This is the third in a series of questions to consider before casting your vote this November. Once again let me state that I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime. I hope that everyone gives it the serious consideration that it deserves.
Is intolerance of unpopular ideas (not actions) ever OK, and if so, to what extent can that intolerance be expressed?
Intolerance is the reverse of tolerance. Tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of opinions with which one does not agree. Hence, intolerance is the unwillingness or refusal to respect or allow the existence of opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.
The question is a difficult question. When ideas conflict with one’s own, while one may be curious, it is also easy to become intolerant, especially of distasteful ideas. No one wants to hear hurtful or repugnant words, racial, ethnic, or religious epithets, or other generally unaccepted views. We would like to put a stop to hateful, and painful pronouncements. But the difficulty here is that the inclination to silence offensive views directly implicates our First Amendment.
The First Amendment envisions a country of tolerance in which there is a free and open marketplace of ideas. This marketplace educates us. It may cause us to strengthen our own ideas, alter them, or improve them. Most importantly, when speech is not suppressed, thought cannot be controlled or limited.
Tolerance and the free interchange of ideas also prohibits the suppression so necessary to a dictatorship. One of the first things that Lenin did following his Russian revolution was to end all opposition by ending freedom of speech and the press and by instilling in the people a complete fear of speaking dissenting ideas. Communism also denied the freedom to practice one’s religion. There was complete intolerance of any thought, speech, or idea that did not conform to the State.
Tolerance does not mean or require acceptance of the other view. But lack of tolerance is a demand that all think as you do. Note that I am not talking about tolerance of actions which society, through the legislative process, has agreed are not tolerable - things like DWI, murder, rape, and many other crimes against persons or property. I am talking about a person who has ideas with which others do not agree. Is intolerance (the suppression of the existence) of those ideas or speech about them ever OK? If yes, then when? And what are the consequences of answering “yes”?
Distinguish here the emotion of disagreeing with or not wanting to hear or associate with a particular idea as opposed to actual intolerance (suppression) of that idea. One can always walk away from an unpleasant idea or one can argue against it. Argument signals disagreement with, not intolerance of an idea. If the argument is civilized, everyone will learn because the differing ideas are all brought to the marketplace. Such disagreement is not intolerance but rather a way of being tolerant of and perhaps understanding the ideas of others.
The intolerant attempt to silence unwelcome views is often the result of fear or insecurity on the part of the intolerant one, perhaps because their intolerance is an attempt to silence all opposition, or perhaps because they simply do not understand the words of others that they have adopted as their own and thus feel threatened when “their” ideas are questioned.
In the current climate of heated political debate, both sides often accuse the other of intolerance. But an actual review of the behavior of both sides seems to indicate far more coordinated attempts at actual suppression of ideas and speech on the part of the Left than by the Right. This makes sense when one considers that the Left is aiming toward a complete remaking of America in a socialist mode. Socialism cannot tolerate dissent as those in power decide what is “right” for everyone.
A free marketplace of ideas does not coordinate well with the Left’s plans for this country. Tolerance of opposing views is not acceptable to the Left. They will not be tolerant of those who disagree, and those who disagree must not simply tolerate the Left’s views, but actually accept them. Their methods of being intolerant, of silencing all dissent, are many.
People will be called racist, sexist, etc. if they disagree with the Left’s agenda. This is one method of silencing dissenting views. Another is to file lawsuits designed to to force others to conform their views to that of the Left, for example aiming to force bakers and florists who, for religious reasons, decline services to gay weddings.
The Left will attack people for wearing a Trump MAGA hat. They not only ban Right-leaning speakers from campuses, but also at times assault them. Having made the decision that intolerance of “wrong” views is acceptable, the Left seems to have concluded that whatever means necessary to silence the disapproved view is acceptable, even the use of violence.
The Left has no problem proclaiming what speech is and is not allowed. We now have a list of words, phrases, and questions that are not allowed to be spoken about the Democrat VP candidate.
Yes, an actual memo went out from a group of Democrats to media telling them how they are “allowed” to cover Kamala. Any criticism will be considered racist and sexist. Hence, if you say she seems like an angry woman you are speaking a racist code about her. The Democrats love codes – so often when someone speaks something they do not like, they will assert that the word or phrase is code for racism or sexism or white supremacism or whatever negative -ism fits the context.
This Country was built on the idea of tolerance, tolerance of other ideas, of others who are different. This does not mean required acceptance of diverse views, but it does mean accepting that those diverse from us have a right to exist and to express their beliefs.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Those are the words of the FIRST Amendment. The most important amendment. It protects the people from a government that would deny them of their very right to free thought. It demands tolerance, even of views with which we deeply disagree.
The words seem to be meaningless to the Democrats who cannot tolerate even the slightest question or criticism. The “thought police” have been around for some time. But the Democrats seem to have taken it to a new level as they try in every way possible to silence opposing and especially conservative thought.
The Left would have us all think alike; their purpose is to achieve and hold the power that will allow them to lead us into their socialist “utopia.” And now we have the Left-supported “cancel culture” with its accompanying violence. Whatever else the purpose of all this may be, it certainly has a chilling effect on those who would speak out or even question the Democrat mantras.
Tolerance can be difficult. But it is key to freedom. Intolerance, once accepted into society, can be fickle: intolerance by one today may become intolerance against them tomorrow. With intolerance comes the threat of suppression of thought for everyone.
Those for whom freedom of thought is important must do what they
can to stop the Democrat oppression of ideas that are not theirs. One thing we can do is to vote Republican in
November.
No comments:
Post a Comment