« It's Not All about Us | Main | Hate Shouldn't Be a Crime »

July 18, 2007

Comments

I can’t even hear or read the word ‘tolerance’ anymore without thinking how absurd this notion is. Whether it be the news, papers, in dialogue, etc.

Most of the time when the word ‘tolerance’ is used; the word ‘acceptance’ is not only more applicable but this ‘acceptance’ is firm and unwavering.– The cost is rejecting the opposing point of view.

A friend of mine once told me that the new area he moved to was very ‘diverse’. After visiting multiple times; I found out that the town was only diverse because it ‘promoted’ diversity. Everyone believed the same things for the most part.

Of course, there isn’t anything wrong in itself - for a town to think or believe a certain way; but diverse is hardly an adjective to describe it.

Find an area where everyone is at each other’s throats and I’ll show you diversity.

If tolerance means treating people with respect and dignity then great; but it never ever does as the word is used today.

Having a purple mohawk and tattoos hardly makes one diverse and tolerant. In my experience talking to self proclaimed open minded and tolerant people I always hear about how certain things make them sick. Pro-Lifers make them sick; big companies make them sick, religious Bible believers make them sick, etc.

With tolerance like that who needs vitriol?

Perhaps instead of viewing the word tolerance with disgust, we should seek to reclaim it by using it as it was meant to be used. We should also seek to educate people on what it really means to be tolerant. Then, we replace the label of "tolerance" that relativists so often use with another, more appropriate, and less morally charged label.

When someone asks us, then, if we are tolerant, we can say: "Yes, I am. I show people respect and graciously tell them when I think their ideas are in error, while at the same time keep myself open to correction." This accomplishes a number of things:
1) YOU define what it means to be tolerant.
2) You escape the "crusader" label that is often applied to Christianity.
3) You earn favor with them by agreeing with a moral label.
4) Since you also defined it, you subtly encourage them to believe the definition you provided.

Not only is this PoMo garbage at the heart of the abortion debate, it extends to the overall support of abortion in politics:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dems18jul18,1,639458.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

If PostModernism died I'm wondering how many modern Democrat positions would even remain.

"Great site, keep it up!"

Should be obvious, but that was a spam post. I saw the same thing over at Christianity Today's liveblog.

Sheesh, is there nothing sacred? :-)

Cliff, yeah, I agree. I took care of it.

I'm looking forward to having the new book when it's available. It looks like from the sample chapter that there is user friendly approach to formal logic and the exposing of faulty reasoning in the common objections that pro abortionists offer. It's that element that I found to be so helpful and useful in "Politically Correct Death" which I still read and reference once in a while. [the modern day Socrates stuff is great in PCD near the end.]

Brad

The comments to this entry are closed.