Saturday, October 4, 2008

The Hypocrisy of Tolerance

In today's 'politically correct' (PC) environment, (a term that comedian Dennis Miller has commented is actually neither) people often invoke the term 'tolerance' when debating moral issues. They throw around the words tolerant and intolerant as though that is the end of the debate. If I say that I am tolerant and you are intolerant, then I win the debate without further discussion. Idiotic.

In the Christian world a similar argument is used. That being, 'the Bible says that you shouldn't judge'. Actually, Christ did not say we shouldn't judge. He taught, rather, that we should be cautious in our judgments, 'for with that same judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged' (Matthew 7:2). In fact, prudence and wisdom require us to make judgments continuously.

The 'gospel of tolerance' attempts to remove morality from any discussion of the issues. In the name of tolerance we attempt to assign all opinions, actions and choices the same morality. This moral relativity eventually leads to a position of not only accepting, but embracing ideas and practices held to be immoral by the majority. Ironically, the PC world labels those who teach absolute morality to be 'intolerant' -- promoting the belief that tolerance is only acceptable if you agree with their agenda.

Maybe it's just because of my involvement with a coalition to secure passage of Proposition 8 in California this November that I am more aware of the inconsistencies of the tolerance agenda. Following the passage of legislation in Massachusetts to permit same sex marriage the intolerance of those supporting same sex marriage towards those who were opposed reached new heights. Unbelievably, a parent's presumed right to see that his children were not taught that same sex marriage was the moral equivalent of traditional marriage in public school was met with jail time. Click on the link to see a video exposé of this case, Parker v. Hurley.

Further evidence of the hypocrisy of tolerance reached new heights this week. In the first television ad in support of Proposition 8, a law professor at Pepperdine University, Richard Peterson, outlined some of the legal ramifications that California would face if Proposition 8 fails. In response to his advocacy for Proposition 8, he received literally hundreds of emails, some violent and very threatening from various gay activist individuals and groups. Evidently, those who preach tolerance have none for those who hold opposing views.

One final evidence. This past week proponents of Proposition 8, exercising their First Amendment right to free speech in support of traditional marriage, placed signs along the 101 Freeway near Santa Maria, California indicating their support. On Friday evening vandals, obviously intolerant of an opposing point of view destroyed the signs by painting over them.

Many good people may have a good reason for opposing Proposition 8. Promoting tolerance, however, is not one of them.

Links in this post:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815820715/bctid1822459319
http://www.protectmarriage.com/
https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/firstadweb

5 comments:

A. said...

I don't know if you have kids still at home or if you know any teachers that support prop 8, but there is a way to peacefully protest the contribution the Teacher's union made to the No on 8 campaign. It was over a million dollars. They didn't even vote on it, they just gave it in support of gay marriage.

I'm keeping my four kids home this Tuesday in support of the state wide sick-out. The schools have to get the message that we're where their money comes from. If my four kids don't show up Tuesday, that's a lot of money gone from the school that day.

Teachers can protest too, they can get their union dues that were used to fund no on 8 refunded. It amounts to about 300.00 per teacher. If every teacher supporting prop 8 pulled their dues and turned around and gave them to YES on prop 8! Ouch!

Here's more information:
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/teachers-association-backlash-join-the-sick-out/

Katie said...

Keep posting! There is less than 2 weeks left!

Yes on 8 and protecting marriage between a man and a woman!

abby said...

Thank you for your great post! If you know to stop at a red light, you’d agree it’s unreasonable to say to your child would you like an apple or an apple when you’re holding up 1 apple and 1 banana!!

For a changing society, we need NEW TERMS to describe the types of relationships people have the free choice to form – not new laws that will put us all in speech & religious bondage.

Vote not with emotion but with reason; get the facts: www.ifprop8fails.org, www.protectmarriage.com, and www.preservingmarriage.org. Let's you , me, and our same-sex friends unite to vote Yes! on Prop. 8.
http://abbyearth.wordpress.com

CNJ said...

Just wanted to get your opinion on an idea that may or may not be a good approach. I have heard about people searching for proposition 8 in google and then clicking on the “yes on prop 8″ or “no on prop8″ paid ad links multiple times that appear at the top of the search results in google. Each time someone clicks on these links it is costing that campaign money. I guess clicking on the “no on prop 8″ ad is costing Hollywood stars like Ellen money they donated to the no on 8 campaign. I imagine if you were to break out the donations made to each campaign that the yes on 8 campaign’s donations have been made by at least twice as many people as the amount of people contributing to the “no on 8 campaign”. The majority of donations made to the “no on 8″ campaign have been made by Hollywood stars like Brad Pitt, Ellen Degeneres, and Steven Spielberg. Don’t forget the CTA, is it a bad idea for people who feel betrayed by the $1.2 million donation made by the CTA to fight back by clicking on the “no on prop 8″ paid search link multiple times each day? What do you think……

CaliforniaCrusader said...

Thanks for your clear explanation of tolerance. As a father and elementary school teacher, one of my biggest concerns is the unintended consequences of supporting same-sex marriage, meaning voting against Prop 8. At first, it sounds harmless. Why shouldn't we allow any two individuals who love each other to marry? But, it's larger than that. In redefining marriage to be between any two people who love each other, we are rewriting school curriculum. Many of my colleagues will argue that Prop 8 will have no consequences for schools, and they are partially correct. I don’t see any major curricular changes happening in the next year or two. But, eventually, it will. This is a Pandora’s Box I’m not willing to open. See the rest of my thoughts at http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com