The Intolerance of Tolerance, Pt #1

     Reading from a new book of that name, by D. A. Carson (Eerdmans, 2012), a professor and Evangelical Christian writer, in which he contrasts a traditional view of tolerance, vs. a modern form:
     “Under the older view of tolerance, a person might be judged tolerant if, while holding strong views, he or she insisted that others had the right to dissent from these views and argue their own cases.  This view of tolerance is in line with the famous utterance–“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  This older view of tolerance makes three assumptions: (1) There is objective truth out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth; (2) the various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is, even though they disagree sharply, each party thinking the other is wrong; (3) nevertheless they hold that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter, or the best chance of persuading most people with reason and not with coercion, is by the unhindered exchange of ideas, no matter how wrong-headed some of these ideas seem.  The third assumption demands that all sides insist that their opponents must not be silenced or crushed.  Free inquiry may eventually bring the truth out; it is likely to convince the greatest number of people.” (pp. 6-7)
     “...the new tolerance argues that that there is no one view that is exclusively true.  Strong opinions are nothing more than strong preferences for a particular view of reality, each version equally true...  We must be tolerant, not because we cannot distinguish the right path from the wrong path, but because all paths are equally right.  If you begin with this new view of tolerance, and then elevate this view to the supreme position in the hierarchy of moral virtues, then the supreme sin is intolerance.  The trouble is that such intolerance, like the refusal to allow contrary opinions to say their piece in public, but must be understood to be any questioning or contradicting the view that all opinions are equal in value, that all world views have equal worth, that all stances are equally valid.  To question such postmodern axioms is by definition intolerant.  For such questioning there is no tolerance whatsoever, for it is classed as intolerance and must therefore be condemned.  It has become the supreme vice.”  (pp. 11-12)
     This kind of tolerance is exemplified by the following quote, from one of its advocates: “The definition of the new tolerance is that every individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal.... There is no hierarchy of truth.  Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative.” (pp.12-13)
     Another way of expressing this difference: “In the past PC [= political correctness] generally centered on issues that were quite substantive... Today’s PC, however, is intolerant not of substance, but of intolerance itself.  Thus, although the politically correct world would have a great deal of difficulty agreeing on what constitutes goodness and truth, they have no trouble at all agreeing that intolerance itself is wrong.  Why?  Because no one deserves to be offended.” (p. 13)
     “The old tolerance draws its limits on the basis of substantive arguments about truth, goodness, doing  harm, and protecting society and its victims, while the new tolerance draws its limits on the basis of what it judges to be intolerant... Advocates of the new tolerance often find no more scalding epithet to hurl at those with whom they disagree than “intolerant” and related categories: bigoted, narrow-minded, ignorant, and so forth.” (pp. 14-15)
     Questions: Has anyone in our family been exposed to the “new tolerance”?  Where do we find it living and thriving?  Do we find it in any way attractive?  How does the "new tolerance" look at our Church?