"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" -- Inigo Montoya
Among all the words in a language already so battered and bruised as to almost become unrecognizable, one word stands out for having taken the brunt of the beating.
Tolerance.
Tolerance has been so misshapen by the abuse that many people think that it means something opposite to its nature. After all the injustice the word has suffered, I am unsure if it can or even should survive. Nevertheless, I wish to testify to its true meaning, even if in eulogy.
So let us begin with the basics. Contrary to what you may have heard, tolerance of its own can never be a good thing. By its nature, tolerance means abiding a bad thing. Even in our diminished capacity, nobody would say that they tolerate something good. One doesn't tolerate ice cream. One tolerates liver.
Metaphors aside, to tolerate is to abide something wrong, something in error, something evil.
Now many people today would have you believe that tolerance is the highest of the civic virtues, but it is not and never can be. Abiding evil can never be a virtue in and of itself and therefore it can never be demanded of anyone, least of all a Christian.
There are many reasons Christians may legitimately tolerate error, but they all must have one thing in common, the good of the sinner. We sometimes tolerate such error in the hopes that eventual realization of the folly will lead to repentance and eventually to truth. But there are also some errors and actions that cannot and must not be tolerated for the good of the sinner and the good of society.
In a pluralistic society such as ours, we have wisely limited the power of government to be intolerant toward religion in the recognition that such power is more likely to stamp out the light of truth than the darkness of error. In essence, we tolerate only some government.
But just because we have not empowered the government with our right to be intolerant toward religious error does not mean that we have forfeited this right. All such rights not delegated are reserved to the people.
However, as Americans we have generally found that we do not wish to restrict the right of men to practice their religion as they see fit, even if in error, so that we may practice it freely in truth. This is the bargain we have made and it worked, until now.
In order for this grand religious bargain to work, the spread of religion must be limited to its public effectiveness and its persuasive power. But nobody should ever be forced to embrace the tenets of another's religion. But this is exactly what is being demanded of us today.
Under the guise of a misshapen tolerance, it is being publicly demanded that we submit to and even embrace error. That is not tolerance, it is its antonym.
Moreover, those miscreants who would have us submit are actively using the powers of government to enshrine their secularist religion (make no mistake--it is a religion), which is opposed to Truth who is Christ, as the law of the land. This I will never tolerate.
We have tolerated so much error for so long that some people believe that we must. We have no choice. But we have a choice. The plan of the secularist religion to enshrine their beliefs as the law of the land is a mutual tolerance deal breaker.
Since they are no longer tolerant of my beliefs I am no longer obligated to tolerate theirs. I, as do all Americans, have reserved the right to be intolerant. I now plan to exercise that right. For now that intolerance is limited to speech and the purchase of chicken sandwiches. For now.
You only tolerate things until you don't anymore.
Comments
Post a Comment
One of my favorite GK Chesterton Quotes: “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction.” Do we tolerate cancer in our bodies? Why would we tolerate cancers in our society or in the Church, the body of Christ?
Patrick, I think this article adds a bit more depth to what you are talking about, especially point #3: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/08/de-mattei-religious-liberty-or-liberty.html
“The Church, with Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1836), with Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus and in Quanta Cura (1864), but also with Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) and in Libertas (1888) teaches that:
1. No one can be constricted to believe in the private forum, because faith is a personal choice formed in the conscience of man.
2. Man has no right to religious freedom in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.
3. Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action” (Pius XII Speech Ci Riesce 1953)
Weve tolerated the heresy of Protestantism for nearly 500 years and the heresies of Americanism for over 100 years. It might be wise to finally not tolerate them anymore. Counter-reformation II anyone?
Wow. Thank-you for lifting the veil!
Posted by David Homoney on Monday, Aug 6, 2012 8:45 AM (EST):Weve tolerated the heresy of Protestantism for nearly 500 years and the heresies of Americanism for over 100 years. It might be wise to finally not tolerate them anymore. Counter-reformation II anyone?
