The Irony of Tolerance

It is one of those bizarre truisms of human nature that those who accuse people of horrible conduct are often themselves guilty of the very deeds they accuse other people of.

This quirk of fallen human nature is also true on a societal level. Most notably, it is present in the case of tolerance.

Tolerance has become one of the primary virtues – perhaps THE primary virtue – in secular society. The public school system and prevailing culture indoctrinate people into believing that people must tolerate each other’s race, creed, sexual behavior, etc. In other words, kids are taught to accept differences in these traits as normal.

(Notice the false moral equivalence between race, creed, and behavior. Differences in behavior, belief, and genetics are placed in the same category – ignoring their fundamental differences! One can control behavior and beliefs, but not genetics – a fact which "tolerators" ignore.)

Opponents of “tolerance” recognize that some behaviors cannot be tolerated. They believe that acts which directly oppose the social order, such as homosexuality and abortion, cannot be tolerated if society is to survive.    

So far, everything is simple. The party of tolerance is opposed to the party of self-restraint. Upon first glance, the debate between these two camps seems like a simple clash of two coherent ideologies.

But then a curious fact asserts itself. The party of tolerance cannot tolerate the party of self-restraint, and demands that it be silenced completely.

The proponents of anti-cultural acts proclaim themselves as the champions of free speech and civil liberty – and turn around and demand the silence of those who oppose them.

The ACLU - self-proclaimed "defenders of free speech" - demanding that any hint of religion be expunged from secular society is perhaps the most delicious example of this irony. But the phenomenon is everywhere: homosexual rights activists, abortion advocates, and their acolytes in the news and entertainment industries completely ignore studies and arguments which undercut their positions. They instead decry defenders of traditional values as irrelevant bigots, who deserve no voice at all.

The hypocrisy of those who perpetrate this bait-and-switch is breathtaking. To proponents of “tolerance,” it is clear that all opinions are tolerable, but some opinions are more tolerable than others.

It is perversely ironic that the advocates of tolerance are the least tolerant of people. Those who demand that everyone’s voice be heard will not hear any opinion but their own.

And their voices, shrieking into their own darkness, demand that other voices be silenced, until only their cacophony remains.