Barbarian! Heretic! Witch! The accusatory cries of
centuries past have now been replaced with equally demonizing words.
Racist! Religious bigot! Homophobe!
Words are weapons. Name calling has the effect of placing the target under
the burden of defending who they are rather than defending the idea under
consideration. Name calling is designed to silence opposing views and to
undermine the willingness of people to challenge opposing ideologies.
Stating that a particular idea or behavior is unacceptable and should not
be encouraged has been labeled as "hate speech" and is now a justifiable
reason for an individual to be pelted with derogatory names, threatened
with potential lawsuits, or at the very least to be chastised as being
"intolerant." The new doctrine of tolerance has become the foundation of a
social movement that permeates the media and has found root in our
judicial, legislative, and educational systems.
To understand this doctrine, it is important to understand how the word
"tolerance" has been cleverly redefined. Webster's Dictionary defines
"tolerate" as: "to recognize and respect [other's beliefs, practices,
etc.] without sharing them," and "to bear or put up with [someone or
something not especially liked]." The traditional meaning of "tolerance"
means to value, respect and accept an individual without necessarily
approving of, or participating in their beliefs or behaviors. Traditional
tolerance accurately differentiates between what a person thinks or does
(behavior) and the person himself.
New tolerance blurs the distinction between right
and wrong. Without definitive moral clarity, each person is free to seek a
uniquely personal definition of truth and the journey to discover this
truth must be unfettered. In this new environment, there are no absolutes.
In fact, every moral or truth is relative or equal. As traditional morals
and values are replaced with a cacophony of individual or group truths,
the new tolerance becomes the new morality. Right and wrong are defined by
levels of tolerance: to tolerate is to be moral, to judge is to be
immoral. While most of us were busy at the office and working hard to
raise our families, traditional tolerance was morphing into a vehicle to
promote the ancient philosophy of moral relativity.
Tools of the New Tolerance: Diversity/Multiculturalism
Diversity is a condition rather than a goal. Diversity is universal; each
member of the human race is different! Promoters of the concept of
diversity and multiculturalism have determined that certain differences,
however, are subject to distinction and privilege. They claim that
promotion of diversity will provide unity, better understanding of
differences and thus a better community and world. Yet, the root word of
diversity is to divide or draw apart. Balkanization of cultures and races,
rather than unity, is often the byproduct. Diversity/ multiculturalism is
the antitheses of the American melting pot.
Diversity/multiculturalism teaches that all cultures, all ideas, all
lifestyles, all behaviors are of equal value, each must be understood,
promulgated, and celebrated in equal measure. If all are equal and none is
better than the other (no matter what they produce), citizens cannot say
one is right or one is wrong. Accepting the notion that all ideas and
systems are equal precludes a willingness to think critically about what
surrounds us. All cultures, all ideas, and all behaviors are not equal,
nor do they all produce positive outcomes. It is essential to the
preservation of healthy societies that its members are able to
differentiate between ideologies and behaviors that produce results
benefiting society and behaviors producing destructive results.
Elimination of Religion
The doctrine of the new tolerance begins to unravel
if the concept of absolute truth is interjected. Religion and new
tolerance are inherently incompatible because traditional religion is
based on a particular set of hierarchal beliefs that are held to be true
above all others.
Traditional religion seeks to order actions and
beliefs according to rightness and wrongness. According to the new
tolerance, this ordering of values makes religion the primary purveyor of
intolerance, thus the public square must be guarded against the onslaught
of traditional religion. Irreligion is well on its way to becoming a test
for public office; recent judicial nominees have been required to pass
just such a litmus test.
Under the guise of "separation of church and state,"
the new tolerance is bent upon neutering or eliminating traditional
religion. No person or institution is allowed to identify right and wrong
or say, "Thou Shalt No t..." The new tolerance states that there are no
moral absolutes -- thus no Supreme Being.
Acknowledging, honoring and obeying the ultimate law
of God becomes an abominable contradiction. The new tolerance hasn't
entirely tossed religion and scripture, however, but is carefully crafting
a new gospel. This new gospel subordinates thinking to "feelings." We must
all feel good. In fact, new tolerance has discovered a new right: the
right to not be offended. In our therapeutic culture, we can never hurt
someone's feelings by mentioning right or wrong -- good or bad behavior.
New tolerance selectively quotes scripture and is quick to point out the
passages regarding not being judgmental, but does not acknowledge
scripture that would label certain behaviors as sinful.
No matter that righteous judgment is required to
discern right from wrong; this new gospel has two watchwords: affirmation
and inclusion.
Choice
Choice has become enshrined as the ultimate right.