Jesus Christ suffered the little children as they clambered onto His lap to love HIm and serve Him. The children had good will and Jesus embraced them and loved them. My heart goes out to all the Protestants who do not have the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus on the altar, nor do the Protestants have the real name of God “I AM WHO I AM” in their translation of the bible. The Protestants are my spiritually impoverished brothers and sisters.
Grandma voted Democratic before God’s name was outlawed from the public square, before God’s will was scraped from the womb “legally” and before spiritually and sexually immature girls and boys were publicly given permission to dance on their mothers’ and fathers’ graves in derision of “Honor thy mother and thy father”, in what is called same sex marriage, especially after having been brought into the world by a mother and a father. Grandma voted Democratic before the president said: “Your tax dollars did not build the roads, bridges, schools and municipal buildings” but the president did not say who did build this infrastructure with their hard earned taxes. WE, the people did, after we won the war to save FREEDOM for the whole world.
Sounds like a revolutionary cry. Long overdue.
Everytime I hear “tolerance” mentioned, I am reminded of “Our Seven Churches” by Thomas K. Beecher, the Congregationalist preacher:
http://archive.org/stream/oursevenchurche00beec#page/n9/mode/2up
“Time was when ‘toleration’ was reckoned a christian grace. Established churches tolerated (i.e. endured) dissenters as they would any other remediless evil or mysterious visitation. But in this land, where there is no privileged class nor established church, he who talks of tolerating his fellow-citizens insults them and becomes himself intolerable in his conceit. We must learn to respect and love our fellow-men and our sister churches.”
“Time was when ‘toleration’ was reckoned a christian grace. Established churches tolerated (i.e. endured) dissenters as they would any other remediless evil or mysterious visitation. But in this land, where there is no privileged class nor established church, he who talks of tolerating his fellow-citizens insults them and becomes himself intolerable in his conceit. We must learn to respect and love our fellow-men and our sister churches.”
“But in this land, where there is no privileged class nor established church…”
Abortionists have become the “privileged class”. Homosexual militants have become the “privileged class”. Atheism has become the “established church” including the established church of Satan. To “tolerate” the people is one thing but to have these established classes of people oppress every citizen is not freedom but totalitarianism under the guise of freedom. To be forced to fund these privileged classes by our hard earned tax dollars and then be told that our tax money is not ours to direct to charity or other fraternal charities is unAmerican, uncivil, treasonous.
Folks, I think it’s time to settle down a bit. Some of the comments here seem to implicitly endorse suppression of opposing ideas by coercive means, and that cannot be “tolerated” in America. We need to be protecting the religious freedom of all Americans, not just ourselves. Remember that God is Love, and He created us so that we can make the free will decision to love Him back, and that love must be expressed in the context of freedom or it is not actually love (it becomes akin to rape). We must have religious freedom in order to allow people to search for the truth, which we, as Catholics, fortunately have already found. The price we pay for that freedom is the need to “tolerate” all sorts of things we don’t necessarily like. It seems like some here might believe that we can create a Utopian society if we were in control and Catholic values were enforced by the state. That is a lie from the pit of hell. Any coercive power can and will be abused, just ask the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of clerics. Rather, let’s remember that God is in control; be confident in the rightness of our ideas, and do our best to convert the world one person at a time.
At the end of a long day of kicking cans down the road of life, I have no tolerance for either transparency or accountability: PERIOD! All I want to do is load up on transfatty stuff and lots of sweetened with or w/o rat poison or just plain sugar liquids that are cold and non-alky to wash the day down my white eco-friendly porcelain disposer.
Any questions?
Sometimes tolerance is a form of JUSTICE. For example, I may see someone’s kid misbehaving in the store so that the kid deserves a spanking. However, it is not my place to give him the spanking he deserves. I’ll just have to tolerate the situation. That’s to say nothing of situations in which I have to suppress an unjust urge to be more harsh with someone than they deserve because I dislike them for some unrelated reason.
