Given the popularity of the Star Wars franchise, many of you may be familiar with the fight scene between Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker near the end of the third movie. But the more attentive of you may have noticed Obi Wan's hypocrisy in the beginning of it. As the two debated their political philosophies, Anakin eventually concluded with "if you're not with me, then you're my enemy", to which Obi Wan replied with the absolute statement "only a Sith deals in absolutes". Obi Wan's view, therefore, is contradictory, meaning although Anakin's view was certainly immoral, it was at the very least more logically consistent than Obi Wan's.
Here in the real world, we have a similar situation, as the people who claim to be the most tolerant, more often than not, turn out to be the largest bigots. Tolerance, contrary to its political application, is "the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with." It is actually required, therefore, that you disagree with a belief or behavior in order to tolerate it. And yet, many people take it one step further, demanding that you not only tolerate their views and behaviors, but that you affirm them. It is no longer seen as an agree to disagree type thing, but agree to agree. "Keep your religion in your church", which itself is intolerant, has become "let my religion into your church".
In Romans 12:18, Christians are commanded to live peacefully with all men so far as it depends on us. The world is very much not a Christian place. There are some localities, having been influenced in some part by Christianity, in which Christian values are at least somewhat held in high regard. However, even in those places, Christians are surrounded on all sides by pseudo-Christian, non-Christian and even anti-Christian ideas. However, being a naturally tolerant faith, Christians are not to disturb the peace. This does not mean, however, that Christians are supposed to yield to these things. Tolerance is not the same as affirmation. We do not have to support sin in any capacity (even when we are bribed to do so, or threatened if we don't). Quite the opposite, we are required to abstain from it. Neither do we have to keep quiet, we are commanded to proselytise! Living peacefully with all men means that we simply use peaceful means to do so.
What's intolerant about refusing to bake a cake? What's intolerant about refusing to print a t-shirt? What's intolerant about refusing to use an inaccurate pronoun? What's intolerant about refusing to accept the existence of mythical extra genders? What's intolerant about acknowledging the blatant differences between the two genders that actually exist? What's intolerant about not being racist against white people? What's intolerant about preaching against the violent practice of infanticide? What's intolerant about saying Islam is a false religion? None of this is intolerant, because all of it is peaceful. No one gets hurt, no one is unduly disrespected, no one loses anything rightfully belonging to them, no relationships need to be damaged. Most importantly, no one is being forced to believe, or even preach anything other than their own beliefs.
Flip that around, does it sound very tolerant when Christian businesses are sued for refusing to provide products and services intended for anti-Christian uses, or even convey anti-Christian messages? Is it tolerant to prosecute Christians for refusing to say a man is a woman, or a woman is a man? Is it not extremely bigoted to treat white people as second class citizens, or even sub-human, because of something other white people did centuries ago? Isn't it outright barbaric to physically attack teenage girls simply because they preach against the violent practice of abortion? Isn't it the height of tyranny to arrest and jail a man for simply reporting on a news item that reflects poorly on Islam?
When it comes to "tolerance", the modern world is often a black pot telling a blue kettle it is black. That's not to say Christians are perfect, of course. Sometimes we are too tolerant of that which we should be more vocal in opposing. Sometimes we are too aggressive against that which isn't as much of a threat. But generally speaking, Christian tolerance is far more consistent than non-Christian tolerance.
But there's a reason God commands His followers to be tolerant. It's because ultimately, we're not the judges. He is. Just as a citizen lacks the authority of a king or a police officer, so also does a Christian lack the authority of God or His angels. With God, tolerance is not permanent. He tolerates sin, but only for a grace period. When that grace period is over, He will judge us all, and there are only two very intolerant ways He will do so.
The first way is justly. We've sinned, and that sin must be punished. Nevertheless, we need not receive that punishment, because there is a second way for God to judge us. In His great love, a love far superior to the "love" the Left so worships, God sent Jesus to be punished on our behalf. With the punishment out of the way, God is legally able to dismiss any case against us. Better yet, it enables Him to not tolerate us. This is because tolerance requires the co-existence with those with whom you disagree, however the cross is about far more than God saying "I forgive your sins", but also about conforming us to His image. In Heaven, we won't behave or believe any differently than God desires us to behave or believe. He won't be tolerating us because He won't disagree with us, because we will agree with Him. We will co-exist with God in perfect unity. Therefore, let Christians tolerate unbelievers, but more importantly, let us love unbelievers enough to oppose the beliefs and behaviours that put all mankind at enmity with the God who gives us life. Let us give them the knowledge of the Gospel, showing them the Way, and the Truth and the Life. If they reject that, we need not hate them for it.