Individuals can choose to murder unborn children, choose to abuse drugs
and alcohol, choose to engage in homosexual behavior, choose to have sex
outside marriage. The new tolerance allows discussion of choice, but never
discussion of unwelcome consequences resulting from the choice. Under the
banner of new tolerance, society's job is to validate any choice that is
made (except those associated with traditional moral behavior) and
government's job is to take away any resultant negative consequences.
The ability to do privately whatever one chooses
would seem to be the hallmark of freedom. Yet the "my bedroom, my
business" attitude promoted by the new tolerance seems to ignore this
truism: private behavior often has very public consequences. Do we abandon
the civilizing notion that we have a responsibility to all those around us
who will be impacted by what we do?
What other civilization-sustaining codes of conduct will we sacrifice upon
the altar of choice?
"Do as you will" is the credo of pagan religions.
When people abdicate their understanding of right and wrong and re-fuse to
think beyond the slogans and sound bites of "choice," they unwittingly
support an ideology that directly harms our families and our future. Good
people everywhere must stand up for the right choice.
"You Can't Legislate morality"
This statement, of course, is nonsense; we can and
we do legislate morality every day. Every law has a moral component. All
laws, including the one that requires you to stop at a red light, are an
indication of our society's morality. In the case of the stop light,
society values people working
together as they drive and not having people killed in traffic accidents
-- a determination based on morals. There is no moral vacuum; everything
has a moral (right/wrong) component. Law is nothing more than a public
expression of a society's morality. So the real question is: "whose
morality will we legislate?"
The question of competing moralities can be answered by this simple test:
"Do the kinds of behaviors/actions/programs that I want to create law for
-- or against -- bring about good consequences to society or bad
consequences to society?" Based on society's best interest, laws are made
to encourage specific behavior and discourage others. If a behavior leads
to identifiable negative consequences, then society has a moral obligation
to regulate it and limit its influence.
We don't just jettison laws on the basis that they are hard to enforce (as
people often suggest as a basis for "not legislating morality.") If that
were true, then most laws would need to be eliminated. We would need to
get rid of laws against drunk driving, burglary, murder, etc., because
enforcement is difficult and we haven't been successful at eradicating
these crimes.
Media
The media and entertainment industry desensitize and reprogram. Media
cleverly twist the truth to make destructive behaviors and lifestyles look
acceptable, humorous and even glamorous. The media is "the enforcer" of
new tolerance in popular culture and it delivers its dogma right into our
family rooms.
The new tolerance cannot allow the media to broadcast statements of right
or wrong, and it suppresses dissent by setting up the language of the
"politically correct." Suppression of information about negative
consequences of behavior is mandatory (i.e., premarital sex, condom
ineffectiveness, homosexual behavior, abortion and the breast cancer link,
even the negative impact of child day care). The new tolerance demands
that we ignore the obvious: actions do have consequences.
Breaking universal laws of God and nature will produce negative outcomes.
Women aren't the same as men and no amount of saying such will make it so.
Promoting sex outside of marriage is not enlightened thinking. Calling an
unborn child a "fetus" does not remove from abortion the onus of murder.
Saying homosexuality is acceptable doesn't make it so. No matter how many
times we read it or watch it portrayed as such by Hollywood.
Education
The new tolerance is dedicated to re-educating our children through the
eradication of traditional morals and values. "Ground zero" for this
effort is the school system. Through historical rewrite, dilution of
patriotism, affirmation of alternative lifestyles, to name just a few, the
public education system has filled in the void left by parents who have
abdicated their responsibility to teach children correct principles.
Patrick Buchanan stated: "As the Cultural Revolution took generations to
triumph, it will take generations to roll back. And the great battles will
not be political, but moral, intellectual, and spiritual. For the
adversary is not another party, but another faith, another way of seeing
God and man.
"And the outcome will be less often decided in Congress than in the
schools, the media, and the high court. For the prize contested is the
souls of the young."
In the end, there is precious little tolerance in the doctrine of new
tolerance. Acceptance in this realm is unilateral. Liberal ideologies must
be unquestionably accepted by those who espouse traditional views, but
never the other way around. The new tolerance is one-way tolerance;
blatant hypocrisy at its best. Where is tolerance for the unborn? Where is
tolerance for religions and organizations that teach that homosexual
behavior is
wrong and harms individuals who participate? Where is tolerance for the
parents who object to their children being sexualized by the educational
establishment under the guise of sex education? Where is tolerance for
traditional moral values when media seeks to glamorize deviancy rather
than decency?
We have become so hypnotized by the incessant mantra of "tolerance" that
we are losing sight of our moral compass and are mindlessly embracing
anything.
We are drawing ever closer to G. K. Chesterton's claim: "Mere tolerance is
the virtue of men who no longer believe in anything." With this loss of
our collective soul will, inevitably comes the loss of our civilization.
