The truth is, I probably don’t agree with you. On one issue or another, I hold beliefs that fundamentally differ from those of my family members, roommates, other Cal Bears and fellow Americans. And this difference of opinion is the pride and joy of the American social makeup — we love to be tolerant, but are we really?
On Sunday, I had the pleasure of interviewing Don Carson, the author of a book released this year entitled “The Intolerance of Tolerance.” After the interview, I attended a free lecture and Q&A in Wheeler Hall with Carson that was sponsored by the Solano Community Church and CRU, a Christian club on campus. The paradoxically entitled book and ensuing conversation left me reeling. But, it provided me the opportunity to step back and look at the always glorified virtue of tolerance from a different perspective.
As Carson argues in his book, our current social and political environment has put the “virtue” of tolerance on an ethical pedestal. He asserts that we have moved away from a more “pure” tolerance, where competing beliefs can engage each other while still adhering to their own fundamental truth claims and the conviction that others’ claims of truth are wrong.
The product of such an enforced value, as described by Carson, is moral relativism in the public sphere while discussions about true truth and good vs. evil are relegated to the private sphere.
Religious beliefs are therefore limited to this private sphere because their most basic claim is one of exclusiveness. Christians, for example, believe to be following the one, true and only path to God and that their Bible is the ultimate moral authority.
In our culture of “intolerant tolerance,” anyone who espouses such absolutist dogmatism is villainized and usually silenced. With the banner of tolerance above our heads, many Western nations have put an end to debates that are tinged with religiosity. In these cases, secular positions are upheld instead. But what Carson points out is that this is, in and of itself, a form of intolerance — privileging one set of beliefs over another.
While the book does an excellent job of demonstrating this phenomenon — a much better job than this column — I was still left wondering, at the end, what this meant in practice. In our interview, Carson proposed returning to an “old” tolerance that fostered “robust” debate in a “civil” manner, but he did not completely address how policies work along this intolerant/tolerant bias.
I am all about “robust” debate and the acceptance of the existence of other points of view — a stance championed by Carson — but I cannot help but think that the real issue at hand is law and the implementation of policy. The interplay between these two forces has long been contested and is tricky to navigate. But I think this “new” tolerance is really a response to the hegemonic Christian culture that has dominated the American political scene for centuries, imposing its own moral opinions as law.
The marginalized minority and those sympathetic to these populations have pushed back in a big way. And maybe the pushback has been excessive, to the point that Christian Americans are now actually denied their right to act upon their beliefs — all in the name of protecting a greater, equalizing tolerance.
But the fact is, neither truth nor morals are universal. My advocacy for marriage equality is just as valid as a Christian’s opposition to it. We both come from a specific frame of reference, and although his or hers is a religious framework, it should not be illegitimate because of that.
From this point, it’s a slippery slope. Our government is, in theory, representative of the will of the people, which may be informed by Christian morality. Every individual should be able to voice his or her opinions and be able to vote according to his or her convictions. So the debate should rage on. And when laws are made to which we are opposed, the debate should still rage on. Right?
That’s not really what I believe. I think the problem emerges when a particular belief set uses its moral compass to establish restrictive laws. I respect religious argumentation and others’ right to personally act in accordance with it, but I don’t want that imposed on me.
But that’s neither here nor there. In short, I don’t agree with Carson on all points. However, I do agree that tolerance should be applied with greater care. True, tolerance does not bar disagreement; it is an invitation to the table of debate. I plan on being there to oppose other people’s truths. And I hope to win, like everyone else.
Contact Hannah Brady at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter: @brady_hm.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
“But the fact is, neither truth nor morals are universal. My advocacy for marriage equality is just as valid as a Christian’s opposition to it.” Hannah now thinks that there is no right or wrong and that all points of view are valid. I am glad that most people don’t have a similar view of the world.
Do you support marriage equality?
You are a one trick pony. While I try to make a point about how not all moral positions are valid, you just focus on the fact that my quote had “marriage equality” in it, and you think that I was making a statement about it. My personal position on marriage equality is similar to Nunya Beeswax. I think the Constitution supports it, but science makes me feel bad for the homosexual.
It’s great to hear that you believe marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.
Why does science make you feel bad for gays?
“I respect religious argumentation and others’ right to personally act in
accordance with it, but I don’t want that imposed on me.”
