The Necessity of Intolerance

By Selwyn Duke

If “tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions,” as G.K. Chesterton put it, a question suggests itself:

Is intolerance the virtue of the principled man?

Literally speaking, neither tolerance nor intolerance is a “virtue”; that is, one of those defined “objectively good moral habits.” Exhibiting each, however, in its proper context, can be virtuous. Even more significantly, wisely applied intolerance is certainly this: necessary for the preservation of virtue in civilization. This task is of the utmost importance, too, as the Founders well understood, Benjamin Franklin among them. “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” he observed. “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Thus do we need “A Plea for Intolerance” — and, thankfully, we have one, in the form of a book chapter by that very title penned by legendary Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen in 1931.

And Sheen’s words, being timeless, haven’t lost their sheen. “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not,” he began. “It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded.”

Now, coming to mind here could be the comedic saying, “It’s important to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.” But Sheen was spot-on. People will rightly recoil at anyone who’d devalue a race but then, accepting man as mere animal, devalue the human race. We’ll hear that we mustn’t be sexist, even as we also hear that there’s nothing of substance to attach that “ist” to because “sex” is essentially a social construct. We’re also told we mustn’t make judgments because virtues are values and values are variable, as in relative, but then must accept fashionable judgments because, somehow, today’s relativists’ rules must be reckoned reality.

Then there was Sheen’s prescription. “In the face of this false broad-mindedness,” he wrote, “what the world needs is intolerance.” Of course, this sounds profoundly counterintuitive, which, given our counterculture culture, is a clue it’s likely correct. But the problem lies in the (mis)understanding of the word. That is, there “are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ‘intolerance’ mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry,” the clergyman explained. “These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad-mindedness, American good nature.”

The actual meaning of “tolerance,” however, is easily discerned from the word. You are tolerating — something. A man would not whisper in the ear of a woman he aimed to woo, “I tolerate you with all my heart!” any more than he would say about having to put up with a stubborn cold, “I’m feeling amorous toward this rhinovirus!” And if at a restaurant your waiter asked you how your meal was and you responded, “I’m tolerating it greatly, thank you,” he may rightly worry about receiving an intolerable tip. You would never tolerate beauty, a delectable meal, or a sublime work of art; you relish such things. You would, though, have to tolerate a bad flu, foul weather, or the hunger pangs that attend fasting. “Tolerance” always implies the abiding of a perceived negative; the only question is whether that perceived negative is also an objective one.

Yet more significant “than the definition is the field of its application,” asserts Sheen. “Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.” Put differently, we may choose to tolerate a sinner, but we should never willingly tolerate sin.

So what does this mean in practice? There are only two situations in which tolerance is virtuous. The first is when a perceived negative is not objectively so and a good reason to abide it exists. An example would be when a host serves food you don’t particularly like, but you eat it with a smile so as not to offend. The second is when you bear nobly a negative that simply cannot be remedied. Examples would be that stubborn flu or bad weather; keeping a stiff upper lip reflects much better character than chronic whining does. What, however, of an objective negative, such as an evil, that can be remedied? Well, about this “we must be intolerant,” wrote Sheen, “and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”

In other words, when at issue is a remediable evil, virtue only lies in making it history.

Make no mistake, either: Correctly applied intolerance is a loving act. If a person has sexual-identity disorder (aka “gender dysphoria”) and believes he should be the opposite sex, tolerance of him is fine as you offer him counsel. But what if he, perhaps in a vain effort to make himself feel better, seeks to normalize his cross as a “lifestyle choice” and, with misery loving company, tells kids to “explore other identities”? This is where intolerance must be marshaled — intolerance, that is, for his behavior.

In fact, we go to great lengths to secure a healthful environment for our children, and wouldn’t tolerate lead paint or radon gas in their school. But does love not dictate that we do no less with their moral environment? Moreover, if we indulged toxicological relativism and did allow the lead paint or radon to remain, would the kids not get the message that, well, it must not be so bad? The point: Choosing to abide an objective negative doesn’t signal tolerance, but acceptance. Apropos to this, just imagine what a child might instinctively conclude about “Drag Queen Story Hour’s” existence. Could he possibly think, maybe, just perhaps, “The grown-ups could stop this, but they don’t. It must be okay”?

Really, though, our “tolerance” for beliefs, even when erroneous, reflects our society’s great error: disbelieving in Truth. Putting it very well, too, was St. Michael Catholic Radio’s Adam Minihan in 2017. Commenting on the Chesterton quotation I opened this article with, he stated:

In order for a person to possess convictions about a belief, it is necessary, by definition, for the person to be convinced that his … belief is true. However, if I sincerely consider everyone’s beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equal to my own, I can no longer claim any genuine conviction regarding my own beliefs. Chesterton was conveying nothing is behind mere tolerance. There is no conviction or virtue that supports tolerance for tolerance sake. When you hear the word tolerance, you instantly think of the new trigger phrase, “Don’t judge.” Call me crazy but I would rather have a disagreement with someone who loved me than to be tolerated by someone with only apathy. I think Chesterton’s point is this: When we are faced with competing truth claims, the only way to arrive at a meaningful conclusion is by investigation. It’s not by saying your truth is your truth[,] mine is mine, as this is the equation for insane relativism.

Perhaps this is why the Bible warns that we should be either hot or cold — not lukewarm. Lukewarm is the temperature of misapplied tolerance. Love-born intolerance is the hot filtration that purges the impurity of error.

                   This article was originally published at The New American.