Tolerance Seems to Be Evaporating in the Face of Fear

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Bob Coleman, a reader from Franklin, and a fellow expatriate North Carolinian, referred me to a recent column by Hal Crowther, "Cave Dwellers of the Carolinas Rise Again," which he wrote in despair after North Carolina overwhelmingly passed the marriage amendment to its constitution, defining marriage as confined to one man and one woman.

I've admired Hal's writing for more than 30 years. He is a proud, unrepentant liberal; the way he writes, and his views, always spark a response, whether I agree with him or not - which is generally not.

But when my old home state passed the marriage amendment 61-39, I, too, was shocked. North Carolina had always seemed to me to be a place where progressive people and thinking fostered tolerance, and dampened the urges of the majority to impose its sometimes narrow views upon those who think or act differently.

I am sorry to see North Carolina embrace intolerance, but it is hard to be surprised. Tolerance is a courtesy that seems to have evaporated in the face of fear, justified by threats of economic collapse and to national security.

And yet while I think we all witness the shrill lack of tolerance and decorum in our public discourse, I know we experience every day the very real tolerant concern individuals express toward each other.

A recent example for me:

When Dan Cathy, COO of Chick-fil-A, expressed his opinion about gays, it struck me as egregious opportunism to vilify him, or to glorify him. Both the supportive eat-in, and oppositional boycott, were ways for us to collectively express our intolerance.

So when local employees reached out to boycotters with drinks and sandwiches, it illustrated for me that individuals preserve their humanity when groups lose theirs.

It reminds me of my favorite aphorism about meetings from a Demotivational Poster: "Meetings: None of Us Is as Dumb as All of Us." I hold tight to that observation.

We read about it every day, and it will get worse as we approach November. A stupid remark from either side begets outrage and fuels rounds of escalating anger, real and feigned, as the comments are increasingly taken out of context until no one can remember who said what, when. And they don't care; no one is going to be held accountable.

Another recent example of that helps me get through the political reading I have to do.

We read a lot about the intolerance of policemen; they are generally portrayed in unflattering ways. This past Tuesday, at a car wreck on I-40, I was reminded, again, of how my experience with the public safety officers in our community has been uniformly positive, with every sense of courtesy afforded to everyone.

I have yet to talk with a cop here that I did not walk away from the conversation with genuine regard for them.

I firmly believe that our sense of anonymity - in our cars, at our keyboards, on our phones, in the voting booth - absolves us of restraint, and without self-restraint our worst instincts surface. Add that to our social tolerance for angry hyperbole in public discourse, and we have recipe for making a bed that eventually none of us will choose to lie in.

Crowther concluded his column with this thought: "We're having a bigot's revival and a bully's carnival in North Carolina, and the infection may be spreading. A lot of us are terribly ashamed, and a whole lot more should be."

Frank Daniels III, part owner of The Pilot and cousin of Pilot Publisher David Woronoff, is the community engagement editor of The Nashville Tennessean. Contact him at fdanielsiii@tennessean.com.

More like this story

nothingspecial 9 months ago

Mr. Daniels, your opinion on the topic is accepted and tolerated. I believe it involves the use of an evolved idea of the definition of "tolerance" in the case of the recent NC vote that others would define as "celebration of". The vote in NC and 30 other states was not about bigotry. Let it go and quit calling those who voted the wrong way in your opinion, bigots. It only pisses us off, as happened with the boycott of Chick Fil A.

And as for those who insist that folks not vote according to their values, Chuck Colson said it best when he said something to the effect: "It is not a question of whether we should legislate morality - it is a question of whose morality will we legislate?

AFCHIEF 9 months ago

Again, we need to have gay marriage shoved down on us

JimRussell44 9 months ago

Quoting Chuck Colson, a convicted criminal who spent time in prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal does not seem to me to be your best choice, nothingspecial, of people to comment on morality.

JimRussell44 9 months ago

boscoe50, the simple fact that people like or support a movement or ideological position does not make that movement or position right. The citizens of Germany in the late 1930's seemed to like a certain fuhrer and supported his ideological goals. I'll assume you would agree that was not right.

JimRussell44 9 months ago

AFCHIEF, is someone trying to make you marry another AFCHIEF with all the same attributes you have? If not, then there ain't nobody shoving anything down on you. (gee, the way you phrased your comment now has me wondering...?)

