What is tolerance?

I'm concerned that my tolerance level of late has become a bit more intolerant in this era of radical extremism and officially sanctioned divisiveness.

Tolerance is a pleasant-sounding word I often hear tossed around, especially from those so quick to use it when feeling superior, or who have a selfish need to shame others into their point of view.

Should we truly expect tolerance from others, or is that privilege reserved for a relative minority of the self-anointed elite?

It makes perfect sense to say all of us should indeed strive to be tolerant of our nation's many differences in belief, appearance and actions. Most religions claim to believe one answer to peace on Earth lies in tolerating each other's differences. Yet even Christianity, with all its internal diversity, can find it difficult to tolerate each sect's views and practices.

And when it comes to atheists, why should one person's devotion to the Bible be seen as an intolerable belief by another equally fallible person? Why not simply allow others to hold fervent opinions and feelings and expect them to treat you likewise?

I tossed the question out during last week's coffee group. Everyone agreed tolerance is an admirable individual quality toward which we all should strive. Yet why do I continually witness so much intolerance from those quick to pretend to be supremely tolerant?

I've never had a problem being tolerant of those from different races, faiths and cultures, unless I see them as a person or group that wants to harm others who are different than they.

I'm not tolerant with such pretenders-to-tolerance when it's so easy to recognize their bigotry. Wait a second, in order to be seen as tolerant, shouldn't I simply ignore their hypocrisy?

Also, should Americans be taken seriously who subscribe to a political ideology that continually claims to embrace acceptance and tolerance yet publicly berates and slanders those with contrasting philosophies?

Can I legitimately be considered as tolerant if I participate in a radical, even violent, group that publicly insists my race "matters," thereby implying others do not? Shouldn't tolerance extend to all races and cultures best served by expressing brotherly love and acceptance for others?

Perhaps the capacity for human tolerance is framed by each person's spiritual line beyond which society finds it acceptable to then become intolerant. If so, how deeply into each individual's selfishness, greed and misbehavior is this line drawn?

Should I tolerate rudeness or criminal behavior simply because doing so is deemed socially noble? If so, I'm failing miserably.

Robert Green Ingersoll said, "tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." I like that, sounds so honorable and simple, although woefully unrealistic in instances where human nature and fallibility is involved.

With a national election at hand, do those who enjoy viewing themselves as tolerant types reveal their authentic colors by publicly announcing a willingness to abandon friendships with anyone who votes or feels different than they? Would that "my-way or no-way" attitude be considered "progressive" or "regressive" tolerance?

OK, at this point I've grown intolerant of simply writing the word "tolerant." Still, most of these matters involve real life scenarios we face daily.

The issue lies at the forefront of public concern of late because intolerance is ripping ugly tears in the fabric of our national unity. So you tell me, valued reader: Does one person or ideological group get to define for all others in this supposedly free society what's considered tolerable and what isn't?

In search of a story

Northwest Arkansas reporter Tracy Neal tried his best over the past month to produce two meaningful news stories without receiving much information at all.

I'm talking about his initial piece that said Arkansas State Police were investigating Glenn Latham, a former deputy and independent candidate for Benton County sheriff.

The story's second paragraph said Benton County Prosecutor Nathan Smith confirmed the investigation was underway but declined to explain beyond that. No why, when, what or how.

So Neal did what a persistent reporter does. He went directly to Latham to ask what was happening, but Latham had no comment.

Then the state police, who'd told the reporter to contact the prosecutor for information, also offered no information.

Undaunted, Neal turned to Benton County's Chief Deputy Shawn Holloway, a Republican running against Latham for the sheriff's position. Perhaps Neal could find answers there. But Holloway couldn't be reached.

A few weeks later, Neal wrote a follow-up story saying that Smith wouldn't be charging Latham with anything following the mystery investigation. Still no details other than the undisclosed witness involved in whatever this involved was recanting her initial statement and investigators found insufficient evidence to charge the candidate with committing any crime.

Another typical day in the life of Tracy Neal, a tenacious newspaper reporter who found it difficult to do his best job without so much as a relevant fact. I'm also feeling sympathy for candidate Latham who, after the headlines, is apparently guilty of nothing.

------------v------------

Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.

Editorial on 10/15/2016

Upcoming Events