The country would be a better place if Americans read the “Good Book” more often. I’m not referring to the Holy Bible, rather the Dictionary.
Words have definitions, therefore meaning. When people disregard, or twist the meaning of words, it makes understanding difficult.
The word referenced today is “tolerance”. Antonym intolerance, root word tolerate. Definition: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
It is a perfectly good word that has been bastardized by mostly liberal causes. Intolerance has been used as a slur against people of faith, and those with a traditional world view these last many years. “You’re intolerant” is the progressive rallying cry when there is push back against their agenda.
So what? Who cares what word is used, or how? I care, and so should you. When words have no definition, communication is impossible.
The misuse of the word “intolerance” is intentional. Often, the correct word is “disagree”. What’s the difference? Take the subject of traditional marriage for example. One might say, “My faith does not condone homosexuality. I personally oppose legalizing marriage between same-sex partners.” Another could say, “I disagree.” The argument can then be made that not allowing gay marriage is a form of discrimination, and violates the equal protection clause. Both have pluses and minuses, and can be debated.
When the response to the Christian becomes “You are intolerant!”, it has the effect of delegitimizing not only the opinion, but the person holding it. It’s the lazy man’s argument. “I don’t need to rebut your position, or defend mine because you are a bad person.”
The first amendment’s guarantee of free speech and press is invalidated when the thoughts behind the words are demonized.
Tolerance is saying to oneself, “I find that person’s behavior or opinion distasteful, but legal. I do not like it, but I will tolerate it.” Then you go about your business. That is not satisfactory for many on the left. Their philosophy seems to be, “Tolerance is not enough, you are going to accept, embrace, and approve of my lifestyle, or I’m going to punish you.” The usual method is through some form of public shaming. Disagree with me, I will destroy you. It’s bullying. It’s un-American.
I have witnessed another form of intolerance in my local paper,The Dispatch. As a long time reader, and consumer of many media sources, I appreciate this fine paper. The variety of opinions represented on the Viewpoints page is diverse. That is something not universal in the newspaper business. The Dispatch goes out of its way to be fair.
Strangely,I often see letters to the editor calling for the removal of certain columnists. How do the writers not see the hypocrisy of their own words? Using their freedom of expression to deny that same freedom to someone else. It’s insane. It’s intolerant.
I’m grateful to The Dispatch for the variety of opinions they print. I disagree with many of those opinions, but am secure in my own. Reading opposing ideas does not “contaminate” my mind. It gives insight into other’s thoughts, sometimes reinforcing already held beliefs, and occasionally (GASP!) changing my opinion. Or, I can turn the page and read someone else tomorrow.
That is the essence of tolerance. A fine word.
Eugene Mattecheck Jr.
