New goings-on / Intolerant Tolerance
Haven't posted in a while & thought I'd post a couple of my latest ponderings. First, I read the transcript of the NBC Dateline special on the birth of Jesus. Overall I'd say it was pretty fair and even-handed. Most of the "debunking" that was done was over issues such as "Were the wise-men really kings?" Some of the issues were a little more serious, such as John Dominic Crossan's claim that the idea of Jesus being a "king" was merely an "in-your-face" to the Romans (big surprise that he would think that.) But, again, overall it was pretty balanced with conservatives being allowed to provide responses to the liberal views (something that has typically been lacking on these types of network specials). Wish I'd have been able to watch it. Maybe someone will buy me a tape?
On the personal side, the Kansas City Star had a contest to see who would be contributing to their Midwest Voices column over the next year. Midwest Voices is an op-ed column published on Sundays. The requirements were to send in a 500-word sample essay with a short bio and a list of five other topics the writer would like to address. The ten winners will publish five columns each over the next year. I just received an e-mail this morning from the op-ed editor thanking me for my submission and informing me that they will notify the winners sometime in December. My submission was titled Intolerant Tolerance and can be found in its entirety here:
There is increasing mention these days of the need for tolerance. This may
sound noble and virtuous at first glance but it has actually served to
suppress the free exchange of ideas in America today. More and more the
idea of tolerance is being used as a bludgeon to silence those who dissent
from the current mainstream ideology. It used to be that when one spoke of
tolerance it carried with it the idea that those holding differing views
could debate the facts supporting their respective views. There would be
honest discussion of the issues and, if an agreement could not be reached,
the two parties would agree to disagree. That is no longer the case. What
is implied in the modern usage of the term "tolerance" is that individuals
are not allowed to express disagreement with the particular socially
accepted view of the day without incurring the wrath of those with whom they
disagree.
A recent example may be found in the recent issue regarding the Kansas State
Board of Education and the state science standards. The obvious majority
view among scientists is in support of evolution. Yet, rather than having a
healthy debate regarding the difficulties and unresolved issues within the
evolutionary theory, the pro-evolution scientists refused to attend the
forum held to discuss the topic. In the place of honest dialogue there were
attacks classifying those who question Darwin's claims as backward and
uneducated zealots with a religious agenda. Is that what our nation has
come to? In an article by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times regarding
a similar case in Dover, PA the person highlighted for the pro-evolution
side was shown as being from the well-educated elite ("at a desk flanked by
his university diplomas") while the supporters of intelligent design were
chosen from the ranks of blue-collar commoners (a meter reader and a bus
company office manager). This dichotomy clearly implies that those who do
not support evolution are not as well educated while those who do support
evolution are educated and above the "superstitious" claims of religion when
it comes to scientific matters. Another example can be found in the public
discourse over homosexual rights. The politically correct view is that
homosexuality is genetic in origin and that homosexual couples are no
different from any other loving couple. Again, rather than discuss the many
studies that question genetic links to homosexuality, the name "bigot" is
thrown out. In the place of discussion over the physical and psychological
damage incurred through the practice of the homosexual lifestyle, opponents
are labeled as "homophobes."
As can be seen through these two small examples, there is much to be desired
in the area of honesty on the part of those who espouse the "new tolerance"
in America. Tolerance is a virtue, but only when the term is used in the
classical sense. We can allow others to hold to a view other than our own
without vilifying them. We can tolerate one another's ideas even when we
disagree. But that's obviously not on the agenda for the "intolerant
tolerant." They would rather force their views on others by redefining
tolerance to mean, "you can hold your own views...as long as they don't
conflict with mine."
On the personal side, the Kansas City Star had a contest to see who would be contributing to their Midwest Voices column over the next year. Midwest Voices is an op-ed column published on Sundays. The requirements were to send in a 500-word sample essay with a short bio and a list of five other topics the writer would like to address. The ten winners will publish five columns each over the next year. I just received an e-mail this morning from the op-ed editor thanking me for my submission and informing me that they will notify the winners sometime in December. My submission was titled Intolerant Tolerance and can be found in its entirety here:
There is increasing mention these days of the need for tolerance. This may
sound noble and virtuous at first glance but it has actually served to
suppress the free exchange of ideas in America today. More and more the
idea of tolerance is being used as a bludgeon to silence those who dissent
from the current mainstream ideology. It used to be that when one spoke of
tolerance it carried with it the idea that those holding differing views
could debate the facts supporting their respective views. There would be
honest discussion of the issues and, if an agreement could not be reached,
the two parties would agree to disagree. That is no longer the case. What
is implied in the modern usage of the term "tolerance" is that individuals
are not allowed to express disagreement with the particular socially
accepted view of the day without incurring the wrath of those with whom they
disagree.
A recent example may be found in the recent issue regarding the Kansas State
Board of Education and the state science standards. The obvious majority
view among scientists is in support of evolution. Yet, rather than having a
healthy debate regarding the difficulties and unresolved issues within the
evolutionary theory, the pro-evolution scientists refused to attend the
forum held to discuss the topic. In the place of honest dialogue there were
attacks classifying those who question Darwin's claims as backward and
uneducated zealots with a religious agenda. Is that what our nation has
come to? In an article by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times regarding
a similar case in Dover, PA the person highlighted for the pro-evolution
side was shown as being from the well-educated elite ("at a desk flanked by
his university diplomas") while the supporters of intelligent design were
chosen from the ranks of blue-collar commoners (a meter reader and a bus
company office manager). This dichotomy clearly implies that those who do
not support evolution are not as well educated while those who do support
evolution are educated and above the "superstitious" claims of religion when
it comes to scientific matters. Another example can be found in the public
discourse over homosexual rights. The politically correct view is that
homosexuality is genetic in origin and that homosexual couples are no
different from any other loving couple. Again, rather than discuss the many
studies that question genetic links to homosexuality, the name "bigot" is
thrown out. In the place of discussion over the physical and psychological
damage incurred through the practice of the homosexual lifestyle, opponents
are labeled as "homophobes."
As can be seen through these two small examples, there is much to be desired
in the area of honesty on the part of those who espouse the "new tolerance"
in America. Tolerance is a virtue, but only when the term is used in the
classical sense. We can allow others to hold to a view other than our own
without vilifying them. We can tolerate one another's ideas even when we
disagree. But that's obviously not on the agenda for the "intolerant
tolerant." They would rather force their views on others by redefining
tolerance to mean, "you can hold your own views...as long as they don't
conflict with mine."
posted by Jim V. | 9:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home