Let’s say a religion has a commandment against murder. Members of this religion will always vote for laws that punish murderers. However, that means you must follow such laws since you are a member of the community. Clearly there are areas where religious doctrines overlap with community interests and cannot be readily dismissed simply because they came from a religious institution.
“Clearly there are areas where religious doctrines overlap with community
interests and cannot be readily dismissed simply because they came from
a religious institution.”
How is religious bigots’ opposition to same-sex marriage overlap with community interests?
IT DOES NOT.
So it should be readily dismissed.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is similar to opposition to polygamy, polyandry, prostitution, and bestiality within a community. Do you condone all of the above in your community? If not, then you are a bigot by your own definition.
I can throw the same thing back at you.
Opposition to heterosexual marriage is similar to opposition to polygamy, polyandry, prostitution, necrophilia, suicide, and bestiality within a community. Do you condone all of the above in your community? If not, then you are a bigot by your own definition.
I support polygamy, polyandry, and prostitution (when all parties are consenting adults). Everything else is IRRELEVANT because they have NOTHING to do with two or more adults having consensual sex.
I think focusing on what is tolerance and whether it’s good and bad may be missing the bigger picture.
- because of globalization, technology, etc. we live in a “small world” more than ever, and people, especially in a place like California, are much more likely to live around and work with people from a various ethnic/cultural backgrounds.
- perhaps because of these less homogeneous communities, but also competing discourses from the scientific realm, people are more and more likely to have their religious beliefs challenged.
The world is changing, and it’s not going back. You can’t “un-invent” a piece of technology, and you can’t “re-segregate” cultures that have mixed and influenced each other long enough. Just because people aren’t believing as strongly in what their ancestors used to believe, doesn’t mean they are devoid of strong beliefs.
It’s not moral relativism, it’s a moral shift. We tolerate some things more than we used to, and we tolerate other things less.
Rationalizing intolerance is not good, Hannah. Religion is such a deep thing for humans that it stirs up passions like few other topics, and thus the stress on tolerance may help people to think more openly
Proof positive that you don’t even comprehend the argument.
Disagreeing with the argument is not the same as not comprehending it.
“Merely
having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of
opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
— Gilbert Keith Chesterton
no, shutting the mind is not a good idea
You missed the point being made.
“My advocacy for marriage equality is just as valid as a Christian’s opposition to it.”
NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. A Christian’s opposition to marriage equality is homophobia. It’s as simple as that.
You’re intolerant of other people’s views. It’s as simple as that.
To Stan-
How do you feel about telling children that they cannot get into heaven unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?
How do you feel about telling children that they cannot get into heaven unless they accept Islam?
How do you feel about teaching the Bible as fiction instead of absolute fact?
Human bones have been found in Africa that are well over a million years old. She we continue to teach the Adam and Eve story of creation that was written three and half thousand years?
Please be specific!
I’m intolerant of hate and fear and inequality. It’s as simple as that.
Then we’ve established that you’re intolerant, and should have no place at Berkeley. Good thing you’re a “guest”.
Andre, I’m intolerant to homophobia. You should be too.
OK, fine–to you his opposition is homophobia, and in his view what you advocate is a sin contra naturam.
You see no compelling reason to accept his world view–what are the compelling reasons that he should accept yours? Slapping a pejorative label on his beliefs doesn’t disprove them.
Do you support same-sex marriage equality?
My opinion about same-sex marriage is irrelevant to this discussion, but since you asked : I believe it’s a legitimate option for the government to allow same-sex marriage in the interest of fairness and justice. I don’t know of a compelling legal or political reason why same-sex couples should not have the same rights as opposite-sex ones.
My personal religious beliefs are that the sacrament of marriage is valid only for male-female couples who have not been previously married. But as long as the state respects my right to those beliefs, and the right of churches to structure their rights according to their beliefs, then there is no problem.
“I don’t know of a compelling legal or political reason why same-sex
couples should not have the same rights as opposite-sex ones.”
So why should the Catholic Church and the Christian right attempt to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society? They have the right to oppose marriage equality (it’s still bigotry and homophobia), but they DO NOT have the right to force others to conform to their beliefs. They SHOULD NOT be able to forbid same-sex couples from getting married.
That’s what they did when they passed Prop. 8, and I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to rule that forbidding same-sex marriage is discriminatory and illegal.
