Veni Quid Veniat

     The world has no shortage of well-intentioned individuals who loudly condemn what they view as the intolerance of religion, decrying and renouncing all forms of religion. However, in their refusal to tolerate intolerance they themselves engage in intolerance. These eidolons of universal tolerance insist on tolerance for some things and intolerance for others. Although these crusaders are loath to admit it, just as those they condemn choose which actions will be tolerated and which will not, they must choose which intolerance is condemned and which is not. This in itself is not a problem—every one of us every day makes decisions about what is right and what is wrong, and none of us give it a second thought.

     A difficult problem arises, however, when one examines the basis of this refusal to tolerate certain forms of intolerance. On the surface, these crusaders will boldly proclaim “right” and “wrong,” citing examples and lauding the former while condemning the later. When pressed. the definitions become much less clear. Prominent atheist and Harvard Law professor (although in the modern era one could argue that the two descriptors are synonymous) Alan Dershowitz admitted that he didn't know what was right. He claimed to be able to discern wrong, but what basis he could use for his discernment is unclear. It is likely that his basis for determining wrong is the same as that for determining right among those divorced from ultimate reality, that is, no basis but the preference of the individual. In reality, the issue is a matter of preference on the part of the speaker. One must choose which forms of intolerance to refuse to tolerate—after all, the decision not to tolerate anything is intolerant by its nature—and that decision, in the absence of the teachings of intolerant religion, must be based on the whims of the one making the decision, not on eternal principles. A decision made on such a basis has no authority for anyone but the one making it—it should have no more weight for listeners than a statement about the speakers preference in food, movies, or interior decorating. At a societal level, as these principles are being applied, right and wrong are thus determined by many personal preferences taken as an aggregate—in short, majority vote. No one in his right mind, after viewing the catalog of past horrendous actions that seemed right to the majority at the time but now seem so glaringly wrong, could argue that this is any basis for morality.

     Without a basis for morality besides “I like it” or “I don't like it” (whatever rubric one uses, whether Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or any other ethical standard based in human reason, it is, at its heart, only preference) what is left for establishing a code of conduct for society is nothing but the simplistic “because I say so” from the majority. What is so thoroughly despised in our parents some would have us accept as the sole basis for laws and government. This philosophy cannot allow any rights outside of those recognized by the preference of the majority. If there is no higher authority than will of the majority in a very real sense rights are granted, not by the creator or another higher authority who society ought to recognize, but by society itself. One could argue, then, that in the 1850's a black man, as Chief Justice Taney stated, had no rights that society was bound to respect because society did not choose to grant those rights to him. Similarly, a Jew in Nazi Germany would not have any rights other than those granted by society around him—and society, as was so tragically demonstrated, chose to grant very, very few. Today society in the United States grants no rights to the unborn, and one can only imagine which group will be next.

     A society cannot exist with this as its standard for law and government. Those who advocate for refusing to tolerate what they define as intolerance in reality enforce a form of intellectual tyranny just as oppressive within its sphere as any concocted by history's infamous tyrants and dictators. Indeed, because this standard of right and wrong is based in nothing more than the whim of the individual yet held with as much adamant fervor as any religious belief it establishes a precedent that could be used for horrendous oppression. In the name of tolerance they have assaulted the foundations of freedom in America. By establishing the idea that rights are based not on changeless principles but on the whim of society, and by beating those who step outside of the rights society chooses to grant back into line, they instead lay a foundation for future tyranny.