We are daily admonished that tolerance of opposing views is a virtue of the highest order.
If we are to get along in our society, we must practice tolerance. Tolerance of differing views, values and beliefs. Tolerance of another's religious beliefs, tolerance of another's political views, tolerance of another's social values.
If a person burns the flag and you revere that flag, you should practice tolerance and restraint even though the burner obviously doesn't care about respecting YOUR opposing views.
If you love and believe in Jesus Christ and an atheist activist artist creates a work of "art" consisting of a glass of urine with a crucifix in it, and calls it "Piss Christ", you must tolerate his views even though he insults your equally precious views.
Tolerance isn't a two-way street anymore, although it should be; tolerance isn't necessarily extended to opposing beliefs by the so-called activists of all stripes. People who hold beliefs and values contrary to certain minorities might, perhaps, often be ridiculed.
Do I not believe in tolerance? Sure. Whenever the situation calls for tolerance. I believe in the First Amendment. A person can say what he wants to say without fear of personal harm. On the other hand, just because a person has the right to spout off from the soapbox our ancestors and soldiers died to build for him does not mean I can't boo and hiss as I stand in front of him. He has the right to say outlandish things; he doesn't have the right to say them unrefuted. My opinion.
I think it was Hubert Humphrey who said, "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."
I certainly am not the arbiter of what speech is rational and what is balderdash - only by my own standards - and it would be dangerous indeed for me or anyone else to start trying to define what is "acceptable" free speech. (Well, I guess that is not entirely true: the Supreme Court does that all the time. If you don't believe me, try screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater sometime. Or try to run off some child pornography.) But, by and large, the First Amendment is respected. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". [Okay, I just abridged the First Amendment.]
This blogger supports freedom of speech, whether or not such speech is congruent with this blogger's personal values, but I would raise in this post the question of where the line should be drawn between tolerance and confrontation.
For example, if a person is gay, should that not be tolerated by society, even if that lifestyle is a comparatively small minority? Of course it should, unless we change the form of our government to a theocracy or an absolute democracy. Our form of government in the U.S. is "republic", not "democracy." If it were a democracy, there would be no tolerance of gays or atheists or Socialists or pornography, or probably avant-garde art and a lot of other things. This is because the definition of a pure democracy is "majority rules." Period. We would vote each issue as a referendum, and, if the majority were as it is in the U.S. today, there would be no gay rights or accomodation for athiests, etc., etc., etc. Our society would be what the majority said they wanted it to be, case closed. No need for tolerance of people with differing values.
But our constitution doesn't say that. It says we don't rule by referendum but rather through representation. Debate. Give and take. Compromise. And it has rigid constraints in the form of The Bill of Rights.
I am glad we live in a society where there is room for more than just vanilla points of views, even though some of that tolerance has taken many years and much suffering to come about. But here I ask the question again, whether or not there is a "line" or "boundary" of tolerance. If I "tolerate" a person's "gayness" and he tolerates my "straightness" do I also have to tolerate "gay pride" parades which display behavior inconsiderate or intolerant of my own values and standards? If I "tolerate" an atheist to live in peace with his views, contrary to the vast majority, do I also have to "tolerate" that person's overt acts to disparage and limit my own religious views? (Make no mistake, atheism is a religion - a religion that is getting away with murder under the First Amendment.) The First Amendment implies "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion". Should atheists be restricted the same way other religions are restricted? Just asking.
Where does an honest effort at tolerance end and the right of confrontation begin? Or is the majority simply expected to tolerate anything at all?
A lot of people have the mistaken impression that the great Martin Luther King preached a message of tolerance. A closer study of his life belies this. Dr. King's entire ministry was, instead, geared toward confrontation. His message was that evil must not be tolerated, it must be confronted. A line must be drawn and a commitment to purpose must be made in the face of that evil. True, he preached passive confrontation. He believed in shaming the evildoers until they could no longer live with the status quo, could no longer live with themselves in their hearts.
Finally, after the beatings, the bombings of the innocent, the police dogs and the fire hoses; after all the blocking of the schoolhouse doors and lunch counters; after all the degrading drinking fountains and no voting and sitting in the back of the bus, the evildoers were finally shamed by what they were doing, at least the quiet ones behind the scenes were. And change began to happen.
So it was also with the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa. Nelson Mandela was their George Washington, or at least their rallying point, but it was the nameless women on the picket lines that was the true backbone of the revolution. The endless line of protesters, so many poor women who, when beaten down by the white police were instantly replaced by another. And another. And another. Flesh against clubs. Right against injustice. Until the white police realized that "You strike a woman, you strike a rock." And shame happened, and spread across the world. And then change happened.
There is need for tolerance in this country, in this world. But there is also a time for the confrontation of evil. I don't think anyone really needs a Mighty Arbiter to tell us where that line is; humans are born with that knowledge in our hearts.
--------------------------------------
I want to clarify that I don't consider everything I don't agree with to be "evil", or that it needs to be confronted. Certainly I don't think gays are evil. Atheists? Probably not. Nazis? I think yes. And certainly racists who would dominate another group of people if they could.
Here are some points I would like my readers to help me clarify in my own mind by giving their opinions in comment. Of course the following is not meant to restrict comments only to these points:
1. What do you think the point of a "Gay Pride Parade" is? Do the actions of many of the parade's participants show tolerance and respect for non-gays?
2. What do you think the purpose of a parade of uniformed Nazis in Skokie, Illinois (a largely Jewish community in the U.S.A.) is? Should the Jews along the parade route be restrained from verbal invective? From throwing objects at the marchers?
3. Should people in a cemetery in the act of burying their son who was recently killed in Iraq be forced to listen to the chants of anti-war demonstrators gathered in the cemetery, calling their son a baby killer? If not, why should they not be required to be tolerant of the demonstrators?
4. Should christian worshipers walking to their church have to tolerate walking though pickets shouting degrading statements about their religion? Is this the place for picketers to protest the result of a democratic election whose result did not legally extend desired rights of gay people?
5. Gays are (rightfully, I think) finally confronting rather than accepting subjugation. But they are never going to win at the ballot box due to their minority status. At least probably not. Assuming you believe that Americans prefer for the people to decide such issues rather than judges, what options are available to such a minority?
6. Americans historically believe in the accommodation of disparate beliefs rather than in strict democratic "majority rule." But does there come a time or a place where not all desires of minority groups can be so accommodated?