The Intolerance of Tolerance

[MDM4AU 336]

Someone posted recently something about tolerance and how tolerance brings peace among nations and intolerance brings war and distrust among nations. I found it odd when reading the entire post but, anyway, it made me think of this article previuosly posted here at AUNaAtion:

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.

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE

[LegalEagle 22]

Since you have apparently forgotten, it was I who posted that. I am also unafraid of intelligent debate, but it takes two to tango. *grin*

Notice the use of "cowardice" in the article. Ain't that someone who's objective and wishes to make a valid point?

More name calling and finger pointing. . . doen't Kerry refer to that as "fear and smear" politics? Sounds right on point to me.

Did I ever tell you the story about Bush the Uniter being on a Texas dove shoot where the press was invited for political exposure. Well W sees this bird fly towards him. To him it's a simple world, he's on a dove shoot, a bird is flying toward him, therefore it must be a dove.

W then shoots at and kills the hawk. He goes and picks it up and puts it in his pocket as if all is well. When someone with an IQ brought up the minor point that he just killed a protected animal, he agrees and says he's going down to report it, which he does. He pays a fine and all is well; or is it? Is he the moral compass for us to follow?

You make the call.

[MDM4AU 336]

Did I ever tell you the story about Bush the Uniter being on a Texas dove shoot where the press was invited for political exposure. Well W sees this bird fly towards him. To him it's a simple world, he's on a dove shoot, a bird is flying toward him, therefore it must be a dove.

W then shoots at and kills the hawk. He goes and picks it up and puts it in his pocket as if all is well. When someone with an IQ brought up the minor point that he just killed a protected animal, he agrees and says he's going down to report it, which he does. He pays a fine and all is well; or is it? Is he the moral compass for us to follow?

To paraphrase your Dem/Lib friend, Tiger Al:

Gotta Link?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Even if he had one, does it matter? :roll:

[LegalEagle 22]

I'll find it for you, but I'm really busy now. I got on here to tell you I might have to "flip-flop." As I rethink that event, I now believe it could have been a kill-deer instead of a hawk, but it is much easier distinguished from a dove.

[MDM4AU 336]

I just found it interesting that he would talk of "fear and smear" politics and then make some silly unsubstantiated claim about Bush. You would think that if "the press was invited for political exposure," that it could be found at a credible source somewhere and someone other than LE would have heard about it.

[MDM4AU 336]

Never mind, I think I found it and I'm reading up on it now...

[LegalEagle 22]

Here's mention. Hey Bush took decisive action!

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/statewide/in...61418326910.xml

How nice of you to basically call me a liar. Hey, I'll put that right up there with "moron" and "idiot"! *grin*

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I was going for "trumpter of irrelevant tripe", but moron works.

[LegalEagle 22]

Another establishes the killdeer as a federally protected species:

http://www.savethedoves.org/gwbush.html

I'll still try to find you a better one about him pocketing it.

[MDM4AU 336]

OK, so Bush was ticketed for shooting a killdeer, not a Hawk, but none the less it wasn't a dove. 1994 was the date and it appears he paid the fine. I guess we should hold everything a person does in their life over their head forever and ever regardless of whether or not the "price was paid". Your the lawyer, tell us how that works.

I'll apologize for doubting you on the story. I just couldn't find a story about Bush shooting a "Hawk."

I still don't know what it has to do with tolerance and the intolerance of opposing opinions. I don't care that it was your post that made me think of this, that was not important to the post.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Wait a minute, a lib makes a charge of someone killing a hawk which is an endangered species. But it turns out to be a killdeer. All that after making this statement. That should qualify for top ten exaggeration of the year.

Since you have apparently forgotten, it was I who posted that. I am also unafraid of intelligent debate, but it takes two to tango. *grin*

When did killdeer become an endangered species? They are all over the South. Obviously they are since there was a fine. But I sure didn't know they were a federally protected species.

[LegalEagle 22]

Wait a minute, a lib makes a charge of someone killing a hawk which is an endangered species. But it turns out to be a killdeer. All that after making this statement. That should qualify for top ten exaggeration of the year.

Since you have apparently forgotten, it was I who posted that. I am also unafraid of intelligent debate, but it takes two to tango. *grin*

When did killdeer become an endangered species? They are all over the South. Obviously they are since there was a fine. But I sure didn't know they were a federally protected species.

Shoot one and see if you get off with a fine only! Betcha don't. *grin*

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I was going for "trumpter of irrelevant tripe", but moron works.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Wait a minute, a lib makes a charge of someone killing a hawk which is an endangered species.  But it turns out to be a killdeer.   All that after making this statement.  That should qualify for top ten exaggeration of the year. 

Since you have apparently forgotten, it was I who posted that. I am also unafraid of intelligent debate, but it takes two to tango. *grin*

When did killdeer become an endangered species? They are all over the South. Obviously they are since there was a fine. But I sure didn't know they were a federally protected species.

Shoot one and see if you get off with a fine only! Betcha don't. *grin*

It's a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. But, given that it's misdemeanor offense, if it was your first offense, I bet you would:

According to the Act,  a person, association, partnership or corporation which violates the Act  or its regulations is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $500, jail up to six months, or both.

http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/mbta.html

My bet is that a first offense gets you a small fine of probably less than $500, depending on how contrite you are. Subsequent offenses would ratchet up the penalties to where you could get the $500 max fine and six months in jail.

Bush got fined for $130 back in 1994 for shooting the killdeer:

http://www.savethedoves.org/gwbush.html

And this is still a stupid subject.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Another establishes the killdeer as a federally protected species:

http://www.savethedoves.org/gwbush.html

I'll still try to find you a better one about him pocketing it.

This comes from the exact same link you posted:

The mourning dove shares habitat with most species of songbirds, gamebirds, and raptors. Many avian species (including protected, threatened, and endangered) are often mistakenly shot by mourning dove hunters who target birds on the wing...and the misidentification of fast erratic flyers is an unfortunate fact that has happened to both experienced and inexperienced hunters alike...it can even happen when hunters bring with them an entourage of professional people and a game warden hunting guide.

So it sounds like this happens quit often, and to "experienced and inexperienced hunters alike" - and this reflects poorly in GWB how? How could he have pocketed the bird if his GUIDE was a GAME WARDEN??? Dontcha think that guy might have noticed him doing that?

Even more importantly, is this the best you've got?

[LegalEagle 22]

I saw another one that said he stuck firecrackers in frogs' mouths and blew 'em up. Didn't I also see recently that Saddam did that too? Yeah, I agree,you can lock this one.

[Tigermike 3,053]

The first time my grandfather ever took me dove hunting, I was nine years old and had finally talked him into taking me. Much to my chagrin I shot a big one and was very happy that I had actually shot something. My grandfather explained to me that sometimes pigeons flew with doves. He looked a little put out, that I would make that mistake. To add insult to injury, his bird dog looked absolutely embarrassed. Needless to say it was several years before I went bird hunting with my grandfather.