|
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.
|
