It is a sad truth that we live amid a generation of people who cannot recognize the difference between the statement 'I disagree with you' and the statement 'I hate you'. In a day when 'tolerance' is a major buzzword in our culture it is ironic that few seem to know what the word actually means. In fact what we are witnessing is nothing less than a total redefinition of a word by the mass misusing of that same word.
Historically speaking, tolerance has meant that people agree to disagree. That is to say if you hold a point of view that is in opposition to my own I allow you to hold that view even though I don't like it. Conversely, intolerance is in direct opposition to the idea of tolerance. Intolerance is the application of harm to make others agree with your position, or to punish those who refuse to agree. Disagreement is innate to the idea of tolerance. If everyone agrees then there is no need for tolerance.
Imagine to foolishness of the following situation. A person says 'rocky road is the best flavor of ice cream'. His friend says 'I agree that rocky road is the best flavor of ice cream, and therefore I tolerate your opinion.' Our response to this should be obvious. There has been no act of tolerance here, only agreement. If the person said 'I think strawberry cream is the best flavor of ice cream but I will allow you to disagree' then that would be tolerance. But if in response to the first person the second had said 'I think that strawberry cream is the best flavor of ice cream, and unless you change your mind I will kill you' then what has happened? The first person's friend has been very intolerant towards them.
The very nature of the concept of tolerance demands disagreement. You cannot be tolerant of an idea you agree with. Tolerance is the virtue of respecting the right of another person, or a group of people, to disagree with what you hold to be true. The moment a person applies the threat of harm to make the other person change their mind, they show that they are intolerant of that person's point of view.
Tolerance is, simply put, the willingness to allow people who hold ideas and beliefs contrary to your own to exist with you in this world without threat of harm.
By harm I mean the deprivation of basic human rights and civil liberties. In other words 'if you don't agree I/we will beat you' and 'if you don't agree I/we will burn your house down' and 'if you don't agree I/we will imprison you', etc., are all examples of using harm to coerce agreement and punish disagreement and that is intolerance at work.
On the other hand statements like 'if you don't agree I/we will not be your friend anymore' and 'if you don't agree I/we will openly oppose your point of view to the public' and 'if you don't agree I/we will not give your company my/our business', etc., are not examples of harm.
Now don't get me wrong, the latter set of "if you don't agree' statements do exert a certain kind of force. The force employed is a kind that seeks to change their opponents mind by withholding friendship, by getting others to see their opponent is wrong in his conviction, and by withdrawing financial support from their opponents company. All of those things, however, are within the rights of the person who disagrees. They are not acts of intolerance; they are acts of conscience. Those acts may persuade their opponent to change their mind (or at least their policy) because it is not worth it to the opponent to hold their ground but force and harm are different issues.
A person must be free to disagree, to disagree loudly and publicly and also free to not support the people they disagree with. But tolerance demands disagreement. A person who denies friendship, who speaks publicly against someone else's view, and who will not buy goods from another can still be tolerant of them as long as they do not harm them. Getting your feelings hurt, by the way, is not harm. People refusing to give your business their support is not harm. People disagreeing with you is not harm. You might not like it, sure, but that is just too bad.
Can you imagine a world without tolerance? If you read history books and world news it should not be that hard to do. When a regime like that Nazis or ISIS takes control there is no tolerance. You agree with them or you die. You might even die if you do agree. When different views and ideas are not allowed to coexist we end up in a miserable situation. A situation where basic human rights are denied and where people are imprisoned and put to death for disagreeing with the dictator or the group of people in power.
Our American culture is increasingly intolerant towards those who hold to the biblical worldview. To say 'homosexuality is a sin' is thought to be a criminal offense by many people in our country. We are blurring the lines between hurt feelings and genuine harm. Christians, who actually hold to biblical teaching, will both openly oppose homosexuality as a sin (along with heterosexual sex outside of marriage) and also defend homosexual's right to practice homosexuality without fear of harm (the real kind of harm, death, prison, destruction of property, etc.). Even opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is not harming anyone in the real sense of the word harm,. It is a disagreement about what is best for individuals, for children, for our nation, but it is not a call for violence against homosexuals.
Christians, who actually follow the teaching of Jesus, will oppose the idea of harming homosexuals in any way. Christians will allow people who disagree with them to exist and to make their own decisions about how to lives. As long as people are not harming other innocent parties in the process of exercising their freedoms then they should be allowed to do so. Radical Muslims, however, will not protect the rights of homosexuals like Christians will. We practice tolerance, radical Islam does not.
Our country needs to think real carefully about the idea of tolerance versus intolerance. We need to think carefully about how to define the word harm. We need to think carefully about the importance of allowing people to disagree, even vehemently disagree, without forcing people to conform through threat of harm. Just as homosexuals shouldn't be threatened with harm by radical Muslims neither should Christians be threatened with harm by radical homosexuals. I am afraid we are seeing the growth of intolerance towards people of biblical faith under the ironic banner 'tolerance.'
