The Myth of Tolerance Not All Views Are Equal By Gregory Koukl May 26, 2004 This article first appeared in the December 2003 issue of BreakPoint WorldView magazine. Subscribe today or order a gift subscription! There is one word that can stop a follower of Christ in his tracks as he seeks to “give an account for the hope” that is in him: tolerance. Tolerant people do not “force” their personal views on others. They are impartial, non-judgmental, and neutral because they are committed to one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism: All views are equally valid. The concept is especially popular with postmoderns, radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their creed, “There is no truth,” often follows their demand for tolerance. For all their confident bluster, the appeal self-destructs because it actually asserts two truths: the “truth” that there is no truth—a clear conflict—and the truth of the moral obligation of tolerance. Their confusion, contradictory on at least two counts, serves as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided. The Tolerance Trick Tolerance of this sort is a myth. In fact, it is a ruse, a swindle, and a hoax, what philosopher Francis Beckwith calls “the passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” By the relativists’ definition of tolerance, true tolerance is impossible. Let me give you a real-life example. In 2003 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 are equally valid; no view is better than another. All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence: Jesus is the Messiah; Jews are wrong for rejecting Him. Immediately hands flew up. “You can't say that,” one challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?” “Like you’re doing right now?” I pointed out. “Actually, it doesn’t bother me at all. Why should it?” “But your view is intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement violated itself. I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views are equally valid?” They nodded. 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. If all views are equally valid, then the view that Jews are wrong for rejecting Jesus is just as true as the view that Jews are right for rejecting Jesus. But this is hopelessly contradictory, gibberish. They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick. Escaping The Trap “Would you like to know how to get out of the trap?” I asked. They nodded. “Reject this modern distortion of tolerance and return to the classical view.” Then I wrote these two principles on the board: Be egalitarian regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas. [1] Egalitarian was a new word for them. Think “equal,” I said. Treat people as having equal standing in value or worth. This 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. Treat people with equal respect and deference. Elitist was a familiar word. An elitist was a snob, someone who thought he was better than others. “Right,” I said. “When you are elitist regarding ideas, you acknowledge that some ideas are better than others. And they are. Some are good; some are bad. Some are true; some are false. Some are brilliant; others are just plain foolish.” “Here’s the key,” I summed up. “True tolerance applies to how we treat people, not how we treat ideas.” We respect people who hold different beliefs from ours by treating them courteously, allowing them a place in the public discourse. Though we strongly disagree with them, tolerance requires us to be civil towards them in spite of our differences. We have a different obligation toward ideas, though. Reason and intellectual integrity require we treat some ideas as better than others. Any other approach is foolish, even dangerous, because ideas have consequences. 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 contradictory. To argue some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance. Tolerating behavior is a third issue. In free societies, a person may believe as she likes—and usually has the liberty to express those beliefs—but she may not behave as she likes. Some behavior is a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated (allowed, though disagreed with), 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 on its head. In practice, if one rejects another’s ideas, he is automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the student did with me). No idea can be opposed, even if done graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility. This is confused and often results in the very elitism regarding people relativists say they are trying to avoid. Christians who think their ideas are true are often verbally abused, called bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant and—can you believe it—intolerant. 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—especially politically incorrect ones—are labeled as “imposing your view on others” and quickly silenced. This is nonsense and should be abandoned. True tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process. Notice we cannot truly tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We do not “tolerate” people who share our views. They are on our side; there is nothing to “put up with.” Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently. This essential element of classical tolerance—disagreement (elitism regarding ideas or conduct)—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you are called intolerant no matter how you treat her. This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet expressing that conviction brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible. The myth of tolerance forces everyone into an inevitable conflict. Each person in any debate has a point of view he thinks is correct, and each person thinks that those who differ are wrong. No one ever satisfies the demands of the first definition of tolerance. That is why it’s a myth. 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, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even consider them. It is 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. As ambassadors for Christ, we choose the more courageous path, “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Whenever you are 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. If they were, they would not be making a fuss. Point out the contradiction built into the new definition. Point out that this kind of tolerance is a myth. Gregory Koukl is president of Stand to Reason and co-author of Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Baker), from which this article was adapted. [1] This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft of Boston College. Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or Prison Fellowship Ministries. Links to outside articles do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content. © 2004 Prison Fellowship. Site developed by Active Matter, designed by Alliant Studios.Privacy Policy