Tolerance.

Remove all ads!

As I promised:

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Gregory Koukl


Probably no concept has more currency in our politically correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted it's become a vice.

There is a modern myth that holds that true tolerance consists of neutrality. It is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism.

The tolerant person occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. Each takes a neutral posture towards another's convictions.

This approach is very popular with post-modernists, that breed of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their rallying cry, "There is no truth," is often followed by an appeal for tolerance.

For all their confident bluster, the relativists' appeal actually asserts two truths, one rational and one moral. The first is the "truth" that there is no truth. The second is the moral truth that one ought to tolerate other people's viewpoints. Their stand, contradictory on at least two counts, serves as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.

Three Elements of Tolerance

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.

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.

This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise tolerance toward him, yet doing so brings the accusation of intolerance. It's a "Catch-22." According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.

Three Faces of Tolerance

Adding to the confusion is the fact that tolerance could apply to different things--persons, behaviors, or ideas--and the rules are different for each.

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.

These three categories are frequently conflated by muddled thinkers. If one rejects another's ideas or behavior, he's automatically accused of rejecting the person and being disrespectful. To say I'm intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.

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: premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, use of pornography, etc. 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."

Instead of hearing, "I respect your view," those who differ in politically incorrect ways are told they are bigoted, narrow-minded, and intolerant.

A case in point was an attack made in my community paper on Christians who were uncomfortable with the social pressure to approve of homosexuality. I wrote the following letter to the editor to show how the modern notion of tolerance had been twisted into a vice instead of a virtue:

Dear Editor:

I am consistently amazed to see how intolerant South Bay residents are to moral views other than their own. Last week's letters about homosexuality were cases in point. One writer even suggested that your publication censor alternate opinions!

This narrow-mindedness and self-righteous attitude about sexual ethics is hypocritical. They challenge what they view as hate (it used to be called morality) with caustic and vitriolic attacks. They condemn censure by asking for censorship (there's a difference). They accuse others of intolerance and bigotry, then berate those same people for taking a view contrary to their own.

Why is someone attacked so forcibly simply for affirming moral guidelines about sex that have held us in good stead for thousands of years?

Not only that, the objections are self-defeating. The writers imply that everyone should be allowed to do and believe what they want and that no one should be permitted to force their viewpoint on others. But that is their viewpoint, which they immediately attempt to force on your readers in an abusive way. Those with opposing beliefs were referred to in print as bigots, lacking courage, disrespectful, ignorant, abominable, fearful, indecent, on par with the KKK, and--can you believe it--intolerant.

Why don't we abandon all of this nonsense about tolerance and open-mindedness? It's misleading because each side has a point of view it thinks is correct. The real issue is about what kind of morality our society should encourage and whether that morality is based on facts and sound reasoning or empty rhetoric.

Intellectual Cowardice

Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult--"you intolerant bigot"--than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. "Tolerance" has become intolerance.

The classical rule of tolerance is this: Tolerate persons in all circumstances, by according them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false or silly. Tolerate (i.e., allow) behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good. Finally, tolerate (i.e., embrace and believe) ideas that are sound. This is still a good guideline.

 

Whatever I have to say in the subject is here.

 

That is the sort of paranoid generalizing that just cripples this man's arguement.

People call him intolerant when he not just believes another is wrong, but then seeks to enforce his view, or morality, upon another.

And then he, or the next, author makes the claim that it is acceptable to enforce his view because there are no moral claims that are subjective. But that is just pure nonsense.

A devout Jew would make the moral arguement that it is sinful to eat pork. A non-Jew sees no moral issue and would be disenfranchised if a Jewish authority, claiming there is a single truth to morality, enforced a ban upon pork consumption.

I am sure there are much better examples...

If anyone can create a better, which I am sure someone can, I would be grateful.

 

You are failing to see the main point of the article.
If you are conservative, then you are labeled an intolerant person. Take me as an example. I was called religious fanatic, xenophobe, fascist; that I can remember now.
"Tolerant" people want us to believe no one is right, and that we should respect other people's opinions, but whoever disagrees with these "tolerance" flagholders gets labeled intolerant and wrong.

 

I'm sorry I missed the main point: You and others like you are persecuted.

I'll be sure to just agree with your paranoia next time and not try to refute the claim by which you justify it.