AbdominalDohMan 9 months ago

So, when I stand up proudly for what I belive, it's called intollerance. Thanks for correcting my nearsightedness. I rather look at it as having values. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. But who cares, anything goes nowadays.

pacer 9 months ago

Mr. Daniels, I have thoughts and fears and convictions and beliefs as well. I also have the tolerance. I always thought it a good lesson that if you cannot agree then accept, if you cannot accept then just go on your way. No good can come from throwing rocks at people just because you don't think or feel the same way. It's tragic to me. Thanks for a nice piece.

teufelhunden 9 months ago

I cringe at the intolerance shown to Mormons and Christians at the hand of "enlightened" atheists. I just shake my head at how they attack people of faith. Horrible.

teufelhunden 9 months ago

Now you can't even keep a long standing tradition by letting a football team pray before a game or eat food provided by a local church.

Bentpan 9 months ago

Having real values, morality and standards does not equate to intolerance, perhaps Mr Daniels might need a more broadminded view of his fellow citizens especially as this vote closely mimics the national viewpoint on gay marriage in any case its hard for me to take serious someone who quotes and agrees with a writer who says things like ........ "We're having a bigot's revival and a bully's carnival in North Carolina" and "Cave Dwellers of the Carolinas Rise Again," talk about intolerance, way to show you hypocrit side Mr. Daniels. I guess your sense of tolerance is a one way street, typical liberal reasoning. When are liberals going to realize it's their intolerance to opposing views that by definition make them the bigots and is in fact the reason they lost a 144year majority in NC and lost the US lower house in 2010. Now you're poised to lose the US senate, the NC Governorship, and the US presidency and your idea to win us over is to refer to us as " Cavedwellers, Bigots, and Bullys", yea, good luck with that.

clarabelle 9 months ago

" teufelhunden - Now you can't even keep a long standing tradition by letting a football team pray before a game or eat food provided by a local church. "

I wonder - do you ever think that some people are offended by praying to an imaginary man in the sky? Or that they would like to pray to their God. and don't say they can - in silence - as that is exactly what you can do and eliminate all this BS.

btw............ food is always good :)

pgericson 9 months ago

@Bentpan - Please don't confuse values and morality with tolerance. Tolerance involves having a permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own: look it up. If you believe strongly that gay marriage should not be allowed that is your right and I respect your right to hold that view. Please understand that imposing that standard on others, by definition, is intolerant. The article is about tolerance. The author does not presume to take away your right to think and act as you see fit. He does point out that when people's values and beliefs include taking away the rights of others to think and act as they see fit, than these values and beliefs are intolerant. I guess the author believes in that old axiom, live and let live.

teufelhunden 9 months ago

clarabelle-yeah, so to clear this up, I hope that is exactly what every single one of them did anyway.

Maybe some people are offended when they see two men kissing in public, so using your logic, maybe they should keep it behind closed doors, you know, so as not to offend.

teufelhunden 9 months ago

It works both ways folks, don't forget that.

clarabelle 9 months ago

" teufelhunden - Maybe some people are offended when they see two men kissing in public, so using your logic, maybe they should keep it behind closed doors, you know, so as not to offend. "

Not at all - they are NOT involved with me - I am NOT part of their activity. Prayer at a football game involves everyone there. I really wonder - why a moment of silence - to pray to a God of your choice - or simply daydream while others are - can't be a solution. Why does it have to be a spectacle.

teufelhunden 9 months ago

We're talking seeing/hearing so I guess I won't look and you don't hear. :)

Bentpan 9 months ago

pgericson 2 hours, 30 minutes ago He does point out that when people's values and beliefs include taking away the rights of others to think and act as they see fit, than these values and beliefs are intolerant....................Well sir since homosexuals have never had the "RIGHT" to marry in NC, so no right was taken therefor you and Mr. Daniel have no real ground to stand, do you? Society at large still views homosexuality as an aberation. We tolerate it but we will not be coerced into accepting it as normal, it's not.

Bentpan 9 months ago

BTW Mr Daniel you lost, not by a little, but a lot. It's time for you and The pilot to move on, this is getting old and your infantile namecalling (in this case indirect but there non the less) is insulting not to mention boorish.

SH59 9 months ago

Great article, thank you. Your statement "I firmly believe that our sense of anonymity - in our cars, at our keyboards, on our phones, in the voting booth - absolves us of restraint, and without self-restraint our worst instincts surface." is proven here every day where no one is able to have a thoughtful conversation but rather rant and rave against each other.

nothingspecial 9 months ago

SH59, good part of the article to quote - is Mr. Daniels saying we must learn to restrain ourselves in the private voting booth against voting in line with our values? That's how I read it. Because Chuck Colson's words are very relevant to this argument and shouldn't be dismissed because someone above feels "once a con always a con" or some such. We either vote our morality or someone else's - that is a fact.

