The only thing one should ever be intolerant of is intolerance itself. And I hold that sort of intolerance to be a good and necessary thing, and will not apologise for it. Tolerance for viewpoints which espouse intolerance and hatred of others is not a good tolerance! Listening to people who will lead one down 'the wrong path' is not conducive to 'intellectual growth', especially when those viewpoints tend only toward hatred, repression, and intolerance.
.
It is good, naturally, to know what the 'opposition' is thinking (in order to best be able to combat it), and to that extent, it is good to hear 'opposing viewpoints'. One must also consider, as John Stuart Mill rightly pointed out, that it should not be taken for granted that one is always correct in one's opinions, and that--therefore--hearing opposing viewpoints may provide one the "opportunity to exchange truth for error" and so improve one's lot in life. But only an outright moral relativism demands that all opposing viewpoints--however inane or even virulently intolerant--be granted equal weight with more sane viewpoints. This is the really big problem with the American mass media these days. Clearly, some sort of standard, or discretion, is needed, unless we want to forever wander in a morass of "moral relativism." This will only, in the end, allow the evils of hatred and intolerance to triumph and spread their virus-like plague.
.
I am not 'proclaiming' myself as a 'wise teacher' here ... I am very much still a student in this, as in all areas of learning and growth. Any honest human being should always freely admit that. We should always still be learning and growing. But we should never allow ourselves to 'grow' in the direction of any viewpoint or way of thinking which promotes hatred or intolerance of others (save as discussed above). And any self-proclaimed 'teacher' who tries to 'teach' in the direction of hatred and intolerance of others only leads astray, toward the Gates of Hell. And you may be assured that I myself will not follow!
.
Intolerant attitudes, and opinions which promote hatred, should, in my opinion, be rooted out as if they were the Plague! This is how Nazism became possible in Germany in the 1930s--because no-one dared to speak up and combat it. All were apparently afraid of seeming to be "intolerant." As shown above, however, there are indeed some opinions about which one should be "intolerant"--those which promote hatred and persecution of others.
.
I will never be convinced that it is to my advantage--in terms of intellectual growth and learning--to listen to and accept any viewpoint which has as its basis an intolerance and hatred for anyone. Of such viewpoints, I will always hold it right and proper that they should be combated as if they were a deadly alien virus--that one should never give them a moment's room to breathe!
.
As is so often said (but so rarely learned from), if we fail to learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. Think Nazism here. And it is abundantly clear (or should be) that Nazism succeeded because too many otherwise good and decent people remained silent, and did nothing to combat it, thus allowing it to flourish in their midst, like an insidiously hidden cancer, eating away at the social organism. Instead, they should have exercised a proper intolerance of the virulent hatred by rooting it up, root and branch, and consigning it to the funeral-pyre of history's fatal missteps.
.
As far as concerns each individual human being now alive, there are two basic choices here: one can choose to be on the side of tolerance for those who differ from you, or, one can choose to be intolerant of them. But those who are intolerant of others, and here's the really important part: who also translate that intolerance into official socio-political action and persecution against those who are perceived or thought to be different--they need to be earnestly resisted and fought against!
.
It all 'boils down' to one very basic legal principle, enshrined in both our Constitution and our entire system of jurisprudence:
.
Majorities do not have the moral or legal right to dictate to minorities!
.
John Stuart Mill, already mentioned above, wrote passionately and eloquently against what he termed the "tyranny of the majority," arguing that majorities absolutely do not have the moral or legal right to impose their will on minorities, simply by virtue of superior numbers, or by any self-congratulatory (and often false) sense of moral superiority. Mill's ideas have been enormously influential, and he is often quoted by those among us who love human liberty.
.
Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom understood the idea of human liberty so well, would very much understand what I am saying here, and would certainly agree with it in principle.
.
In a pure democracy (otherwise known as 'mob rule'), yes--majorities do rule, and do dictate their will to unpopular minorities. But this nation is not, and never has been, a pure democracy. This is why we are (ostensibly) a nation of laws--not a nation of majority rule. We are a Republic, a representative democracy, not a pure Democracy. In this nation, we have--in theory at least--the rule of law, not the rule of majorities. Both our laws, as well as our elected representatives, execute the will of the people. But this system has crucially-important safeguards built in, to ensure that minorities and their rights do not get trampled upon.
.
Majorities, can, after all, sometimes be dead wrong, and even very harmful of the minorities they choose to persecute, torture, and even put to death. Think Nazism again here. It is our hallowed Constitution and system of laws which are (again, ostensibly) designed to protect minorities, not only from the tyranny of the government, but from the social tyranny of majorities within society. The founders of this nation, wise and far-seeing as they were, specifically wrote protections into our Constitution and system of laws to protect every single individual human being among us in the free exercise of conscience (provided no other person is harmed in the process)--even though, and especially if, that conscience should prove to be unfashionable with those majorities then in actual power.
.
It is absolutely a venomous and pernicious lie that majorities have any legal or moral right in this nation, under color of law, to impose their will upon dissenting minorities. If that is the case, then we are no longer the freedom-loving United States of America, and must instead call ourselves by some different name--such as "the United Fascist States of America." I am serious here. I am not joking.
