Tolerance

“We must be tolerant”. This statement always amuses me. No doubt the intention is noble, but logic is rather shallow.
Why is tolerance such a noble and vaunted virtue? What does it mean when we say “tolerance”? Does being tolerant means to tolerate liars and thieves?
And if we can not tolerate thieves why should someone tolerate non-believers?

This is not to say that thieves and people of different religions are equivalent.
Rather the purpose of the rhetoric was to emphasize that contrary to mistake made by most people, tolerance by itself is not sufficient.

Tolerance should be derived from the fundamental premise or idea which is the driver behind civilization. Hence tolerance is a derived or secondary characteristic.
The difference how we place the importance is in sequence and this difference is not trivial. The reason for this is that growth of civilization and development of philosophy, spirituality and science is dependant on the idea civilization is founded upon. The great civilization are founded upon exalted ideals, the creed which follows false or dishonest ideals is either vanquished or morphs into a nihilistic cult.

There is no unique or universal ideal for civilization, however an ideal can be judged (approximately) by its effect. A sound principle promotes freedom, encourages contemplation and argumentation and certain respect even for opponent (at least initially). However on the other hand certain ideals and behaviors are discouraged, we frown upon lying, we are severe on cheaters, and we mock superstitions.
Therefore a noble idea enables the civilization to judge or analyze between two optional path and member between different virtues.

On the other hand when tolerance is established as a principle of highest import, shorn of a validating ideal, it is not a virtue. In fact, in the absence of ability to judge or place moral weightage on ideas, tolerance withers away and becomes indifference and intellectual sloth.

Update Also Related Posts here,here and here