FIC Blog

In these politically correct days, who could argue against “tolerance”? It rolls off the tongue so easily – like motherhood and apple pie – and evokes heart-stirring imagery such as the Statue of Liberty beckoning unto the people of all nations who are “yearning to be free”. 

Sadly we have lost our understanding of the word. Tolerance once meant the ability to endure in a civil manner with someone or something not especially liked. But it has since been distorted by liberal activists into meaning that all values, beliefs, and lifestyles are equally worthy and as good as any other. And it is in this new definition of tolerance that much danger lies, for the principle seeks to deprive us of our voice in analyzing and rightfully criticizing “social innovations”. Even firmly established law appears to means little in withstanding the onslaught of liberalization. 

In truth, the new “tolerance” imposes a worldview based on the “least common denominator” of values – a “dumbing down” of our collective moral consciousness. As time marches onwards the set of behaviors that are deemed “morally objectionable” by society continues to shrink, because those who might speak out to object are quickly labeled intolerant, bigoted, and small-minded. 

Surely we would all agree that murder is wrong, wouldn’t we? Perhaps, but then exceptions begin to arise. Is abortion the same as murder? What about physician-assisted suicide? Euthanasia? Slowly, inexorably, the line creeps forward. 

So too it is with the definition of the family, once epitomized as “mom, dad, and the kids”. Now – in the name of tolerance – who are we to speak out against any alternative lifestyle? Take your pick: unmarried cohabitation, serial monogamy made easy through no-fault divorce, same-sex “marriage”, and polygamy. Aren’t we being narrow-minded to point out the faulty nature of these relational models? And why do we keep harping about the impact to children? Don’t we know it’s none of our business to stand in the way of personal freedom? 

We can see evidence of the new definition of tolerance at work in other areas, too. Why expect people to follow the law when immigrating to our country? Why expect them to assimilate into American culture by learning English? After all, by failing to welcome them as they are, aren’t we demonstrating bigotry? And shouldn’t both points of view on any issue of controversy be “given” equal time in TV, radio, and print media? Never mind that bothersome First Amendment. 

Of course, I ask these questions from a satirical perspective. But this is the thinking we observe quite often among liberals, who fail to see the self-contradiction inherent in this false virtue of tolerance. In proclaiming such tolerance, one of the very first things they do is to identify and strike out at the systems they find objectionable – such as churches and groups that organize on behalf of traditional values. But, oh my, isn’t that intolerant? Apparently, as George Orwell foretold, “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” 

Even the church is not immune from the tolerance movement. We are encouraged by modern thinkers to adopt an ecumenical viewpoint, and to build bridges with other systems of belief. But what about truly substantial differences in belief and doctrine? Can there be more than one truth with respect to the dictates of Almighty God? Should we put all world faiths into a blender, for the sake of harmony upon Earth, thereby diluting them into one homogenous belief that “God is Love, without placing any moral requirements upon us”? Does God want to be reduced to the least common denominator of what humanity is willing to offer Him? 

I much prefer the medical definition of tolerance, because it so helpfully illuminates the original definition in human relationships. In medicine, tolerance is resistance to a foreign substance such as an infection or poison. It is the ability to survive in spite of unwholesome and adversarial conditions. If only we held to this understanding of the word in non-medical contexts! 

Whereas the new “tolerance” seeks to compel us to approve of what others do, real charity requires that we adhere to moral truth and that we speak the truth in love. And if George Orwell was correct when he wrote, “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act,” then sign me up as a rebellious patriot in classic New England style.