Sometimes tolerance is more dangerous than intolerance
Questions and Observations Blog
Posted by: McQ
It appears many of the Dutch middle class are choosing to vote with their feet in the wake of Islamic radicalism’s rise in Holland:
<<<
For years Holland was celebrated as a symbol of racial tolerance. But two high-profile murders have changed all that, reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Escaping the stress of clogged roads, street violence and loss of faith in Holland’s once celebrated way of life, the Dutch middle classes are leaving the country in droves for the first time in living memory.
The new wave of educated migrants are quietly voting with their feet against a multicultural experiment long touted as a model for the world, but increasingly a warning of how good intentions can go wrong.
Australia, Canada and New Zealand are the pin-up countries for those craving the great outdoors and old-fashioned civility.
>>>
Tolerance is a wonderful thing. But being overtolerant simply isn’t. Tolerance, at least as I see it, means respecting the views and culture of others which I judge to have some redeming social value. In other words, being tolerant doesn’t mean respecting or accepting something you find to be morally repugnant or dangerous to your values or rights. It means that yes, you have to be judgemental and discriminating about what your willing to tolerate.
Being tolerant is a process, not an end state.
For instance I have no problem tolerating the tattoos and piercings the younger generation think are so cool. Those tattoos and piercings do not violate a single solitary right of mine. I may not think they’re particularly smart or attractive, but so what? I’ve considered them and judged them to be essentially benign when it comes to any effect on me or my rights.
However, I have a great problem tolerating a sect of a religion that preaches hate and death to all unbelievers [and in the case of Theo van Gogh, carries out murder to avenge an alleged "sacrilege"]. I don’t see any reason why I should respect or tolerate a culture which is the antithesis of what I believe. And I certainly don’t think that I should allow that sort of radicalism a foothold in my country or culture. So since immigration is not a right, I have no problem with those sorts of cultures being barred from my country’s shores.
Tolerance for tolerance sake delivers such nightmares as those through which the Dutch are presently living. Tolerance for tolerance’s sake will always be abused by the intolerant. It will always be taken advantage of by those who have no use for tolerance in reality. And that is what the Dutch (and the rest of Europe) are finally seeing.
Its unfortunate that many who are considering leaving are ceding the fight to those who will further abuse the Dutch climate of tolerance. They are, in fact, helping the intolerant radicals win, or at the least, solidify their foothold. And with the flood of Islamic immigrants in Europe, a fair portion of them being of the radical bent, this simply exacerbates and accelerates the problem.
One can certainly appreciate the overall desire to be tolerant, to look at different people, cultures and things and not automatically judge them as ’bad’ because they may be different. Tolerance simply means we should stop and consider before automatically passing judgement to the negative. I don’t think anyone would argue that past intolerance caused many injustices.
Unfortunately, in this new era of tolerance, the pendulum has swung too far to the other side. A critical part of tolerance is now left out of the equation, that of making judgements once you’ve made that assessment and taken that look. In the absense of judgement, and if necessary, rejection, we aren’t displaying tolerance, we’re committing what amounts to unthinking acceptance of anything and anyone, even those who would never extend us the same courtesy and who’s beliefs and morals we don’t share.
That’s simply irrational.
We have a responsibility to be tolerant of things which, in reality, don’t effect or violate our rights. A good example would be gay civil unions. But we have no responsibility to be tolerant of those that will do us harm, violate our rights, or which we find morally repugnanat and against everything for which we stand. And that is the lesson to take from the Dutch debacle and impending exodus.
qando.net |
