and Joshua. It sees the thumb-screws and the racks, the whip, the gallows, and the stake, the victims of Diocletian and Alva, the miserable Covenanters, the Non-Conformists, Servetus burned, and the unoffending Quaker hung. It sees Cranmer hold his arm, now no longer erring, in the flame until the hand drops off in the consuming heat. It sees the persecutions of Peter and Paul, the martyrdom of Stephen, the trials of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and Irenæus; and then in turn the sufferings of the wretched Pagans under the Christian Emperors, as of the Papists in Ireland and under Elizabeth and the bloated Henry. The Roman Virgin naked before the hungry lions; young Margaret Graham tied to a stake at low-water mark, and there left to drown, singing hymns to God until the savage waters broke over her head; and all that in all ages have suffered by hunger and nakedness, peril and prison, the rack, the stake, and the sword, - it sees them all, and shudders at the long roll of human atrocities. And it sees also the oppression still practiced in the name of religion - men shot in a Christian jail in Christian Italy for reading the Christian Bible; in almost every Christian State, laws forbidding freedom of speech on matters relating to Christianity; and the gallows reaching its arm over the pulpit.

No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own private property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical; and assert the right to persecute, if we would; and claim our toleration of it as a merit. The Mason's creed goes further than that. No man, it holds, has any right in any way to, interfere with the religious belief of another.

It appears that, in Wr. Pike’s opinion, we are called upon as Masons to demonstrate more than simple toleration. But, what does that mean?

Merriam-Webster defines To Tolerate as:
… to endure, to put up with; akin to Old English tholian to bear, Latin tollere to lift up, latus carried (suppletive past participle of ferre), Greek tlEnai to bear
1 : to exhibit physiological tolerance for (as a drug)
2 a : to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with
To endure… to put up with… to suffer it to be done without prohibition… so, in essence, to simply tolerate something is to endure it in silence. That is brotherly?

But what is the next level? If we go beyond simple toleration, where are we? Acceptance? Well, that certainly seems correct, so let’s examine acceptance for a moment.

Merriam-Webster defines to Accept as:

1 a : to receive willingly b : to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added)
2 : to give admittance or approval to
3 a : to endure without protest or reaction b : to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable c : to recognize as true : BELIEVE
4 a : to make a favorable response to b : to agree to undertake (a responsibility)
5 : to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment
6 : to receive (a legislative report) officially intransitive senses : to receive favorably something offered.

To give admittance or approval to… to endure without protest or reaction… neither separately is the correct Masonic position, but together, these two might suffice. Two brothers may vehemently disagree on a subject, but if each brother accepts the other’s right to that opinion and the brother’s right to believe differently, then we are closer to the Masonic ideal.

This is not to say that we must each accept the others POSITION, for we do have right to our own thoughts, and it could be argued that it is quintessentially Masonic for brothers to work out for themselves that which is right, fit, mete and proper. It is, however, entirely unmasonic to try to suppress a brother for having a differing opinion. It is wrong to go out and try to change a brother’s opinion, or to convert him.

Discussion of issues and the exchange of positions, while it may seem contradictory, is not intolerant of non accepting, for it is by the exchange of ideas and thoughts that we all grow. However, pushing your onto a brother is intolerant… for instance, the prohibition against proselytizing in lodge is quintessentially a Masonic virtue, for if a brother is interested in your position on religion, he will ask… outside of lodge.

But the whole issue of religion and tolerance is a thorny one. I recently made the point to a brother that preaching to someone, going door to door, bracing them in the workplace or in the street, or sending “missionaries” to another country is, on its face, intolerant. Masonically, it is intolerant, for it is a failure to accept the other person’s beliefs (or lack thereof), and a pushing of one person’s opinion onto another.

If group A sends people door to door to “share” their version of faith, those folks going door to door are intruding (literally trespassing) to push their views, and are, by definition, being intolerant of the views held by the people they are intruding upon. If a group sends people to another country to “feed and clothe the poor”, and of course, share their faith with them, those people are being intolerant of the beliefs and customs of the people they are feeding and clothing.

If they were truly interested in just feeding and clothing, they wouldn’t take as many holy books with them as potatoes…

The difference between mere toleration and acceptance of another’s right to his views is a simple matter of intent. If you go to a man and ask him his opinion on a subject, be it religion or politics or the shape of the clouds in the sky with the intent of sharing with him your own view then you are not being tolerant of his views.

This is an extreme interpretation to make a point, but it is no less true for that. Some feel it is the nature of their religion, the call of their faith, to share with everyone the nature of that faith. Wonderful, however, doing that is a manifest demonstration of intolerance… done with the best of intentions.

Another example of this is the War Between the North and the South here in the United States in the 1860’s. Examples abound of Masons on each side of the war, stopping to hold joint funeral services for fallen brothers, to hold out a Masonic lodge from being burned or looted, to give shelter or forbearance to a brother… during a shooting war. THAT was true Masonry.

Today, we see a definite lack of tolerance in the lodge. There are issues that have come up, changes in process and procedures of varying natures. As usual, there is one group championing the change, and as usual, there is a group the opposes the change, and there is always they third group that really don’t care and just want to get to the coffee and donuts.

Under true Masonic tolerance, we would accept each other’s right to have the opinion(s) and move on. Unfortunately, we see one side or the other trying to shut up the dissenters. There are claims of divisiveness, “Masonic Civil War”, splitting the craft etc etc as rhetoric to stop one side from holding their own opinions.

Masonic teaching would have us accept the other opinion, and the each other’s right to have those opinions, and seek common ground, but that is not happening. Instead, we see retrenchment, and, frankly, resentment. The issue doesn’t matter, there are several of them facing us today. The Masonic way would be to work together instead of trying to win at all costs. As one man wrote, it is better to have half a pie than no pie at all… that is acceptance.

Masonically, it is not about winning, or shouldn’t be… oh, we have elections, and we have moderated debate in lodge over issues, decorous and brotherly… mostly. Then we vote, and the vote should end the discussion… but it often turns into more than that after the election is done.

So, what is Masonic tolerance? In reality, it should be, in this mason’s opinion about brothers seeking how best to work and best agree. It should be about accepting our brothers for who they are and what their faith is, and how we can best learn to be better men before g-d and our fellow men.

No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose opinions are opposed to his own.

As always, I look forward to seeing your comments.

G-d bless