The Intolerance of Tolerance

[Trey Brister]

The Intolerance of Tolerance
By Greg Koukl
Thursday, December 14, 2006


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:

Be egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.[i]

"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.

[PETA]

nice poke in the eye to the defenders of relativism and clarification of those who disparage it

[zcwilly]

Relativism:

"There is no right and wrong"

This is the heart of the Secular-Progressive value system that is relentlessly pushed by the media and embraced by most liberals

[Trey Brister]

Originally Posted by xian

nice poke in the eye to the defenders of relativism and clarification of those who disparage it

Thanks

[Xodiac]

What is described is a notion of tolerance that is so far out, the appropriate conservative equivilant would by the idea that I have the right to murder you if you disagree with me.

[Trey Brister]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

What is described is a notion of tolerance that is so far out, the appropriate conservative equivilant would by the idea that I have the right to murder you if you disagree with me.

I see daily examples of this kind of tolerance even here on this board.

But your retort is so absurd its unbelievable.

Have any conservatives murdered over disagreement. Do not give me any Iraq bullshit. You know that war is not a mere disagreement.

[I AM EL-NINO]

Nice post man.
on point to the tee!

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by Trey Brister

Have any conservatives murdered over disagreement.

What are you even trying to say? Is that supposed to be a question? I'll happily debate with you if I can understand what you're getting at.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

What is described is a notion of tolerance that is so far out, the appropriate conservative equivilant would by the idea that I have the right to murder you if you disagree with me.

The article uses the word "tolerance" to stand in the place of the notion of cultural relativism.

It is attacking the notion of "whom am I to judge" or "I wouldn't do it but who am I to tell them that they shouldn't do it." In so far as that is the case it is not "out there."

Examples of that notion "whom am I to judge", most notably but not exclusively from extreme liberal thought, are not difficult to find.

Examples of conservatives, even the most radical of them, arguing that murder is appropriate when the vicitm disagrees are impossible to find. Or, at least if one could find an example no one would disagree that a heinous crime had been committed.

Originally Posted by Xodiac

What are you even trying to say? Is that supposed to be a question? I'll happily debate with you if I can understand what you're getting at.

He is asking you (and I am too) for examples of conservative asserting that its okay to murder people who disagree with them.

[Xodiac]

Examples of conservatives, even the most radical of them, arguing that murder is appropriate when the vicitm disagrees are impossible to find. Or, at least if one could find an example no one would disagree that a heinous crime had been committed.

Cool, now we're getting somewhere. Okay example: Spanish Inquisition. And you're right about the heinous crime part.

Cultural relativism itself is relative, that is, it works on a sliding scale. I was merely pointing out that this article describes close to the furthest reaches of the philosophy, where all views become equal, the theory sort of implodes and against which doesn't even need to be argued.

All I want to do is point out that the idea that all opinions and their consequences should be treated exactly equally is a very extreme form of cultural relativism in which, for example, a judicial system would not make any sense, because its purpose would be to judge one opinion to be in accordance with the law. I don't see any liberals ralliing for an abolition of that branch of government.

Why not? Let's explore the options.

A. They're all idiots and dont' realize their philisophy means that they SHOULD. [I know how tempting it is for you conservatives to default to this one, and in some cases, I have to agree! ]

B. The vast majority of them are not nearly that far out of the ladder of social relativism, making the entire original post miss its mark and only really accurately target a few radicals for believing something so absurd that writing an oposition to debunk it is not really even worthwhile.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Cool, now we're getting somewhere. Okay example: Spanish Inquisition. And you're right about the heinous crime part.

Got a more recent example? Climbing back 500 years to find one tends to weigh in favor of my assertion that you can;t find an example don't you think

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Cultural relativism itself is relative, that is, it works on a sliding scale. I was merely pointing out that this article describes close to the furthest reaches of the philosophy, where all views become equal, the theory sort of implodes and against which doesn't even need to be argued.

