No one tolerates everything. Some who tolerate the murder of unborn children abhor the killing of some animals. One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Should we tolerate the leader of a Utah polygamous sect convicted on Tuesday as an accomplice to rape for forcing a 14-year-old follower to marry her 19-year-old cousin? The New York Times, under the headline "In Polygamy Country, Old Divisions Are Fading," recently reported that at the scene of the crime, "an intermingling of cultures has begun to bubble up opening hearts and minds in greater understanding."
One example: "Amber Clark, 28 said she thought polygamists should be left alone, so long as no one was under age or coerced into marriage. 'I'm liberal in that respect,' Ms. Clark said. 'If it's legal in some states for people of the same sex to get married, why is it not legal to marry more than one wife?'"
And why not? Two years ago, I spoke with a Princeton political philosopher who supported same-sex marriage but opposed polygamy on grounds of decorum. I kidded him about his being a two-ist: If any combination of two is fine "as long as they love each other," why not be a three-ist or a ten-ist?
Well, pragmatic reasons to oppose polygamy do exist. Utah has numerous "lost boys," who have been thrown out of polygamous communities. About a half dozen have sued the Mormon denomination that broke away from the main Mormon body because of polygamy. The plaintiffs allege that they were expelled so that older men wouldn't face competition in their drive to grab more wives.
So how tolerant should we be? We talk about zero tolerance for drugs. We're moving toward tolerance of the sexual drug known as polygamy. Many cities have zero tolerance for smoking in public buildings. President Bush's faith-based initiatives have led to more tolerance for religious viewpoints -- or have they?
Curiously, one part of the federal government is showing zero tolerance for any religious books except those on a fed-created list. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has purged from the shelves of prison chapel libraries all books, tapes, CDs and videos not on lists it commissioned, of, on average, 150 book titles and 150 multimedia resources for each of 20 religions from Christianity to Yoruba.
The rationale is anti-terrorism. A 2004 Justice Department report expressed concern that prisons were recruiting grounds for Islamic militants. The Bureau of Prisons responded with a "Standardized Chapel Library Project" that would guard against publications that advocate violence. But instead of removing a few pieces of hatred and emphasizing that prison staffers must vet donated materials to make sure that they don't promote violence, officials destroyed whole libraries.
A few publications have complained, but the White House so far has not taken any faith-based initiative to restore broader reading rights. That's sad. We should be intolerant of Islamic extremism but also intolerant of those who would limit religious liberty unnecessarily. And we should be aware of where tolerance for redefinitions of marriage will lead.