The View from Here: Beth Palmer on MormonTimes.com: Screaming for tolerance

I've always hated the word \"tolerance.\" I know there are more benign definitions, but whenever I hear someone use that word in reference to how they feel about people of different religions or ethnicities, I cringe. To my ears, it sounds like, \"Things would be better if they weren't around, but I'm willing to put up with them because I'm such a good person.\"I'm not meaning to cast aspersions here; most people who use that word probably don't think that way at all, but that's how it sounds to me. In my mind, you tolerate the sound of jackhammers at the construction site next door and the inevitable month-long stretch of sub-20-degree weather during a Chicago winter. You don't tolerate people; you love them — for the things that make them different as well as the things you share.Yet even with all my inherent distaste for the idea that we should all act the part of the martyr, selflessly putting up with people who don't vote the way we do or look the way we do or worship the way we do, I'd actually be pretty happy to see some tolerance practiced right about now.I certainly haven't seen any degree of it exhibited by those who've chosen to boycott Whole Foods grocery stores because its co-founder and CEO wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that spoke out against a government takeover of the health-care system. Shortly thereafter, Facebook groups and blogs emerged decrying the chain's \"deceived\" progressiveness and calling for boycotts and pickets of the market.Why? Because they disagree with the owner's politics. This isn't a matter of avoiding a store because you don't like how it treats its employees or because its goods are made by children in sweat shops. Those are principled stands. This is infantile, playground politics dressed up as a noble cause.And the other side of the political spectrum is no better. Ever since President Barack Obama was elected, we've seen a ridiculous level of fear-mongering and racing to set up barriers between \"us\" and \"them\" from those on the right. For proof, look no further than Glenn Beck's divisive \"We Surround Them\" campaign, which implies that conservatives are the only people who worship God or believe that America is good and that laws and justice are integral parts of our society.Think about it for longer than it takes to jerk your knee, though, and you'll realize that just because someone doesn't believe that a principle should be supported and maintained in the same way you do doesn't mean they don't, in fact, embrace the same principle.Yet that's the kind of attitude commonly exhibited these days by extremists of all political persuasions. The divisiveness is rather succinctly summed up in an e-mail circulated after the election stating that \"our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences, and go on our own ways.\"When did this happen? When did we as a nation become so collectively terrified of engaging in debate, of listening to those on the opposite side of an issue with even the smallest degree of willingness to believe they might just have a point?We should all know better than that — and yes, I understand that believing this means I must be willing to listen to the Whole Foods boycotters and the \"We\" joiners who find nobility in surrounding \"Them\" so that I can learn what it is in their stances that I'm missing. I'm sure most of them believe they are indeed doing right by their consciences, and at least in that we could find some common ground.Yet the way they're reacting looks nothing but counterproductive to me. If the only way we're willing to respond to people on the other side of the ideological fence is to run as far away from them as quickly as we're able, where will we end up? If our response to someone willing to state an opposing viewpoint from our own is a quest to drive them out of business, what's the next step after that, and where will it take us?At least in theory, ours is a nation built on those ideas' antithesis — that dissenting voices should not be silenced, and that every person should be free to believe what they will and act responsibly upon those ideals.I get that it's hard; in an era of cable news stations and a seemingly infinite number of print news sources willing to relay the news of the day through whatever lens is the most natural fit to our eyes, it's very easy to tune out any voice whose tone sounds like dissent. But doing so is as dangerous as it is unproductive.As one of my favorite characters said on \"Sports Night\" about a decade ago, \"If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you.\"Principled stands absolutely have their place, and conviction and honesty will never cease to be vital to public discourse. But inherent in our obligation to take principled stands is our obligation to turn a respectful ear toward others' principled stands. Odds are, we're all at least a little bit right and a little bit wrong, and we'll all learn from each other when we finally bother to listen.Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that my semantic distaste for \"tolerance\" may be misplaced. Perhaps when it comes to ideals held so close to the heart, tolerance really is the best we can do. Even if it isn't, it's got to be better than this.