Posted on 08/03/2010 7:29:03 PM PDT by HushTX
I have discovered a new love. That is, something new that I love to hate. This entire concept of compulsory tolerance blows my mind. The most recent addition to the dialogue between the left and right, at least so far as I have been involved, is focused on enforced tolerance. “You have to respect and tolerate,” I was recently told. I was later reminded of this demand in another debate. Let’s be blunt for a second, since I apparently don’t do that enough.
“No, I don’t have to be tolerant.”
Before we get into the meat of the matter, let’s establish our working definitions.
Tolerance: Noun - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
Bigotry: Noun- stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
What is most interesting about this problem is that a demand for tolerance is, in itself, intolerant. The irony is staggering. By refusing to accept a position or opinion that is not permissive to a particular creed or idea, those who demand tolerance are, by definition, bigots.
Let’s not wax hypothetical. It’s possible to actually see this concept in action. Most of us are opposed to the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church, the disciples of Pastor Phelps. Their hateful displays are immature at best, damaging at worst. Still, they are exercising their rights and expressing their beliefs. While they have come very close to crossing certain legal lines, for the most part they operate their hate-fest within the boundaries of the law. They are, by our working definition, bigots.
The irony comes when those who disagree with them refuse to accept their right to believe as they do. One of their most prominent positions is that “God hates fags,” a claim that has met with a demand for tolerance of homosexuality, mostly by the homosexual populace. While some of us are content to disagree and voice our own opinion, others want to silence the Westboro Baptists. They want them shut down, and want legal sanctions against the church. In other words, these individuals are not expressing an objective and permissive attitude towards the opinions of a group that disagrees with them.
There have been a number of law suits filed against the Westboro Baptist Church, and to date they have all been dismissed due to the Constitutional protection of WBC’s free speech. As disgusting as their displays may be, they’re perfectly legal. And yet, the very people who demand tolerance want to shut them down.
There is more to this issue than hypocrisy. There is the concept of obligatory tolerance. The idea that you can force someone to be tolerant is laughable. You cannot force someone to accept something they believe is wrong any more than you can force a person to like sauerkraut. In fact, attempts to force tolerance may lead to further intolerance. People don’t like to be told what to do, and they don’t like being forced to accept what they disagree with.
The problem stems from the fact that “tolerance” requires acceptance. It isn’t enough for people to simply disagree and go about their business, for people to say “you do your thing over there, where I can avoid it.” The proponents of forced tolerance want everyone to believe that their positions are “ok,” and “just as good.” If someone is willing to “agree to disagree,” why can’t it be enough? Because those who hold deviant positions, or positions that are challenged for any reason, want validation that their way is right. The fact that there exists a platform by which to challenge is threatening, and it cannot be tolerated.
The entire tolerance issue is ridiculous. It’s a farce. It borders on paradoxical. The joke is that those demanding tolerance are intolerant of intolerance! So much for tolerance.
I will simply content myself with being intolerant to their demands, just as I am intolerant to the messages of the Brown Berets, the KKK, the New Black Panther Party, Radical Islam, and so many other groups. That which damages the society into which I am invested is not something to be tolerated, and I surely cannot be forced to accept that which I believe is wrong.
I will not tolerate such attempts, and neither should you.
No worries, mate. Fighting hypocrisy will do that to you. Even Jesus finally rolled up his sleeves and started kicking over tables in the Temple, and withering trees with a fed-up glance.
That made my day! TOO FUNNY!
Thanks for the support. Too bad I can’t wither trees.
When we cede the ground of school curricula and academia to the libs, we are allowing them to plant the seeds of our own destruction.
When one side controls the way words are used, the other side hasn't got a chance in the debating of ideas.
It’s a good read.
And, see response number 4 for the fate of "tolerance" as a noun.
If everybody would worry about minding their own business instead of trying to mind others this country would sure be better off.
The problem, as I see it, is that they say they expect tolerance, but what they really want is approval and support. I can tolerate all sorts of things, but I draw the line when it comes to supporting them.
They are disingenuous, using their seemingly genetic drive to hijack the language for use in support of their goals.
This has been troubling me for a while. It’s become fashionable for leftists to say ‘I don’t want to be tolerated, I want to be accepted!’ as though they are expressing a profound thought. What they fail to mention is that along with ‘acceptance’ goes crushing any thought that is not able to be reconciled with what they believe should be accepted.
They just don’t get John Locke’s basic ideas from Letters Concerning Toleration summarized as
(1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints;
(2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence;
(3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.
Those demanding acceptance of Homosexuality, for example, are basically forcing a religious belief on others, and as Locke pointed out, this will lead to conflict. It would be much better if people would just accept they are tolerated and leave well enough alone.
I’m coming to find that in Kalifornia, “Diversity” means “Uniformly weird.”
Well, I'm not tolerant. The minute they started picketing soldier's funerals and harassing the grieving survivors, I wanted every last one of them shot gangland style, and I still do. I hate them. I'd volunteer to be on the firing squad.
I hate the Yankees. Was born that way.
I believe I once read that Martin Luther opined that “Love does not require that we tolerate evil.”
It was meant to be an example of the idiocy of “obligatory tolerance,” as well as standard liberal hypocrisy in such regards.
My opinion, voiced in regard to the WBC picketing soldier’s funerals, often involves colorful language. And I don’t mean rainbows.
They disgust me, but I can’t deny that they are operating within their rights.
Even if it tears me up inside.
If there is one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance.
I think it would be hilarious if a team of 12-year-olds ambushed the WBC anti-christians at every appearance & just *plastered* them & their vehicles with paint-ball guns. Just “spontaneously”, I mean.
They are operating within their rights until they show up at soldier’s funerals. Then they offend me to such an extent I can hardly see straight. If it were my loved one, I think I’d drive my car right into them at top speed, and face the jail term.
The old saw re: pols and how they view the *little folk*, "Taxes for thee but not for me" can be updated using the mindset of the left, the PC crowd, "Tolerance for thee but not for me." It's aggravating!!
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.