It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism. A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and here). It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge. Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:
The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.
And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:
The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices
In other words, what did you “endure”? Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices. There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.” In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.
But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance. They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.
The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.
An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:
A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda
But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true. Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:
Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”
Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.
Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.
Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).
Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.” So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness. I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it. And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition. Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation. I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant - and oh, yeah, misandrist - liberal.
As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be. I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it. And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden. God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said. But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.
And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin. Which resulted in total human depravity. Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.
That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.
Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives? They sure do have a funny way of showing it:
Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?
Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.
The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.
Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again? Darn. We’re so, so sorry. Better luck next year. And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that. Or maybe the year after that.
Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE. “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door. Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.
Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation. Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right??? I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.
Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.
Yeah, that’s right. I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world. And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.
For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me. Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood. Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God. We made up our minds. And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since. Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.