by George Gregory

Created on: October 29, 2009   Last Updated: October 31, 2009

I think the modern ideas of Faith and Tolerance are misunderstood, but that we need to dig a little to understand why.

What is "tolerance"?

I think the modern concept is based on a misunderstanding of the word. Current opinion holds all viewpoints as valid, and that tolerance means we are not to judge other views wrong, but to consider them in the context of a particular culture or situation.

While this sounds noble, a moment's consideration proves it otherwise. Are the actions of a bully or criminal acceptable within their own cultural context? Should we gloss over the deeds of Pol Pot, or of the managers of Hitler's death camps? Were their actions acceptable by any sensible standard?

if we are not to pass judgement on these people (we are ourselves so imperfect), we are still to hold up a moral standard and do have something to say about their actions; some things must be wrong, and others right. If there is not some overarching moral reality between individuals and societies, then any concept of fair play, right and wrong, or even treaties between nations is out of court from the get-go. The kind of "tolerance" that this moral relativity implies is in fact a condoning; there's nothing to disapprove of because the relativist deems all views of equal merit. A perhaps unintended consequence of this view is that if there are no established rules to live by, then whoever is strongest gets his way.

But what then is tolerance? We have seen that it can't be based on "openness" or moral relativism (as some would suggest). The basis for tolerance must be love. And, when you think of it, the proper idea of tolerance actually implies forbearance, of putting up with something you don't necessarily approve of. People can choose between right and wrong, between things we may agree or disagree with, demonstrating that they really are free moral agents.

True tolerance loves even while it discerns some acts better than others. It can love even while it admonishes. We do not advance the concept of tolerance by accepting everything, but rather by learning to love while retaining our moral compass.

Nor should we misunderstand what tolerance is or isn't when when we talk about truth in the broader sense. Some things are true; other things are obviously not. A person who holds to a reasoned truth may be considered intolerant by some, but it would be a mere libel. The matter at hand is to find out if the fellow's right before we start slinging mud; again, the issue boils down to

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>