Skip to comments.The Tolerance Deal Is Broken
Posted on 08/06/2012 7:33:43 AM PDT by marcbold
Among all the words in a language already so battered and bruised as to almost become unrecognizable, one word stands out for having taken the brunt of the beating.
Tolerance has been so misshapen by the abuse that many people think that it means something opposite to its nature. After all injustice the word has suffered, I am unsure if it can or even should survive. Nevertheless, I wish to testify to its true meaning, even if in eulogy.
So let us begin with the basics. Contrary to what you may have heard, tolerance of its own can never be a good thing. By its nature, tolerance means abiding a bad thing. Even in our diminished capacity, nobody would say that they tolerate something good. One doesn't tolerate ice cream. One tolerates liver.
Metaphors aside, to tolerate is to abide something wrong, something in error, something evil.
Now many people today would have you believe that tolerance is the highest of the civic virtues, but it is not and never can be. Abiding evil can never be a virtue in and of itself and therefore it can never be demanded of anyone, least of all a Christian.
There are many reasons Christians may legitimately tolerate error, but they all must have one thing in common, the good of the sinner. We sometimes tolerate such error in the hopes that eventual realization of the folly will lead to repentance and eventually to truth. But there are also some errors and actions that cannot and must not be tolerated for the good of the sinner and the good of society.
In a pluralistic society such as ours, we have wisely limited the power over government to be intolerant toward religion...
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Excellent piece. Short, concise and to the point. Even a liberal in his most sentient moments should be able to grasp this truth.
Your brother speaks well.
And yes, people are confused about the meaning of “tolerance”, having elevated it in their minds and in the public discourse to mean “acceptance, embracing, and celebration” when of course it means nothing of the kind.
You might tolerate drug addicts in the sense of understanding they are there and that some rehab is needed but you wouldn’t embrace or celebrate nor teach their lifestyle to public school children. Nor would you allow them to run slip-shod over other people’s religious freedom.
” Even a liberal in his most sentient moments should be able to grasp this truth.”
Too bad a liberal will never read this.
Tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
Approve - to speak or think favorably of; pronounce or consider agreeable or good; judge favorably: to approve the policies of the administration.
It seems that the giblets are confusing the two words above. The call for tolerance, but what they really want is approval.
As Mandy Patimkin said in The Princess Bride, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Tolerance is forced conformity. Tolerance is acceptance PLUS engagement and even support. I much prefer living in acceptance. I can accept that people can live their own lives, make their own choices and live with the consequences. The problems arise when others are forced to engage in those choices and pay for the consequences. Acceptance is the key to a peaceful mind and a peaceful society.
What this highlights is that those that talked of a “zero tolerance” policy regarding guns in schools were at least using the word properly. They thought guns were evil and refused to tolerate them.
I think most liberals use the word to describe actions toward something “different than you” rather than evil. But they flunk that one hopelessly on a daily basis, since they don’t practice what they preach.
Like all things liberal, the claim that is made is only to advance the broader agenda. In the case of “Tolerance”, (and its fellow traveler “Diversity”), it is is all about wedging some elbow room and social space for opinions that oppose the status quo.
We are scolded that we must be tolerant of those who think “differently” but when that different thinking (and mostly immoral) becomes normalized, then is it so important to continue to be “tolerant”? Who are you fooling? Now anyone who defends what used to be the norm is only a “hater” (of the new norm). We saw this in real-time with the behavior and words of advocates of gay “marriage” with respect to CFA just last week.
And to make my point further, “diversity” is NOT about different opinions and racial groups, it is all about suppression of Caucasian males who are conservative Christians.
Yes. We are tired and through of being tolerant without being tolerated ourselves.
Yeah, not enough four-letter obscenity laced delusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.