Carrie Prejean and the “Tolerance Means Being Nice” Myth
I twittered a nasty comment yesterday about Carrie Prejean, the Miss California contestant who voiced her opposition to gay marriage during the competition's round of Q&A, and who, in the media circus that followed, was discovered to have posed partially nude for an underwear catalogue when she was 17 years old (this was before she underwent breast augmentation surgery, paid for by pageant officials). The comment caught the eye of Get Religion's Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, with whom I sparred back and forth until finally Ziegler fired across the bow with: "Good to know politely sharing your political opinions means you volunteer for a public stoning from 'tolerant' types."
Prejean is now acting as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is led by Maggie Gallagher, who has been defending Prejean from "tolerant types" since Boobiegate broke. Gallagher and I exchanged words in the lead-up to November's gay marriage referendums after I wrote something obnoxious about her at reason.com's Hit & Run blog. The exchange ended with Gallagher writing in an email, "It's nice to know you are just as intensely offensive to a person's face as as you are in print. The voices of tolerance tend to be like that."
Which got me wondering: Since when did tolerance become ammunition for the right?
After all, tolerance in the public sphere was conceived as a way to prevent persecution of religious minorities (one recent example: anti-Semitism in the modern Muslim world). Christians are not a religious minority in the United States, and calling Prejean, Gallagher, and others nasty names isn't persecution--especially not on the grand scale of physical violence and economic duress that religious minorities continue to experience in nearly every country but the U.S.
Perhaps after watching academic leftists misuse "tolerance" to enact campus speech codes and pathologize conservative thought in the humanities and the social sciences, social conservatives felt justified turning the concept on its head to quiet those same leftists when they attacked Christians for arguing against gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. As a result, Prejean's original pronouncement (whether because it was solicited or simply by the magic of conservative thinking) was neither tolerant nor intolerant--essentially a pure, value-free expression of belief--but anyone who criticized her beliefs was labeled both tolerant (pro-gay) and intolerant (derisive toward dissenters)--i.e., a hypocrite. (I tip my hat to the social conservatives on this one. Gallagher and NOM are infuriatingly calm, if a little melodramatic. They seldom stray from their core message, except to chide tolerant liberals for being intolerant, and they picked a fantastic acronym for their organization.)
And yet, nobody has fire-bombed Carrie Prejean's house or NOM's headquarters. There has been no coordinated pogrom against members of the GLBT community in the wake of gay-marriage victories in Maine, Iowa, D.C., and other states. Even our accusations of intolerance are incredibly tolerant--we're making them in social forums.
Both sides, then, should forget about tolerating the other if it means diluting public discourse with hollow niceties. Social engineering, by its very nature, is an ugly business. Liberals shouldn't be reasonable, sensible, or amicable, because homophobia and theocracy are not reasonable, sensible, or amicable concepts. Nor should social conservatives stand by while apostates, heretics, and nonbelievers adulterate God's Happy Family formula.
Tolerance leads to obfuscation, double-talk, statistical manipulation, and outright omission--so let's keep this discussion hostile.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
Blogs Linking to this Article
-
Linked From: May 6th, 2009Carrie Prejean and the “Tolerance Means Being Nice” Myth «
8:22 pm[...] Full thing here. Comments culled from various places below the jump. [...]
5:28 pm
When I hear "tolerism" in this context (broadly) I tend to hear "I am pretending to respect you," which is the approach Prejean and NOM seem to take. As an example, Prejean's "no offense, but this is my opinion" schtick.
It doesn't seem appropriate to attack Prejean for her nude and semi-nude photoshoot. Slut shaming Prejean isn't an effective means to fight her campaign (especially since the bikini strutting is apparently okay if it's in a pageant). I know I'd rather see a Twitter war if the opposition picked a different tactic.
5:37 pm
Katherine, Implicitly I'm questioning Prejean's moral authority to condemn gay marriage. I had hoped this would put Christians in an awkward spot, but it has instead made me out to be a sexist.
But I would point out that this post is simply a critique of the language being used on both sides of the issue, it's not a critique or a promotion of gay marriage.
6:01 pm
The key word here being "stoning", which is funny for at least two reasons:
A: Stoning means being executed by means of a group of people throwing rocks at you until you're dead. It's more than a tad hysterical of her to equate getting criticized online for her bigoted beliefs with being executed.
B: Stoning is prescribed in the Bible as a punishment for probably dozens of things Ms. Gallagher does on a daily basis.
8:16 pm
Great questions raised and I enjoy our sparring in my first ever Twitterspar. I would point out that "tolerance" was conceived of mostly as a post-Reformation way of keeping peace. It *requires* disagreement with another party. You're basically saying you think they're completely wrong but you want to be neighbors in peace anyway.
