Historically, toleration has been understood to mean different things within two particular contexts – one personal and one political. In a personal sense, a tolerating person is said to be an individual that valiantly resists bad times and evil influences. In a political sense, toleration has meant that society as a whole permits ideological differences within itself with the implicit understanding that no harm should come to those that express differences of opinion. Both definitions have been contorted into a newfangled and pernicious notion that reeks of malicious intent.
If the reader is either a Biblical Christian or Classic Conservative (or both) and has made known his disdain for the normalization of sin within culture and his disapproval of the allowance of seditious influences within the country (Islam and Marxism, for example), the possibility such a person has been branded an “intolerant” by some sycophantic windbag of social justice warriorism is high. In modern vocabulary, it’s a term that is supposed to denote a person’s obstinacy and hatred towards those of a different persuasion.
The differences between the classic and modern understanding of toleration couldn’t be more stark and indicative of a diminution of standards.
In the mind of Cultural Marxists, there can be no valid reason why traditional-minded folk should personally disapprove and resist a minority’s or special interest group’s subversive activism. In the case of the so-called LGBTers, this activism takes the form of desensitizing the public to sodomy. In the case of Mohammedanism, they desire to replace a constitutional republic with Sharia Law. In the mind of the sanctimonious SJW (social justice warrior), a conservative behaves the way he does because he harbors irrational hostility towards anyone who isn’t a white Christian.
This is the ridiculous caricature which Biblical Christians and Classical Conservatives have been reduced to by demagogic Marxist commentators, pundits and politicians.
Be this decline as it may, the truth is that the altruistic high ground belongs to those that endure and withstand evil without yielding territory, not with those who demand that righteous people surrender their minds and hearts to thought and activity that is inherently depraved but whitewashed.
Therefore, it behooves us to “answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes”. (Proverbs 26:5) If the reader should encounter a remonstrative case as we have described above, henceforth, he should reply in the following manner:
“You mustn’t know what the definition of tolerance is. Otherwise, you’d know that proper intolerance is the morally correct, responsible and sensible response to anyone or anything that seeks to overturn righteousness. Hence, I take it as a compliment, the fact that you have unwitingly acknowledged that I discriminate based on the rightness and wrongness of an argument, not on false narratives. Obviously, the same cannot be said about you since you automatically proceeded to judge my views without giving me the slightest benefit of doubt as to the why I believe the way I believe. Who’s the true bigot?”