Tolerance. That's all they're asking for. Tolerance. But you conservative folk, you people that hold to an older position, you're intolerant. You don't embrace the new position. You need to be ... tolerant. You need to be inclusive. You need to be nonjudgmental.
In this "battle for the dictionary" world we now find ourselves, it is frightening to see people using words as weapons without regard for the words or their consequences. Tolerance, inclusivity, equality ... these kinds of words are bandied about without regard for their actual meaning and without regard for the outcome if we actually did what they intend we do with them. Take tolerance. To tolerate, according to the dictionary, is "to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them." Notice the critical component -- behavior or beliefs you might not agree with or approve of. If we're talking about things you agree with and approve of, there is no tolerance. There is no need for tolerance. You do not tolerate things you embrace. But today's "tolerance" means "to accept and approve of views opposed to your own." Again, it is not tolerance to accept and approve. It's compromise or acquiescence, but it is not tolerance. So think this through. You have View A and you have View B. They are in opposition. View B tells View A, "You must tolerate our view" by which they do not mean "You must allow us our view" but, instead, "You must reject A and embrace B." Clearly, when you turn that around, you can see it. View B is demanding "tolerance" from View A that requires the elimination of View A. But tolerance is allowing View A to go on even though View B doesn't agree. So those demanding tolerance are actually demanding the elimination of opposing views ... the opposite of tolerance.
You find this problem all over our culture today. "We are inclusive, and if you are not going to be our kind of inclusive, we're going to exclude you." "You need to be nonjudgmental, and if you are not, we will judge you." "You need to show tolerance to our position because we will not tolerate your opposition." It is, in fact, contradictory. It is irrational. It is insane. And we know the actual problem. "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21). Or, putting it in Jesus's terms, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). Now, some might say that's intolerant ...
3 comments:
Too often, people are using these target words without knowing what they mean. I saw a video of a woman accusing a man of being a misogynist. He asks her what that means, just so he knows what she's accusing him of, and she can't define it. She's heard the word and knows it has some negative connotation about men, but doesn't know what it really means. The breakdown of the knowledge of word meaning has led to a breakdown in the ability of people to tolerate others because they have an idea of a word that isn't the actual meaning of the word, like woman. What is a woman? They have no definition for it, only a vague idea.
Yes, indeed. A very common approach; a very common logical fallacy. If you can besmirch the source, you can eliminate the argument. Or, rather, if you devalue the source, the argument is beyond contempt ... without even having examined or responded to it. Like "homophobic" (which originally meant "fear of being a homosexual" and is entirely vague today) and "transphobic" and "hater" and ...
Just the other day I read a letter to a blogger that complained loudly about him being arrogant and judgmental and why didn't he just go to South Africa or something (I don't know why South Africa) and stop disturbing people here. The blogger thanked him for pointing out judgmentalism and thanked him for providing such a fine model to go on. Too many people aren't listening to their own words anymore.
I always appreciate when you clarify the definition of “tolerance,” since it seems to be so misunderstood by people these days--even believers (i.e. how should we interpret “accept” in “to accept behavior and beliefs…”?). Since I was young, I always heard the quote, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I grew up assuming that everyone had the right to their opinion and to free speech. (I also remember a man writing to a newspaper advice columnist objecting to someone “shoving religion down [his] throat” and asking “why can’t [this someone] just let everyone do their own thing?” The columnist replied, “What if shoving religion down people’s throats is ‘their thing’?” That stuck with me, too.)
I think it is reasonable that each of us feels that our particular viewpoint is the right one and should prevail (“hooray for our side,” as Buffalo Springfield sang in 1967). (In fact, we hold that belief quite strongly as believers--albeit because that viewpoint is God’s truth.) Tolerance is respecting all viewpoints, they say, but I for one can no longer “respect” some of the viewpoints out there! The older I get, and the crazier the world gets, the harder it is for me to embrace the notion of “to each his own”--especially knowing that so many people will choose the path to unrighteousness and destruction in their pursuit of freedom and personal expression. True tolerance entails watching people make bad choices. (The real danger will come when those bad choices are forced upon me in the [false] name of “tolerance”!)
Post a Comment