Disagree and agree. It certain castds light on the absurd extreme that would hold all ideas of equal merit. Relatvism is, as you say, relative. But, that doesn't mean that choosing idea A over idea B is intolerant or worse... dum dum dum.... judgemental. It is discriminatory, to use what has become a senselessly inflamatory word. We need more and better discrimination to seperate good idas from bad ones. The author, imo, was attempting to note that the charge of "intolerance" too often prevents us from acknowledging and/or acting on that need.

Originally Posted by Xodiac

All I want to do is point out that the idea that all opinions and their consequences should be treated exactly equally is a very extreme form of cultural relativism in which, for example, a judicial system would not make any sense, because its purpose would be to judge one opinion to be in accordance with the law. I don't see any liberals ralliing for an abolition of that branch of government.

But you do see them, for example, advocating a "living constitution" which must be interpretted in with respect to what people think tosay - that is relative to today not to the intent of the framers (as well as can be ascertained.) And so we se your sliding scale of relativism in action.

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Why not? Let's explore the options.

A. They're all idiots and dont' realize their philisophy means that they SHOULD. [I know how tempting it is for you conservatives to default to this one, and in some cases, I have to agree!

B. The vast majority of them are not nearly that far out of the ladder of social relativism, making the entire original post miss its mark and only really accurately target a few radicals for believing something so absurd that writing an oposition to debunk it is not really even worthwhile.

As the author noted - it is so dyed in the wool now that people don't even see it. How ofter do you read, hear of etc people taking offense not because they are offended but because they believe that a rational basis for some one to maybe get offended might exist... even if no one is actually offended.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by Trey Brister

The Intolerance of Tolerance
By Greg Koukl
Thursday, December 14, 2006


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."

*yawn*

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.

That's simply untrue. Post-modernists are not that well liked by a lot of people, and there's a lot more to the philosophical school that "there is no truth." And even if that was true, that's not entirely different from the intellectual exercises set forth by Buddhists or Socrates thousands of years ago who also put forth questions about what is truth.

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.

Nice straw man.

Nobody occupies neutral ground. Everybody has a set of moral and cultural foundations that shape their opinions, and the validity they assign to different beliefs. It's inescapable. However, within that framework, people do have the mental capacity to chose what they believe and the merit they assign to various beliefs. That's inarguable; it's a question of mental capability, not moral judgment. Opinions are inherently neither right nor wrong; they are just ideas. Ideas which can be debated and critically analyzed to assign value.

I suppose there are a small sect who really try to adhere to that idea that all views are completely equal, and really believe that, but they are out of their minds and nobody really takes them seriously.

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.

It should look a lot more like this:

1. Opinions/beliefs are not definable facts. They are different from facts, like we breathe air or cats meow.

2. Because they are neither true nor false, they are open to critical analysis and the value assigned on that basis is not truth either, because it is also a belief.

The idea is not that all viewpoints should be held equally without criticism or discourse. Rather, we should begin from a point of equality and go from there to debate the value of each and decide what holds merit. Sometimes, one viewpoint is better than the others, sometimes, none are good, and sometimes, multiple viewpoints can coexist peacefully with neither being more valuable than the others.

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.

The reason that doesn't work is that the author presented both of those positions as fact, when neither are. They are both beliefs. I don't find it intolerant for the author to believe one or either, however.

Where I do disagree is his contention that this is contradictory. Both Christians and Jews can believe their own separate faiths and everybody can coexist peacefully on the subject. Religious beliefs are built on faith, not fact, and as such, cannot be proven true over each other outside of one's own mind.

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:

Be egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.[i]

"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."

I think that's pretty much what I said earlier. That's not really the question here. The question is how one decides value ought to be placed on different ideas.

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.

The "tolerance" issue only arises when one disposes of an idea prima facie or simply because it questions their existing belief structure. The idea of tolerance really is that we decide whether views are valuable or not based upon intelligent analysis.

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.

See above.

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.

