Why the “Intolerant Left” Might be True

Recently I've heard that people on the left are more intolerant of differing opinions than people on the right. And here’s the thing: I actually think that’s true. But not for the reasons you might think. 

Let me explain.

If you set a left-leaning society next to a right-leaning society, something becomes clear really quickly. A conservative living in a liberal society can still keep the majority of their rights. They can still carry their child to term. They can still attend the church they want. They can still live by their convictions, and nothing changes about who they want to marry. Nothing fundamental is stripped away from them.

Now flip it. A progressive living in a conservative society will experience something different. Their rights are often directly removed. If abortion is outlawed, that person’s bodily autonomy is gone. If marriage equality is banned, that person’s relationship is delegitimized. If gender-affirming care is outlawed, that person is denied access to healthcare.

This isn’t just about abortion. It’s true across the board: marriage equality, marijuana legalization, voting rights, vaccines, and even birthright citizenship. Over and over, the conservative platform centers on restricting the rights of people they disagree with.

Now there’s one major counterexample. And if you're a conservative reading this post, it's blaring in your ears right now. The one example that breaks this mold is the progressive stance on gun reform.

When progressives call for limits on firearms, conservatives argue their rights are being stripped away. And if you’ve ever talked with a passionate Second Amendment supporter, you know how intolerant they can get the moment they feel their rights are under threat. My loss of social media followers last week is a good indicator of this.

And that’s the point. Intolerance grows when people feel their rights are being taken away. This exception actually helps to prove the rule. So when conservatives accuse progressives of being intolerant, they’re not necessarily wrong. They’re just missing the why. The intolerance doesn’t spring from some special brand of liberal fragility. It comes from the reality that many conservative policies threaten to remove the rights of others.

So if the debate is between person A wanting to live freely and person B wanting to take that freedom away, it makes sense that person A is going to sound a lot less “tolerant.” They’re fighting for their ability to exist.

The Apostle Paul reminded the early church in Galatia that true freedom isn’t about restricting others but about using our freedom to serve. At that time, some Christians wanted to impose circumcision on all new believers (which certainly counts as taking something away, as any male can attest). But Paul isn't okay with that.

For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another. (Galatians 5:13-14)

Beware of destroying one another, indeed. Paul can barely hold back his frustration with these Christians who keep expecting others to live by their rules. It's pretty easy to read between the lines when he says: "I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves." (5:12)

Not exactly subtle, Paul. You can almost hear him drop the mic. To be fair, it’s not hard to imagine someone becoming a bit intolerant when the issue on the table is literally cutting off a piece of their genitals. You can debate doctrine all day, but once you pull out a knife and start suggesting “membership requirements,” things escalate quickly.

So what does using our freedom to "serve one another in love" look like in practice? A few ideas come to mind:

• Check your policies against love. Before championing a political stance, ask: Does this position help my neighbor thrive, or does it take something away from them? If it’s the latter, Paul might say we’re missing the point of freedom.
• Refuse to weaponize intolerance. Instead of mocking or dismissing those who fight for their rights, recognize the fear underneath. Dismissing their anger is easy; listening to their pain is harder.
• Look for win-win solutions. The gospel calls us to imagine a world where everyone flourishes. That means moving beyond zero-sum thinking where one person’s gain must be another’s loss.
• Practice love at the personal level. Policies matter, but so do our everyday choices: how we speak about people who disagree with us, who we invite to our tables, and whose stories we make room to hear.

The way forward will be found through solutions that allow everyone to thrive, including those on the other side of your policies. And if we take Paul seriously, the measure of those solutions won’t be how well they protect “my” freedom, but how well they extend love to my neighbor.

Photo by James Eades on Unsplash

HT: pzmic94