Tag: tolerance

Posted on

Tolerance: A Brief Consideration of a Widely Misunderstood Virtue

Tolerance is often bandied about today with a meaning far removed from its original definition. It has come to mean agreeing with or supporting what someone else is saying or doing; one is deemed tolerant to the degree that he goes along with another’s words or behavior.

However, if one supports another’s position or actions, one doesn’t need to “tolerate” it. We don’t tolerate what we love; we tolerate what we hate; we tolerate people with whom we disagree, not our kindred spirits.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines toleration as follows:

Toleration—from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance, or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions, or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained [1].

It goes on to make a distinction that is often lost today.

[I]t is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44-54) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation” [2].

In other words, by definition, tolerance involves putting up something with considered wrong or displeasing but not so wrong or displeasing that it must be forbidden in each and every instance. Tolerance does not imply that we approve of the tolerated thing as something that is good. This essential point is glossed over by those who insist that disapproval is a sign of intolerance.

Tolerance, properly defined, is good and necessary, but like most good things, it has its limits. Tolerance is essential in an imperfect world. Without it, nations might go to war over simple human imperfections. We all have friends and family members whom we like but who have traits that annoy us (as do all human beings). Without tolerance we would be locked in a fruitless attempt to remake each person so as to be “perfect” to us. We tolerate people’s less desirable characteristics for loftier purposes such as harmony, friendship, respect, mercy, and kindness.

However, there must be limits to tolerance. Some things in human relationships that are “deal breakers.” There are things that cannot be tolerated. For example, serious and persistent lies breach the trust necessary for relationships. Behavior that endangers one or both parties (either physically or spiritually) can make it necessary to end relationships or at least to establish firm boundaries within them.

In wider society, tolerance has necessary limits as well. For example, we appreciate the freedom to come and go as we please, and it is good to tolerate the comings and goings of others even if we disapprove of where they go. Without this general tolerance of movement, things would grind to a halt. In order to be able to come and go freely we put up with some of its less desirable aspects. However, we don’t permit people to drive on sidewalks or run red lights. Neither do we permit breaking and entering or the violation of legitimate property rights. We also restrict unaccompanied minors from entering certain establishments. In effect, every just law encodes some limit on tolerance. Conservatives and liberals debate what limits the law should impose, but both want some limits to be enacted. Even libertarians, while wanting less governmental interference in general, see a role for some laws and limits; they are not anarchists.

Thus, the modern struggle with the issue of tolerance seems to be twofold:

    • The definition of tolerance – Many people today equate tolerance with approval, losing an essential part of its definition: that tolerance involves “putting up with” people or things with which we disagree.
    • The limits of tolerance – In our modern world we are being asked to tolerate increasingly troublesome behavior. Much of it involves sexual matters. Proponents of sexual promiscuity demand increasing tolerance for it despite the fact that such behavior leads to disease, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single-parent families, divorce, and all the ills that accompany a declining family structure. Supporters of abortion demand tolerance of what they advocate despite the fact that abortion results in the death of an innocent human being. Many people of faith think that the limits of tolerance have been exceeded such matters.

Rapprochement? The debate about tolerance and its limits is not a new one, but it seems more intense today when there appears to be so little shared moral vision. One way forward might be to return to a proper definition of tolerance. Perhaps if we stop (incorrectly) equating tolerance with approval, an atmosphere of greater respect can be achieved in these debates. To ask for tolerance is not always wrong, but to demand approval is.

Consider the debate over homosexual activity. Many people of faith, at least those who hold to the biblical view, believe homosexual behavior to be morally wrong. The same is true for heterosexual relations outside the bond of (one man/one woman) marriage, such as fornication, adultery, polygamy, and incest. Because we disapprove of homosexual activity, we are often labeled intolerant (and many other things as well such as homophobic, bigoted, and hateful).

Tolerance is really not the issue, however. Most Christians are willing to tolerate that people “do things in their bedrooms” of which we disapprove. As long as we are not directly confronted with this behavior and told we must approve of it, we are generally willing to stay out of people’s private lives. What has happened in modern times, though, is that approval is demanded for behavior we consider immoral, and when we refuse to approve, we are called intolerant. This is a misuse of the term.

Our objections do not arise from bigotry or hatred (as some claim) but rather from a principled, biblical stance. Our disapproval does not, ipso facto, make us bigots or haters. Neither does it mean we are intolerant or that we seek to force an end to behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for police to enter bedrooms and make arrests.

