TOLERANCE

TOLERANCE
"Tolerance," the author G.K. Chesterton once said, " is the virtue of those who don't believe anything."


Isn’t it strange how those who rant about tolerance are often the most intolerant of other’s views! The idea of tolerance has gained such widespread and universal approval in our politically correct times that one could say it has attained cult status. It is for this reason that I would like to dedicate these lines to a closer look at the idea and to get some perspective that may be helpful to understand some of our current issues.

The Asia-Pacific Interfaith Conference has been and gone and in its wake have been a series of comments and letters in our newspapers, not to mention demonstrations, which are evidence of some deep felt concerns by people of various persuasions. Needless to say they have generated more heat than light.

The waters are muddied.

In the Northern Advocate Tuesday June 5 on the opinion page there is a plethora of various views (which I believe is a healthy sign in a newspaper) but in virtually all of them there is either a direct or indirect reference to everyone’s best friend “tolerance”. Even Joanne McNeill’s piece where she extols the virtue of her intolerance of either gods or dogs is indirectly affirming that even in our PC age we should tolerate her opinions. And indeed we do, in this relatively free society. Freedom of speech is not only tolerated but also encouraged, (so far). That is not so in many other cultures including some of those represented in the Interfaith Conference. Although I don’t agree with one of her propositions I do the other. What I do like about her article is that she makes no bones (no pun intended) about what is right and what is wrong. None of that PC tolerance stuff here. I particularly enjoyed her parting shot “Imaginary deities have no place in Parliament and dogs no place on the loose.”
Well I don't believe in the God she doesn't believe in either- Give me the real one every time!

We know tolerance has run amok when no distinction is made (other than gender) between Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. You may think that no one in his or her right mind would do that but that is exactly my point. Any reference to “a right mind” presupposes a standard, an objective measure, a universal standard of right and wrong. Where does this come from?
Tolerance taken to extreme actually becomes intolerable; you can’t actually live like that. Tolerance then must be an integral part of an objective moral framework, or worldview. When tolerance becomes an absolute-, which it does when it is not put into the context of a correct moral framework, then it actually opens the way for tyrants. Hitler’s excesses were tolerated until it was too late. The whole atmosphere of tolerance (as it is now practiced) is a so-called liberal idea that is a spin off of another misconception.
The distillation of ideas goes something like this:

• There is no such thing as absolute truth.
• Therefore all those who claim their particular worldview is true can only claim it is true to them.
• If it is not true in a universal sense, then it is not true for all people at all times.
• Therefore it is only relatively true.

Because there are no absolute truths (all truths being supposedly relative) then all propositions are only relatively true (true only for those that espouse it)
Because there is relative truth in possibly all propositions and worldviews we must tolerate them all. And thus relativism is born and hence the absolutizing of “tolerance” (accordingly this means that all ideas are equally right and have the same value so they all must be accepted and tolerance in this sense is total but for one exception: we ought not tolerate any idea that that might trump or be superior to tolerance. Like for example right and wrong have to be subservient to the idea of TOLERANCE.)
Sounds grand doesn’t it? But wait let’s look at the initial supposition a bit closer:

"There is no such thing as absolute truth."

 This statement is itself proposed as an absolute, no such thing means without exception therefore it is an absolute. But the statement itself is therefore contradictory. If nothing is absolutely true then the above statement is not absolutely true, and if that is so we may disregard it, and so we must if we are to remain rational people. It is in fact a self-refuting statement.
If the foundation statement is false then all of the arguments built upon it fall to the ground.
We must reassess.
If the statement "There is no such thing as absolute truth" is in itself a contradiction,
then it is reasonable to propose there is such thing as absolute truth.
If absolutes exist then it is reasonable to propose absolute morality exists.
If some things are always wrong then some things shouldn’t be tolerated.
Now we have arrived at the perspective within which we may exercise tolerance. Tolerance without limits should not be tolerated!

The very idea of tolerance presupposes some things:
Tolerance is a moral attribute. (Now I realize at the mention of that word you are ready to grab the remote and change the channel but don’t switch just yet! Like it or not if you believe that tolerance is better in some instances than intolerance, and I hope you do, the inescapable reality is that you are dealing with a moral question.
Moral attributes are only found in connection with personhood (mind will and emotions- dogs don’t defecate on your lawn out of spite- contrary to some opinions.)
Tolerance is better than intolerance (in some cases)
Therefore there is an objective standard ( “better” is closer to “best” than “worse”)
An objective standard is universal and therefore independent of humankind. (It remains true even if you don’t believe it or are ignorant of it.)
If it is objectively true and real, (just as say the law of gravity) and it is a moral function of personhood independent of mankind then
It is reasonable to propose that a transcendent being instituted (brought into existence) the moral absolutes.
If we take the whole realm of good and evil, right and wrong- it is ineradicably true that these very words presuppose a standard but it cannot be a measure or standard such as mankind could have originated. The old measure we called a “foot” (12 inches) may well have been a benchmark conveniently adopted roughly from the foot and eventually standardized. However such is not the case with morality. If a society such as existed in early America decided the abolition of slavery was a good thing, then we rightly assume the nation has progressed morally. If that is so we then are pressed to acknowledge there must have been a moral norm or standard towards which they were working. Therefore a moral standard exists which is not dependent for its existence on culture or time. Morality then gives evidence of a reality beyond mans existence. A transcendent reality.
The editorial from “Hawkes Bay Today” rightly points out the rigid intolerance of Muslim extremism, and it is no secret that any vacuum brought about by the absurd relativist view of tolerance and neutrality postulated by our secular government will be simply swallowed up by a strident and aggressive worldview such as we see happening in other countries. We do, as the editorial affirmed have a strong Christian heritage and it is on the basis of that we have historically been tolerant of other beliefs. Religion is a question of conscience and debate (as politics ought to be also) it is from this perspective that we tolerate other views and respect free speech. Ironically it is on the strength of these ideals that make both Christianity and Democracy so easy for aggressive views- both religious and political- easy targets of abuse. We need to guard these freedoms jealously.
Kerry