Rather than spoil the argument and intricacies of this fine book, allow me to capture the gist of its thesis and contextualize its timely importance...
Few values are more essential or central to the healthy functioning and freedom of America than toleration (or as originally formulated, "liberty of conscience"). Yet arguably no value has been more distorted in the modern age, especially among intellectuals.
Read historical comments by the Founders on the issue of toleration and you quickly find that it denoted the freedom to disagree vigorously, openly, and persistently so long as the disagreeing parties did not stoop to coercion or physical violence. Toleration was valuable precisely because it meant that competing and even flatly opposed views could be--and should be--debated openly, using the fullness of reason and persuasion to struggle toward a better and more precise understanding of truth (or the healthiest consensus, if you prefer). While popular culture presently believes, for example, that discussions of religion have no place in the popular sphere and constitute a violation of the separation of church and state, in fact most of the Founders intended to allow and protect public discussions of such values and beliefs precisely so they could grow and be sobered (not marginalized or turned reactionary) by the diversity of participants in the discussion. Ben Franklin, for example, said tax payer dollars should be used to build a public pulpit in the open city square so that anyone who wanted to preach his religion publicly--"even if he comes to preach Mohammed"--could do so. Startling how differently that suggestion would be viewed now, isn't it?
Today, "agree to disagree" (the popular phrase for toleration) has come to mean that the disagreeing parties should stop talking altogether before anyone gets offended. That is, in fact, a patently anti-intellectual sentiment, in no way conducive to refining one's beliefs or fostering better mutual understanding, yet intellectuals (academics in particular) routinely espouse it as a short-cut to reducing conflict. Many now also largely assume the existence of a "right not to be offended," which ironically requires a massive project of self-censorship for all people and is in no way conducive to free speech or a healthy democracy--a view that has been upheld with startling frequency by the judicial system.
What is the source of this profound shift in understanding the freedom and limits of expression? According to D. A. Carson, the root is a profound shift in the notion of toleration: from "accepting the existence of different views" (that is, acknowledging the right of others to dissent and argue their own case freely too) to "acceptance of different views" (not just recognizing that different opinions exist, but ceasing to oppose or critique them). Put differently, tolerance once meant that you formed strong opinions about good and bad, but refrained from denying others the right to reach different conclusions just as freely; but the new tolerance now holds that any value judgment--any stance that asserts one view is "better" or "more correct" than another--is "intolerant" and thus, indefensible and liable to punishment. On the basis of this new definition of tolerance, professors have been suspended, government officials have been fired, atheists have been expelled, preachers have been sued, employers have been fined, etc. solely for chafing the (subjective) sensibilities of others. While Carson concedes that active discrimination and injurious prejudice also exist and are legitimately liable to punishment, his point is that our society has become intolerant of a whole range of valid opinions that in no way encroach on others' rights or freedoms (except in terms of the fanciful "right not to be offended"). The ironic result is that merely dissenting, unpopular, or indelicate views are frequently penalized (that is, not tolerated) on the grounds that they are intolerant.
This is a real and pervasive problem. Yet it is very difficult to talk about productively or precisely because "tolerance" seems so plausibly virtuous that it may be a losing battle to even try to point up how it is misused. Yet Carson manages it well, speaking clearly and frankly, with well chosen examples from real cases to point up the damage repeatedly being done to our basic freedom of expression and our right to not be forced to act against our consciences (which is desirable even to an atheist, since conscience may as easily be rendered "personal convictions and values"). Carson is not saying we should be free to impose our consciences on others, but he is validly pointing out how often society now takes the side of the offended not merely by protecting his/her rights and resolving any relevant injury, but by actively forcing the "intolerant" person to act against his/her own conscience.
Although Carson doesn't fully explore it, this shift in the meaning of tolerance (and the special rhetorical power of calling a view "intolerant") is surely a major factor in the hyper-polarization of modern politics. The Left and the Right bandy accusations of "intolerance" (or its semantic cousin "discrimination") back and forth on various issues, but always to the same effect. It has become nearly impossible to have an intellectual discussion--even among supposed intellectuals--without every semblance of disagreement being translated into "proof" of the dissenter's "intolerant", "dogmatic", and/or "offensive" beliefs. That pattern of purely-rhetorical rebuttal (in which serious intellectual discussion is drowned out by the psychological/emotional/moral distress of those involved) is fast impoverishing our cultural intelligence about every other American value and the valid philosophical underpinnings of conservatism and liberalism. The average American respect for someone else's right to form an opinion has never been so low. And the average citizen's desire to form a strong personal ethics to guide his/her actions and improve the world has never been more lacking. D. A. Carson seems to have put his finger on a major source of those problems and the proliferation of political/rhetorical (not genuinely free and intellectual) modes of argumentation.
Some readers may chafe at Carson's supposition that a "disproportionate" amount of the new (intolerant) tolerance has been directed against Christianity. It's certainly debatable, though I suspect a review of recent legal cases centered on issues of "offensiveness," "intolerance," and "discriminatory beliefs" would turn up ample support for that view. Regardless, it isn't germane to the validity of his broader argument about the "intolerance of (the new) tolerance." Some readers might also chafe at what they may see as the "naive" style of some of Carson's arguments, since he is frank and unapologetic (but always fair and respectful) about his own Christian views. While it is unusual to encounter religious candor in a "scholarly" work, Carson isn't trying to write as an academic so much as a responsible, intelligent, well-informed citizen who is disconcerted by a cultural trend impinging on a vital American freedom (and dangerous to the religious and non-religious alike). His personal reflections on his beliefs will not strike readers as dogmatic, however. In fact, he devotes some space to criticizing the reactionary mode of certain (distorted) evangelical notions of tolerance, and cites legal cases in which atheists/non-Christians have also been wrongly abused by "the new tolerance." In fact, his style and approach--especially his religious candor--enrich the work as a whole, since his point is precisely that people can engage in constructive and broadly beneficial discussion even while candidly expressing their personal (and unavoidably exclusive) values, beliefs, and traditions. In short, this is clearly not just a book for a "Christian" or "religious" audience; it is an extremely thoughtful, well-argued, and important work on a pivotal (but increasingly muddied) facet of American values.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
$13.49
Get it as soon as Saturday, Apr 6
In Stock
+
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from other countries
Penguin
Scholarly and lucid, full of insights into and advice for the dilemma of our time
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on March 29, 2016
M APLIN
Good insights into mainstream Western culture
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 27, 2020