We are not intolerant; we simply do not approve of homosexual activity. According to the proper definition of tolerance, it is the very fact of our disapproval that permits us to show tolerance in this area.

Finally, I offer a thought on who really “owns” tolerance. Opponents of traditional Christianity often claim the high ground of tolerance for themselves, but the paradoxical result of this holier-than-thou attitude is increasing intolerance of Christian faith by the self-proclaimed tolerant ones. Legal restrictions on the proclamation of the Christian faith in the public square have been growing. The exclusion of Catholic charitable organizations from receiving public funding if they insist upon adhering to the principles of the faith is becoming more common as well. In other parts of the world where free speech is less enshrined, Catholic priests and bishops have been sued and even arrested for “hate speech” because they preach traditional biblical morality. None of this sounds very tolerant to me!

Our opponents need not approve of our beliefs, but they ought to exhibit greater tolerance of us—at least the same tolerance they ask from us.

Cross-posted at the Catholic Standard: Tolerance: A Brief Consideration of a Widely Misunderstood Virtue

Posted on

District of Columbia Cancels Appearance of Gospel Artist due to Views on Homosexuality. Who Will be Next?

Homosexual activists and advocates often state that they merely want recognition and certain legal rights, and that churches and other objectors to their life style remain free to have their opinions and state them in a free culture. And any expressed fears regarding compulsory recognition or punitive measures directed against objectors are dismissed as fear mongering.

Never mind that these fears are based in real experiences in Canada and Europe where clergy have been arrested and fined for presenting the biblical case against homosexuality in the pulpits of their own churches or the pages of their bulletins.

In the end we who raise alarms about the increasingly strident declaration of our objections as “hate speech” and as “human rights violations” remain concerned about legal punishment etc., despite “reassurances” from pro-homosexual advocates and government officials.

Today there is more confirmation about the price that is paid by those who object to the cultural juggernaut that activism is becoming. Gospel Artist Donnie McClurkin has had his appearance canceled by the Mayor’s Office here in DC due to his views on homosexuality. Here is the clip from a local Station, Fox 5 News:

Gospel star Donnie McClurkin made headlines several years ago, when he claimed god “delivered” him from homosexuality.

Now, he’s sounding off about a decision by D.C. leaders, to cancel his appearance at a concert over the weekend.

McClurkin was set to perform at a concert on Saturday, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

In a video, McClurkin says he was on his way to the airport, when Mayor Vincent Gray’s office called him to tell him his appearance was cancelled.

“These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took, never ever demeaning, never ever derogatory, any lifestyle – this is a civil rights infringement situation,” McClurkin said. [1]

Donnie McClurkin is renowned in Gospel music. He has a powerful, joyful and celebratory musical gift. I especially like his “Caribbean Medley” but there are so many great songs. In no way is he strident about his views and they do not figure prominently in his performances. But he has shared publicly on occasion his past struggles, and how God delivered him from homosexual tendencies, among other things.

Well of course there are now those in the ascendency among the cultural elites who will not permit even one scintilla of objection to homosexual behavior. And those who do so must be marginalized and excluded. No dissent from the new dogma of the elites is to be permitted. Dissent must be punished severely and swiftly.

I use words like “dogma” and “dissent” intentionally, since those who like to denounce religious rules and dogma and raise all sorts of objections to past “excesses” of excommunication and inquisition (limited those these were), have now adopted their own fervor for their new anti-religion. And many are far more dogmatic, punitive and excluding than any religious group of recent memory. If you object to the new cultural agenda, you have to go. You must be excluded as dangerous and evil.

Some one may say, “The city can choose who it wants to be at a city concert.” Legally that is true, though one wonders if other performers, say a pro-abortion artist we be so summarily excluded.

But the point to be raised and discussed here is not a legal point but a cultural and moral one. Actions like these put to the lie any notion that homosexual activists merely seek to inculcate respect. They intend much more. Namely to destroy any dissent, marginalize and increasingly coerce consent for their agenda, and apply state sanctioned exclusion for any one who dares question their behavior.

The exclusion of Mr. McClurkin is only another step. Invited clergy are probably already being screened and excluded from any place on any dais if they do not have the politically correct view on this. Exclusions and restrictions are sure to increase and become more severe.

It is a common feature that radicals who march under the banner of tolerance and “libertas!” soon enough usher in their own reign of terror. Because when they say “tolerance” they don’t really mean it and certainly don’t mean they have to tolerate you. For them “tolerance” means your obligation to accept them, and freedom is your right and liberty to agree with whatever they say.

