Tolerance Revisited

A phrase that is oft used, seldom correctly, is the phrase YOU ARE INTOLERANT. One need only open the editorial pages of any mainstream newspaper or turn to the letters to the editor section to find this statement misapplied. If one is an addict of newstalk radio, as I am, it frequently passes the lips of talk show hosts as they attempt to explain the latest round of conflict in our cultural wars.

Toleration has become a buzzword for those on the left in our society. In trying to make sense of cultural shifts such as homosexual marriage, abortion, the demise of the traditional family unit, euthanasia and others toleration, automatically carries the conotation that those who adhere to a more liberal worldview are somehow enlightened, educated, free of bigotry, open minded and caring. Those who do not, like myself, are considered to be rightwing, fanatic, neandrathal, out of touch, out dated, stupid, religious or worse a Christian. It is more designed to shut down intelligent discourse my name calling than dealing with the issue at hand. Part of this is can be attributed to the fact that as a society, we have forgotten what the world toleration means.

The word tolerant does not mean that all of us need to agree with each other. It means that two people can have irreconcilable differences. It means that one can argue, debate and muster the best apologetic in an attempt to persuade the other party to one's position. After the rhetoric has subsided, both sides ought to have an appreciation of the coherency of their opponents viewpoint. It does not automatically mean they can and will come to agreement. Quite frequently both sides remain unpersuaded and entrenched in their respective positions. Both should be able to leave the room physically unbloodied. The fact they choose not to kill each other over their disagreements is the essence of toleration.

Inherent within the definition of toleration is a presupposition that disagreement exists if the word toleration is to have any meaning. Allow me to illustrate with the following example: "I completely agree with you that lesbians should be allowed to marry each other, therefore I tolerate you." The sentence is an absurd statement about the nature of toleration. It makes no sense for two people to be in complete agreement with each other and then to say, on the basis of that agreement, that they tolerate each other.

Tragically, the Left has redefined toleration in order to verbally bludgeon anyone with whom they disagree. To be tolerant, in their eyes, is to be uncritically accepting of any ideal that departs from a traditional Judeo/Christian worldview. Liberalism is seen as good and normal. Any good and normal person would think this way because this is how tolerant people think. Liberalism's biggest fear is open and honest discussion of the issues of our day. They need to hide behind bullying tactics such as adhominem rhetoric in order to stifle a reasonable exchange of ideas.

I maybe disagreeable. I happily lay claim to the accusation and stand by my Christian worldview of life and how it should be lived. I am happy to discuss with anyone why the Christian worldview is true and normative for all people. I also realize that there are many who, despite my best persuasions, will thumb a nose at my beliefs. But I am not intolerant. You have every right to disagree with me but after we finish disagreeing I guarantee you that I will not blow you up, put you down or threaten your extinction. I do however promise this, that I will do whatever I can to love you and respect you without compromising those values that I hold precious.

We may disagree with each other, but toleration means that you and I are both image bearers of God, created in His likeness. It means that I have no right to strike against, denigrate or impugn the dignity given anyone created by the hands of the Master. You and I answer to the same God whether you choose to accept this or not. It is before Him that you will have to give a final answer.

Soli Deo Gloria