Myriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “tolerance” as
follows:
tol·er·ance noun \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\
1: capacity to endure pain or hardship: endurance,
fortitude, stamina
2a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices
differing from or conflicting with one's own.
b: the act of allowing something: toleration
Notice there is nothing in the definition that says you must
agree with the beliefs or practices that are different from yours? Some people just don’t understand that part.
There are certain groups of people in this country that
scream and demand tolerance for anything and everything they want or believe,
yet they cannot tolerate people who disagree with their beliefs. These people think anyone who disagrees with them
should be chastised, vilified and ridiculed.
It’s obvious people like that don’t understand the definition of their
favorite word.
People who demand tolerance without demonstrating it usually
have a second favorite word or expression they use against those who disagree
with them. The root word is “hate.” Rather than practice tolerance themselves,
these people accuse those who disagree of practicing hatred. Again – it comes from a lack of understanding
of the word “tolerance”, whether it be deliberate or not.
The other word(s) commonly used by these people is “bigot”
or “racist”. If someone disagrees with a
particular practice – let’s say gay marriage since it’s in the news so much
today – those demanding tolerance cry “hater” or “bigot” or “homophobe” –
without once being “tolerant” of the beliefs of others and their right to
disagree. They don’t care what the
stated reasons are. They only care that
someone dares to disagree with them and their vile intolerance begins to
show. And the same words fly if someone
voices their distrust of Muslims – even given the current situation in the
world.
In like fashion it has become all too easy for them to cry “racist”
if one disagrees with the President, again - regardless of the reasons stated
for the disagreement. Somehow, some
people believe that conservatives should all embrace the Obama Presidency and
agree with everything he does. And if
that doesn’t happen they label those who disagree with the “R” word. But how ridiculous is that? One must wonder if Herman Cain had somehow
won the election and was running the country with a conservative
administration, would those who opposed his policies consider themselves
racist? I doubt it.
Let’s look at the definition of “tolerance” again: Sympathy
or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's
own.
In other words – allowing or accepting beliefs or practices
that differ from or conflict with one’s own.
The examples I posted above aren’t going to go away soon. I foresee a future in the United States where
gay marriage will be allowed nationwide in the name of civil rights. And those who oppose it, for whatever reason,
will be forced to tolerate it because it will be the law of the land. For the most part they already do tolerate
it. If not, the instances of hate crimes
against homosexual people would be far higher than they are and would probably
be on the rise given that some states have already legalized their
marriage. So it seems that people are “tolerant”
of it already. There is no clause of
silence in the definition of tolerance.
So there is no reason people should stop voicing their opinions, pro or
con, of any practice or belief. And they
should be able to do just that in a peaceful and respectful manner.
“Tolerance” has to apply to both sides. If one side is demanding tolerance for their
beliefs and practices then the other side has the right to demand the same
thing. Bottom line – if people cannot
expect tolerance from you they’re less likely to afford it to you. Just sayin….
Remember, they preached this and promoted this within our own agency before we retired, it was always part of Annual Refresher Training along with Political Correctness and Cultural Diversity. When taught independently from each other they appear benign, harmless and even advantages to some degree. But when you step back and view all three together from a distance a different picture emerges, and that's one of a obedient collective servitude which allows for no individual freedom of speech, thought, or action.
ReplyDelete