Tolerance [tol-er-uh ns] (noun)
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance:
The above is the definition of “tolerance,” according to Dictionary.com. “Tolerance” is a funny word. In our current politically-correct culture of “tolerance,” it has become dynamic, enigmatic, elusive, and hypocritical. “Tolerance” has, for some time, been the buzzword of liberal elites and left-wing intellectuals. The new definition of “tolerance” seems to be:
1. a blind acceptance of everyone and everything, including all religions, all sexual orientations, all political ideas, all life styles; freedom from critique
2. A permissive, even celebratory attitude toward anything and everything except that which is deemed “intolerant” or politically incorrect.
“Tolerance” is dogma. Every system of beliefs, every religion, or lack thereof, every lifestyle choice, and every worldview has become acceptable in our society except for the conservative, Christian, family-oriented worldview. A glaring illustration of this was recently observed in Houston, Texas.
In Houston, local pastors were issued a subpoena for local pastors to turn over “All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”
No, these pastors were not inciting a riot, they were not calling their congregations to arms, they were not making terroristic threats. So, what could possibly have provoked the City of Houston to this blatant violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion? These intolerant pastors had the audacity to speak out against a city ordinance that they believed was dangerous to the welfare of the women of Houston. The city ordinance in question is known as HERO, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. This ordinance, among other things, would allow anyone—male or female—dressed as a woman to use either men’s or women’s public restrooms.
Houston pastors were concerned that sexual predators may take advantage of this situation and gain access to vulnerable women via public restrooms. These hate-mongering pastors then advocated for a petition to be circulated calling for a referendum so the citizens of Houston could vote on the matter. Not only did the city reject the petition, despite the fact that it had more than the necessary number of signatures (as per the legal requirements of our great American democratic system), when the petitioners had the audacity to sue the city to have the matter placed on the ballot, the City of Houston responded with their own lawsuit—all in the name of “tolerance.” For the rights of a few, the City of Houston is willing to sacrifice the rights, and even the safety, of the majority. Better to be “tolerant” than sorry. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188148-lawsuit-bathroom-law-city-houston-demands-copies-pastors-sermons-regarding-sexuality/
This is not the only recent incidence of pastors or ministers being persecuted for their “intolerant” beliefs. Two Coer d’Alene ministers are facing fines and possible jail time for refusing to perform same-sex marriages at their wedding chapel, The Hitching Post. A city ordinance requires non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, and all “public accommodations.” The Hitching Post is registered as a religious organization, but it is also a for-profit business and therefore falls under the “public accommodation” proviso. So, if these narrow-minded ministers dare to adhere to their constitutionally protected beliefs, and refuse to officiate same-sex marriages, they could face a fine of $1000 and 180 days in jail for each day they refuse to comply.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/government-ordained-ministers-celebrate-sex-wedding-go-jail/
The intolerance of “tolerance” is evident in other issues of conscience as well. From pro-choice proponents insistence on referring to pro-lifers as “anti-choice” (Does anyone call pro-choice activists “pro-abortion?”) to the excoriation of Jessa Duggar for daring to express her intolerant opinion that the Holocaust and abortion are comparable, to the obsessively PC treatment of Muslims in the media, it is clear that the doctrine of “tolerance” is duplicitous and self-serving.
Certainly some conservatives have, at times, been guilty of cruelty and bigotry toward minorities, homosexuals, or those with differing political beliefs. Cruelty and hate are never acceptable in the public discourse of a democratic nation. However, it is ridiculous for liberals to pretend that they are the compassionate and “tolerant” faction. And, it is foolish for anyone to blindly accept the beliefs and opinions of others without critique, like so many pretentious sheep. I mean, really, let’s call a spade a “spade.”