Noluv4thugs 9 months ago

Jim Russell you my friend are ignorant for comparing the Holocaust to Gay Marriage. You should be ashamed. People who oppose Gay Marriage don't want to kill all homosexuals like Hitler wanted to kill the Jews, the Poles and millions of gypsies. I'm not opposed to Gay Marriage, I truly don't care one way or the other, but I am intolerant of the stupidity that is running rampant in this paper.....SHAMEFUL

geoffcutler 9 months ago

If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I'd still like someone to tell me how that makes you intolerant of gays? Please, someone make a logical connection that would hold up in a debate format.

clarabelle 9 months ago

" geoffcutler - If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I'd still like someone to tell me how that makes you intolerant of gays? "

well geffy - think about it (yes - I know it's hard). Gay couples are just like hetero couples. They want to marry and have the same status as you and your wife (assuming you are married).

You on the other hand believe that they shouldn't be allowed this right to marriage. Perhaps you feel that gays are less equal than you - not good enough, or maybe they are perverts, or evil in the eyes of your god. regardless of what motivates your beliefs - there is no denying that gays are being denied rights - including the right to marry - much like interracial marriage was against the law for quite a long time.

pgericson 9 months ago

@geoffcutler I'll take this on:

tolerance is defined as having a permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own
you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman
you are unwilling to accept that two men or two women can be married even though these individuals hold the opinion that marriage can be between people of the same sex
since you do not have a permissive attitude towards their opinion and practice you are intolerant of gay marriage.

[This is not to say that you should tolerate gay marriage: that is a value judgment. Intolerance is simply a descriptor of your value that there is only one correct view of marriage.]

Thatcher 9 months ago

pgericson-- "since you do not have a permissive attitude towards their opinion and practice you are intolerant of gay marriage." Using your four-tiered argument, is one who does not have a "permissive attitude" towards polygamy "intolerant" of polygamy? If not, why not? Cheers!

JimRussell44 9 months ago

Noluv4thugs, I did NOT compare the Holocaust to gay marriage, you did. I used the example of the German people being supportive of Hitler as he rose to power to point out that mere public support of a person, position or ideology does not automatically make that person, position or ideology a good thing. I think that you have made a very big leap to arrive at that conclusion. That is a shame, because your comment further states that you are at least tolerant of same sex marriage. Like you, I'm very tired of the ignorance and stupidity found in the comments made by some here on this web site. Unlike your assumption, I'm not going to call you "ignorant" or "shameful". I'll assume that you merely misunderstood my comment.

pgericson 9 months ago

@Thatcher - yes they would be intolerant of polygamy. Societies have 'standards' of what is accepted [tolerated] and what is not [not tolerated]. These standards are constantly evolving. For example, a recent Gallop poll found that Americans are split down the middle regarding their tolerance for same sex marriage. I'll bet that the result would have been vastly different ten years ago. I would expect that adults under thirty, as a group, are more tolerant of gay marriage than those over fifty. Some societies are more tolerant of polygamy than others: in many countries, I would wager, the intolerance is so great that laws have been passed banning multiple spouses. Same as the law banning same sex marriage in NC. :)

Thatcher 9 months ago

pgericson--I applaud your intellectual honesty and consistency. Very rare here. While I disagree with you on this topic, I respect your opinion. You have been civil in all your posts. You should post more. Cheers!

geoffcutler 9 months ago

If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, how does that make you intolerant of gays? That is the question. While you accurately define tolerance, that doesn't make one intolerant because they believe the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.

I am not intolerant of my daughter or my wife if I believe that the boy scouts are for boys and the girl scouts for girls. It is just my opinion. I don't call you intolerant because you don't believe in my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. I just don't agree with your opinion.

By the way, this is a devil's advocate question. My opinion on the subject is that I don't really have one.

Thatcher 9 months ago

geoff-- Stop being so reasonable...it will drive liberals insane. Cheers!

pgericson 9 months ago

geoffcutler - Oops... I thought your belief in marriage between men and women held for all men and women not just you and your wife. If you are OK with men marrying men if that is what works for them than you are not intolerant. If you don't want to allow men to marry men than you are intolerant of gay marriage: in short tolerance abides by the old axioms - different strokes for different folks and/or to each his own. Which is it [being the devil's advocate since I have also not advocated my views on gay marriage].

pgericson 9 months ago

@Thacher - I don't believe I shared my views on gay marriage or polygamy: I was only discussing the implications of the word tolerance in these situations. I am personally tolerant of somethings and intolerant of others and have no problem with this..

