Nothing is more valuable today than tolerance. Or so we think. Everywhere we turn, we’re told to embrace the idea that anyone’s idea, lifestyle or opinion is valid. It’s okay for anyone to believe and practice anything. Unless you believe it okay to disagree with someone. Here is precisely where our modern definition of tolerance breaks down.

It’s a simple concept. This definition of tolerance is simply illogical. You cannot take the opposite logical conclusion of this definition of tolerance and still hold to the original definition. What I mean is, if it is okay for everyone to believe any and everything, then there is no room for disagreement. If there is no room for disagreement, it is not possible for anyone to believe anything.

Here we run into the issue of close-mindedness. While we hold tolerance as the trait of highest virtue, close-mindedness is the greatest of all evils (probably because its inadvisable to view anything else as evil). Isn’t that in and of itself close-minded?

Simply put, the current definition of tolerance is acceptance of everything. However, if you do not accept everything you cannot be accepted. This definition breaks down at its core. Perhaps this definition of tolerance somewhere comes from a healthy desire to embrace ideas different from our own. But what we’ve failed to understand is that embracing, understanding and loving do not necessitate agreeing.

Feel free to disagree with me, just offer me the same privilege. In the words attributed to Voltaire, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”