The Problem with Tolerance


#1

I recently wrote an essay for an application about the dificulties with tolerance. There were two main points to my essay.

  1. Tolerance **should not be ** accepting anything and everything just because tolerance has become the new fad word. In Canada at least, tolerance is the magic word. If you do not tolerate, you are a bigot. What I argued is that not everything is tolerable! eg. Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.

  2. Modern tolerance does not *tolerate * open dialogue. It dissuades questions and criticisms… It breeds a tolerance based on ignorance and leads to contempt.

I made some suggestions, but for the most part I was drawing out some problems I see with the tolerance we are supposed to welcome and live by.

I would like to hear other thoughts on the subject, arguments for or against my points… new points…!

God bless. :slight_smile:


#2

Tolerance as defined by the left is acceptance of all liberal viewpoints and lifestyles, while declaring intolerant those who hold moral views.

As Catholics we should love and accept the sinner, but hate and oppose the sin.


#3

The tolerance I grew up with basically said - what they are doing is wrong, we don’t believe in it, and address it if necessary with the hope of conversion.

The new tolerance says - embrace these wrongs and better yet champion them in the spirit of diversity.


#4

Tolerance, as promoted by postmodernists, revisionist Christians, and secular humanism, is utterly inconsistent.

The term goes back to its science and engineering roots. There is an interval, in tolerance, within which any one position is as acceptable as any other. There are also limits beyond which one may not go, and remain within the interval of tolerance. That’s why, for instance, cars can run, even though the parts in two different engines are far from identical.

From those roots, tolerance in actions and behaviours refers to the range in which acceptable differences exist. Not only can they be accepted, but they must be.

But what is typically rammed down the throat of believing Christians is the proposition that ANYTHING at all must be treated as if it were in the range where acceptance is called for. That, in effect, removes the limits from the tolerance interval. And that makes the whole concept of tolerance utterly vanish.

The problem is not with tolerance. The problem is that indifference and an abandonment of discernment is being falsely labelled as being tolerance.

Blessings,

Gerry


#5

In Creed or Chaos Dorothy Sayers notes:

The Church names the sixth Deadly Sin Acedia or Sloth. In the world it calls itself Tolerance; but in hell it is called Despair. I is the accomplice of the other sins and their worst punishment. It is the sin which believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, loves nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and only remains alive because there is nothing it would die for. We have know it far too well for many years. The only thing perhaps that we have not known about it is that it is mortal sin.


#6

Have you ever noticed that the people who always accuse conservatives of being “judgmental” and “intolerant” are totally judgmental and intolerant of conservative morality? And they absolutely can’t see their own hypocrisy?


#7

[quote=La Chiara]Have you ever noticed that the people who always accuse conservatives of being “judgmental” and “intolerant” are totally judgmental and intolerant of conservative morality? And they absolutely can’t see their own hypocrisy?
[/quote]

Nor are they honest in other ways, either.

Tomorrow, I have to attend a “training” session on a Canadian government program called “employment equity (EE) .” It was mandated for everyone in a settlement of a claim that women were being discriminated against in wage levels (which it appears they were).

However, piggy-backed onto this session is something called “diversity.” In the name of diversity, the formation in the city puts a float in the gay pride parade (but, curiously, never the “March for Jesus”). What’s dishonest is that EE is mandated by federal legislation, but diversity isn’t. I expect the lines to be very blurred. I’ll let you know.

Blessings,

Gerry


#8

Modern tolerance is also based on the agnostic and relativistic assumption that there is in fact no objective truth, no infallible set of standards that one can hold on to, and from this emerges the cynical thinking that one should therefore not “impose” one’s viewpoint upon others, and to “judge not”, since your viewpoint is not necessarily better than that held by another.

Hence, it isn’t surprising that these modern advocates of “tolerance” are contemptuous of those who are certain and vocal about their convictions, especially if it is of the moral and spiritual kind (which they implicitly or explicitly deny).

Gerry


#9

[quote=Gerry Hunter]Nor are they honest in other ways, either.

Tomorrow, I have to attend a “training” session on a Canadian government program called “employment equity (EE) .” It was mandated for everyone in a settlement of a claim that women were being discriminated against in wage levels (which it appears they were).

However, piggy-backed onto this session is something called “diversity.” In the name of diversity, the formation in the city puts a float in the gay pride parade (but, curiously, never the “March for Jesus”). What’s dishonest is that EE is mandated by federal legislation, but diversity isn’t. I expect the lines to be very blurred. I’ll let you know.

Blessings,

Gerry
[/quote]

Well, it was quite a show.

The parts that dealt with legislation were fine, but the “diversity” part was crass and blatant social engineering by militant secular humanists.

I have notes, and will be writing a piece on it. But suffice it to say that “gender” (not sex) and “sexual orientation” are presented as “Primary Dimensions of Diversity”, which means “you are born with these dimensions,” and “religious belief” is a secondary one, which the presenter, a regional program administrator, stated “has caused nothing but trouble.”

Pray for Canada. This outfit collects the taxes!

Blessings,

Gerry


#10

Tolerance is what led me to investigate the Catholic Church.

Well my intolerance of the Methodist Church’s exceptional tolerance.


#11

[quote=Gerry Hunter]Well, it was quite a show.

The parts that dealt with legislation were fine, but the “diversity” part was crass and blatant social engineering by militant secular humanists.

I have notes, and will be writing a piece on it. But suffice it to say that “gender” (not sex) and “sexual orientation” are presented as “Primary Dimensions of Diversity”, which means “you are born with these dimensions,” and “religious belief” is a secondary one, which the presenter, a regional program administrator, stated “has caused nothing but trouble.”

Pray for Canada. This outfit collects the taxes!

Blessings,

Gerry
[/quote]

Gerry–I love that line “crass and blatant social engineering by militant secular humanists”. The thing that amazes me is that the more extreme the views held the ANGRIER these people are. They are looking and they find things to be angry with everywhere, and they seem to want everyone to be angry as well. They are not happy people.

“Religious belief has caused nothing but trouble”??? Amazing! What does it say about our society that someone in a position of authority could say such a thing but the opposite sentiment (that religion is worthy and good for society) could not be expressed. Remember back in the days of the Cold War when we were told that Karl Marx declared that “Religion is the opiate of the people”. Seems pretty close to the sentiment of your regional program administrator.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.