Thatcher 9 months ago

pgericson-- Understood. I was using your 4-step argument to establish that if one accepts gay marriage, one must accept polygamy...lest one be labeled "intolerant." Cheers!

geoffcutler 9 months ago

The question isn't what one thinks about gay marriage or gay culture. Most people are tolerant to point that they could care less who other people love, no matter how they voted on the amendment. But, they believe marriage is about a man and a woman. If you believe something, you can't be described as anything other than that belief. In other words, because A, does not necessarily mean B. And again, are you intolerant because you don't agree with me? I don't think so, and I wouldn't attempt to push that line of reasoning in debate because I'd lose. It's faulty logic, a fallacy, but one that's being widely attempted (and may ultimately succeed) to win what's become just another political football.

blake 9 months ago

Geoff, one might consider having the view that marriage is only between a man and woman does not equal intolerance. However, the act of voting for amendment one goes beyond just having that belief. These believers then went out and actually voted to restrict or infringe on somebody else's belief. That is where the fuzzy line is crossed. I suppose you can say the people are not intolerant but the action was.... but then we are back to faulty logic.

nothingspecial 9 months ago

So perfectly said, Mr. Cutler!

geoffcutler 9 months ago

The amendment one vote was not framed as a vote against gay culture or gay marriage. It was an opportunity for voters to express the opinion that marriage was between a man and a woman. Nothing more or less. The accusation that voters who voted for amendment one must then be "intolerant" of gays is an attempt to assign a motive to the voters who voted that way. That's when logical reasoning falls apart, for no-one can assume to know anything more about the motives of the pro-amendment one voter other than the action of that vote expressed their belief in what marriage is.

Noluv4thugs 9 months ago

@Jim Russell "The citizens of Germany in the late 1930's seemed to like a certain fuhrer and supported his ideological goals." What exactly were Hitler's ideological goals then?? His ideological goals didn't lead to the mass murder of millions of people??? Whether you intended to or not there is a comparison. That's my opinion and I will leave it at that. Sorry for saying you are ignorant. Hitler and the Holocaust are touchy subjects with me, but that doesn't give me the right to call you names.

JimRussell44 9 months ago

Noluv4thugs, I would hope that Hitler and the Holocaust are touchy subjects for everyone. I was attempting to use a real life event to make my point. Perhaps I should have used something more abstract, like people who believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny or Santa. Just because mass numbers of people believe in these things does not make them fact. People who believe these things are expressing their OPINION. That opinion does not infringe on the rights of those who do not share that opinion. However, when these people demand that a law be made that states that the only opinion allowed is that the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa are real, then they HAVE infringed on the rights of others to believe that they do not exist. I have a tough time understanding why supposedly intelligent people cannot grasp this concept.

pgericson 9 months ago

@Jim- I believe the problem lies in not wanting to be labeled as "intolerant" when behaving in an intolerant manner. Individuals want to be seen as being tolerant because that is normally viewed as a positive attribute while concomitantly restricting the choices of others. Rather than simply saying that certain values - say that marriage must be between a man and a woman - are so integral to American society that conformity is required and that intolerance is justified, they seek to redefine the word intolerance. I'm personally intolerant of may practices others seek to engage in, racial profiling for example. Bottom line.. is OK to be intolerant if you strongly hold that your beliefs and practices should be be accepted by all.... but don't try to have it both ways.

blake 9 months ago

Geoff, you are rewriting history. Amendment one went beyond an expression of affirmation for heterosexual marriage. It prohibited recognition of even civil unions. As such, it was (in your words) a "vote against gay culture or gay marriage". I will give you there were lots of motivations, some homophobia, some religious fundamentalism, and some ignorance as to the real effect of the amendment. Regardless of the individual motivation, the vote was an act of intolerance.

geoffcutler 9 months ago

The language that voters saw on the ballot reads:[7]

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

That's what I saw.

Noluv4thugs 9 months ago

Get 'em Geoff!!

blake 9 months ago

Geoff, let's take a hypothetical. Go back the the early 20th Century, during the suffrage movement. If there was a constitutional amendment that the only recognized vote would come from the male sex. Would you argue this is an affirmation of a man's right to vote? Would you argue it has nothing to do with a woman's right to vote? How can you state that amendment one was not framed as a vote against gay marriage? It is implicit in that one sentence. Are you defending intolerance now with just plain ingnorance? Did you not understand it was a vote against gay marriage? I mean no offense, I just do not get your logic here.

Thatcher 9 months ago

pgericson (6 hours, 3 min. ago)-- "They seek to redefine the word intolerance." I suspect that many who oppose gay marriage may likewise think that the proponents thereof are trying to redefine the word "marriage," especially as taught and understood by the church for 2000 years. Cheers!