The current flap over the “religious freedom” issue in Arizona has me once again seeing a lot of people trying to win the debate by insisting that the voices of acceptance and tolerance need to accept and tolerate views that are clearly antithetical to their own, or else they’re just being hypocritical and can be dismissed.
In the social world, this often manifests itself as a liberal-vs.-conservative debate. In the typical case, liberal-minded Person A is advocating for broad acceptance on some particular issue, while the more conservative Person B (especially if he is a religious fundamentalist) feels that he shouldn’t have to put with (whatever) and that Person A needs to accept that. Person A’s refusal to do so makes him a hypocrite in Person B’s eyes.
This same dynamic can arise in other contexts, too, like between partners in a romantic relationship or co-workers assigned to the same team:
Romantic partner A: “Why are you trying so hard and so often to make me change to accommodate you? I know I’m not perfect, but don’t you think we’d both be happier if you just accepted me as I am?”
Romantic partner B: “If that’s such great advice, why don’t you just follow it yourself? Why don’t YOU just accept the fact that I DON’T accept your shortcomings?”
Team member A: “I know you’re a take-charge type, but it doesn’t feel like we’re really a team if you can’t rein it in and respect other peoples’ styles more.”
Team member B: “So basically you’re saying that we should respect everyone’s styles but mine. And YOU think I’M not being a team player?”
In all of these cases, I’m pretty sure Person B is wrong, and that no, tolerance should be the default winner in each case. I have a hard time articulating why, though, beyond just making the classic observation that “Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance.” Can anyone do better?
The bait and switch? The levels of tolerance for behavior in each person in the romantic couple may be different. Claiming universal tolerance of all behavior is expected of either party is not realistic, sensible, nor asked for. But that’s what one side is trying to argue - universal tolerance when the other side asked for no such thing.
Nobody claims to be universally tolerant of everything. But that’s the argument presented. That to ask for even the slightest bit more tolerance from one person is to ask for universal tolerance of everything.
So, also shades of a strawman and excluded middle.
Tolerance in the sense first described by the OP is essentially an attitude of non-interference. If I am tolerant of your sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or race, what that means in a practical sense is that I have no interest in interfering with you being those things.
That does not mean I agree or share with your beliefs. As it happens I think gay sex is gross, Judaism is a preposterous belief system, and I can’t be black even if I wanted to. However, as a tolerant person, I’ve no place telling someone else not to be gay or Jewish or minding that someone is black. I am entitled to differ from a Jew as to whether there is a God; disagreement is not intolerance, provided I do not unduly interfere with their right to believe differently.
Where the “you aren’t tolerant of my intolerance” argument falls is that the intolerant are (usually; this is a case by case basic) arguing for interference and discrimination. The objection is not with their beliefs, but their actions. In the case of the Arizona and Kansas gay-hate bills, the problem people have is not that a fundamentalist Christian believes gay sex is sinful; that is a passive position. They have a problem with fundamentalist Christians interfering with the rights of others on the basis of that position.
I concede there is grey area here but to my mind the basic test of true tolerance versus bullshit is that tolerance is inherently passive. To be tolerant literally requires no active effort; it is merely allowing others to live as they see fit provided the way they see fit does not itself constitute undue interference.
While I don’t like intolerance displayed in purely personal and social realms, I wouldn’t outlaw it. I would see any such laws as abridgments of free speech and free thought.
But the Arizona law is not about the personal and social realms, it’s about business transactions. There is a long history of states having the power to regulate business transactions to assure a level of fundamental fairness among the parties to a transaction.
I regard the issue of intolerance towards intolerance as much the same as that of using violence. Wrong to initiate, not wrong to use in defense; you aren’t morally required to tolerate someone trying to harass or oppress other people any more than you are required to stand there and passively let them punch you in the face.
I want a world where gay people can eat where they want, get married, and adopt kids. Don’t like it? Boo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river.
Tolerance isn’t an end unto itself. It’s just a tool for checking to make sure that you’re not judging someone unfairly: “Hey, I haven’t been through what you’ve been through. If I’d lived your life, maybe I’d see things differently. Maybe I shouldn’t be so quick to judge.”
