COLUMN: The Hypocrisy Of Tolerance

Tolerance presents itself as so, well, tolerant, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s become a stick to beat those who disagree with you.


Nothing was so self-evident as to see hundreds of Confederate-flag wavin’ nationalists marching underneath a “DIVERSITY MAKES US STRONGER” banner down a street lined with rock-throwin’ leftists.

One of the bands of college students visiting Charlottesville to protest the marching nationalists carried a large “YOU FASCIST SCUM” banner.

Tolerant? No, of course not. The hypocrisy is glaring.

When the leftists beat up old people at a Trump rally, crickets. When they throw Molotov cocktails at cop cars at Berkeley because Ann Coulter’s speaking, crickets. When AntiFa knocks down a police barricade and tries to charge past police who are trying to protect a peaceful “Unite the Right” rally at a Charlottesville city park where they have a permit, the cops declare “unlawful assembly!” and kick out the guys with the permits.

No station carries that part of the story. When they punch a Confederate-flag-totin’ redneck in Charlottesville, cameras are turned off. When the redneck punches back, the cameras are rolling. What a joke!

And the commies aren’t any more apologetic for their intolerance than the fascists are. The Molotov-tossin’ AntiFa rioters are not tolerant of fascism in the slightest, even as they physically attack the skinheads and their property for their intolerance.

They swing the intolerance club not just at racists, but at Bible-believing Christians like Walt Heyer, Baronelle Stutzman, Franklin Graham, Scott Lively, or me, who at least have a consistent standard to determine what is tolerable and what is not.

Tolerance, by itself, is not a standard of ethic by which to live and judge. Even the most tolerant of folks are intolerant of some things. The true point of contention is, what is the standard by which to judge?

If your personal opinion is the basis of morality and judgment, then upon what basis can you condemn any behavior or the politics of anyone else? And, tell me this, why should we follow your personal opinion and discriminate against others? If you answer that your personal opinion is the reason why we should bow to your opinion, that’s circular reasoning.

Many would argue that the democratic consensus is the basis of right and wrong. But isn’t a vote simply a conglomeration of personal opinions, and haven’t we already demonstrated the error of using personal opinions as the basis of morality? If 51% of the population preferred to discriminate against the 49%, does that make it right? If so, upon what basis can we condemn slavery, where it is democratically popular?

There can be no human rights whatsoever for you if the collective opinion determines right from wrong and you find yourself in the persecuted minority.

“Might makes right” – this a commonly employed view today, that those in power decide morality and justice simply because they have the power to force their view upon us. The Supreme Court says it, so we’ve got to do it. But if “might makes right”, then how can we condemn Nazis for putting Jews in ovens in the Holocaust? How can we condemn the Mujahideen for taking the children of conquered Christian tribes and using them as sex slaves? How can we condemn the Crusades? The burning of witches at Salem? How can you commies condemn the fascists when they are in power, or you fascists condemn the commies when they are in power? It is self-evident that “might makes right” is not a sustainable foundation from which to judge ethical matters.

But if God is the basis of right and wrong, and if His Word, the Holy Bible, is the basis for moral indignation and moral judgment, then we have a standard that can make sense of behavior that should be tolerated and behavior that should not.

Although most of the dying in World War 2 was between fascist Germany and communist Russia, most people do not realize that for the first nine months of that war, they were at peace.

The two bullies of Europe and Asia, who traditionally hated each other even more than they hated the capitalists, shook hands and signed the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, carved up Poland on a map, invaded, and raped and murdered their way to Warsaw. Germany targeted the Jews in western Poland, whereas Stalin targeted the capitalists, priests, pastors, and professors in eastern Poland.

Only when Hitler broke the peace pact with Stalin and invaded Russia was Russia invited to become one of the Big Three in the Grand Alliance with Great Britain and the U.S.

But at the beginning of the war, Stalin was by far the most monstrous bully, with the blood of tens of millions of innocents on his hands before Hitler killed a single Jew, and as World War 2 concluded and communism’s Iron Curtain cut off eastern Europe from western, Stalin’s bloody monstrosities and torture chambers kept chewing up the freedom-lovers of eastern Europe for another four decades.

Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. We can’t let the rioters and Molotov’ throwers, with their contradictory “FASCIST SCUM!” and “TOLERANCE IS LOVELY” rainbow banners, set the tone for the moral conflict in our nation. That battleline is fake. Those bullies will shake hands if they’ve more to gain from it. We must take a stand on God’s Word and condemn both evil movements and their leaders.