 |
|
Secular-liberal Swear-Word of Choice: Tolerance
Thursday, April 5, 2007
I've been getting a lot of letters about "tolerance" lately. So many, in fact, I don't know if I can tolerate reading one more. It is used so indiscriminately and by so many people that it may as well be a swear-word.
You know the four-letter kind; the one that most of today's yuts (i.e. youths) utter every other word for poetic effect and poise. But "t.o.l.e.r.a.n.c.e" has too many letters. It doesn't fit the four-letter requisite for gutter talk. And with the verbal acumen of today's yuts being what it is, it would be very hard to spit that word out and sound cool and intimidating at the same time.
But forget about the way the word sounds and think about the way it is used.
|
|
| Listen Online! |
| For a limited time only, we are offering the first 6 No Apologies radio shows FREE. |
| No Apologies is available for you to listen to on our website (www.ecpcentre.org) for free. Every week, for six weeks (starting March 9, 2007) a new broadcast of No Apologies will be uploaded to our website for your listening pleasure. |
|
This week's show:
What is Secularism? (Part 2) |
|
|
Tolerance is used to justify virtually every kind of degenerate behavior a person can imagine; the kind of behaviour that four-letter words customarily describe, and that's why I think it's become a swear-word.
If a man wants to "marry" another man, tolerate it! If a woman wants to terminate an "inconvenient pregnancy," tolerate it! If our "schools" are going to be used for the purposes of homosexual propaganda, tolerate it!
With one accord the hue and cry is: "Tolerate it!"
Tolerate it...or else!
It wasn't always like this.
The word "tolerance" finds its origins in Christian jurisprudence. Tolerance in that context referred to the discretionary (note that - discretionary, not indiscriminate) acceptance of an opposing religious views.
For example, the English Parliament of 1689 passed a law that granted partial freedom of worship to dissenters from the established Church of England. They called it the "Toleration Act".
In that context the word tolerance did not mean to sanction, or to endorse, or to "embrace" for the sake of religious "diversity" the views of those not associate with the Church of England. It simply meant that they agreed to disagree, for the sake of civil peace.
Of course today's elites are far too urbane to bother with that bit of history and so they miss the irony of their own hypocrisy.
For one thing, today's secular-liberals have no real use for definitions, especially the definition of "tolerance," because they really don't value meaning in the first place. If they did, they'd be rejecting the first and most important tenet of postmodernism - that there is no ultimate meaning (which of course is an ultimate claim - but let's not get picky).
In today's postmodern world, anyone who insists on proper definitions is generally treated with the same boorish truculence that liberals heap on those who have the temerity to believe in the "very words of the Bible."
Words are what you want them to mean, we are told. And tolerance doesn't mean to discreetly accept with conditions - no, for secular-liberals tolerance means you either endorse their point of view or "shut up!"
Nothing demonstrates this more than when a Christian engages the public square on the current social acceptance and promotion of homosexuality. Just try and express an absolute moral perspective on the normalization of homosexuality, one that reflects the perspective of God, the natural order and human history, and you'll quickly discover just how urbane (make that boorish) postmodern secularists really are.
You should just read some of the "tolerant" letters I receive on a regular basis. They are concrete evidence that civility and polite discourse is a major priority for secularists.
For example, because I believe in the one man, one woman covenant union called marriage one person ended their diatribe on how intolerant I was, by saying: "You're a pig."
And another totally befuddled that I believe in the Bible, in a day where science and reason trump faith, began his curtsey note by saying: "I wish you'd shut up and die!"
And then there is the standard equivalence argument: "You're no different then the Taliban."
And my personal favourite, "You're the Christian version of Osama."
Such is the sophistication of secular-liberal "tolerance".
In fact, it's getting to the point that I wish they weren't so tolerant.
But they do illustrate my point, don't they, that tolerance has become the politically correct swear-word of choice for secular-liberals. For while they clamour and screech on about our so-called lack of "tolerance" for all things lascivious and degenerate - secular liberals take great pride in demonizing those of us who take a stand against immorality.
And that is because "tolerance" in a secular-liberal world is a one way street. It is what they want it to mean that matters, not what the word actually means. And if you don't accept their definition, relative as it is, if you don't endorse, sanction and otherwise acquiesce to them, well then you might as well...
You know "*@#*!"
| Yours for our culture, |
Tristan Emmanuel |
| ECP Centre President |
Hardcover
$39.95 cdn, $28.95 us
 |
|
Softcover
$23.95 cdn, $18.95 us
|
|
WARNED
Canada's Revolution Against Faith, Family and Freedom Threatens America by Tristan Emmanuel
This book is essential reading for both Americans and Canadians even though it is more particularly directed to our American friends. Both countries face a serious challenge to their cultures. This book exposes the radical exploitation of Canada at the hands of extremist activists, leftwing politicians and a plethora of crusading activist judges, who are using their status in Canada to get at America. Their aim is marriage. But the prize is America. They want to use marriage as a weapon to systematically destroy the Judeo-Christian civilization of North America, but to do that they need America to "go gay". Gay "marriage" will open up America to the rest of the demands of the homosexual political movement. Everything from school curriculum to parental rights, adoption, the age of consent and religious freedoms will be up for grabs once gay "marriage" is made legal in America. Unless socons in both countries unite and work to resist these political opponents, we can kiss our continent good-bye.
|
|
|
|
|