At other times, tolerance is a form of PRUDENCE. For example, it is a poor bargain to enforce the immigration laws if it requires a police state to enforce them. (But before you say that government is inherently an evil to be merely tolerated, complete the following: “783 Jesus Christ is the one whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit and established as priest, prophet, and ______.”)
I am a Catholic who loves the Church, but this sentence is interesting:
“But nobody should ever be forced to embrace the tenets of another’s religion. But this is exactly what is being demanded of us today.”
I completely agree! However, isn’t that the exact thing that is demanded of people who don’t agree with the Church when Her morality is legislated? For example, the Church’s support of Prop 8 in California was an attempt to force others to embrace (or, at the very least, be subject to) the Catholic view of marriage.
James, it requires Divine Revelation to know that we should fast on Good Friday. It does not require Divine Revelation to know that no relationship between two men or two women can ever be a real marriage. So no, refusing to mislabel those relationships as marriage is NOT the same thing as forcing someone to become Catholic, or monotheistic, or even vaguely religious.
I need to respond to James on this one. When Catholics defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, we are not defending a Catholic view, but rather we are defending marriage as all religions, and even no religion, have defined it across human history. What we are defending is nature and truth itself, since it is a physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to fulfill the requirements of marriage, which necessarily includes the ability (however improbable, as in the case of infertility) to bring forth new life. Also, there is a societal interest in defending the integrity of the family unit, which is the essential unit of civil society. Totalitarian Communist regimes have in the past sought to destroy the family unit, so that way there is no impediment to the relationship between the person and the state. Now we, by allowing counterfeits of marriage to be legally sanctioned and thereby threatening the integrity of the family, are setting ourselves up for the breakdown of civil society and, ultimately, totalitarian government. And we will only have ourselves to blame.
As Brian E. posted, prior to Vatican Council II the proper sense was taught that Tolerance was a smoke screen for compromising our beliefs. Now, in the “Church of Nice” we are to walk “hand in hand” with those who would destroy us. Time to wake up folks.
The Gospel of Saint Matthew, Ch. 10
“[11] And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. [12] And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. [13] And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. [14] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. [15] Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
[16] Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. [17] But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. [18] And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: [19] But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. [20] For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”
http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=10&l=14#x
@Donald Morgan
So that’s why the pre-Vatican II Church never employed the ideas of that pagan philospoher Aristotle, right? Nor was the “Mass of the Ages” tainted by Sibylline Oracles, of course; nor would anyone, prior to Vatican II, have dared to use the pagan term Pontifex Maximus to refer to the Successor of Peter. For that matter, clearly no TRUE apostle would have thought that an alter in Athens to “the Unknown God” could possibly have any relationship to the Most Holy Trinity. Thanks for clearing that up for us!
Sorry, that should have been “altar”, not “alter”.
the word tolerance along with respect and diversity is starting to become code for calling evil good and good evil IMO.
Death to the Grand Orient!
@TheresaEH
Other words on that list: senstitivity, inclusivity, compassion, nuanced ... and many more.
If you don’t tolerate liver you will end up with a jaundiced view.
There have been evils since the fall. Too many people tolerate their own sins and instead insist on correcting - often with means which are evil in themselves - the errors of others.
Tolerance means to be very cautious about removing the speck in the other’s eye before you’ve insured the plank in your own is gone.
Words can and often are misused, but if they are all discarded instead of corrected, we are at worst mute and at best reduced to Babel.
I strongly object—to your characterization of liver. I like it cry much! :)
Whoa! Matt’s spot on! A few weeks ago pictures of Queen Elizabeth appeared all over the world, showing her shake the hands of the IRA leader responsible for the death of Louis Mountbatten. That handshake should be the end of it.
