This Is More Important Than Being ‘Tolerant’

No matter where you are, there it is. It’s called by a lot of different names, but it all means the same thing.

The trouble is, it doesn’t. And that can hurt people.

You may have heard this story before.

Decades ago, before I had the joy of children, I was assigned as the Town Board liaison to the school district. It was during the initial hype of political correctness. At the time, and not so different from today, you couldn’t go anywhere without seeing the maxim “Be Tolerant” plastered somewhere.

During one meeting, (a strategic planning discussion), we were asked to brainstorm on core values.

You can imagine how that went. Along with the usual bromides and platitudes seen in such processes, one “core value” stood out: “tolerance.”

“Of course,” everyone agreed, “tolerating and respecting others is something we must instill in all our students.”

Did I say “everyone”? Not quite.

Being the new kid, I stayed silent. But, when I couldn’t hold back any longer, I spoke up. “So,” I began, following the logic of the group, “if we must tolerate everyone, does that mean we should also tolerate and respect intolerant people?”

The group sat in stunned silence. Finally, an experienced and widely admired administrator said, “Well, maybe we ought to rethink our wording here.”

Did you catch what happened there? It’s called the “Tolerance Paradox.” Simply stated, in order to be truly tolerant, you must accept intolerance. In other words, what’s the point of saying you’re tolerant if you want to practice the moral and ethical lessons we’ve been brought up to believe?

Do you want to understand a practical example of this? Imagine sixty years ago if we decided to “tolerate” the Axis Powers? This question was actually the plotline of the most famous Star Trek episode “City on the Edge of Forever.”

In that show, Captain Kirk went back in time just before World War II and fell in love with pacifist Edith Keeler. It turns out he changed history by saving Edith from being run over by a truck. Or he would have changed history if he allowed his heart to win. He couldn’t, for if he did, the Axis Powers would have won the war.

If tolerance is out, what should replace it?

The easy answer is nothing, for there is such a thing as right and wrong as well as good and evil. Any other view degrades to relativism and the Nazis win.

OK, but not everything is World War II.

The problem, however, is that the major media and partisan politics seem to enjoy treating everything as World War II. Don’t believe me? How many times have you heard one side call an opponent they don’t agree with a “Nazi”?

I repeat, not everything is World War II. We’ve got to shun (i.e., not tolerate) people who call their opponents Nazis.

Still, we need to find a more productive strategy to deploy. When opposing sides face each other, and it’s not a matter of life and death, we must encourage participants to discover mutual commonalities.

After all, despite our differences, we have plenty in common with each other.

This isn’t a new strategy.

Centuries ago, during the Crusades, when things did present themselves as a life and death matter, a poem was composed. Written about 1220 A.D., Ordene de chevalerie (“Order of Knighthood”) told a fictional story of Prince Hugh II of Tiberias (Hue de Tabarie), a Christian knight who was captured and brought in chains to King Saladin of Egypt.

Saladin immediately recognizes both he and Hugh, despite being mortal enemies, have a similar background. He immediately orders his guards to unchain Hugh. Saladin says that Hugh can be free if pays a ransom, otherwise he will be executed. Hugh doesn’t have the money and accepts death.

But Saladin, understanding the commonality between the two royals, refuses to kill Hugh. Instead, he allows Hugh two years to collect the money and then return with either the money or to be imprisoned. Hugh accepts. (What does that tell you about honor?)

Before Hugh can depart, though, Saladin tells Hugh he has heard of the Order of Knighthood. He asks Hugh to dub him a knight. Believing Saladin doesn’t believe in God, Hugh says “No!”

Here’s where the power of commonality comes in.

Saladin hears what Hugh is saying, then sits him down and explains they both believe in the same God. (This is true. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God. It’s what comes underneath where the differences occur.)

Hugh now understands. He accepts this commonality and takes Saladin through the ritual of becoming a knight. In exchange, Saladin removes Hugh’s ransom and sets him free.

Did Hugh and Saladin “tolerate” each other? Probably not, since they were at war with each other.

On the other hand, did they see the commonality between them? They most assuredly did.

Of course, who knows what happened after that? The Crusades lasted for a half century after Ordene de chevalerie was written.

Who wrote this poem? We don’t know, but it’s believed to have been penned by a priest.

What does that tell you?