Opinion: Let’s become tolerant of intolerance

Is there a way to overcome religious intolerance? In America, the question holds critical importance because American society is highly religious and remarkably diverse and – on religious matters – considerably more politically polarized than 25 years ago.

The United States prides itself on welcoming people of different faiths. The Bill of Rights begins with a guarantee of freedom of religion.

Over the last generation Americans have grown more comfortable talking about race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, but not faith. It’s too personal and divisive – too explosive. We haven’t completely figured out how to conduct a productive conversation among people whose cherished religious beliefs – exclusive God-given truths – cannot be reconciled.

Many Americans harbor unfavorable attitudes toward those who harbor different beliefs, notably Muslims and Mormons, but also evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews, and the most disdained group of all, atheists.

The Bill of Rights also promotes freedom of speech – even hateful speech. When it comes to free speech, it is always edifying to see how people deal with opinions, particularly religious opinions they despise.

Take for example, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. That name always gets folks’ blood boiling. Anyway, this group is based in Topeka, Kansas, and their point of view may reasonably be described as loathsome to most people in America.

Westboro’s philosophy is rooted in Marxism – Groucho Marxism. “Whatever it is, I’m against it,” Groucho sang in “Horse Feathers.” That pretty much sums up this ugly, hateful group. It seems to be anti-everything and is conspicuously anti-gay and anti-Semitic, and has gone the extra mile to earn the scorn and contempt of most Americans by picketing the funerals of soldiers and Marines killed in combat. It calls those deaths God’s punishment for America’s acceptance of homosexuality.

Since being obnoxious and intolerant does not violate the Constitution, and since these people are clearly beyond reasoned argument, and since there are so few of them, you might have thought that a wise response would be to ignore them. That’s what prudent people have sensibly urged. However, good, decent citizens– and more than a few indecent ones – have started gathering around to taunt the Topekans.

They do so in a manner that makes America an inspiration to the world: They shout sexually charged vulgarities and other choice insults and threats. These are not exactly teachable moments. Free expression has been reduced to distasteful simultaneous monologues between the bigoted and the crude.

“A free society must oppose absurd attempts to silence people and to suppress ideas or to ban books that disagree with us,” according to Michael Meyers, executive director of a major metropolitan civil rights coalition. “The fable of ‘protecting’ our children from the ‘hate speech’ is exactly the cry of those who have long opposed positive social and cultural change.”

Even so, isn’t hate speech deplorable? Some people define hate speech as an opinion they dislike, Mr. Myers said. Besides, he said, “hate speech is not unconstitutional or illegal.”

A censorious streak runs stubbornly through this country that regards itself as a bastion of tolerance. It has led to the removal of a billboard that challenged immigration policies and of another that quoted a biblical passage condemning homosexuality. It kept an antiwar message from being put up in Times Square during the 2004 Republican National Convention. It stripped shelters of notices about a free health care information line for gay men and lesbians. Many other examples abound.

Besides being “lazy and disreputable,” censorship can boomerang, Mr. Myers cautioned. Let it prevail and there will be nothing to top other towns and cities from suppressing the speech that we revere – that in favor of pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-defense of marriage act, plus many other examples.

Even though we may hate each other’s hate speech, we must not become intolerant of intolerance. When we do that we get on that slippery slope that is a very real threat to our republic, and put democracy and the free exchange of ideas, regardless of how loathsome they may be, at great risk.