We’ve all seen the bumper sticker that spells COEXIST by combining the symbols of major world religions in a convenient order. The bumper sticker seems reasonable; after all, isn’t it just representing the world as it is—people of many religions all existing side by side in the same space? If that were all the bumper sticker meant, then I might consider putting one on my car; it’s an obviously true fact about the world. However, the sticker means much more than that—it doesn’t just commend the idea of people of many different religions all living in the same space, it preaches the doctrine that the ideas promoted by many different religions must be appreciated at the same level.

The distinction between accepting people and accepting ideas is a subtle yet fundamental concept when it comes to discussing tolerance, and today’s world has gotten it exactly backwards. The unruly protest sparked by Riley Gaines‘ talk at San Francisco State University earlier this month is a case in point.

Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer who has held the All-American champ title 12 times, gave a talk at San Francisco State University on April 6 to speak out against the inclusion of transgender women in female sports. Given that Gaines’ message is unpopular in many universities, it was entirely to be expected that she would have received some pushback and perhaps had to engage in some difficult conversations. And one wouldn’t expect much different to occur at a university — an institution ostensibly dedicated to pursuing and disseminating truth, which often requires a clash of conflicting ideas.

But Gaines received far more than uncomfortable conversation—she received a shouting attack. Angry supporters of women’s-sports-trans-inclusion got so verbally violent and physically intimidating that city police had to arrive to help Gaines safely exit the campus. View a short video of the ugly interaction here (this video does contain profanity), which shows an irate trans supporter shouting the mantra “trans rights are human rights” mixed with foul language.

How can an ideology so dedicated to “tolerance” produce adherents who are so obviously intolerant? Herein lies our critical distinction tolerating ideas and tolerating people are two entirely different things. When people praise “tolerance” as a virtue, much of its appeal comes
from the traditional understanding of the word. Tolerance traditionally means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you ought to respect them as fellow human beings, even if you don’t agree with their ideas.

Under this interpretation of tolerance, people can vigorously argue, debate, and refute each other, but at the end of the day they all realize that they each retain special dignity by virtue of simply being human beings created in God’s image, and they can part ways still respecting each other.

However, the contemporary interpretation of “tolerance” flips things on its head. To many, the word still deceptively retains the dignity associated with its noble meaning, but it is now completely redefined: tolerance means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you must accept their ideas as if they were worthy of belief. Attempting to refute, persuade, or even advocate ideas contrary to someone else’s beliefs thus becomes aggression and intolerance.

The problem with this interpretation is that there really are no grounds for accepting all ideas equally. I can accept and respect all other human beings because they are fellow human beings created in the image of God, but should I be forced to readily accept all ideas by virtue of them being… well… “fellow ideas” with my own? To say such implies that all ideas—by virtue of simply being ideas—are worthy of acceptance or respect. But, unlike people, ideas can be stack-ranked according to value. The idea that “gravity is real” is a whole lot more valuable than the idea that “gravity isn’t real.”

Unfortunately, this contemporary definition of tolerance is often accompanied by intolerance of people—the exact opposite of its traditional definition. The protestors at Gaines’ talk disagreed with her ideas, but translated that into attacks on her as a person.

Our culture desperately needs to recover the proper virtue of tolerance—accepting all people, but not all ideas.

After two decades of hearing the virtues of tolerance and diversity, American society has become increasingly intolerant, and because of that, less diverse when it comes to the ability to offer opinions in public and private discourse.

A startling new poll has found that more Americans than ever before are self-censoring their views out of a fear of sharing an opinion that does not fit the cultural narrative. Not surprisingly, those with traditional or conservative beliefs are the most likely to self-censor their views when they speak to others.

The new Cato Institute/YouGov national survey finds that overall 62 percent of Americans say that today’s political climate prevents them from saying what they believe.

