Essay: On Tolerance

On Tolerance

Our society has always been divided up into two: the side of the majority and that of the minority. They may be separated by the ideals they choose to hold on to, by the faith that they stand on, by the culture that may be their grounds for difference, or any other that may mark their uniqueness to the other.
All throughout history, the world has progressed from the oppression of the minority to the gradual consideration given to them. In the past, people were killed for being different from most others. Usually this difference gave rise to a conflict between these two factions and obviously the side with the greater number and strength overpowers the few. In our present times, we try to address the mistakes that happened in the past by becoming more lenient toward those different from us. We now see the minority as more or less equally treated with the majority. Most of the time, we see special consideration and treatment given to those who choose to be different out of respect to their choice. All this respect has been healthy and essential for a growing civilization such as the world we have today, but when we start to see a kink to this system, this demand for respect and tolerance might be in the way of seeing it through for the good of everybody.
Our modern world of democracy and freedom has always taught us that each is entitled to his own opinion and choice, with the set of rights granted us by our sophisticated society, but what if one’s choice harms that of another?
A great example that can be cited to the flaw of this respect system is the global stand on smoking and the freedom smokers have to enjoy their ‘rights’. As everybody knows, smoking harms the body by destroying the respiratory system through inhaling smoke, and the damage brought about by this activity not only falls to the individual who chose to indulge himself in his choice but also to those innocent people around him. A world survey determined that the number of people who chose not to smoke was still greater than that of those who did. Does this mean that the majority bends for the minority and along the way suffer damage they did not deserve? Another study indicated that the number of people who were harmed by lung cancer but are not smokers themselves is growing, at almost equal with that of those who only reap what they sow. A common known fact about lung cancer is that the severity of lung cancer eventually suffered by second-hand smokers (passive smokers, or the bystanders around the smoker) is greater than the damage sustained by first-hand smokers (or the people who actually smoke). Knowing this fact, we are all exposed flatly not only to lung cancer (as grave as it is) but also to other not-so-common respiratory infections that are as deadly as the former.
We’ve read this topic discussed in health magazines time and again but what kept me on this subject is the fact that the people who choose to smoke and even fight for their ‘right’ (for they say they have the ‘right’ to choose to pollute the environment and destroy their physical well-being in the process) disregard the fact that the people around them also have rights, specifically the right to have and live in a clean and smoke-free environment. What they seem to forget is that this is not only a fight of who gets to do what freely, but of who gets to suffer what even without having done anything to deserve it.
Allowing the minority to continue to endanger the welfare of the majority is just absurd. This goes beyond respect and steps over the line of stupidity. This tolerance that we give so freely put the majority in harm’s way, reflecting a society that chooses to please and be politically correct than being protective and geared towards the welfare of all.
Another great example of the flaws in this demand for understanding is the new ‘No Religious Activities in School’ policy approved by the American Department of Education to be issued in their public schools. This recent rule prevents students to practice their faith in school and allows the school to give punishments to students who gather in groups to talk and act on any practice relating to their faith. According to the US Department of Education, this new rule merely emphasizes the difference between state and religion. This was supposedly an answer to complains of the non-Christian minority of parents and students against the prevalent religious activity of Christian communities in schools.
Predominantly Christian, students are now banned from talking of their faith to other students, and showing any religious inclination toward students of other religions. This greatly affects the Christian community of students since their faith is to be lived by daily, that in everything they do, their faith should be a great part of it. This new rule smothers the very foundations of Christianity, which is sharing the Word of God and praying to God in every chance available, and is, on the other hand, quite favorable to the Atheist community, since they have no faith to practice at all. If this rule was to be for the good of all (since policies are made in the purpose of making life better), why then is it suppressing the student’s moral choices? Should millions of Christian children live under the fear of being caught standing on their faith while a handful of non-Christian students savor the absence of ‘annoying’ little clusters? If the policy were to be for the good of all, it would have left the majority and the minority alone to practice their faith anytime as long as they do not force it upon others and maintain a sense of respect towards each other. If it were to be for the welfare of everybody, it should not have chosen one side over the other.
Sadly, times have now changed to favor the minority over the majority. In compensation for the narrow-mindedness of the past, the present tries to please the once slave-driven, persecuted minority. It values the demand of the minority for respect and compromises the majority to do the former’s bidding. In everyone’s efforts to be politically correct and ‘fair’ to everyone else, they have set aside morality and welfare to be considered understanding and respectful. In a desire to go the way ‘sophistication and the modernization of our times lead to’, they disregard the need to be truly just and fair. I guess this gradual tilting of our world to ‘social diversity and consideration’ is the only way to go as pointed by the changing times.