The Corruption of Tolerance

          Many people ask one another what the greatest moral issue is in America. They get in arguments and debates until a few radicals – activists for narrow-mindedness – pull out their individual beliefs and religions, and hold them like guns to each other’s heads. Swiftly the mainstream of society jumps into the center of the fray, screaming for tolerance. “You are no longer allowed to stand up for your beliefs,” society seems to advocate. Suddenly the pill of “tolerance” is force-fed to children in schools, and to parents at home or work. Because of a few radicals, all ideals are silenced. The only respectable belief is one that challenges no one else’s. In other words, the only respectable belief is none at all. In asking the question of what is the greatest moral issue, the answer seems to present itself: perhaps the greatest moral issue is tolerance, for it breeds indifference, and indifference, apathy.

          Tolerance sounds beautiful. It suggests that all religions and beliefs can coexist peacefully and respectfully. It preaches that everyone should be open-minded, and most importantly that no one should ever force a religion or ideology upon another person. The problem with this ideology is that it is often forced upon everyone the moment they engage someone of a deviating belief. In fear of conflict, tolerance is shoved upon just about everyone by society at large. What the word “tolerance” means, and what is expected of many people is quite different. While the traditional sense of the word suggests that we simply tolerate and respect other ideas and beliefs, what it now seems to mean is that society will no longer tolerate us unless we conform to its tolerant image.

          One of the problems this forced “tolerance” causes is indifference. The radical believers and philosophical advocates are the ones who forced the “tolerant” hand, yet they are the only ones who seem to be unaffected by its power and sway. The people who are affected the most by the tolerance movement are those who dislike conflict and disunity; in other words, nearly everyone. We hear the beautiful-sounding tolerance ideal, and we swallow it eagerly. Suddenly everyone is afraid of speaking up for their beliefs, in fear that people around them will label them “intolerant.” Tolerance becomes the only belief that is tolerated, but it is a shallow belief. It silences discussions that are essential for intellectual development and analytical contemplations of reality. It keeps people from sharing ideas that might upset others. Those who are “intellectual cowards” strongly advocate the tolerance movement because it protects them from intelligent engagement. They can label people “intolerant bigots” and it protects them from having to challenge or refute an idea. But what is the purpose of deep-thinking if there is no one to test it against? Eventually, we become indifferent to anything that might upset other people, and we go from “tolerant” to something called “acceptant.”

          Acceptance is a step beyond tolerance in that we not only allow others of a different worldview and mindset common respect, but we adopt their ideas and decide to believe them. Acceptance is different from tolerance, for tolerance requires differing opinions, while acceptance blurs out any distinctions. We decide that since we cannot really debate new, deep ideas, or discuss the possible fallacies of old ones, we will simply accept everything as a possibility. We could say we stand for everything, but our “possible beliefs” are so conflicting, that in reality we stand for nothing. This acceptance of everything destroys our ideological zeal, until we no longer care about what is truly correct. By accepting everyone’s beliefs but our own, we have adopted an apathetic mentality that is destructive to our society, and to the entire world.

          Apathy kills countries. Apathy silences all but the most radically devoted believers, and holds the door for them while they manipulate and take control of the world. Apathy tells citizens not to vote for whom they believe is the right candidate. Unable to consult their moral compasses, those that do vote base their decisions on whomever can give them the most immediate material gain, for apathy breeds laziness. Laziness begs for everything to be free. Communism answers.

          In the midst of the apathetic masses, those few radicals who refuse to recant continue to wage wars of ideological propaganda, and because of their radical nature, they do it in the most intolerant ways. Churches picket funerals of soldiers, children shoot or stab fellow classmates, and hijackers turn our airliners into bullets and wrecking machines, slaughtering thousands of unsuspecting – and quite tolerant – people. Is tolerance the answer to intolerance? Or does it simply lull us all into a lazy, false sense of security while we are repeatedly deceived and destroyed?

          Conceivably, the greatest moral predicament in America is the tolerance movement, for it not only differs greatly from authentic tolerance, but it encourages the apathy of the temperate and destroys the very heart of morality. Originally referring to someone who stands for and upholds his or her beliefs, the word “morality” is now traded for words such as “bigot,” and “hateful.” While the tolerance movement hypocritically forces their twisted version of tolerance upon those who oppose them, cruelly labels the devout and spreads intellectual cowardice and apathy, the word “morality” appears to lose its meaning altogether. When tolerance gives birth to acceptance, we allow this destruction of morality, because we accept it. Perhaps the greatest question to ask ourselves is this: If tolerance is the enemy, can it be toppled? Or could it be that upsetting this ideal is not, in fact, to be tolerated?