Resolving the Paradox: Tolerating the Intolerant

Today’s Underdog: Tolerance

Should we tolerate those who are intolerant of others? This simple, provoking question is actually deeply troubling, at least to me. When we consider tolerance of other cultures, lifestyle choices, races, gender, ideology, often the conclusion is that increased tolerance is imperative, the American way, the moral apex of society. And though controversy arises when discussing gay marriage and similar challenges of tradition, the majority of Americans do indeed support such modern ideas. We must tolerate others. All men are created equal, one nation, freedom and justice for all. Yet when it comes to my opening question, we run into significant trouble.

For example, violence erupted in Dresden a few years ago when anti-fascist protestors set out to block neo-Nazi marches. These protestors were very committed to protecting Nazi-free Germany, promoting tolerance above all. Yet, when it came to stopping those they deemed enemies of tolerance, they took to violence, and created a difficult to resolve controversy.

Thus, we return to the question. Is it contradictory, even hypocritical, to be intolerant of other people based upon their ideological preferences regarding tolerance? Where do we draw the line? When do people become murderers and pedophiles in the context of societal connotation, forfeiting the right to be tolerated, the right to be equal, to be regarded as a citizen? Where is this line, seemingly chalk-drawn amidst a rainstorm, which is supposed to determine who we tolerate, and how we avoid the contradiction of developing increased acceptance?

Maybe an answer can be found in religion. The nations of the West (West Europe, US) have created this concept of universal moral codes, truly drawn from Christianity. A set of right and wrongs that neatly split the world in two. Other cultures have logically formed different moral codes, which in being tolerant, we can accept as equally “right”. For example, Singapore relies on much stricter rules than many other nations, at least the Western ones. But these rules, which proclaim the death penalty for individuals caught trafficking drugs and harsh punishment for spitting gum on the streets, aren’t designed to change the culture of the region, but rather to reflect the culture in which they were born. In other words, rules that seem strict to many outside the country are no different than the rules created elsewhere to enforce culture’s moral code.

However, regional moral codes, reflective of their regional cultures, often conflict, and in these situations, once again tolerance becomes an issue. If our guide to tolerance hinges on the moral code crafted through religion and culture within the region of origin, then globally, our guide to tolerance must rest on some sort of “universal” code, one which as of yet does not exist. Will careful work allow the combination of the common features of multiple moral codes, from the American code to that of Singapore, in order to form a more universal system? Will globalization naturally lead to a convergence of culture creating a moral code in and out of itself? Tolerance is an underdog, or rather the resolution of its paradox is one, for in attempting to move towards increased acceptance, we face increased risk of becoming hypocritical. As we approach the asymptote of absolute tolerance, these questions will become increasingly important, as we seek to determine the exact coordinates of our limiting boundary, and aim to provide the equality Americans hold so fundamental.