Tolerance and Judgement are not opposing idea.
From an interview by The Blaze with Charles Murray on his new book “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead: Dos and Don’ts of Right Behavior, Tough Thinking, Clear Writing, and Living a Good Life,” (emphasis mine):
Question: One of the contrarian aspects of your book is that you actually argue for judgmentalism, with which you draw a clear distinction from intolerance. Explain.
Murray: Making judgments is part of being human. The only way you can go through daily life without making judgments is if you deliberately refuse to think about what’s before your eyes. Being judgmental is not only OK; we have a moral obligation to make the best judgments we can. Having done that, however, the next step is not to try to make laws enforcing our judgments about right and wrong. It is appropriate to be tolerant of behaviors of which we may disapprove, but which should be left as individual choices that people may make in a free society.
By the same token, however, being tolerant does not require me to approve of what you do. An example: I think the use of all drugs should be decriminalized. But if that were to happen, I would not be obligated to refrain from criticizing people who spend their lives in a drugged stupor, and I would campaign vigorously against laws that provide government support to people who have incapacitated themselves with drugs. To me, the distinction between tolerating behaviors and approving of them is the key to a society that is both civil and free. In a free and civil society, the culture necessarily has a strong code that encourages “obedience to the unenforceable,” to quote a wise English jurist.
The problem is that Progressives are doing the opposite – they do not believe that any morality that they do not control and which is not codified in law cannot be trusted – and that is NOT conducive to a free and civil society (in truth, the exact opposite). If one is fenced in by predetermined outcomes, how can that be considered to be freedom? Only Progressives believe that they can impinge on Individual Freedoms to choose for themselves so as to give other the Progressive definition of freedom: freedom from necessity and freedom from self-responsiblity. Instead of freedom from Government intrusion and coercion, their goal is to use Government as a force to provide their Freedom which they trumpet loudly.
They never, if you observe or even ask, they can only do so for their favored groups by taking it away from others. And that is Tyranny. The opposite of Murray is speaking about as for Progressives, the only entity that should be wielding “judgement” is The State.
Not you.