But advocating tolerance just for the sake of being tolerant? That’s stupid.
I think there’s a name for the fallacy in the arguments above, I just don’t know it offhand. Person A says Person B is being C, Person B says that Person A is being C more then they are. It’s like a deflection attack or something. Person B doesn’t admit being C, just declares Person A is being C as well.
It tickles me to see these “Co-exist” bumper stickers with all the religious symbols on them … except Satanic pentigrams … go figure.
Because it’s an obvious expansion of definition beyond the one originally being used - it’s a semantic trap; “You said you like cats, so I put a tiger in your room - don’t tell me you weren’t sincere when you said you liked cats!”.
Twenty years ago, I would have accepted the argument that gays just wanted tolerance, to be left alone to live their own lives as they saw fit.
Today? It’s increasingly evident that gays and their allies will never be content with mere tolerance. As blogger Mark Shea puts it, “Tolerance is NOT enough! You. Must. Approve!”
It’s not as if Christian bakers or photographers are leading protest rallies at gay weddings. On the contrary, gays are the ones insisting that Christian bakers and photographers MUST participate in their weddings or get sued into oblivion."
Twenty years ago, it was gays who were saying “We just want to be left alone.” Today, it’s Christians who are increasingly saying “We just want to be left alone.”
I hope you’re not being serious. If so, I apologize for the following remarks.
With a few exceptions (yes, every group of people will have jerks), this isn’t true.
And Christians aren’t increasingly being asked to be left alone. Conservative Christians are precisely the ones introducing legislation to explicitly ban gay marriage and explicitly allow discrimination against gays. That’s not “being asked to be left alone” or “not approving hard enough”. That’s not even a few jerks putting up pointless lawsuits. That’s outright attempts at codifying intolerance.
And this isn’t a Christian/non-Christian issue. It’s a conservative Christian against the world issue. As my high school classmate (now a Methodist minister) says, the Jesus he knows wouldn’t approve of any of that. It pisses me off royally for all Christians to be painted with the same conservative brush when it’s a (admittedly sizable) minority that’s acting like a bunch of self-righteous assholes. As far as he’s concerned, we should not merely be tolerant of homosexuals but embrace and accept them.
I’m here in Arizona and the truth about this law is a little different than has been widely reported. “Under Arizona law, employers and businesses may fire, not hire or refuse to serve people because they’re gay. The cities of Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson have ordinances that prohibit this, but SB 1062 would pre-empt those local laws if the business person cites his or her religious beliefs. In fact, if the bill becomes law, voiding those ordinances may be its main practical effect.”
So actually this is pre-empting a local (city) law with a state ordinance.
Also there’s plenty of people who aren’t claiming to be ‘tolerant’ but are on the pro-LGBT rights side, and aren’t arguing “tolerance” as their primary argument, but yet somehow this is always turned on them. Tolerance implies that it’s something bad you have to put up with. If I tell you “I tolerate my mother’s calls every Saturday”, does it sound like I’m looking forward to, or enjoying those calls? What does it sound like if I say I tolerate my friends Christianity, their homosexuality, or their race?
Absolutely. This is why american Christians have actually preached their anti-gay rhetoric elsewhere, causing some monstrous laws to appear in other countries. So they’d be left alone. Also why Christians argue against legal rights for homosexuals, insult them, preach how they’re evil, etc. Just leave them alone to attack you in peace, already!
Providing a service to a couple in no way is a stamp of approval. A baker might think the age different between a couple in an OSM marriage is too great; how many are going to refuse service on that basis? A devout Catholic might think an interfaith marriage is bad; should he refuse service? How about a mixed race marriage?
The intolerance of bigots here is not of the beliefs of the bigots (which in polite society would never be expressed); but rather against the actions of the bigots.
Hell, if I ran a lunch counter in New York I’d even serve people from Fox News.
But, as Dylan sang about 50 years ago
“I’m liberal but to a degree,
I want everyone to be free,
But it you think I’d let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must be crazy.”