Tolerance
“Shut up, sit down, and keep quiet.” Is that statement tolerant or intolerant? I think you would agree with me, it is a rude, intolerant statement. It’s saying I don’t want to hear what you say and I don’t care. The sad irony is people use tolerance in this exact, intolerant way.
“In religious matters it is now fashionable to define tolerance as the absence of criticism of any standard religion. All too often, this absence of criticism degenerates into a conspicuous absence of thought.” ~Paul Blanshard
Compare the absence of criticism to the dictionary definition - to allow the existence, occurrence or practice of something one does not necessarily like or agree with, to accept or endure something unpleasant or disliked with patient self-control.
Tolerance does not mean you have to accept someone else’s view. To tolerate something does not necessarily mean one is right or wrong. It is not a moral judgment, it is only a courtesy to someone who holds different beliefs, customs, or views. Toleration does not mean you cannot disagree with that person, it only means you are not hateful or rude because of your differences.
Here is an example of how I hear tolerance used most often today. Suppose a speaker is talking in front of a crowd. The speaker is a Christian and the topic is homosexuality. The speaker does not say God hates fags, or anything condescending about the homosexuality community. In fact, he speaks about loving them. (Just not in a sexual way).
Now the tolerance comes in. Once it is clear that the speaker is a Christian and thinks homosexuality is wrong, someone in the crowd stands up and begins to yell at the speaker. Calling him a bigot. Telling him he is not tolerant, that he should respect people who are different from him, people who live a different lifestyle. “After all who are you to judge what is right for me? You must be tolerant of other people’s beliefs.”
The speaker doesn’t know what to say to that. He can’t continue his speech. That one accusation undermines his whole speech, he thinks to himself. He can’t explain what he means, though he tried his best to explain that he does not hate or look down on homosexuals. He only disagrees with their lifestyle, believes it to be wrong; he believes there is hope for those people who want to overcome such desires. Even if it is partly a genetic disposition, it is also a choice. He wants to help people who want to escape but do not know how to do it themselves. But he can’t continue on because who will listen to his ideas now that he has been labeled a bigot?
The person in the crowd who stood up, he spoke about tolerance, but what really was he/she doing? What was really said to the speaker was not “You should be tolerant!” but “Shut up, sit down, and keep quiet.” It was a very effective way to get the speaker to stop talking just because the audience member did not like or agree with what the speaker was saying. That does not sound like the definition of tolerance, but the exact opposite. Is it not the epitome of intolerance?
Now let me give another example, same speaker, same outburst, but this time instead of clamming up, the speaker replies to the accusation that he is being intolerant. Instead of shutting up, sitting down, and keeping quiet, he asks his accuser, “Are you being tolerant of my views right now? How about a compromise? How about I be tolerant of your views if you are tolerant of my views?”
Tolerance is a bridge. If this bridge is only wide enough for one-way traffic, then it is not a very good bridge. If it is a bridge between two ideas, then it must be open to through traffic on both sides. Otherwise it ceases to be toleration, and it becomes subjugation: You may talk only if you agree with me and if you do not agree with me, then you are intolerant of my views. That is contradictory and cannot be tolerance. Tolerance is respectful disagreement.
Words are very powerful; we base all conversation upon them. Let’s make sure we are using them correctly.
Jared Williams
“In religious matters it is now fashionable to define tolerance as the absence of criticism of any standard religion. All too often, this absence of criticism degenerates into a conspicuous absence of thought.” ~Paul Blanshard
Compare the absence of criticism to the dictionary definition - to allow the existence, occurrence or practice of something one does not necessarily like or agree with, to accept or endure something unpleasant or disliked with patient self-control.
Tolerance does not mean you have to accept someone else’s view. To tolerate something does not necessarily mean one is right or wrong. It is not a moral judgment, it is only a courtesy to someone who holds different beliefs, customs, or views. Toleration does not mean you cannot disagree with that person, it only means you are not hateful or rude because of your differences.
Here is an example of how I hear tolerance used most often today. Suppose a speaker is talking in front of a crowd. The speaker is a Christian and the topic is homosexuality. The speaker does not say God hates fags, or anything condescending about the homosexuality community. In fact, he speaks about loving them. (Just not in a sexual way).
Now the tolerance comes in. Once it is clear that the speaker is a Christian and thinks homosexuality is wrong, someone in the crowd stands up and begins to yell at the speaker. Calling him a bigot. Telling him he is not tolerant, that he should respect people who are different from him, people who live a different lifestyle. “After all who are you to judge what is right for me? You must be tolerant of other people’s beliefs.”
The speaker doesn’t know what to say to that. He can’t continue his speech. That one accusation undermines his whole speech, he thinks to himself. He can’t explain what he means, though he tried his best to explain that he does not hate or look down on homosexuals. He only disagrees with their lifestyle, believes it to be wrong; he believes there is hope for those people who want to overcome such desires. Even if it is partly a genetic disposition, it is also a choice. He wants to help people who want to escape but do not know how to do it themselves. But he can’t continue on because who will listen to his ideas now that he has been labeled a bigot?
The person in the crowd who stood up, he spoke about tolerance, but what really was he/she doing? What was really said to the speaker was not “You should be tolerant!” but “Shut up, sit down, and keep quiet.” It was a very effective way to get the speaker to stop talking just because the audience member did not like or agree with what the speaker was saying. That does not sound like the definition of tolerance, but the exact opposite. Is it not the epitome of intolerance?
Now let me give another example, same speaker, same outburst, but this time instead of clamming up, the speaker replies to the accusation that he is being intolerant. Instead of shutting up, sitting down, and keeping quiet, he asks his accuser, “Are you being tolerant of my views right now? How about a compromise? How about I be tolerant of your views if you are tolerant of my views?”
Tolerance is a bridge. If this bridge is only wide enough for one-way traffic, then it is not a very good bridge. If it is a bridge between two ideas, then it must be open to through traffic on both sides. Otherwise it ceases to be toleration, and it becomes subjugation: You may talk only if you agree with me and if you do not agree with me, then you are intolerant of my views. That is contradictory and cannot be tolerance. Tolerance is respectful disagreement.
Words are very powerful; we base all conversation upon them. Let’s make sure we are using them correctly.
Jared Williams
