Reply #47: tolerance, and what it means

[iverglas]

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., lashed out at Durbin's criticism during floor debate. "We hear so much from the other side about tolerance," said Santorum. "Where is the tolerance for people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years?"

"Tolerance" means recognizing people's right to think what they like, and do what they like in matters personal to them, no matter how unpopular their beliefs and actions are.

Religious tolerance, for instance, means recognizing people's right to believe in the need for human sacrifices to the gods, and even to expound that belief in public. It does not mean allowing them to engage in human sacrifice.

And tolerance does not mean being bound to place people with beliefs that are contrary to the values of the society - usually, as expressed in a constitution - in positions of authority when it can be expected that they will use their authority to compel others to act according to those beliefs.

As the article says about this nominee:

The views expressed by Mr. Holmes about reproductive rights and other issues of critical importance to women are far outside any mainstream understanding of constitutional values.

A person who believed, for religious reasons or just out of plain orneriness, that women should be subservient to men could be an appropriate choice for the bench IF s/he made it clear that this belief was relevant only to his/her personal life and that s/he did NOT propose that it be applied, as a matter of public policy, to other people's lives.

Such a statement would be much more believable, of course, if it had a history. Making it for the first time when one is nominated for the bench might not be too credible. And regardless of the sincerity of the intention expressed, it is always reasonable to question whether a nominee with such firm beliefs, beliefs that are contrary to the accepted public policy, would be capable of carrying out his/her stated intention.

In something as absolutely crucial as the equality rights of half the population (or more), a pretty high level of confidence in the sincerity of the intention to give everyone a fair hearing and the capacity to carry that intention out would seem to be needed.

One might think that there are quite a few other candidates who would offer a higher level of that confidence, and be at least equally qualified in other respects.

It is disingenuous in the extreme for Santorum or anyone else to use the liberal commitment to "tolerance" as an argument to coerce liberals into agreeing to hand authority to someone who is not committed to the societal (constitutional) value -- not just the liberal value -- of equal treatment.

Liberals are tolerant of other people's deeply held personal convictions, and idiosyncratic quirks. NOT of other people's use of authority to coerce others to live by those convictions or quirks.