There seems to be absolutely no leeway that will in any way be granted. They will not, it seems, even brook the notion that for many who oppose the celebration of homosexual acts, the opposition is a matter of sincere conscience, not “hate.” If quoting the Bible or the Catechism equals hate, then night has surely come to the West. But we can do no other than adhere to God’s clear and consistent teaching all through the Scriptures at every stage which consigns homosexual acts to the realm of sin. Here I must stay, I can do no other. I will not overrule God to please men, gain access, or be considered acceptable to government officials and powerful lobby groups.

Now that these cultural radicals are politically ensconced the banners of tolerance and freedom are discarded. They never really meant it, and sure never meant the likes of Mr. McClurkin or other bible-believing Christians who object.

These exclusionary tactics are bound to increase and to become more punitive unless enough Americans begin to wake up and realize that all the talk about “tolerance” is not really what this agenda of the radicals has ever been about.

Rainbows may seem pretty, but they usually occur in the midst of a storm. This storm looks to get a lot worse.

DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Posted on

Coming to a Truer Understanding of Tolerance

Last week on the blog we spoke briefly of tolerance in the discussion about Sloth. For it sometimes happens that what some call tolerance is more of a disinterestedness of discovering the truth and living by it. But there is such a thing as true tolerance and it has an important place in the human setting.

Permit then some further thoughts on the issue of tolerance, a frequently misunderstood concept. This post is not intended as a systematic treatise on tolerance. Rather just some thoughts on a what some have called the only “virtue” left in our increasingly secular society.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Tolerance and toleration:

Toleration — from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer — generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. [1]

It goes on to make a distinction that is often lost today:

[I]t is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44-54) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” [2]

In effect tolerance involves putting up with something we consider wrong or displeasing but not so wrong that we must move to constrain it. Tolerance does NOT mean we approve of the tolerated thing as something that is good. This essential point is often glossed over by those who often demand that tolerance mean approval, and that to disapprove of something makes one “intolerant.”

Of itself, tolerance is a good and necessary thing. But, like most good things, it has its limits. As a good thing, tolerance is essential in an imperfect world. Without tolerance we might go to war over simple human imperfections. We all have friends and family members who are people we like but, as with every human person, they also have annoying or less desirable traits. Without tolerance we would be locked in a power struggle and a fruitless battle to make each person perfect to us. As it is, we tolerate less desirable aspects of people for higher goods such as harmony, friendship, respect, mercy, kindness and the like.

However, there are limits to tolerance. There are just some things in human relationships that are “deal breakers.” There are things that cannot be tolerated. For example serious and persistent lies breach the trust necessary for relationships and such behavior is not tolerated reasonably. Behavior that endangers one or both parties (either physically or spiritually) ought not be tolerated and often makes it necessary to end relationships or establish firm boundaries.

In wider society tolerance is also necessary and good but has limits. For example we appreciate the freedom to come and go as we please and it is good to tolerate the comings and goings of others. This is so even if some of the places they go, (e.g. a brothel), do not please us or win our approval. Without such a general tolerance of movement things would literally grind to a halt. But for the sake of the value of coming and going freely we put up with the less desirable aspects of it.

However this tolerance has its limits. We do not permit people to drive on sidewalks, run red lights or drive in the left lane of a two way street. Neither do we permit breaking and entering or the violation of legitimate property rights. We restrict unaccompanied minors from certain locales, etc. In effect, every just law enshrines some limit to tolerance. Conservative and Liberals debate what limits law should enshrine, but both sides want civil law to set some limits. Even Libertarians, while wanting less law, see a role for some law and limits, for they are not anarchists.

So, toleration is a good and necessary thing but it has its limits. Our modern struggle with the issue of tolerance seems to be twofold:

  1. The definition of tolerance, as we have discussed, is flawed. Many people equate tolerance with approval, and many call disapproval, intolerance. But, as we have seen, this is flawed. Without some degree of disapproval, tolerance is not possible.
  2. The second problem centers around the limits of tolerance. In our modern world we are being asked to tolerate increasingly troublesome behavior. A lot of this behavior centers around sexual matters. Proponents of sexual promiscuity demand increasing tolerance despite the fact that their behavior leads to diseases, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single parent families, sexual temptation, divorce, and all the ills that go with a declining family structure. Abortion proponents also demand tolerance of what they advocate, although this behavior results in the death of an innocent human being. Many people of faith think that the limits of tolerance have been transgressed in matters such as these.