Historically speaking, tolerance has meant that people agree to disagree. That is to say if you hold a point of view that is in opposition to my own I allow you to hold that view even though I don't like it. Conversely, intolerance is in direct opposition to the idea of tolerance. Intolerance is the application of harm to make others agree with your position, or to punish those who refuse to agree. Disagreement is innate to the idea of tolerance. If everyone agrees then there is no need for tolerance.
Imagine to foolishness of the following situation. A person says 'rocky road is the best flavor of ice cream'. His friend says 'I agree that rocky road is the best flavor of ice cream, and therefore I tolerate your opinion.' Our response to this should be obvious. There has been no act of tolerance here, only agreement. If the person said 'I think strawberry cream is the best flavor of ice cream but I will allow you to disagree' then that would be tolerance. But if in response to the first person the second had said 'I think that strawberry cream is the best flavor of ice cream, and unless you change your mind I will kill you' then what has happened? The first person's friend has been very intolerant towards them.
The very nature of the concept of tolerance demands disagreement. You cannot be tolerant of an idea you agree with. Tolerance is the virtue of respecting the right of another person, or a group of people, to disagree with what you hold to be true. The moment a person applies the threat of harm to make the other person change their mind, they show that they are intolerant of that person's point of view.
Tolerance is, simply put, the willingness to allow people who hold ideas and beliefs contrary to your own to exist with you in this world without threat of harm.
By harm I mean the deprivation of basic human rights and civil liberties. In other words 'if you don't agree I/we will beat you' and 'if you don't agree I/we will burn your house down' and 'if you don't agree I/we will imprison you', etc., are all examples of using harm to coerce agreement and punish disagreement and that is intolerance at work.
On the other hand statements like 'if you don't agree I/we will not be your friend anymore' and 'if you don't agree I/we will openly oppose your point of view to the public' and 'if you don't agree I/we will not give your company my/our business', etc., are not examples of harm.
Now don't get me wrong, the latter set of "if you don't agree' statements do exert a certain kind of force. The force employed is a kind that seeks to change their opponents mind by withholding friendship, by getting others to see their opponent is wrong in his conviction, and by withdrawing financial support from their opponents company. All of those things, however, are within the rights of the person who disagrees. They are not acts of intolerance; they are acts of conscience. Those acts may persuade their opponent to change their mind (or at least their policy) because it is not worth it to the opponent to hold their ground but force and harm are different issues.
A person must be free to disagree, to disagree loudly and publicly and also free to not support the people they disagree with. But tolerance demands disagreement. A person who denies friendship, who speaks publicly against someone else's view, and who will not buy goods from another can still be tolerant of them as long as they do not harm them. Getting your feelings hurt, by the way, is not harm. People refusing to give your business their support is not harm. People disagreeing with you is not harm. You might not like it, sure, but that is just too bad.
Can you imagine a world without tolerance? If you read history books and world news it should not be that hard to do. When a regime like that Nazis or ISIS takes control there is no tolerance. You agree with them or you die. You might even die if you do agree. When different views and ideas are not allowed to coexist we end up in a miserable situation. A situation where basic human rights are denied and where people are imprisoned and put to death for disagreeing with the dictator or the group of people in power.
Our American culture is increasingly intolerant towards those who hold to the biblical worldview. To say 'homosexuality is a sin' is thought to be a criminal offense by many people in our country. We are blurring the lines between hurt feelings and genuine harm. Christians, who actually hold to biblical teaching, will both openly oppose homosexuality as a sin (along with heterosexual sex outside of marriage) and also defend homosexual's right to practice homosexuality without fear of harm (the real kind of harm, death, prison, destruction of property, etc.). Even opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is not harming anyone in the real sense of the word harm,. It is a disagreement about what is best for individuals, for children, for our nation, but it is not a call for violence against homosexuals.
Christians, who actually follow the teaching of Jesus, will oppose the idea of harming homosexuals in any way. Christians will allow people who disagree with them to exist and to make their own decisions about how to lives. As long as people are not harming other innocent parties in the process of exercising their freedoms then they should be allowed to do so. Radical Muslims, however, will not protect the rights of homosexuals like Christians will. We practice tolerance, radical Islam does not.Our country needs to think real carefully about the idea of tolerance versus intolerance. We need to think carefully about how to define the word harm. We need to think carefully about the importance of allowing people to disagree, even vehemently disagree, without forcing people to conform through threat of harm. Just as homosexuals shouldn't be threatened with harm by radical Muslims neither should Christians be threatened with harm by radical homosexuals. I am afraid we are seeing the growth of intolerance towards people of biblical faith under the ironic banner 'tolerance.'