God’s merciful tolerance (Matthew):
Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field;
[25] but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
[26] So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
[27] And the servants of the householder came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’
[28] He said to them, `An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, `Then do you want us to go and gather them?’
[29] But he said, `No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
[30] Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
Our call to imitate (Luke):
But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
[28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
[29] To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
[30] Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again.
[31] And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
[32] If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
[33] And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
[34] And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
[35] But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.
[36] Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
Great points. I have been using that Inigo Montoya quote a lot these last few weeks. Each time I came across someone griping about Chick-Fil-A, their rallying cry was that New York/Chicago/Boston/Their Facebook Page was TOLERANT of diverse peoples, thus CFA had to go. They kept using that word, but I do not think that word means what they think it means.
Right on the nose.
Great piece.
Love the piece not a fan of many of the comments. We as human beings love the grey area, folks grab a copy of “Caritas in Veritatae” has anyone noticed the Holy Father asking that we boldly proclaim the Truth in love, even if we are labeled as intolerant?
The problem with trying to argue this issue in a secular culture is that “tolerance” goes both ways. To wit: some people actually like liver. It isn’t that tolerance is giving a pass to something evil, it is giving a pass to something that you don’t like. True, tolerophiles have no answer for their double standard, and they know it. The problem will come when they tolerate the Christian world view, as much as they ignore it.
Well done on pointing out what needs to be pointed out, that somehow the secular side thinks that we ought to tolerate their attempting to dominate the public moral sphere, and that not doing so is intolerance.
To be fair, a certain type of tolerance does need to exist in order for a multicultural society to exist in relative peace. Tolerance is still a good civic virtue, but it requires a understanding of what that means and what it doesn’t mean. Good on you for calling this out. It’s been a long time coming, but I guess the HHS mandate finally forced the issue out, and has shown that tolerance can seriously impact our religious freedoms if it’s let gone far enough. I am happy this is being discussed cause it’s VERY much needed, and has simply been assumed for far too long that over amped understanding of tolerance is the answer for everything.
what is truly scary is that many left-leaning politicians act like you are not allowed to operate or expand a business in this country unless you give up your religious beliefs and share their opinions on issues like gay marriage. As if everyone who respected what God revealed in the Bible does so purely out of an evil hatred of homosexually-oriented people. By the thinking of such people as the mayor of Chicago, churches should also be opposed as they share the same views. You can see where this is going…
Tolerance schmolerance. I have known the Catholic position on tolerance. The Catholic should always keep the greater good in mind, however the destruction of religions can never be tolerated. This situation is intolerable.
I remember clearly a quote from Bill Donahue of the Catholic League on a World Over Live show (EWTN) a while ago: “Tolerance isn’t a Christian virtue.” Cleared it up for me! Great writing, great analysis, great rhetoric (in the best sense of THAT word), Pat.
There is no tolerance deal to be broken. Homosexuals have been victimized by society, and your defense of the bigotry is appalling. By your logic, we deprived Hitler of his right to his beliefs, as he was merely following up on his deeply held convictions.
Try reading the Bible some time. The Biblical definition of marriage is one man and as many woman as he can afford.
Posted by Rick on Tuesday, Aug 7, 2012 7:20 AM (EST):There is no tolerance deal to be broken. Homosexuals have been victimized by society, and your defense of the bigotry is appalling. By your logic, we deprived Hitler of his right to his beliefs, as he was merely following up on his deeply held convictions.
Try reading the Bible some time. The Biblical definition of marriage is one man and as many woman as he can afford.
******************
Christ’s definition in scripture differs.
Do you think there is any category of marriage that should not be tolerated? The Old Testament variety you refer to is still practised widely by other faiths & covertly practised in the US & Canada.By redefining marriage by gender, why not number?
Jesus defines marriage in the Bible - FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
I love liver ...
“But just because we have not empowered the government with our right to be intolerant toward religious error does not mean that we have forfeited this right. All such rights not delegated are reserved to the people.”
