Intolerance as a Virtue

Matt Walsh argues that intolerance is a virtue.

I’d say he is directionally right, if overstated. His statement should not be shocking. Sometimes tolerance is the right thing; sometimes intolerance is the right thing. It is sinister that we are all taught that only tolerance is a virtue.

It is good to be merciful, magnanimous, tolerant, in victory. It is gravely evil to be tolerant of evil when you could do something to end it. “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” “None so guilty as the innocent bystander.”

Would it be good to tolerate Hitler’s attempted extermination of the Jews? To tolerate child rape and infanticide? To tolerate Kitty Genovese being raped in your stairwell? To tolerate salmonella in the market goods?

This idolatry of tolerance is bundled with the false claim that Jesus models tolerance in the Bible. He does not. He is the divine judge. He was systematically intolerant of the scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees. He was intolerant of the money-changers in the temple. He was strict with the wealthy young man, demanding he give up all he owns, and demanding of his followers, saying they must despise their father and their mother, their wife and children, and take up their cross. He was stricter that Moses with his Ten Commandments: don’t even look at another woman with lust in your heard. Don’t even insult your brother. “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

This further neatly parallels the false claim that “diversity is our strength.” Diversity at best must be balanced with unity, or it is purely destructive. Purity is a virtue; diversity is not.

It is the council of Satan to urge and demand tolerance and diversity. This is what the worst people want. It gives them free rein. Devils are by nature multiple; diversity is of their essence. “My name is Legion.” “Pandemonium.” “She had seven devils.”

Contrast “The Lord your God is One.”