America's "godly" virtue

If someone were to walk up to me and ask what I believe the most important virtue in American culture was, I would say “tolerance”. I personally believe that tolerance is a great thing, yet I’m a little uncertain to what degree of a virtue it actually is. What is it about tolerance that America likes so much? I can conjecture a few things. For one, America has a plethora of different races, religions, and philosophical standpoints. A nation containing such “variety” requires tolerance in order to have proper dialogue and functioning in everyday living. Secondly, America esteems education as the foundation of happy, respectable, and noble living. Thus our universities are growing in number and size as the years progress. And considering we believe that healthy learning involves the interacting with other beliefs, tolerance is the beautiful wrapping holding it all in place. But what exactly IS tolerance? Webster defines it as such:

“A sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with ones own. Or B) the act of allowing something.”

Basically, tolerance means one must allow the other belief to exist. However, I didn’t notice it saying a person must conform to the belief. The reader might be asking why I mentioned this. Let me explain.

Over the past couple of years I have encountered people who have declared other persons not open-minded (a.k.a, tolerant) for not adhering to what they believe. Here are some examples:

The first incident I recall so clearly was when I was at Cyrus’ house and he had some of his friends over for hanging out. I was in Cyrus’ room playing Halo, and his friend, Kelly, was on the bed behind us reading a magazine. For reasons I do not recall she mentioned how she had recently watched the movie “Brokeback Mountain.” She then proceeded to mention how there were some people who didn’t want to watch it with her because they “were not as open-minded” as her. A little alarm went off in my head at my awareness of the logical fallacy she just made. I called her on it, “So what you are saying is considering they didn’t see the movie, they are being closed minded as a result? And the fact that you went and saw the movie means you are open-minded?” Her obvious answer was “yes”. *Sigh*

I didn’t press the issue any further. Halo was on my mind, Cyrus needed to get whipped, and I honestly didn’t care to debate. I ask myself now, what was wrong with that picture? What logical fallacy did Kelly commit? According to the implications Kelly made by locking out certain persons as close-minded for not watching the film, she herself became “closed-minded” (or intolerant).

To clarify, lets say person A went to go do action X while person B did not do action X. Person A declares that all who do not do X is close-minded. Person B simply believes that X is not desirable and does not do X accordingly. Person B believes A has a right to do X, but personally will not do X. Therefore, Person A is close-minded for not tolerating Person B’s reasons for not doing X.

Bottom line, Kelly’s logic is a trap set up for all who do not support her view. Those who won’t actually watch the film, although they may have their reasons, are not tolerated for their reasons and are labeled close-minded. In the end, it’s a label to help make Kelly feel good about her own belief, when she is actually close-minded for not respecting others. But this isn’t the only case I’ve encountered. An almost EXACT scenario happened with my friend Ian over the same movie. Plus, on the show Friends, Mrs. Geller told Ross and Rachel that some of their family were not as “open-minded” with the idea of them having a child out of wedlock. This translates into “Because our other family do not like people having children out of wedlock, they are close-minded for not agreeing and conforming to our view that it is okay.”

I must emphasize that all of this does not mean that people can’t have views that says others are completely wrong. The person who claims that (as do I with many of my convictions and principles in accordance with my Christian Faith) would be intolerant if they did not respect the other’s opinions by granting them the right to have such opinions. Stating a view that claims all others are wrong is a “view” nonetheless. If someone were to tell me that Hell did not exist, I would quickly respond with “you’re wrong.” But, the person has a right to believe such things. Likewise, people are welcome to say I’m wrong, ignorant, or even foolish for what I believe.

But the exclusive nature of my Faith and convictions are my right to cherish and believe. So don’t be close-minded, be open-minded by tolerating my views as well as others.

Let’s not succumb to a new definition of tolerance/open-mindedness:
The necessity to AGREE and CONFORM to another persons belief regardless of ones own reasons for believing differently, or B) People with beliefs of an exclusive nature sacrificing their reasons/beliefs for the person(s) demanding an all inclusive belief system.




post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!