Just to clarify with the words of Pope Benedict:
“Religious freedom is, in this sense, also an achievement of a sound political and juridical culture. It is an essential good: each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances. There should be no obstacles should he or she eventually wish to belong to another religion or profess none at all.”
One must distinguish between a personal intolerance of falsehood and the willingness to use the coercive power of the state to regulate or restrict the process of reaching or changing religious conviction. There are just limits to religious liberty in the interests of the public order and the common good, but religious liberty is not the same as an optional, prudential tolerance of some evil that might otherwise be opposed. The Church teaches both that no one has a right to teach error, and that they do have a right to be free from coercion and restraint in matters pertaining to religious conviction.
Posted by Rick on Tuesday, Aug 7, 2012 7:20 AM (EST):There is no tolerance deal to be broken. Homosexuals have been victimized by society, and your defense of the bigotry is appalling. By your logic, we deprived Hitler of his right to his beliefs, as he was merely following up on his deeply held convictions.
Those convictions are wrong. Ours are correct. Sometimes homosexuals get very whiny.
If every human being was a homosexual, the human race would cease to exist in one generation. What does that tell you about the immorality of homosexuality? It is a race killer, the human race.
While watching BBC’s “Charles II: The Last King” last night, I couldn’t escape hearing in the back of my head much of what I had already read yesterday in this post alone concerning the chicken franchise brouhaha. Over and over, the “...one true” (either Catholic or Protestant faith) was invoked during Charles’ Restoration, thus inevitably leading the Sceptered Isle back to more years of civil war. I’m not going to retell English religious history here; but the relevance of the tenor of that time certainly deserves mentioning here because of the sickening holier-than-thou repeat displays of the same kind of refusal to budge the slightest bit towards showing any form of toleration.
People can cherrypick and cite their favorite Biblical verse to damn all homosexuals or homophobes to the lowest pits of hell and deeper still if there any to further imagine. No wonder our Lord said he wasn’t going to bother changing Scripture. He knew the moment he opened his mouth to even suggest any written changes, they would’ve unleashed waves of counter-suggestions and would’ve distracted him completely from his ultimate mission. Changes have to come from the heart, not our memory banks full of scripture verses, many of ‘em saved for who knows what puprose. Perhaps our more self-righteous verse hoarders could tell us. Indeed and they’ll be happy to produce a slew of ‘em all in a list that would do Martin Luther proud.
Ever notice how rarely, if ever, their lists include 1 Cor: 13? Or how about this one concerning forgiveness, the one Jesus taught about the deadbeat debtor who turned on his debtors the moment he was forgiven by his master? Lest I forget, the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 25.
Steven Barrett ,
As you must know, Catholics do not rely on the Bible alone but on Sacred Tradition as well.
King Charles was an interesting monarch. I wish we could access BBC tv at home.
At the end of your article you state “For now.” What, in the future, is going to be our course of action?
Kathleen, I fully agree with you. I was aiming my use of Scripture for the Catholics who find themselves more comfortable arguing our more sensitive issues much the same way the fundies have long reduced complicated matters into handy “power-point” displays of “talking points.” Admittedly, not the fairest way to get one’s point across. On the other hand, sometimes you have to use the other guy’s “weapons.” LOL.
I found the film by accident on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym1IQ8-LIWc There are some racy scenes, but they can always be “jumped” by toggling the red bar at the bottom. Typically great British dedication to set detail.
Rufus Sewell, who played Alexander Hamilton in “John Adams” and was one of the leading abolitionists in “Amazing Grace” did a great job. Diana Riggs’ portrayal of his MEAN-spirited (seemingly more Catholic than the Pope ten times over) mother, Henrietta Marie) epitomized the very essence of intolerance gone fully over Dover’s White Cliffs. In their own opposite ways, Henrietta Marie and Oliver Cromwell would’ve made a terrific 17th century Thelma & Louise style flying off those very same cliffs but in a carriage.
