No concept has more currency in
our modern politically correct culture then the concept of tolerance, a once
noble virtue that is fast becoming a vice promoted by secular progressives. By
definition, tolerance means to permit or allow a point of view one disagrees
with while respecting the person in the process. Notice the critical point: We
cannot tolerate someone unless we disagree with them. We don’t “tolerate”
people who share our views – our tolerance of others is reserved for those we
disagree with. This essential element of tolerance, to disagree, has been
deleted from the modern dialogue so that disagreement with someone’s point of
view is now labeled as “intolerant.” The bases for this change is the
postmodern myth that true tolerance consists of neutrality—that all views have
equal merit... equal value, and,
therefore, none should be considered better than another. This is a chapter
right out of relativism, and obviously turns morality and ethics into figments
of one’s imagination. The elephant in the room: Disagreement, the basis of true
tolerance is now intolerant, making true tolerance impossible, and opening the
flood-gate of label mongering.
Tolerance can apply to people, behavior,
or points of view... opinions. Historically, our Judeo-Christian culture has
promoted tolerance of people, but never carte-blanche tolerance of all opinions
or behavior. In the current rhetoric of relativism tolerance is most frequently
advocated for broad moral limits... or no limits, on behavior, while at the
same time allowing little tolerance for the expression of opposing viewpoints
on issues of morality: They want to tolerate most behavior, but won’t tolerate
opposing beliefs about those behaviors. Relativistic tolerance denies moral
absolutes... while holding to the moral absolute that there is no moral
absolute. This concept saws off the limb it sits on.
Our first amendment rights are based on a simple principle
first spoken by Voltaire: "I do not agree
with what you have to say, but
I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This is the
essence of free speech and tolerance in a democratic society. Tolerance
does not demand acceptance or respect of contrary views, beliefs or behavior, but
merely recognizes their right to exist... to “tolerate” them. Intolerance
refuses their right to exist... is “intolerant” of them. Tolerance must be understood
relative to its object, people, behavior, or points of view: Quoting Peter Kreeft:
“Be egalitarian regarding persons. “Be elitist regarding ideas”, and behavior,
I might add. Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with,
not how we treat points of view we think false or behavior we think immoral.
Treat people courteously... with respect... always, no matter what
their views or behavior, but recognize not all views have equal worth,
merit, or truth, and not all behavior is
moral. We must believe in the equality of people, that people deserve equal
rights and opportunities -- not the equality of points of view, or behavior.
We live in a time of spiritual erosion and the rapid advance
of secularism. Now we have groups within our society that try to impose their
views on others -- silence opposing viewpoints – through the offensive label of
intolerance or through threats of harm. Quoting Ravi Zacharias: “This is
the new America of tolerance, another vacuous word defined by relativists whose
only absolutes are the denial of any other reality except their own.” Do not
allow the topic to be switched from the principle of free speech to a
particular topic or social issue. Intolerance is to be denied the free
expression of one’s personal views on a matter by ostracism or by the threat of
harm – attacking someone because they do not think or believe like you do...
like I do. This kind of intolerance is censorship in disguise.
