Tolerance may be indifference
Fr Brian Doyle O.P
Today’s society puts great emphasis on the value of tolerance. In fact, tolerance of others is a fundamental principle on which Liberalism, the philosophy of our age, is based.
Broadly speaking, Liberalism believes that we which should be free to do whatever we choose as long as our choices do not restrict the freedom of others.
In other words, a liberal society encourages us to tolerate, insofar as possible, the beliefs, practices and choices of others and to refrain from judging those choices.
To tolerate, or to put up with another person, is certainly better than being intolerant of that person. This is why Liberalism is generally viewed as being a positive influence on contemporary culture and widely accepted.
However, Jesus Christ did not command us to put up with our neighbour, but to love our neighbour. He said; “Love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mark 12:31).
This is a far cry from simply tolerating our neighbour. Indeed, mere tolerance seems distinctly mean-spirited in comparison to this challenging and noble command.
Which brings us to the heart of the difference between Liberalism and Christianity. Unlike liberal tolerance, Christian love is not indifferent to the choices and actions of others.
What good parent will happily tolerate their child who, as an adult, has chosen a life of crime, prostitution, drug or alcohol abuse?
Will they not try, by whatever means possible, to convince their child of his/her mistaken choice and warn them of its destructive consequences?
The child may refuse to listen or even resent their parent’s intervention, but that will not prevent it, because it is motivated by love.
Similarly, the person who genuinely cares for the welfare of others cannot sit idly by and watch them make bad choices but feels compelled to offer helpful advice to them.
While Liberalism, permitting others to do whatever they like, seems to be the basis for a harmonious and tolerant society, it really leads to a culture of indifference where people cease to care what happens to each other.
In such a society, individualism and a lack of empathy for others eventually become the dominant sentiments. In contrast, Christ’s teachings offer the basis for a caring, loving society which is concerned for the good of all.
Amnesty has lost original vision
While walking down Henry St in Dublin on a sunny day, I was stopped by a pleasant and polite young man in his twenties wearing a bright yellow Amnesty International jacket.
He asked if I knew who Amnesty were. I said I was aware they had been founded in the 1960’s to protect and to campaign for basic human rights.
He seemed impressed that I knew the organisation, and explained that he was campaigning for removal of the 8th Amendment from the Irish Constitution so that women would have a right to an abortion.
Clearly he was genuinely convinced that it was a good cause. I respectfully explained that I was pro-life and couldn’t possibly support such a measure.
To my surprise, he said that he too considered himself to be pro-life and would only be in favour of abortion in cases of rape and of unborn babies with terminal diseases.
When I replied that I didn’t agree that anyone should have the right to end another life under any circumstances, however tragic, he nodded his head understandingly.
Secondly, I pointed out that removal of the 8th Amendment gave no rights to women but took them away from unborn children so that they would have no human rights.
A so-called human right which takes away the right to life of another human is self-contradictory. Again, he said he appreciated my perspective.
Amnesty was founded by conscientious people to defend human rights, in particular the most basic right of all, the right to life.
Its Irish website states: “We campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.”
Its international website says that the death penalty breaches two fundamental human rights: “the right to life and the right to live free from torture.”
Sadly, Amnesty International's original vision has been lost. ‘All’ no longer means ‘all’ but 'some'.
Instead of protecting the rights of the unborn they now campaign to take them away, which makes a farce of the organisation's founding ethos.
If the 8th Amendment is removed, the unborn child will have the same legal status as a tumour which can be removed by a simple procedure.
Is this how our society should value the life of an unborn child? Are they of less value than animals for whose protection many compassionate people campaign? The answer is obvious.
I chatted with the young man for a few minutes more before we amicably parted company.
What was most revealing about the conversation was how it is so genuinely difficult for the younger generation to distinguish true good from apparent good and real compassion from false compassion.
The Lord's words came to mind; “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).
Broadly speaking, Liberalism believes that we which should be free to do whatever we choose as long as our choices do not restrict the freedom of others.
In other words, a liberal society encourages us to tolerate, insofar as possible, the beliefs, practices and choices of others and to refrain from judging those choices.
To tolerate, or to put up with another person, is certainly better than being intolerant of that person. This is why Liberalism is generally viewed as being a positive influence on contemporary culture and widely accepted.
However, Jesus Christ did not command us to put up with our neighbour, but to love our neighbour. He said; “Love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mark 12:31).
This is a far cry from simply tolerating our neighbour. Indeed, mere tolerance seems distinctly mean-spirited in comparison to this challenging and noble command.
Which brings us to the heart of the difference between Liberalism and Christianity. Unlike liberal tolerance, Christian love is not indifferent to the choices and actions of others.
What good parent will happily tolerate their child who, as an adult, has chosen a life of crime, prostitution, drug or alcohol abuse?
Will they not try, by whatever means possible, to convince their child of his/her mistaken choice and warn them of its destructive consequences?
The child may refuse to listen or even resent their parent’s intervention, but that will not prevent it, because it is motivated by love.
Similarly, the person who genuinely cares for the welfare of others cannot sit idly by and watch them make bad choices but feels compelled to offer helpful advice to them.
While Liberalism, permitting others to do whatever they like, seems to be the basis for a harmonious and tolerant society, it really leads to a culture of indifference where people cease to care what happens to each other.
In such a society, individualism and a lack of empathy for others eventually become the dominant sentiments. In contrast, Christ’s teachings offer the basis for a caring, loving society which is concerned for the good of all.
Amnesty has lost original vision
While walking down Henry St in Dublin on a sunny day, I was stopped by a pleasant and polite young man in his twenties wearing a bright yellow Amnesty International jacket.
He asked if I knew who Amnesty were. I said I was aware they had been founded in the 1960’s to protect and to campaign for basic human rights.
He seemed impressed that I knew the organisation, and explained that he was campaigning for removal of the 8th Amendment from the Irish Constitution so that women would have a right to an abortion.
Clearly he was genuinely convinced that it was a good cause. I respectfully explained that I was pro-life and couldn’t possibly support such a measure.
To my surprise, he said that he too considered himself to be pro-life and would only be in favour of abortion in cases of rape and of unborn babies with terminal diseases.
When I replied that I didn’t agree that anyone should have the right to end another life under any circumstances, however tragic, he nodded his head understandingly.
Secondly, I pointed out that removal of the 8th Amendment gave no rights to women but took them away from unborn children so that they would have no human rights.
A so-called human right which takes away the right to life of another human is self-contradictory. Again, he said he appreciated my perspective.
Amnesty was founded by conscientious people to defend human rights, in particular the most basic right of all, the right to life.
Its Irish website states: “We campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.”
Its international website says that the death penalty breaches two fundamental human rights: “the right to life and the right to live free from torture.”
Sadly, Amnesty International's original vision has been lost. ‘All’ no longer means ‘all’ but 'some'.
Instead of protecting the rights of the unborn they now campaign to take them away, which makes a farce of the organisation's founding ethos.
If the 8th Amendment is removed, the unborn child will have the same legal status as a tumour which can be removed by a simple procedure.
Is this how our society should value the life of an unborn child? Are they of less value than animals for whose protection many compassionate people campaign? The answer is obvious.
I chatted with the young man for a few minutes more before we amicably parted company.
What was most revealing about the conversation was how it is so genuinely difficult for the younger generation to distinguish true good from apparent good and real compassion from false compassion.
The Lord's words came to mind; “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).