 

Yeah, that's the craftiest part of tolerance. But see how it goes, logically:

First, let's prove you're a bastard and a troglodyte:

(the Law of Tolerance)
1. Tolerance activists are right and sensible (the Axiom of Tolerance). (alternatively insert sensitive, aware, compassionate, progressive, non-judgemental etc)
2. Something is either right or wrong.
3. Something is either sensible or senseless.
4. 1 & 2 => Whoever disagrees with tolerance activists is wrong (modus tollendo ponens)
5. 1 & 3 => Whoever disagrees with tolerance activists is senseless (modus tollendo ponens)
6. You disagree with tolerance activists
7. 4 & 6 => You are wrong (modus ponendo ponens)
8. 5 & 6 => You are senseless (modus ponendo ponens)

However, there is the Law of Selective Tolerance or, if you prefer, the Law of Non-Self-Appliance:

There must be borders to tolerance. There cannot be tolerance for non-tolerance.

A base intolerant bastard and troglodyte would conclude that:

There's no tolerance for opposition to tolerance activists and it's tolerance activists who decide the extent of tolerance to apply, and there are no formalised criteria for that. Ergo: it's their discretionary competence. Ergo: it relies on their judgement. They use it, ergo: they rely on that judgement, ergo: they must have that judgement, ergo: they judge. As it's discretionary and without formalised criteria, it is basically judging arbitrarily.

However, this is where the Axiom of Tolerance chimes in: when tolerance activists judge, they are not judgemental and they are right.

So if they happen to judge you and call you mean names, refer to point 1.

 

Yes, but who exactly are "they?" How does one describe a "tolerance activist" in reality, rather than just as an imaginary "enemy of logic?"

 

Isnt it true that I was labeled intolerant here for my beliefs? Does that sound like paranoia to you?
And no, it is good that you disagree with me and try to refute me. Remember there is only tolerance where there is disagreement.
Also see Chevalier's essay which is quite good.

 

I have to say that you are quite a good breath of fresh air on our boards. Nevertheless, the reason you have been described in such a manner is because you "appear" quite intolerant of the other members' views on issues or political stances that are in disagreement with your own. Here I am speaking to you as a fellow member. For example, it is from the left, thusly, it is automatically wrong. Consider your comment, "don't believe what the leftist media tells you." There are three components here:

1. That there is somehow a "leftist media" that controls what all of us think.
2. And if it is speaking from the "left" that it is either wrong, or it is false.
3. That the person whom you are addressing is somehow under the control of the "leftist media" and cannot form his/her own opinions.

Remember that "intolerance" cuts both ways and that it is neither exclusive to the left or right.

 

But you must see, that for tolerance to be abandoned, there must be a single truth that we can use as a guideline to know whom is wrong.

But there is no such single truth.

There are all manners of spiritual people and all manners of non-spiritual people.

So instead we tolerate everyone to have an opinion, but not allow them to enforce their particular viewpoint upon others.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

I have to ask as well, what the hell is a tolerance activist?

 

An oxymoron used to describe a unique type of self-delusional intolerance. True tolerance requires non-action when confronted by something "undesirable", including all forms of intolerance. It's a little like ideological pacifism, so anyone who speaks of it is likely not practicing it. (I include myself in that statement.) Thus, what you hear the most (and the most loudly) are the jerks that chevalier and Syvatoslav are complaining about: the (in)tolerance activists.

 