Rapprochement? – The debate about toleration and its limits is not new, but it seems more intense today when a shared moral vision has largely departed. Perhaps we cannot as easily define the limits of tolerance today. But one way forward might be to return to a proper definition of tolerance. Perhaps if we stop (incorrectly) equating tolerance with approval, a greater respect will be instilled in these debates. To ask for tolerance is not always wrong, but to demand approval is.

Consider the debate over homosexual activity. Many people of faith, at least those who hold to a more strictly Biblical view, find homosexual behavior to be wrong. The same can be said for illicit heterosexual behavior such as fornication, polygamy, and incest. But on account of our disapproval of homosexual behavior we are often called “intolerant,” (and many other things as well such as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc).

But tolerance is really not the issue. Most Christians are willing to tolerate the fact the people “do things in their bedroom” of which we disapprove. As long as we are not directly confronted with private behavior and told to approve of it, we are generally willing to stay out of people’s private lives. But what has happened in modern times is that approval is demanded for behavior we find objectionable. When we cannot supply such approval, we are called intolerant. This is a misuse of the term.

And further, what if our objections do not simply emerge from bigotry as some claim but, rather, from a principled biblical stance? Our disapproval does not, ipso facto, make us bigots. Neither does it mean we are wholly intolerant and seek to force an end to behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for the police to patrol streets and enter bedrooms and make arrests.

We are not intolerant, we simply do not approve of homosexual activity. And, according to the proper definition of tolerance, it is the very fact of our disapproval, that permits us to show forth tolerance. Perhaps such a consideration might instill greater respect in these debates and less name-calling from our opponents.

An aside– Gay “marriage” is a more complicated matter since it involves existing law and a demanded change in that law by proponents of so-called “gay marriage.” Most traditional Christians see a limit to tolerance here since we consider that God defined and established marriage as described in Genesis 1 & 2. Hence we cannot favor attempts to substitute a human redefinition of something we believe instituted by God.

Finally a thought as to who really “owns” tolerance. Opponents of traditional Christians often claim the high ground of tolerance for themselves. But the paradoxical result of this is a “holier-than-thou” attitude is an increasing intolerance of Christian faith by the self-claimed tolerant ones. Legal restrictions of the proclamation of the Christian faith in the public square are increasing. Financial exclusion of Catholic Charities from Government money used in serving the poor are becoming more common as well. In other parts of the world where free speech is less enshrined, Catholic priests and bishops are being sued and even arrested for “hate speech” because they preach traditional biblical morality. None of this sounds very “tolerant.”

Our opponents need not approve of our beliefs but they ought to exhibit greater tolerance of us, the same tolerance they ask of us.

Please add to this discussion.

This video demonstrates comically and in extreme form how even those who demand tolerance often exhibit intolerance themselves.

Posted on

Thoughts on Tolerance

Permit me a few thoughts on the issue of tolerance. This post is not intended as a systematic treatise on tolerance. Rather just some thoughts on a frequently misunderstood concept that some have called the only “virtue” left in our neo-pagan society.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Tolerance and toleration:

Toleration — from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer — generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. [1]

It goes on to make a distinction that is often lost today:

[I]t is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44-54) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” [2]

In effect tolerance involves putting up with something we consider wrong or displeasing but not so wrong that we must move to constrain it. Tolerance does NOT mean we approve of something as good. This essential point is often glossed over by those who often demand that tolerance mean approval, and that to disapprove of something makes one “intolerant.”

Of itself, tolerance is a good and necessary thing. But, like most good things, it has its limits. As a good thing, tolerance is essential in an imperfect world. Without tolerance we might go to war over simple human imperfections. We all have friends and family members who are people we like but, as with every human person, they also have annoying or less desirable traits. Without tolerance we would be locked in a power struggle and a fruitless battle to make each person perfect to us. As it is we tolerate less desirable aspects of people for higher goods such as harmony, friendship, respect, mercy, kindness and the like.

However, there are limits to tolerance. There are just some things in human relationships that are “deal breakers.” There are things that cannot be tolerated. For example serious and persistent  lies breach the trust necessary for relationships and such behavior is not tolerated reasonably.  Behavior that endangers one or both parties (either physically or spiritually) ought not be tolerated and often makes it necessary to end relationships or establish firm boundaries.