To call somebody intolerant without giving a warrant for the claim is, intolerant. I'll agree.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

...And even if that was true, that's not entirely different from the intellectual exercises set forth by Buddhists or Socrates thousands of years ago who also put forth questions about what is truth.

But there is a large gap between the effort to discern truth and the declaration that none exists

Originally Posted by Adam D

Nobody occupies neutral ground. Everybody has a set of moral and cultural foundations that shape their opinions, and the validity they assign to different beliefs. It's inescapable. However, within that framework, people do have the mental capacity to chose what they believe and the merit they assign to various beliefs. That's inarguable; it's a question of mental capability, not moral judgment. Opinions are inherently neither right nor wrong; they are just ideas. Ideas which can be debated and critically analyzed to assign value.

But some ideas are wrong. Would the author have been more accurate if he'd have simply said that often those who claim to be "tolerant" are simply too chicken shit to speak their mind when they disagree?

Originally Posted by Adam D

It should look a lot more like this:

1. Opinions/beliefs are not definable facts. They are different from facts, like we breathe air or cats meow.

2. Because they are neither true nor false, they are open to critical analysis and the value assigned on that basis is not truth either, because it is also a belief.

The author wasn't speaking about opinions but ideas wasn't he? Opinions are judgments. So your critique addresses a different topic - even if you;re right that opinions are of variable worth depending on X Y Z. However, it is still true that some opinions are worthless.

Originally Posted by Adam D

The idea is not that all viewpoints should be held equally without criticism or discourse. Rather, we should begin from a point of equality and go from there to debate the value of each and decide what holds merit. Sometimes, one viewpoint is better than the others, sometimes, none are good, and sometimes, multiple viewpoints can coexist peacefully with neither being more valuable than the others.

Sometimes a viewpoint, eg, the holocaust never happened invite immediate dismissal and scorn for the idiot who offers such a stupid "opinion" of the "truth."

It is rare that multiple vuiewpoints can hold however in a real world where decisions need to be made. "Should I make the left hand turn.... yes, no maybe" Choices must be made between alternatives... even between good ones or bad ones.

Originally Posted by Adam D

The "tolerance" issue only arises when one disposes of an idea prima facie or simply because it questions their existing belief structure. The idea of tolerance really is that we decide whether views are valuable or not based upon intelligent analysis.

did you really use a latin phrase on DDM?

Anyway, tolerance does regard the person not the ieda. We mustn't be tolerant of the belief that the holocaust never existed... of NAMBLA's principles (or prolly even those who believe those things) etc. I cite obvious examples that are on the extreme - that doesn't rule out less obvious less extreme examples of ideas that should be rejected.

[Trey Brister]

Originally Posted by xian

The article uses the word "tolerance" to stand in the place of the notion of cultural relativism.

It is attacking the notion of "whom am I to judge" or "I wouldn't do it but who am I to tell them that they shouldn't do it." In so far as that is the case it is not "out there."

Examples of that notion "whom am I to judge", most notably but not exclusively from extreme liberal thought, are not difficult to find.

Examples of conservatives, even the most radical of them, arguing that murder is appropriate when the vicitm disagrees are impossible to find. Or, at least if one could find an example no one would disagree that a heinous crime had been committed.



He is asking you (and I am too) for examples of conservative asserting that its okay to murder people who disagree with them.

What he said !

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by xian

But you do see them, for example, advocating a "living constitution" which must be interpretted in with respect to what people think tosay - that is relative to today not to the intent of the framers (as well as can be ascertained.) And so we se your sliding scale of relativism in action.

Hm, I don't quite see how that relates, but it's an interesting point. Let's talk about that!

If we don't take into account what people think today, how do we make decisions on...for example...

Let's say in the framers time, an army of goverment workers was hired to go through and open everybody's mail at the post office, every personal letter, etc that came through. That would generally be considered a violation of the part of the constitution that protects against unreasonable searches and seasures, right? Well, what about a supercomputer searching through mass emails looking for terrorists? To make a decision one way or the other, don't we have to take into account many things that just didn't exist in the framers time? Or am I misunderstanding?