Jan 8th 2006 Tolerance

Durbin's dubious definition
http://http://joedurbin.com/life/

Tolerance


"Creeds must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue with great mutual benefit; but, obviously, we must argue. Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to say I must not discuss it… It is absurd to have a discussion on comparative Religion if you don't compare them."
-G. K. Chesterton

There are many words and phrases that the modern secularists have adopted as catch phrases. ("access," "stigma," "progressive," "diversity", "crisis" "tolerance" etc.) These words or phrases as they where commonly understood and defined where often accepted as appropriate modes of thought to adopt. Seizing on this fact, the Secularists took these words and applied and defined them to suit there own agenda's because these words make good sound bites and those word could be used in a rather ambiguous and vague way which preempt any evidence or logic. The use of these "buzz words" is simple a way of side stepping or preempting rather than debating the argument and instead put a label on those the secularists deem "intolerant" "anti-progressive" "racist " etc etc…
For Instance:
Tolerance (which is the main term which I am examining)
Is one of the important concepts that this country was founded on. However the definition used then and now differ considerable.
The idea of tolerance then was applied as freedom from legal persecution for many varied ideologies, religions and worldviews which I would agree with.
The modern view Joe summed up nicely

"What I would like, is for people to learn TOLERANCE. Not as in "I KNOW they are wrong, but I'll let them carry on", Rather to "I'm not sure I'm right, so I'll respect their thoughts". CERTAINTY in things UNCERTAIN is very dangerous"


This is incredibly ridiculous. For several reasons:
1.) It is totally contingent on the person with the opposing view to define what Ideology is acceptable to be certain of. This is illogical in that in a debate it is simple begging the question.
2.) "I'm not sure I'm right, so I'll respect their thoughts" This is equally absurd to demand as it commits another logical fallacy. It assumes on the outset that the person with the opposing view is not certain of the truthfulness of there claims.
3.) Finally it shows any lack of conviction as regards to what one holds to be true.
4.) It is an obvious attempt at side stepping any contentious issue so that the ultimate outcome is that nothing is debatable because the one with the opposing view is the one who decides what is certain. Since every debate has at least two sides to an issue both people according to Joe would be unable to debate because nobody should be sure of there stance. Ridiculous!
5.) The entire premise presupposes that there are no absolutes.
6.) Joe continues throughout his entire website to contradict what he claims as tolerance.


This "couldn't we all just get along" mentality is attempting to sacrifice truth on the altar of relativistic tolerance.
Truth by definition IS exclusive. Someone can disagree with my view of what is truth but don't tell me I can't hold on to something that I see as truth simply because you disagree with it. That is true intolerance.
In virtually every area the Atheist is on slippery slope. And what does anyone do when they are sliding downhill? They squirm, struggle, and grasp for the slightest purchase. The problem is that they have systematically scrubbed down their hill over the years so that they have nothing solid to grab onto, no anchor to which they can cling because a relativistic worldview is like a foot print on a windy sand dune.

As I said Truth is exclusive. Meaning: It either is or it isn't, it can not be both, it's an; either or proposition not a; both and.
This is a necessary and proper view of reality as it conforms to reality. The Bible is very clear about this. Christianity is a very exclusive religion as it makes some very absolute claims as to the nature of the world and the nature of man.

Tolerance is a good ethic to have and employ, but it needs to be grounded in truth, otherwise we are left with a vague and fuzzy line between right and wrong which can be disastrous. It all would come down to "feelings" and "emotions", instead of a logical reasoning of our environment based in the solid rock of absolutes.