May 1, 2005

The Sophistry of "Tolerance"

"If you never say what you mean, you never mean what you say."

It's both bemusing and sad at times to watch how in recent years moral relativists and secular humanists have completely taken over not only our society, but our dictionaries as well and relentlessly used their nunchakus of "diversity" and "tolerance" to beat a moral and unsuspecting society into submission.

For the obvious reasons, standing up and facing our opponents head on is nothing more than an exercise in futilty at this point. We'll only get thunked again on the head with the nunchakus. Only by skillfully disarming our adversaries first can we prevail and fight to regain the dignity of our society. And so, on to tolerance.

There seems to be a misconception on our part that by being tolerant we are assuming a neutral posture towards another individual's behaviour or convictions where no one party imposes their beliefs or their concept of morality on the other one. The problem is, that being tolerant is not a position of neutrality but rather one of imposition. If you think about it, we need never tolerate someone that we agree with, but only someone that we disagree with. The onus therefore lies on us to stand down from our own convictions and accept those of our adversary. That doesn't seem very tolerant now does it?

One can never be tolerant of an individual's persona, only of their behaviour. We can however be both courteous and respectful of the individual and still feel free to disagree with them without fear of reprisal.

Im courteous and respectful towards homosexuals if by chance I happen to meet one but Im not ever tolerant of their behaviour and neither should I be implored of nor forced by society to be tolerant of homosexual behaviour. Neither should you.

It's time that we all stood up and said enough. Tolerance ends now.

Salvation begins where tolerance ends.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Creative Commons License