The Sept. 6 op-ed by Allen Johnson, “Tolerance requires private and public respect,” is an example of convoluting issues into a one-shot attempt to tackle too much in too short a space.
First, the Christian teaching of not being “unequally yoked with unbelievers” is not an intolerant expression, but was applied by his brother in a regrettable manner.
Second, “tolerance, reconciliation and unconditional love” does not mean being “nonjudgmental.”
Third, unconditional love means loving a person with self-sacrificing love despite differences and disagreements.
Fourth, disagreement does not mean intolerance, nor does tolerance mean surrendering disagreement.
Fifth, intolerance means not allowing what is not agreeable. By the way, who judges this?
The basis for confusion on tolerance is moral equivalence, which maintains that all moral standards are equally valid. Intolerance is to say one set of values and morals is better or truer than another. The result is a society where all views are valid and one truth doesn’t exist.
Johnson states that everyone should “acquiesce to the law of the land.” In a free Republic, the people have the right to challenge, protest, and change existing law through legal, peaceful, and representative means, not just accept it with no questions asked.