In wider society tolerance is also necessary and good but has limits. For example we appreciate the freedom to come and go as we please and it is good to tolerate the comings and goings of others. This is so even if some of the places they go, (e.g. a brothel), do not please us or win our approval. Without such a general tolerance of movement things would literally grind to a halt. But for the sake of the value of coming and going freely we put up with the less desirable aspects of it. However this tolerance has its limits. We do not permit people to drive on sidewalks, run red lights or drive in the left lane of a two way street. Neither do we permit breaking and entering or the violation of legitimate property rights. We restrict unaccompanied minors from certain locales, etc. In effect, every just law enshrines some limit to tolerance. Conservative and Liberals debate what limits law should enshrine but both sides want civil law to set some limits. Even Libertarians, while wanting less law,  see a role for some law and limits, for they are not anarchists.

So, toleration is a good and necessary thing but it has its limits. Our modern struggle with the issue of tolerance seems to be twofold:

  1. The definition of tolerance, as we have discussed, is flawed. Many people equate tolerance with approval and many call disapproval, intolerance. But, as we have seen this is flawed. Without some degree of disapproval, tolerance is not possible.
  2. The second problem centers around the limits of tolerance. In our modern world we are being asked to tolerate increasingly troublesome behavior. A lot of this behavior centers around sexual matters. Proponents of sexual promiscuity demand increasing tolerance despite the fact that their behavior leads to diseases, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single parent families, sexual temptation, divorce, and all the ills that go with a declining family structure. Abortion proponents also demand tolerance of what they advocate although this behavior results in the death of an innocent human beings. Many people of faith think that the limits of tolerance have been transgressed in matters such as these.

Rapprochement? – The debate about toleration and its limits is not new but it seems more intense today when a shared moral vision has largely departed. Perhaps we cannot as easily define the limits of tolerance today but one way forward might be to return to a proper definition of tolerance. Perhaps if we stop (incorrectly) equating tolerance with approval a greater respect will be instilled in these debates. To ask for tolerance is not always wrong, but to demand approval is.

Consider the debate over homosexual activity. Many people of faith, at least those who hold to a more strictly Biblical view, find homosexual behavior to be wrong. The same can be said for illicit heterosexual behavior such as fornication, polygamy, and incest. But on account of our disapproval of homosexual behavior we are often called “intolerant,” (and many other things as well such as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc).

But tolerance is really not the issue. Most Christians are willing to tolerate the fact the people “do things in their bedroom”  of which we disapprove.  As long as we are not directly confronted with private behavior and told to approve of it we are generally willing to stay out of people’s private lives. But what has happened in modern times is that approval is demanded for behavior we find objectionable. When we cannot supply such approval we are called intolerant. This is a misuse of the term.

And further, what if our objections do simply emerge from bigotry as some claim but, rather, from a principled biblical stance?  Our disapproval does not, ipso facto, make us bigots. Neither does it mean we are wholly intolerant and seek to force an end to behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for the police to patrol streets and enter bedrooms and make arrests. We are not intolerant, we simply do not approve of homosexual activity. And, according to the proper definition of tolerance, it is the very fact of our disapproval, that permits us to show forth tolerance. Perhaps such a consideration might instill greater respect in these debates and less name-calling from our opponents.

An aside– Gay “marriage” is a more complicated matter since it involves existing law and a demanded change in that law by proponents of so-called “gay marriage.” Most traditional Christians see a limit to tolerance here since we consider that God defined and established marriage as described in Genesis 1 & 2. Hence we cannot favor attempts to substitute a human redefinition of something we believe instituted by God.

Finally a thought as to who really “owns” tolerance. Opponents of traditional Christians often claim the high ground of tolerance for themselves. But the paradoxical result of this is a holier-than-thou attitude and an increasing intolerance of Christian faith by the self-claimed tolerant ones. Legal restrictions of the proclamation of the Christian faith in the public square are increasing. Financial exclusion of Catholic Charities from Government money used in serving the poor are becoming more common as well.  In other parts of the world where free speech is less enshrined, Catholic priests and bishops are being sued and even arrested for “hate speech” because they preach traditional biblical morality. None of this sounds very tolerant. Our opponents need not approve of our beliefs but they ought to exhibit greater tolerance of us, the same tolerance they ask of us.

Please add to this discussion.

I first saw this video at Patrick Madrid’s blog. It demonstrates comically how even those who demand tolerance often exhibit intolerance themselves.