I think it fits quite well with the gay marriage debate. So, for instance, a traditional marriage advocate can think -- gosh, I really don't want to redefine an institution that has worked in an exclusively heterosexual context for thousands of years across various social structures and continents, but I recognize that arguments to the contrary are worthy of a public hearing. And the gay marriage advocate can say -- I really think that it's unfair that this institution limits the participation of gays but I recognize that arguments to the contrary have a basis worthy of consideration.
As a libertarian myself, I tend to have very different views on marriage policy (namely that the state shouldn't be involved). So I tend to have disagreements with both sides, but I try not to demonize either group and understand where they're coming from. Particularly since my approach is not the leading option for most parties.
8:33 am
I think Mollie was offering to get you high.
8:39 am
I had a dream last night in which God revealed to me that He is Gay. & He sayeth, Smoke marijuana.
9:18 am
I don't understand why you believe it is fine to try "destroy" someone because they have an opinion. As far as I know she has not come out and slandered homosexuals or even used slanderous words to describe the glbt community. Seriously how is it news that a model posed "semi nude"... Shocker!
If someone used the word tolerant to describe the many people who prescribe to your goal of ruining a young woman with an independent opinion they are being polite.
Just think back to after the California vote, when the GLBT's true feelings on race and civil rights came out; referring to blacks and church goers with words straight from the 50's and 60's
10:53 am
But, why is it destroying a beauty pageant contestant to reveal that she had breast implants, that they were PAID FOR by the Pageant, and that a supposed role model, according to the pageant's view, posed all nudie-like as a teen? She's a public figure, a nice one at that to be sure.
Her political views may have won her undue celebrity, but she was in a friggin beauty pageant, so she wanted the celebrity -- she got it.
11:04 am
It's an attempt to destroy because it is done out of malice. This is not she is a celeb so we must vet her, this is she is against my position so I must discredit her. This is just as bad as right winger constantly asking about Obama's birth certificate, rezko connections, early drug use.
At the end of the day she believes one thing and others believe another. Thats it. If she wants to advocate against, the opposition has the right to advocate for. However, getting into the mud does not serve the GLBT with trying to reach out to the middle.
2:42 pm
People keep saying she has "political views". Maybe now, after she was attacked, but originally she was just answering a no-win question from a judge who would only accept one answer. She just wanted to win a beauty pageant, for god's sake. She wasn't up there with some agenda.
As far as tolerance, it's just an excuse for civility. I've never understood it as having any real value, simply because most people who hold steadfastly to core beliefs are not so easily swayed simply by discussion. There is too much at stake, in the sense that if they switched sides they would have to rethink their entire system of beliefs. If they could be wrong on one issue, perhaps they are wrong on others. It's too much for most people simply because most have very poor critical thinking skills, and have an inability to see beyond their own "dog in the fight" viewpoint.
For example, how could a gblt person ever "accept" that they might have something "wrong" with them, whether mental or genetic or even in their "choice" of their lifestyle. It's like beating themselves up. Or how can a Christian ever "accept" that Islam is ALSO the religion of God? And vice-versa.
Lastly, it appears that most on the left side of things tend to forget that Christianity is made up of human beings - fallible in every respect. And therefore the actions of Christians (or any other religious proponent for that matter) are personal failings and not a reflection of the tenets of that particular faith. People of not faith whatsoever fail in the exact same ways. And the failures of religious are in spite of their religion, not because of it. There is a big difference there.
Either way, I think it was patently unfair and a bit hypocrital to all of a sudden start acting as if this young woman is some Jezebel who doesn't walk the walk because she wanted to be a model, and posed for pictures you see everyday in your mail from Victoria's Secret.
10:26 am
I think it is pathetic that people write on how correct or incorrect her comment was. It was HER opinion there is NO correct or incorrect about it. You can not dictate what others think. What kind of country do we have now? A country where people can not have their own views or religious beliefs. A country where if you do not fall in line with hollywood's thinking you are somehow evil and should be bashed in print at every turn. This country is becoming more pathetic at each passing day.
12:00 pm
Here's what I wanna know:
When did anyone start caring about the political beliefs of beauty contestants? Their job is to wave, smile, look pretty in bikinis and evening gowns, singing a little is a bonus. What next ms. democrat usa? & ms. republican usa?
Who thought having a Perez Hilton, rabblerouser, gadabout, and open homosexual, would make a great judge of a beauty pageant (filled with women). He prefers men, why do I care what he thinks about women?
I'm thinking the whole thing is a setup by the pageant to make noise and sell ads in what has been and continues to be a contest that is completely irrelevant in this century.