Beck is a second-year international development studies
student.
By Kristen Beck
In response to Ben Shapiro’s column “Tolerance makes
for false god,” (Viewpoint, Feb. 13), I wish to say that I
have been offended. Shapiro declares that “it is time for
those who espouse tolerance to start practicing what they
preach.” Well I wholeheartedly agree, but unfortunately
Shapiro does not understand his own words.
Shapiro expects us to be sympathetic to Laura
Schlessinger’s being “berated with a media
hailstorm.” Schlessinger made very offensive and hurtful
claims, attacking homosexual citizens. She was acting under the
protection of the First Amendment but so was the media in decrying
her statements.
Shapiro tells us (sarcastically), “Never mind that
Schlessinger watered down the Biblical view.” Well, so what?
Just as the Bill of Rights guarantees Schlessinger the right to
express her beliefs and practice her own religion, it also protects
others who have differing beliefs and wish to challenge those of
Schlessinger. Shapiro assumes that tolerance means protecting the
freedom of religion, but he has overlooked the fact that it also
means protecting those who choose to live their lives differently
than Schlessinger’s own moral code would dictate.
Shapiro then wants us to accept John Ashcroft’s views on
abortion and affirmative action because his “Christianity
dictated his views on the issues.” After that reasoning, I
say that questioning Ashcroft’s position is even more
justified. Our country was founded under the principle of the
separation of church and state. While this does not mean church
cannot practice within the state, it does mean that church cannot
be used to dictate how the state should be run. Shapiro attacks the
“liberal media” for accusing Ashcroft of being
“unable to put his personal views aside in order to enforce
the law.” But didn’t Shapiro do just that?
Shapiro then gives a lengthy description of Clinton’s
wrongdoing and then chastises the tolerant members of society for
not condemning him. Interestingly enough, he even compares the
“tolerants” to the Republicans because I’m sure
many Republicans would take offense at being called
“intolerant.”
But I ask, what would Shapiro have society do? Does he suggest
Clinton should have been killed, maimed or tortured? What would
have been an acceptable response to Clinton’s
“misdeeds” in his eyes? I would also like to point out
that the media has been flooded with editorials and articles
attacking Clinton and many of his policies and actions in office.
This clearly contradicts Shapiro’s assessment that
Clinton’s actions are being ignored.
Shapiro is also seriously misguided in his assessment of what
“tolerance” means. He thinks it means that pedophilia
and murder are to be accepted. He says that it means that there is
no such thing as right or wrong. I think it is Shapiro who is
intolerant.
Tolerance means allowing people to live their lives in whatever
way they choose in pursuit of their own happiness ““ as long
as they do not harm others in doing so. It means allowing Muslims,
Buddhists and Christians to live freely together. It means
accepting that some people find love among members of their own
gender. And it means allowing people to both express their views
and challenge those of others.