“So why should the Catholic Church and the Christian right attempt to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society?”
Well, I think they’re picking the wrong hill to die on there, and I think they’re also wasting their time on something that doesn’t really assist the proclamation of the Gospel. But as members of our society, they do have the right to support whatever legislation they feel is warranted, even if others disagree with them. Welcome to America.
And again, you can assert that they’re motivated by bigotry and homophobia all you like. It doesn’t mean any more than their assertions that gays are motivated by perverse and unnatural desire. If you want to talk about the issue, then talk about the issue; accusatory rhetoric just clouds it.
Let’s say the government decides that there is overpopulation and that heterosexual marriage should be banned to discourage Catholics and the Christian right from reproducing.
The government then promotes gay marriage because gay couples cannot have children.
Should this be acceptable to an inclusive, tolerant community?
Let me add this to the above:
The government is run by gays and lesbians who are using overpopulation as an excuse to ban heterosexual marriage just like heterosexuals are using immorality and the “sanctity” of marriage to ban gay marriage.
Can’t you see how this is wrong, where the people in power imposing their moral views on minority groups?
What the hell do inclusiveness or tolerance have to do with that? I don’t need the government to legislate an inclusive, tolerant community for me; legislation is powerless to create such a community in any case.
Exactly. That’s exactly why government should step out of gay people’s lives. Gay people don’t need the government to prohibit same-sex marriage by legislating a non-inclusive, intolerant community for them.
You lost me. Would you care to explain what you’re trying to say in a more explicit way?
Arab and African immigrants could accuse you of being motivated by bigotry when you vote for laws preventing them from bringing their child brides to live in your community.
There is a difference between CONSENTING ADULTS and children.
This is all biology and psychology. Children CANNOT give consent until they become adults. Gay ADULTS on the other hand can.
Culture doesn’t matter. You can’t argue against science which says that people are born gay and children do not have the emotional maturity to give consent until they reach adulthood.
You are totally conflating the two issues to justify discrimination against gay marriage.
History’s against you there, Guest. The extension of childhood through adolescence is a post-Industrial Revolution phenomenon in the West; prior to that, people were deemed ready for marriage when they were sexually mature. And the Western concept of age of consent is obviously arbitrary; nothing magical happens at the age of 18 to make a person responsible enough to be able to judge whether having sex or getting married is a good idea or not. All of which is to underline, with a raised eyebrow, your own horror at the marriage practices of other cultures even as you mock the abhorrence some Americans have for sodomy.
BTW, the child bride practice Calipenguin refers to is in most cases betrothal, not actual marriage.
In the Middle East, there have been cases of child brides who are a few years away from puberty getting raped by their much older husbands. This is WRONG because of what biology says.
There is NO biological reason to prohibit gay marriage.
What reason(s) do you have for opposing marriage equality? You can believe that it will damage the “sanctity” of marriage. But you shouldn’t be imposing your beliefs on consenting adults who are different from you.
Well said.
If you oppose marriage for underage children, is it because you fear pedophiles? If you oppose marriages as part of a financial deal to obtain U.S. citizenship, are you xenophobic? And if you oppose polygamy or polyandry is it because of demophobia?
I support same-sex marriage, polygamy, and polyandry because I believe marriage among consenting adults should be allowed. So should marriages between U.S. citizens and foreigners because you just can’t tell what the motives of any relationship are and to speculate otherwise would indeed be xenophobic, as you say. Underage children are not consenting adults so your argument falls on its face there.
Ah, but some countries allow for marriage of underage children so when those immigrants come to your community, you would have to accept their customs and if you don’t, you are a bigot. American rock legend Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year old cousin. Do you condone someone like him living in your community? What about a man who marries dozens of illegal aliens to give them U.S. citizenship so that they can collect welfare and sponsor their other relatives to come to America to collect welfare? Why can’t our immigration department stop such abuses of our immigration laws?
What does this have to do with same-sex marriage anyways? You just seem to be finding excuses to ban gay marriage.
If a man marries dozens of undocumented people so they can get U.S. citizenship, then that can be examined on a case-by-case basis to stop abuse of the system.
I don’t support underage marriages because they are not between CONSENTING ADULTS. Gay marriage is between CONSENTING ADULTS. What about CONSENTING ADULTS do you not understand?