Tuesday, June 06, 2006
"THE MYTH OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE"
is the title of an article in the current "Crisis" magazine, written by Rev. Thomas D. Williams, L.C., dean of the theology school at Rome's Regina Apostolorum University and Vatican analyst for NBC News. I'd like to post the whole thing, because Williams comes to grips with the morphing of values and doctrine that is being done in the name of "tolerance." Here's a little of it anyway:
...as a virtue, tolerance seems to have distanced itself so far from its etymological roots as to have become another word altogether. Thus the virtue of "tolerance" no longer implies the act of "toleration," but rather a general attitude of permissiveness and openness to diversity. A tolerant person will not tolerate all things, but only those things considered tolerable by the reigning cultural milieu. Tolerance therefore now has two radically incompatible meanings that create space for serious misunderstandings and abuse.
Tolerance and intolerance have no objective referent, but rather can be applied arbitrarily. Thus the accusation of intolerance has become a weapon against those whose standards for tolerance differ from one's own, and our criteria for tolerance depend on our subjective convictions or prejudices. ...
The affair grows even muddier when the "acceptance of diversity," present in modern definitions of tolerance, is thrown into the mix. The UN Declaration of Principles on Tolerance incorporates a prior statement from the UN Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, which states: "All individuals and groups have the right to be different." Taken at face value, this is a ridiculous claim. Suicide bombing is "different," as are genocide and sadomasochism. To say that one person has a right to be bad, simply because another happens to be good, is the lidicrous logic of diversity entitlement. ...
In the end, the question for everyone necessarily becomes not, "Shall I be tolerant or intolerant?" but rather, "What shall I tolerate and what shall I not tolerate?"
John Paul II is mentioned in a favorable light at the end of the article. As I read the applause, I couldn't help but think that JPII was the modern day promoter of "unity in diversity". I would have found Williams article even more appealing had he not tried to whitewash the unjustifiable.
