Monday, January 9, 2012

Tolerance

"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
-Gilbert K. Chesterton


Tolerance is a word we hear thrown about a lot in today's world. It's synonymous with morality and goodness, to an extent. Being intolerant is basically the same thing as being racist, sexist, or discriminatory in any way.

According to Google's define function, tolerance is defined as such:
"1. The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."

Now, think about this. How many times have you ever heard someone or something accused of being intolerant? Probably a lot.
That's the paradox. By choosing to be "tolerant," you are, in effect, adopting a moral code, specifically the idea that everyone and their beliefs should be accepted in society. However, it's notable that the people who most vehemently preach tolerance generally are the ones who are quickest to label others "intolerant" and demonize them, thereby contradicting the idea of tolerance.
Let's look at that definition again:
"The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."

Let's say that we're dealing with the stereotypical "religious bigot;" someone who hates gay people and thinks all Muslims are plotting to destroy the Washington Monument with bombs they hide inside their burkas. Should this man be tolerated any less than a Mormon, a Muslim, or a gay or lesbian person? Although most would vehemently disagree with his views, does tolerance not teach that we should be accepting of him and his beliefs, despite our personal dissent?

I once had someone explain it to me like this:
"There's no reason to be tolerant of an intolerant viewpoint."
That doesn't even make sense. If you're being intolerant of an intolerant view, then there's no reason for anyone to tolerate your view either. But, consciously or not, I think that's the way most people approach tolerance. It's not that we're actually tolerant, it's that we're simply tolerant of the views we agree with. But, as I said before, pure tolerance should mean that we even tolerate others who we deem to be in the wrong.

There's another aspect here that's kind of a slippery notion: the idea that tolerance is the preferable philosophy because absolute truth cannot be known, therefore everyone's beliefs are equally arbitrary. There's a simple flaw in this logic, however. If absolute truth cannot exist, then it cannot be true that absolute truth does not exist. Some people will readily admit this, yet still follow in their idea of relative truth. Or so they say, anyway.

Does anyone actually believe that truth does not exist? Belief itself is an assumption of truth, therefore this type of belief disqualifies itself. No matter which way you cut it, if you actually believe anything, at all, you do believe in the existence of some kind of singular, absolute truth.
If you're reading this and disagreeing with me, think about the fact that you are, right now, believing that I am wrong.

There are a lot of people out there who simply will not accept this idea because the practically-religious doctrine of tolerance teaches otherwise. But perhaps tolerance is not an entirely correct philosophy. After all, its definition is focused upon others' beliefs and actions. Maybe instead we should focus on the people themselves.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7:
Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

According to the New Testament, the actions and characteristics listed above are the ways that we should treat all others: with kindness, with respect, with patience, and without the influence of our own personal ego. It does not say that we should be tolerant of immoral beliefs; it instead says that although we can disagree with people's actions and opinions, we should still treat them with unwavering kindness.

Love the person, not the action or belief. Argue with conviction against bigotry; fight (with words) against hate.

Do not be tolerant. Be intolerant of evil.

But above all, love one another.

2 comments:

  1. This is GREAT. I've noticed similar hypocrisies before, but I'd never consciously, intentionally unpacked them. You did an amazing job of explaining the train of thought, and I agree with your take on it. {I also feel like if I had tried to write this, it would have been unreadably confusing XD}

    ~Stephanie

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow Aaron, I should have checked out your blog earlier. This post is what I've been thinking for so long. People who preach tolerance the loudest are the ones who seem to understand the least what the word means, as you've said. Even religious people who feel certain lifestyles are wrong are in no way given freedom to show bigotry to someone they disagree with. It's impossible for everyone to believe the same thing. Basically "love is patient, love is kind" is the basis for tolerance.

    ReplyDelete