“The law specifies, a definite partiality. God intervenes again and again in history to overthrow the enemies of His people. The law is given to protect Israel from subversion and total toleration is never legally possible nor is it permitted by the law of Moses. The idea of total toleration of course is a fiction. It is an impossibility. No law can ever extend total toleration.”
Pocket College Lecture
“Moreover, the Biblical and Moral requirements are for partiality. We are to pray for the good of others, but we are first of all responsible for our own household and he who does not care for his own, provide for his own, says Saint Paul, is worse than an infidel. Our first responsibility is towards our own household, and toward those of our own faith. We are to be merciful unto others, but there is a partiality required of us both religiously and politically. To tolerate subversion, for example, is itself a subversive activity. The law therefore has an impartiality, one standard of justice for all. But it has a partiality in that it defends a particular law-order, and it cannot tolerate a destruction of that order.”
Pocket College Lecture
When it comes to law, there cannot be total toleration when it comes to what is and what is not legal. When it comes to law there can only be toleration of any contrary faith behavior expression in so far as it does not offend the people of the ruling faith and the behavior expression codified in their law.
The origin of the PHILOSOPHICAL ideal of tolerance seems to come from ancient Stoicism, and its emphasis on how the perfect wise man must quite literally learn to “suffer the fools gladly” – to not allow their imperfection to taint his own perfection. Much the same way the Stoic was supposed to be able to “tolerate” physical pain and other discomfort.
The Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius put it this way:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Thoughts_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Aurelius_Antoninus/Book_II
“BEGIN the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busybody, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. But I who have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad that it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me; not [only] of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in [the same] intelligence and [the same] portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him. ”
This notion could be rooted in great spiritual pride, as the ideal Stoic was supposed to be able to stand whatever other human beings OR GODS could throw at him, being perfect “masters of their fate and captains of their soul.”
And this idea became sort of transferred to Christianity with the ascetic ideal of a monk who was supposed to be able to tolerate not only great physical pains, but also great stupidity and hostility from other human beings – this was part of their self-tormenting ability to take punishment, a sort of syncretistic mix the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek, and the Stoic ideal of being able to take a licking and keep on ticking. Semi-Pelagian self-righteousness was never far away from such monkish ideas, with the idea that with ascetic self-discipline humans could reach some higher state of perfection, even without direct aid from God.
And the way White Liberal is ideally supposed to remain a firm defender of “social justice” even after getting mugged by Negro criminals is a modern, “neo-Stoic” example of how one must not let mere physical setbacks to drive you away from your great spiritual and philosophical ideal.
Btw, those with philosophical education can easily see that Thomas Dixon Jr., in his biting caricature of the fanatical Abolitionist politician “Austin Stoneman” (a stand-in for Thaddeus Stevens), clearly depicts Stoneman as a misanthropic “neo-Stoic” type who despises mankind in general (the same way elitist Stoics despised all those human beings who were not “wise”), and thus considers all the foolish humans to be EQUAL in their unenlightened stupidity, regardless of race (the doctrinaire Stoics would have considered the color of skin to be a meaningless “adiaphora” trait) – which is indeed largely how modern secular egalitarianism originated from Stoicism (although like great rivers, egalitarianism has many different sources):
https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/dixonclan/dixon.html#dixon179
““Then you don’t believe this twaddle about equality?” asked the doctor.
“Yes and no. Mankind in the large is a herd of mercenary gudgeons or fools. As a lawyer in Pennsylvania I have defended fifty murderers on trial for their lives. Forty-nine of them were guilty. All these I succeeded in acquitting. One of them was innocent. This one they hung. Can a man keep his face straight in such a world? Could Negro blood degrade such stock? Might not an ape improve it? I preach equality as a poet and seer who sees a vision beyond the rim of the horizon of to-day.”
The old man’s eyes shone with the set stare of a fanatic.”