Intolerant Tolerance
January 23, 2009
The relativists/pluralists are usually the ones who scream ”tolerance!” and demand we all should be tolerant of others. Though I don’t believe this to be a bad thing, except that the “tolerance” they speak of is not tolerance in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a muddled self-contradictory “tolerance.” Our postmodern culture has brought us to a point where we are blending everything together so that no one or nothing is left out, and what once was is no longer the same but only a twisted version of its old self… The proper understanding of “tolerance” (in a view that I’m in agreement with) can be explained as such…
”Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.With that being said, Christians might notice that the relativist/pluralist who see truth as subjective, religions basically the same, ALL paths leading to God, and (insert any idea and blend it together with any [many] other[s], as they love doing), STOP TOLERATING Christians and any of its conservative views. That is to say, they’ve become INTOLERANT to Christians/Christianity. So as we can see they contradict their own worldview by NOT tolerating us and by telling us (by implication at least) we are wrong (thus, intolerant tolerance). As is shown, just about every aspect of relativism/pluralism self-destructs. In my opinion, when self-defeating or contradictory claims collapse on themselves they become “dust in the wind” – non-issues. That is to say, that type of thinking/worldview has entered the absurd and all rational thought disintergrates. What’s the use in having any type of discourse once we’ve entered the absurd? In continuing the above quote…
Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.
Notice that we can’t tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.
This essential element of tolerance–disagreement–has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant…
Three Faces of Tolerance
Tolerance of persons, what might be called “civility,” can be equated with the word “respect.” This is the classical definition of tolerance: the freedom to express one’s ideas without fear of reprisal.
We respect those who hold different beliefs than our own by treating them courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree with their ideas and vigorously contend against them in the public square, but we still show respect for the persons in spite of the differences.
Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue. This is the second sense of tolerance, the liberty to act, called tolerance of behavior. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what he likes–and he usually has the liberty to express those beliefs–but he may not behave as he likes. Some behavior is immoral or a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated, it is restricted by law. In Lincoln’s words: There is no right to do wrong.
Tolerance of persons must also be distinguished from tolerance of ideas. Tolerance of persons requires that each person’s views get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person’s ideas are any better or truer than another’s is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance…
Historically, our culture has emphasized tolerance of all persons, but never tolerance of all behavior. This is a critical distinction because, in the current rhetoric of relativism, the concept of tolerance is most frequently advocated for behavior (think promiscuous sex, abortion, ect). People ought to be able to behave the way they want within broad moral limits, the argument goes.
Ironically, though, there is little tolerance for the expression of contrary ideas on issues of morality and religion. If one advocates a differing view, he is soundly censured. The tolerance issue has thus gone topsy-turvy: tolerate most behavior, but don’t tolerate opposing beliefs about those behaviors. Contrary moral opinions are labeled as ‘imposing your view on others.’”*
*Stand to Reason: The Intolerance of Tolerance
As I age, and the longer I go through life… the more I feel we are heading toward the absurd.
