Why doesn't interreligious tolerance work?

The purpose of religious tolerance has always been and remains, the preservation of the power and purity of dominant religion in a certain state. Most of the prevailing religions in most countries are declared tolerant today, but they also seem to feel particularly threatened.

National religious movements in the United States, Europe, India, Turkey and Israel want to strengthen relations between state identity and dominant religion. In either case, democratic elections have strengthened the importance of majority religion in the sense of state and nation, increasing the power of that religion.

We can see a growing chauvinism, in the blend of Catholicism and politics in Eastern Europe, portraying liberals and Communists as enemies. While religious nationalism is gaining strength, claims of belonging to “West” tend to extend in part to a political use of religious tolerance.

Tolerance has been historically a framework for people, who are deeply different from each other, to live peacefully together. What's exactly the reason, why it's time for tolerance to stop forever, to be a model for the relationships between groups.

Scepticism on tolerance has a long history, since German writer Johann Wolfgang Gvee, who said that “tolerosh means insulting”. It faced steady criticism after World War II, by philosophers and political theory such as Carl Poper, Herbert Markyze, and many others, who viewed liberal tolerance as guilty of having to approve the rise of fascism in the first half of the 20th century.

Where Popper saw a liberal society, requiring the oppression of some unfriendly views of self-restraint, Markyze, and without the tolerance of liberalisation to injustice, as the problem itself. After Markyze, in the 1960 ' s, the New Left asked whether the idea of tolerance especially of speech and political diversity served only to protect governments, corporations and elites, in continuing policies of economic and racial oppression.

Recently, one trend of thought in international relations is stressing how the foreign policy governing Western governments is now separating the world between tolerance and tolerance, in the same way that civilization (whites) once distinguished from barbarians (all others).

Tolerance is deeply rooted in the multitude of visible modern ideals: a natural good, a necessary individual ethics, a pillar of Western civilization and evidence of its superiority.

However, tolerance, such as an idea and a ethics, bypasss interoperability between individuals and groups, in everydayness and over the longer term; mutual cultural and ideal exchange between groups in a society. Groups do not interact in isolation, they share mutually, sometimes deliberately, and sometimes unwittingly.
If it is true that a global society exists, what embodys today is not tolerance, but reciprocity, the vital and dynamic relationship of mutual exchange. that happens every day between individuals and groups within a society.

Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many other civilizations have historically preserved their traditions of religious tolerance. On the other hand, reformation in Europe expanded intolerance. The Reformation conducted trials against heresy, a symbol of religious devotion. Before compromises were reached for different Christians to live with one another, violent religious wars ravaged Europe for 100 years and a few years.

A Christian refusal to tolerate significant deviations from the doctrine of Jews or Muslims, <x0-pagane” and “Ghages”, with which Europeans were first fighting in the Age of Their Intelligence, é was a sign of holiness and purity, willingness to place spiritual matters on land concerns.

It took many years, with dramatic ups and downs, for the idea of tolerance to turn into a positive value valued in European society. For the firstorists of English tolerance, such as John Locke, tolerance was primarily needed to protect Christianity and the souls of Christians.

In the 16th century alone, the idea of tolerance began to take root in Europe as a principle in line with good and effective governance. Iluminism, the growth of national states, the two world wars, and postwar European decolonization transformed tolerance from a legal concept regulating the privileges and limitations of minority religions into a philosophical and ethical ideal.

With the establishment of the international human rights corps after World War II, states banned the articulation of minority protection in tolerance decrees, or guarantees of minority rights. In fact, tolerance has never escaped its origin as a tool for the majority to solve minority problems.

As such, tolerance remains a single relationship between tolerance and tolerance, which deliberately or not, keeps tolerators out of full membership in the dominant group. Unlike tolerance, reciprocity knows that strong and dynamic societies are based on social and cultural exchange.

Reciprocity is a philosophy, a social ethics, a way to see the world and a psychology. It can serve as a description of what connects individuals and groups within a society, and mutual exchange of culture serves as a living life of all prosperous societies.

To develop the concept of reciprocity as an individual and collective political ethics, we can teach, study, and write about it. We can also accept our civic responsibilities, our society and each other, while we respect the contributions of others.

The constitution of the second French Republic, adopted during the wave of democratic revolutions known as the Spring of Peoples, which included Europe in 1848, includes a simple article that gives no rights or power to the state or people.
Article VI says only: <x0 mutual tasks, make citizens have obligations to the Republic, and the Republic has obligations to citizens”. Reciprocity makes this claim, but it goes further: the more we accept what each group mutually associates with society and society for each group, the better we all are.