Pope Benedict just taught about the primacy of Scripture in theological studies. I do not see the problem with using Scripture, per this papal directive. The methods of theology have now shifted emphasis per the Holy Father’s directive. In fact, the Scripture quoting Catholics are doing it right.
Kathleen, you are correct. Bible Alone is a heresy, but Bible quoting is pure gold.
Steven Barret, you are absolutely against absolutism. Gotcha.
This is quite well taken and I would develop it further. A person cannot be coerced into receiving baptism. The Council of Trent condemned (Can. 13 on baptism) that it is an error to propose that a baptised person is not to be coerced into living a Christian life. The only principle opposable to this rule is conscientious objection: that a person is under invincible ignorance and is convinced that God requires him to live otherwise. But the principle of conscientious objection is, in reason, available only to an ethical monotheist: a person who is convinced that God imposes on his creatures commandments which must be obeyed and cannot be evaded, and that he imposes on those who disobey judgements and punishments they cannot escape. We are entitled to demand that dissent from Catholic truth in what concerns marriage, human sexuality and reproduction, contraception and the inviolability of human life be punished with criminal sanctions.
@DA Howard wrote:
“Those convictions are wrong. Ours are correct. Sometimes homosexuals get very whiny.
If every human being was a homosexual, the human race would cease to exist in one generation. What does that tell you about the immorality of homosexuality? It is a race killer, the human race.”
There it is, DA. You think you are right. But this is a free society and everyone else thinks they are right as well. That is why we can have our believes, but also respect others. Homesexuals are not telling you not be heterosexual. They do not want to change your life, but you want to dictate theirs.
As for your silly idea about ending the human race, we are dangerously overpopulated. In a few years water may cost more than oil. Just think, homosexuality may save the human race by controlling our out of control population.
Steven Barrett,
Thanks so much for the link.Diana Riggs is one of my favorite actresses.The BBC is annoyingly left-leaning, but they do produce things of quality.
So now…what?
Are you proposing violence, revolution? I guarantee you there aren’t as many orthodox Catholics and conservative-but-still-friendly-to-Catholics Evangelicals in arms as there are of groups opposed. Not even in the U.S. with its 300+ million privately owned firearms.
Quite apart from the arithmetic, I’m sure you’d agree with me that that’d be immoral, mortally sinful. It’d be kind of ironic to go to hell for defending one’s faith.
So you’re not talking about violence. But what, then?
Buying chicken sandwiches can only go so far. You’ve been there and done that. Now what? If you aren’t going to overthrow the government because it’s mortally sinful and anyway you don’t have the muscle; and you’ve already shot all your poultry-based ammunition, what’s next?
Oh, and, folks? I wouldn’t bother with detailed responses to that Rick fellow until he sounds more like Leah Libresco: You know, willing to converse with mutual respect and consider all good arguments.
At the moment, Rick’s approach seems to be that of the guy who once watched a Nova Science Now program and was forever thereafter completely confident that he understands the all details of quantum physics. That’s roughly comparable to a guy who’s dimly aware of a couple of Old Testament stories exhibiting the polygamy common in those societies, and concludes “I know what the Bible teaches about marriage.”
(I do wish people could grasp more broadly that the Bible is not “perspicuous.” Martin Luther had to say that in order to make the argument that his rebellion wasn’t rebellion, but if he’d believed it himself he’d have been disabused of the notion the first time he and Calvin debated about the phrase “this is my body.” True, the Bible has a few obvious points bobbing on the surface. But it is as deep as the Marianas Trench and even Ed Witten’s brain would explode if he tried to learn all there was to know about it. Still, a person whose grasp of the Bible was as sophisticated as a typical high school physics teacher’s grasp of physics would not have made the blunder Rick made when saying “try reading the Bible some time” while being apparently unfamiliar with Jesus’ direct teaching on marriage!)