1. There is a leftist mass media. There is certainly a great deal of leftist thinkers being given space. Most sociologists are outrightly leftists. There are a great deal of leftists teachers in the schooling system. There are even some leftist infiltrated into the church - in South America this is very common.
I dont think they control what you all think, but I am sure they are having a huge influence over the minds of people nowadays.
2. Yes, I dont believe in leftists, because I know for a fact 98% of them are criminals. I have a wide experience in this regard.
As to their claims being all false or wrong, it should not come as a surprise. As I am sure few cared to do a small research on Gramsci or the fabian communists, let me briefly explain their positions.
They noticed the URSS style of communism was not going anywhere, for zillions of reasons really, like creating a rebellious mindset within people, because of all the violence; being economically uneffective; making people lazy and uninterested, etc.
To cut it short, they realised instead of depriving us from our private properties, communists should rather infiltrate into our social institutions - the church, the school, mass media, etc - and from within it, brainwash us into believing the communist ideology slowly, by deceit and misinformation.
By the words of Gramsci himself the "civil society and the party should be one". Of course by party he meant the communist one.
How should they do it? As I said, by infiltrating social institutions and, step by step, to poison the minds of people with half thruths and propaganda. This is what he called "organised civil society", which would be the scenario where the individuals think the same as the leftist opinion makers. Thus, there would be no reason for propaganda anymore, because the party and the civil society would finally be one and the same.
The neo-liberal model fits their ways perfectly, because while it lets capitalists to make money as they would wish to - which is all that they care really - at the same time it robs them from a great deal of their earnings by applying heavy taxes. The neo-liberal model also has a lot of interference in the free initiative of people, as well as it has lots of laws to regulate almost everything. Thus, at the same time it gives the capitalists a false notion of economical liberty - since they are allowed to have private property - the state gets each passing day bigger and more powerful, by stealing our money through heavy taxes. In the other end of the spectrum, people become poorer, less free and more dependant of the state - after all, the increase and enrichement of the state ensues the exactly opposite effect into people.
How should I believe these leftist agents who have their ideology shaped by the teachings of Gramsci?
3. We are under the influence of everything that surronds us. How can we escape from a leftism that is thrown down at us from all sides?
As for your last remark, all the leftist experiences have been everything but tolerant.

 

Yes, it's indeed funny (in an ironic way) how we can often see our own faults in others. But then "they" would not be quite so "delusional" if they could. Yet, I hope that no one on this board would refer to others as "jerks." Certainly, you are referring to those who are NOT members, but are somewhere out there in "activist" land.

 

Well yeah. I imagine anyone who gets in people's faces over inconsequential things on a regular enough basis would have been tossed out by now. I myself am not perfect, but like most on the boards, I have the ability to reign in my indignity and simply not reply in most situations. I've only met one member who I might even be tempted to call a jerk, but we've already agreed not to interact, so it's not a very big deal.

 

Actually, getting youself into a few fights will not do you any harm. I guess it helps to build up your character, and ensues a less spoiled/weak individual.
I dont mean to be a thugh. I am not particularly violent myself, but sometimes some offenses can not be let unanswered somewhat.
It is all for the better I think.

 

I'm glad to hear that, because it appears that there has been way too much bending of the rules here on these recent threads. I would suggest that those who are not familiar with the rules refresh themselves with them. Enough said here.

 

I was talking about real life situations.I Did not mean that we should bend rules at will if we feel offended.
Even why, I dont really think I am breaking the rules since I was warned before.

 

That is what I was referring to in my post. Now, I can see that by your remarks, you have not read the rules. Otherwise, you would not have responded in such a manner. Thus, if you read the rules you will see that this should be carried out in PM. And that is exactly where we are going here...

 

Ah, one more thing. Without looking at the relevant posts closely, it will be hard to envision the context, but, as Svyatoslav quotes:

combined with Chandos's:

I need to point out that the words used are very tolerant of other people's views, purely descriptive and an embodiment of the agree to disagree stance and by no means insults.

But on a more serious note, that's an example of what I was so half-seriously trying to show in my essay: when under the influence of an inspired zeal for tolerance, even the most tolerant people are in danger of accepting as granted that their tolerational belief is the only right way. That way, although they normally tend to present beliefs as, if not all equally good, equally deserving of respect. However, an exception is made for the superimposed, head belief in tolerance.

And here's the catch: not everyone shares the rights-based everyone on his own, do as you will on your own perspective. Not everyone agrees with the elevated position of tolerance, acceptance and affirmation, either.

What is more, when labels such as "fascist", "bigot" etc are used as names attributed to an adversary in debate, it's hardly compatible with the head belief in tolerance above everything else -- even if the labels are thrown in as a result of righteous anger directed against... intolerance. This way, someone who perhaps gives labels and treats others' beliefs as below his own, receives the same treatment from those on the side of tolerance.

In such a situation, in my view, the claim to a high ground of tolerance is no longer valid, it's lost. What remains is a vague belief that people should be left alone until they cause real harm and that certain (more specific than we would like to admit) cases of discrimination are wrong. In essence, this becomes similar to the idea we know from the thread about those misguided Christian missionaries in India: we'll give you food and medicines so soon as you accept our religion that teaches unconditional compassion and mercy (needless to say, compassion and mercy regardless of its object's current religion).

It happens to the best of us, especially in fervor of debate when emotions are high and calmness loses ground, so there should be no anger and no ill blood here. It's just something it would be good to keep in mind, I believe.