|
Probably
no concept has more currency in our politically-correct
culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately,
one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted
it's become a vice.
There's
one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word
is "intolerant."
This
idea is very popular with post-modernists, that breed
of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted
respect in the university today. Their rallying cry,
"There is no truth," is often followed by
an appeal for tolerance.
The
tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a
place of complete impartiality where each person is
permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed.
No "forcing" personal views. That all views
are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions
of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth.
For
all their confident bluster, the relativists' appeal
actually asserts two truths, one rational and one moral.
The first is the rational "truth" that there
is no truth, a clear conflict. The second is the moral
truth that one ought to tolerate other's viewpoints.
Their stand, contradictory on at least two counts, serves
as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is
seriously misguided.
The
Tolerance Trick
As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance
no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It's what my friend
Francis Beckwith calls the "passive-aggressive
tolerance trick." Returning to the classic understanding
of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning
to the word. Let me give you a real life example.
Earlier
this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian
high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them
to this "tolerance trick," but I also wanted
to learn how much they had already been taken in by
it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The
first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:
"All
views have equal merit and none should be considered
better than another."
All
heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here.
Then I wrote the second sentence:
"Jesus
is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting
Him."
Immediately
hands flew up. "You can't say that," a coed
challenged, clearly annoyed. "That's disrespectful.
How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?"
"In
fact, that happens to me all the time," I pointed
out, "including right now with you. But why should
it bother me that someone thinks I'm wrong?"
"It's
intolerant," she said, noting that the second statement
violated the first statement. What she didn't see was
that the first statement also violated itself.
I
pointed to the first statement and asked, "Is this
a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and
none should be considered better than another?"
They all agreed.
Then
I pointed to the second statement—the "intolerant"
one—and asked the same question: "Is this
a view?" They studied the sentence for a moment.
Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They'd been taken
in by the tolerance trick.
If
all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians
have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just
as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on
Jesus than the Christians do. But this is hopelessly
contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance
amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because "tolerance"
turns out to be gibberish.
Escaping
the Trap "Would you like to know how to get out
of this dilemma?" I asked. They nodded. "You
must reject this modern distortion of tolerance and
return to the classic view." Then I wrote these
two principles on the board (This way of putting it
comes from Peter Kreeft of Boston College.):
Be
egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.
"Egalitarian" was a new word for them. Think
"equal," I said. Treat others as having equal
standing in value or worth. They knew what an elitist
was, though, someone who thought he was better than
others. "Right," I said. "When you are
elitist regarding ideas, you are acknowledging that
some ideas are better than others. And they are. We
don't treat all ideas as if they have the same merit,
lest we run into contradiction. Some ideas are good,
some are bad. Some are true, some are false. Some are
brilliant, others are just plain foolish."
The
first principle, what might be called "civility,"
is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance.
It can be loosely equated with the word "respect."
Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree
with, not how we treat ideas we think false.
We
respect those who hold different beliefs than our own
by treating them courteously and allowing their views
a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree
with their ideas and vigorously contend against them
in the public square, but we still show respect for
the persons in spite of our differences.
Classic
tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously
with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of
reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views
have equal worth, merit, or truth.
These
two categories are frequently conflated in the muddled
thinking created by the myth of tolerance. The view
that one person's ideas are no better or truer than
another's is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue
that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly
does not violate any meaningful definition or standard
of tolerance.
Note
that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether
his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different
issue. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what
he likes—and he usually has the liberty to express
those beliefs—but he may not behave as he likes.
Some behavior is a threat to the common good. Rather
than being tolerated (allowed), it is restricted by
law. Historically, our culture has emphasized tolerance
(respect) of all persons, but never tolerance of all
behavior. In Lincoln's words: There is no right to do
wrong.
Topsy-Turvy
The modern definition of tolerance turns the classical
formula for tolerance on its head:
Be
egalitarian regarding ideas.
Be elitist regarding persons.
If you reject another's ideas, you're automatically
accused of disrespecting the person (as the coed did
with me). On this new view of tolerance no idea or behavior
can be opposed—even if done graciously—without
inviting the charge of incivility.
To
say I'm intolerant of the person because I disagree
with his ideas is confused. Ironically, it results in
elitism regarding persons. If I think my ideas are better
than another's, I can be ill-treated as a person, publicly
marginalized and verbally abused as bigoted, disrespectful,
ignorant, indecent and—can you believe it—intolerant.
Sometimes I can even be sued, punished by law, or forced
to attend re-education programs.
Tolerance
has thus gone topsy-turvy: Tolerate most beliefs, but
don't tolerate (show respect for) those who take exception
with those beliefs. Contrary opinions are labeled as
"imposing your view on others" and quickly
silenced.
This
is nonsense and should be abandoned. The myth of tolerance
forces everyone into an inevitable "Catch-22,"
because each person in any debate has a point of view
he thinks is correct.
Catch-22
Classical tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting
or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees
with (3) while respecting the person in the process.
Notice
that we can't truly tolerate someone unless we disagree
with him. This is critical. We don't "tolerate"
people who share our views. They're on our side. There's
nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those
we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently
and with respect.
This
essential element of classical tolerance—disagreement
(elitism regarding ideas)—has been completely lost
in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if
you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant
no matter how you treat him.
This
presents a curious problem. One must first think another
is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet saying
so brings the accusation of intolerance. It's a "Catch-22."
According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.
Intellectual
Cowardice
Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more
than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement.
Those who brandish the word "intolerant" are
unwilling to be challenged by other views or grapple
with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It's
easier to hurl an insult—"you intolerant bigot"—than
to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed
by it. In the modern era, "tolerance" has
become intolerance.
Whenever
you're charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition.
When tolerance means neutrality, that all views are
equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant
because no one is ever neutral about his own views.
Point out the contradiction built into the new definition.
Point out that this kind tolerance is a myth.
Gregory
Koukl
is founder and president of Stand
to Reason, an organization devoted to a thoughtful
and engaging defense of classical Christianity in the
public square. He is also a radio talk show host and
author of Relativism—Feet
Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.
|