Strong liberals stand out as the only political group in which a majority feels that they can freely express themselves, with 6 out of 10 saying this.  In contrast, 77 percent of Republicans say that they self-censor their views out of fear of the culture. Self-censorship spans all ethnic groups, with 65 percent of Latino Americans, 64 percent of white Americans, and 49 percent of African Americans saying they have political views they are afraid to share.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

How would you define tolerance? The essence of the standard societal and dictionary definitions boils down to this – tolerance is the ability or willingness to live among and get along with people whose opinions and behavior are different, even antithetical, to one’s own.

It is interesting to note that Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “tolerance” as: The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report, states, “Whatever differences we have, tolerating others’ opinions is a prerequisite of a functioning and free society.” If what he says is true, is it any wonder that there is so much dysfunction in our country? Listen, as Rubin, a self-identified liberal, shares his perspective on the state of tolerance today within the mainstream media, the Left, and the Right, and asks the question “Who is tolerant?” His answer might surprise you.

It shouldn’t have taken the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for the Left to admit that homosexual activists and their water-carrying ideological servants have no interest in dialogue, diversity, or tolerance. Jack-booted homosexualists demanded that Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and inventor of JavaScript, be fired for his $1,000 donation to the Prop 8 campaign in California six years ago.

I guess it’s semi-official: American citizens who believe marriage is inherently sexually complementary cannot work in America—not even in their own companies. Remember this the next time someone condescendingly asserts that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” couldn’t possibly affect society at large in any negative way.

I wonder how many of those who drove Brendan Eich out of his job voted for Barack Obama when he publicly opposed the legalization of same-sex “marriage”—you know, before his “evolution.”

For those with short memories, Prop 8 was the ballot initiative that was passed in California that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and then was overturned by a homosexual activist judge whose “reasoning” has been widely criticized.

Now the story Eich story is shifting a bit. Unpleasant homosexual activist and radio personality Michael Signorile asserts that it wasn’t merely that Eich donated to Prop 8 that led to his compulsory resignation. His additional crimes are that 22 years ago Eich supported Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign and then more recently Eich supported (horror of horrors) Ron Paul.

So now corporations large and small will have ideological litmus tests for upper management? “Affirm sodomy and cross-dressing or look for employment elsewhere–preferably on another planet. Oh, and we will need to see your voting record for your entire life as well.”

Some liberals are trying to argue that Eich’s compulsory resignation is merely a business decision resulting from liberal efforts no different from conservative boycotts of Home Depot or Starbucks for their homosexuality-affirming commitments. But there’s a huge difference between boycotting a business for their corporate policies and practices and boycotting a business because of the personal beliefs of an employee. Can liberals not see the difference?

Even homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan condemns the “hounding” of Eich:

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists….Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me—as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out. 

The Left tries to ennoble their ignoble pursuit of ideological purity on matters related to volitional sexual acts by recasting it as the “new civil rights movement.” Of course, along the way, they never actually make a case for the soundness of the comparison of sexual feelings and acts to skin color. No matter, just keep shouting “equality” and screaming “bigot” at all dissenters, and they win the day. And why do they win? Lots of reasons, none of which involve the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice.

The reasons include the de facto control of the mainstream press, academia, and the arts (including the publishing industry). The other reasons are that many Americans are non-thinkers (read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death), and many conservatives are cowards.

We should be afraid of a holy God, not the names hurled by those lost in spiritual darkness. And we should be deeply concerned about the loss of freedom that Eich’s “resignation” portends for our children and grandchildren. The fact that so many conservatives continue to assert that all that matters is the economy and radical Islam is testament to conservative ignorance. 

Eich is the pale featherless canary gasping for breath in the coal mine. Unless conservatives stiffen up those Gumby spines and grow some thick man-skin (as I have been doing in my basement laboratory), they’ll find they won’t be able to make a living unless they genuflect to all things homosexual. One small consolation: bootlicking is easier for those without spines.

Come on, people, walk upright.

Speak the truth in love; Expose the fruitless deeds of darkness; Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds; Be anxious for nothing; Remember that the wisdom of this world is folly with God; And share boldly with others the good news that through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life can set them free from the law of sin and death.