Intolerant Tolerance

So a mosque is being built two city blocks from the site of the Twin Towers in Manhattan. There’s a whole lotta irony right there. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing and I’m not saying it’s a good thing. It’s not that I’m undecided; I’m just not saying.


But it does throw the tolerance debate back into the ring as it was quietly trying to slip back to the change-room, and give it a piledriver for good measure. So let me try a couple of headlocks and maybe a flying back elbow or two.

Tolerance. Roughly understood to mean ‘I don’t like you, but you can be in my space – it’s okay’. Roughly. But straight away, I can hear Helen Zille knocking on my door as my lack of political finesse comes to light. That’s because I have absolutely no academic background in political science or sociology or even knitting.

My training was in the engineering disciplines and ‘tolerance’ to me meant how close I could get to a correct answer and still miss the mark. For example, this concrete beam is 500 millimetres high, give or take 5 millimetres. Or, this road is three kilometers long, give or take twenty metres. Or, as engineering students were often to plead, “Officer, I have had only three beers … give or take a case”.

So tolerance is a useful thing when you don’t have to be correct, or when things don’t add up exactly but you know you’re in the right ballpark. It will get you close enough to get the job done. And I guess, when used in the social arena, the concept translates … sort of. It allows two parties to approach each other and even if they don’t converge on the same point, they can still be considered ‘together’ in some sense. Maybe you have to squint your eyes and tilt your head but in some loose, ill-defined sense, they can be considered to co-exist. Just don’t look too closely.

The problem is that society is governed by laws (we’ll assume to exclude anarchical societies for now). Try applying the ‘tolerance’ theory to your tax return and see what you get. Five to ten years. Or how about to the voting polls during election time. “The ANC won 50% of votes ... give or take 5%.” (Will somebody tell Helen Zille I’m busy?!)

So if we define law and order as that behaviour we find acceptable in our society, and then base that acceptance on a flimsy concept like tolerance, dress it up in the tuxedo of ‘Human Rights’ and call it ‘Our Constitution’, we are on shaky ground indeed. (Yes, Helen, I’ll call you back…) How about we define law and order by something else a little more … well, solid? Heck, I’d just settle for something a little less contradictory. For instance, in the US, in the name of tolerance, it is illegal to sensor hate-speech. In other words, we must tolerate everyone’s view, especially those who are intolerant. But what we cannot tolerate … is intolerance.

Is it just me, or does that not seem a little confusing?

How about we just go back to something simple, like ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Yes, it’s old-fashioned and a little preachy, but think about it. It gets into all those hard-to-reach places that ordinary brushing can’t. And it goes where tolerance has never and can never go: right into your inner … well, you.

Excuse me. I need to take a call.

(Oh ... has Helen hung up?)