R.C.,
I don’t think folks posting here are interested in taking up arms against anyone, but being that a violent overthrow allowed the creation of America & the democracy we enjoy, I’m not sure revolutions are always morally bankrupt.
So far we’re just talking about the freedom to hold traditional beliefs & sell chicken dinners.
R.C. and Kathleen (the latter especially),
I don’t think R.C. is off the mark. The author of the article does suggest that toleration of certain false ideas perhaps should come to an end by means of the power of the State. If that is not what he means he should clarify the following statement:
“But just because we have not empowered the government with our right to be intolerant toward religious error does not mean that we have forfeited this right. All such rights not delegated are reserved to the people.”
And this:
“I now plan to exercise that right. For now that intolerance is limited to speech and the purchase of chicken sandwiches. For now.”
I don’t think anyone questions the right of Americans to oppose error as public citizens by natural law and under the first amendment. Nor do I think most Americans question the right of our citizens to protect themselves from the government itself under the second amendment.
But the Church, in fact, does teach that all men have a right to be free of coercion in matters of religious conviction, even if they are in error, not because they have a right to believe and propagate falsehood, but because the process of conviction, both privately and publicly, must be by nature a free act, and because their is an essential need for human coexistence.
I cannot say with clarity exactly what the author is suggesting, but I have of recent read or heard a number of notable Catholics saying or writing things that suggest that public opposition to the Catholic faith ought to be solved by means other than ones democratic. Michael Voris, for example has said that he believes that the problem with democracy is that everyone gets to vote, including the non-virtuous, by which he means the non-Catholic and those Catholics who do not live their faith.
I believe R.C.‘s question is perfectly legitimate. How exactly does the author propose to be intolerant of error, if he, as he suggests, is willing to go beyond his speech and buying Chicken sandwiches? I do not question his patriotism, nor his legitimate frustration, but if he is speaking in the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, he needs to answer the question.
frangelo,
About not tolerating error in other aspects of life in America: those of us who live in the South have experienced non-toleration of racial discrimination enforced by means other than democratic.Painful as that was, we’re better for it.
I don’t know how that relates to Chick-Fil-A, really, but it crossed my mind.
Kathleen,
My point is simply to reiterate the teaching of the Church on religious freedom and to seek a clarification from the author, in particular, with respect to Pope Benedict’s reiteration of the Conciliar teaching on religious freedom. For example, the following from Pope Benedict:
“Religious freedom is, in this sense, also an achievement of a sound political and juridical culture. It is an essential good: each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances. There should be no obstacles should he or she eventually wish to belong to another religion or profess none at all.”
The sword cuts both ways. If the author wants, intolerance that is exactly what he will get. Of course, we already have it from both the State and from the supporters of unnatural vice. But the negation of religious freedom simply validates intolerance of the voice of reason, and in matters pertaining to religion it won’t be long before the guns come out. Apparently, the author is suggesting that that might be a path worth choosing.
I would like to thank everyone for completely ignoring my earlier question.
Blake,
Apologies. Good question.
@Pat
I like your articles, but you have mischaracterized tolerance. Tolerance is not always about truth/lie or good/evil. Sometime tolerance is about preference or opinion. I will tolerate other opinions, I can and have learned from others opinions. I can not tolerate evil.
—-
1) There is GOOD tolerance.
- You may like country music, I like classical. I have to tolerate your country music even though it makes me throw up in my mouth.
- You believe in giving money as charity, I believe in paying people to do a job. I think my way is the greater charity.
- You believe that prohibition is better for people, I think the govt telling people what to do is more dangerous than a drunk driver.
2) There is BAD tolerance
- You believe that it is better to kill a child than to have them grow up poor, I believe that being poor is better than being dead.
- You believe that killing in the name of your religion is ok, because Mohammad killed in the name of his religion, I think murder is evil.
—-
I’ll give you this. Tolerance in the face of evil is cowardice. But I think tolerance in the face of differing opinions/approaches is a necessity.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.