A Word About Tolerance

An idea has emerged in our modern culture which I feel must be brought from the shadows of political correctness into the blinding light of reality. It concerns the emphasis given to tolerance.
The word “tolerance” is thrown about as the buzzword of our day, in contexts as variant as homosexuality, the intermingling of cultures, and religious beliefs. There are special curriculums in our schools to instill this modern day virtue in our youth, and we are constantly reminded of its importance by politicians who furiously backtrack the moment they have strayed from its all-encompassing embrace.
Yet the surely virtuous concept of tolerance has undergone a transformation of sorts, its meaning and application having been pulled from their praiseworthy moorings. Instead of simply preaching that opposing viewpoints should be “tolerated” – that is, that the right to a divergent opinion should be honored and respected – we are now pressed to accept all claims to truth as valid. When this definition is applied to things bearing ultimate significance, morality and religion to name a few, the trouble begins.
The logical inconsistency found in this form of “tolerance” is readily apparent when we look at a simple example. When an atheist and a theist discuss their opposing worldviews, a view of tolerance in which they both accept each other’s beliefs as alternate and acceptable truth claims becomes absurd. An atheist believes that there is no god, a theist believes that there is. At this point I am not concerned with demonstrating which view is correct, but with showing that they can clearly not BOTH be. Either God IS or God ISN’T. For either of these men to accept the other’s view as “different but acceptable” would mean an altering of the very nature of reality.
The consequences of such thought are devastating. For starters, why should we form our convictions based on evidence, logic, and argument if, in the end, they are no more or less right than the next? Indeed, what is the sense of holding fast to beliefs at all if not just to make ourselves feel good? This version of tolerance can lead one to defend his position on an issue based on convenience and comfort; and convenience and comfort are not the anchors we would tie our souls to.
Does such “narrow-minded” thinking bother you? Take care lest you become… intolerant.

Enough Already!

Is there anyone in America who will not be glad to see Wednesday, November 8th arrive? Once again we will be able to enjoy our commercials without the constant threat of campaign ads. No longer will my answering machine have to listen to the recorded voices of candidates who so respect my privacy and care about my personal concerns. News will once again carry real news instead of a constant commentary on the semantics of every sentence leaving a political contender's mouth. And for a moment, one precious moment, the partisanship and political badgering will stop.... OK, so the last part is wishful thinking, but still, who won't be glad when these elections are past?

Losing My Political Faith

OK, I admit it; my confidence is fading. As a committed “Bushie” I have stuck to my guns and not only held to, but trusted, the party line on Iraq. But I think I’m finally running out of ammunition. Or maybe my guns have just jammed. Either way, I’m just not so sure anymore.
Don’t get me wrong…my issue is not with our presence in the country to begin with. I have pretty much accepted that somehow our intelligence was abysmal and our leadership misled. My qualms are not with the past but right here in the present. Despite my best efforts, the daily bombings, kidnappings, deaths, and general gloom that come out of Iraq are beginning to shake my confidence in the overall “plan.” I am having a hard time continuing to convince myself that everything will be all right if we just give it enough time and patience. Time and patience only work with a winning strategy.
Boy, do I hate sounding like a Democrat! But if the shoe fits…. It just seems to me that, after more than three years, we should be seeing more improvements on the ground. I know that there have been political victories, and these are surely to be lauded, but these victories seem to have done little if anything to bring security to the fractious nation. No overall let up in the attacks, no long-term gains, no capable Iraqi military force as promised. Just more “wait and see.”
So, if the status quo is not the answer, what is? There are many suggestions floating around: “withdraw all American troops as soon as possible because their presence is fomenting the insurgent’s aggression;” “allow the nation to split along sectarian lines forming virtually three distinct nations because, after all, they are basically split this way now;” “focus on economic development in order to give young Iraqi men something better to do than join death squads;” some are even saying “add more US troops so the security situation can actually be dealt with sufficiently.” The News Hour has been airing a series giving all these views a fair hearing, and I strongly recommend their coverage; you can check it out at www.pbs.org/newshour.
I’m afraid that no matter your particular take on the situation, there doesn’t seem to be a simple solution. All involve risk. Human nature can’t be predicted mathematically, and it’s hard, even for the experts, to guess with accuracy how both the insurgents and the Iraqi citizens will respond to each proposed course of action.
However, the same uncertainty lies with the “wait and see” approach. And just because it is sometimes easier to change nothing and thereby avoid making a crucial mistake, in the long term, this can be equally disastrous.
My faith is fading; the plan isn’t working and I need to see our leadership address the problem.
I’m waiting.

"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education."
- Wilson Mizner

At the Movies

I am not an overwhelming fan of Bill O'Reilly from Fox News. He has his moments but his style of "discussion" leaves something to be desired. However, I have to admit that his teaser drew me into last night's show. He had a segment discussing the recent increase in graphic horror/torture movies on the big screen. Now I'm no prophet, but my wife and I have discussed this several times over the last few weeks and months and I was pleased to see Mr. O'Reilly take issue with it. I don't have too much more to add to his commentary which you can read at www.foxnews.com, but I would like to point out one bit of evidencial support for his concern about the direction our culture is headed.
Long before SAW III or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, symptoms of a sickening in our public mind was readily apparent at your local Blockbuster. Doubtful? Check it out for yourself; take a stroll around the perimeter of the store, where they proudly display all the new releases. You will be shocked at the sheer number of horror flicks on the market. I have not personally counted, but I would guess by my observations that the horror genre is represented by a wider selection than any other genre sitting on those shelves; that's more than comedy, romantic comedy, drama, even action. It is troubling that enough Americans "enjoy" this type of demonic, sadistic entertainment to make it such a big, and growing, industry.
Why have segments of our culture embraced such shameless evil? One of O'Reilly's guests, a psychotherapist, made some relevant points but seemed to miss the "heart" of the matter....

"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9

I don't think we should be too surprised that when something evil becomes socially acceptable, people begin to gravitate towards it. It was always there, in their hearts, and is only revealed now that the social consequences have been removed. And that's a problem no amount of censorship can fix.