Tolerance via Intolerance
I
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands...with liberty and justice for all. In today’s world, the key in that phrase is
the word ‘all’. Living in America grants
an unimaginable amount of freedoms. We
are lucky to have so many rights and privileges and we are lucky to have a
court system that enforces those freedoms.
Or are we? Lately, as the gap
between belief systems widens, the laws and protections of America’s citizens
are becoming clouded. We, as a people,
are so busy preaching tolerance of others that we have forgotten to actually be tolerant of others. Forcing citizens, by law, to honor the
beliefs and lifestyle practices of others, regardless of their own personal
beliefs, is unconstitutional. The
government has no legal right to compel one group of people to be tolerant of others
beliefs and practices while simultaneously being intolerant of that groups
beliefs.
The first amendment of the Constitution states that
“congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of
the press.” This amendment gives us the
right to freely express our religious beliefs.
It also gives us our freedom of speech – the opportunity to express our
viewpoints, regardless of who may or may not agree with us. It should go without saying that for us to
enjoy that right, we should then be respectful of the right of others to do the
same. While we are individuals and
differ vastly from each other in innumerable ways, we can (and should!) have a
deeply rooted sense of respect for others and how they choose to live their
lives.
Imagine for a moment how you might feel if you were being
forced to do something, especially something that threatens your belief system. While there is always a resistance against
being forced to do something, when it feels like an attack upon personal rights
and freedoms, emotions and reactions tend to become passionate. This type of situation only fuels the fires
of anger and resentment towards people and/or groups that subscribe to
differing viewpoints and further widens the gap between them.
We have seen many instances where the government has
widened this gap and forced people to abandon their personal beliefs. The 2012 story of Jack Phillips, owner of
Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is one example of preaching
tolerance while being intolerant. Jack
received a request from a gay couple looking for a wedding cake, which he
politely declined due to a conflict with his personal religious beliefs. He
explained that while he would be unable to help them with a wedding cake, he
was happy to bake any other item for them.
He was taken to court by the couple who felt discriminated against, and
has since been ordered to disregard his personal beliefs in order to serve the
gay community. Jack and his entire staff
have been court ordered to participate in a comprehensive training on
anti-discrimination laws as well as submit quarterly reports for two years confirming
that he has not turned away any customers based on their sexual
orientation. The court system is forcing
Jack to prove that he has been “rehabilitated”, taking away his right to his
personal beliefs. He has now become
legally obligated to be understanding of others while his personal beliefs are
trampled upon.
An additional example of one-sided tolerance happened in
the San Francisco area of California in 2010.
Because of some gang related tension at Live Oak High School and in the
surrounding area, students who were wearing t-shirts with an American patriotic
symbol were asked to either remove their shirts or go home for the day. It was the fifth of May, Cinco de Mayo, a
well-known day for celebration of Mexican Independence. The concern was that such displays of
American patriotism would offend the Mexican students on their holiday and
result in outbursts of violence. When
the parents of the students who were sent home filed suit, with claims that
their children’s constitutional rights had been violated, the court system
ruled in favor of the school, rather than the American patriot and the right to
freely express that patriotism. The
result? The students were forced to abandon their beliefs, as well as their
right to freedom of expression, in order to appease the Hispanic population in
the area. They had to give up their
rights to keep others from acting out in violence – all in the name of
tolerance and acceptance.
We,
as human beings, yearn for acceptance and the fight to be accepted is
understandable. We don’t want to be
discriminated against just because we are different, or make different choices. However, when we demand that people accept us
for who we are and force others to honor our beliefs while in turn
disrespecting and disregarding their beliefs, we become hypocrites. When we involve the legal system, it warps
the first amendment and sets precedent to spread tolerance by intolerance,
further widening the gap between groups with different beliefs. The choice to be tolerant and respectful lies
with each of us individually, not with the government.
