On Tolerance

Posted by Scott in Featured, Opinion | 3 comments

Sarah wrote a post a few days ago about “tolerance”. I thought about commenting on it, but wasn’t entirely sure how to express my take on the subject. After a couple of aborted attempts, I gave up.

In the comments on that post Sarah references a Facebook discussion that I was extensively involved in. In examining that conversation I have, perhaps, been better able to understand my own views on tolerance, anger, acceptance, etc…

The post that started the whole thing wasn’t specifically about gay issues, though it was tangentially related as a response to the DoJ decision not to defend DOMA. The poster accused President Obama of attempting to “divide” and “destroy” the country (by forcing gay marriage down our throats).

I responded to the comment, stating that rhetoric such as this (from both sides of the political divide) was the real divisive element, and that it was disingenuous to accuse the President of intentional malice in his actions. I stated that no matter what I thought of a President and his policies, I still acknowledged that he was doing what he felt was best for the country.

The poster’s response shifted the conversation to a direct discussion of legalized gay marriage, and she made several statements about the supposed threats to religious freedom that such legalization would present.

In reply, I expressed a hope that the poster would learn a bit more about the subject before parroting misrepresentations and half-truths. I shared three examples of a religion’s freedom to practice its beliefs specific to marriage even when they were more restrictive than the civil government’s:

Catholic doctrine prohibits divorce, and a Catholic priest will refuse to re-marry someone who has divorced. Despite the fact that civil law does not prohibit a divorced individual from remarrying, the government will not force a Catholic priest to solemnize such a marriage, as it respects the religion’s right to practice its beliefs.

LDS “doctrine” used to prevent blacks from entering the temples (as an extension of the priesthood ban). Despite the fact that the civil government allowed blacks to marry, it would not force the LDS church to solemnize such marriages in the temple (which would have been a violation of the church’s “doctrine”/policies at that point).

Finally, non-LDS couples (or even LDS couples that are “unworthy”) are not allowed to marry in the temple, and the government has not (and will not) force the church to solemnize such marriages against the dictates of its belief.

The poster then expressed a belief in “equality” and support for “civil unions” for gay couples, but reasserted her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and asked that I respect said belief.

I think that it was at this point that Sarah got involved in the conversation, and her comment more or less echoed my sentiments. Another neighbor jumped in at this point as well, saying that we shouldn’t let fear of being seen as “uncaring, prejudiced, uneducated or brainwashed” prevent us from taking sides on this issue, and that we shouldn’t take offense at opposing views.

I replied that I was not offended, and that I do respect every individual’s right to his/her own beliefs, unless those beliefs are used to justify attempts to rob other individuals of their “inalianable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Further, I feel no obligation to respect beliefs that are not honestly obtained, but that are based on unquestioning acceptance of the statements of others–especially when said statements are full of half-truths and distortions.

That’s when I bowed out of the conversation (because I had an appointment that took me away from the computer), and that’s when things apparently went downhill. The other neighbor (not the original poster) threw some of Sarah’s words back at her (she hates when people do that!) and misconstrued (unintentionally, I’m sure) some of her comments, and the whole thing fell apart.

… That’s probably a longer summary than was needful, but here’s what I’ve learned about my own views on tolerance, acceptance, and anger:

I am not required to tolerate “evil”. I put that word in quotes because it has the potential to be seen as inflammatory, but I can’t think of another word to express what I’m trying to say… I see “good” as anything that uplifts, aids, supports, or otherwise positively impacts others, and “evil” as anything that represses, harms, degrades, or otherwise negatively impacts others. Both good and evil can be either intended or unintended, but even unintended evil is “wrong”, and even though I should take the perpetrator’s intentions into account, still I am not required to react positively to the end result.

As a footnote to my views on “good” and “evil”, I generally (though perhaps not entirely) reject the notion that there’s a “greater good” that can justify or sanitize an evil act. At least not when that “greater good” is nothing more than an idea. There may be times when harm to an individual can prevent greater harm to multiple individuals (and when “evil” might be therefore justified). But ideas are never more important or more valuable than people, and harm to an individual or group in defense of an idea (with no discernable benefit to individual humans or humankind) is never justified.

In this light, I see the attempt to deny full equality (in marriage and every other aspect of life) as “evil”. The only “valid” (i.e. not thorougly discredited by carefule legal and/or social examination) justification for opposing full equality is that the “greater good” (i.e. the idea of the “institution of marriage” as delineated by “God’s will”) requires it. As noted, I reject that justification.

At the same time, I can still “respect”, “tolerate”, “understand” and “accept” another person’s belief that gay marriage is contrary to the “greater good”–just so long as they don’t try to justify the “evil” of denying someone their rights based on that belief.

In the case of the question of gay marriage, unfortunately, some people take the idea of a “greater good” even further, believing that their interest in the “greater good” not only justifies their opposition to legal same-sex marriage, but that it also justifies misrepresenting fact, distorting truth, and even outright lying to further their position.

That approach I am even less required to “tolerate”, and in fact I will actively fight against it, and I will be justified in feeling anger toward those who use such tactics.

Ideally I will make an effort to understand those whose views differ from mine. Not only does this reduce contention, but it also allows me to better frame my own position in the debate in a manner that they will be able to relate to.

Ideally, I will not allow my anger to unduly influence me to the point where I fight evil with evil. I will not resort to name-calling, or to violence. I will not assume that someone takes a certain position or feels a certain way simply because they are Christian or Mormon. I will respect each individual’s worth as a human being and respond to the opposition without ire. Sometimes that is so difficult as to be virtually impossible, and sometimes I will regret my harshness. Hopefully I will, at least, learn from such experiences.

But whether I respond in anger or with patience, I still will not “tolerate” evil.

No related posts.