Now let’s see. If I’m understanding the definition of tolerance it requires us to permit and not interfere with the views with which we do not agree. So if I think it’s okay to kill doctors that kill babies (which I don’t, for the record) then you have to permit my view and not condemn it, that is if you are for tolerance. Or if I’m intolerant of people who say they are for peace but blow up innocent children then you can’t say I am bad (which would be a judgment of intolerance). But if I am tolerant of the view that it’s okay to blow up innocent children for a certain cause then you could say I am good (potentially a judgment of tolerance). Or to be more concise, is it okay to be intolerant of intolerance? And, if so, then does that negate the tolerance argument, that we all need to be tolerant as though that’s some sort of blind virtue?

Now if tolerance is the right way to go then why can’t Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, have the view that women are not as good at math and science as men? Even if he is wrong is he not entitled to that view without condemnation?

Or to cite another example, if George Bush believes there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and you believe otherwise, are not both views equally valid since we must be tolerant of the views of others. Therefore we cannot condemn either Bush or the one who holds a different viewpoint.

Now we know that the Quran (Koran) allows for the concept of jihad, or the declaration of a holy war for any stated purpose if it is declared such by the religious leadership. We also know that the Bible, specifically the New Testament, says that Jesus is God and that the only way to eternal life is through faith in Jesus, the Messiah. If tolerance is the rule of life, then both of these statements are okay since we can tolerate both, right? Now if the religious leaders who follow the Quran declare a holy war on those who believe Jesus is God in a human body, declaring them to be infidels, is that okay… to be tolerated?

Now if there are exceptions to tolerance then who decides which exceptions are legitimate? Is it the guy with the biggest club… the biggest bully? Is it the one who is the most corrupt? Is it the one who masquerades as a pious arbiter? Is it decided by a declaration of relativism? And if relative then what are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion? And will those criteria be tolerant or intolerant?

Or are there possibly objective criteria we can use to determine if something is true and legitimate while excluding others as false and contrived (words of intolerance?)

Being lost in a sea of relativism is like being at sea without any bearings. You may find yourself over the edge of the ocean… oh wait a minute. You can’t laugh at that. You have to be tolerant of my view that the earth may be flat.

In fact if you buy into the tolerance/relativist argument you cannot, by definition, make any judgments, evaluations, or legitimate analyses because when you do then you are violating your position of tolerance and relativistic thinking.

So with some simple observation it would seem that the tolerance argument is really a smoke screen to promote a cause or intolerant view one may hold that one suspects is not held by the majority of people. Or it is used as a way to try and silence those who would oppose or expose your point of view or thesis.

Some things to think about.