Tuesday, November 25, 2008

'Tolerance' vs Respect

Wacky 'Virtue' in a Relativist World

I've always been skeptical of the whole concept of 'tolerance.' I 'tolerate' mosquitoes in order to enjoy the woods, likewise black flies at the beach. But I have no RESPECT for the critters!

The latest 'victory' for the purveyors of 'toloerance:' This Lawsuit of E Harmony. Michelle Malkin reports that the whole issue was basically to force the gay agenda down E Harmony's throat. What happened to the concept of 'Live and Let Live.' Obviously a relative society still makes value judgements about one group over another.

If you are not familiar with E Harmony, it's a Christian matchmaking website. Our Vet found her husband on it and it does a wonderful service by introducing people with shared values to each other. There are many other sites that do this, Jewish, secular and even by shared recreational pursuits. Gay people have their own sites. There is no dearth of dating sites requiring the forced reworking of E Harmony.

That is why I love the concept of RESPECT. I disagree with you, but we disagree in a climate of RESPECT. You have the right to operate your business as you see fit within a very basic framework of law. If I want a specific variant of your service, it may already exist [as it does in this case], or I am free to start one. My 'civil rights' are not compromised. It bears no resemblence to racial discrimination.

Consider this: when the conservatives again are in power, we do not want thought police from that side overreaching either. Thus a society should promote respect and healthy discussion by limiting the use of law to impose selective agendas.

Respecting Conscience

Our Country has enjoyed a long history of respecting matters of conscience. Mennonites and members of the Society of Friends are exemted from military service for this reason and they are considered no less good citizens. Recent rulings such as the one against E Harmony pose a serious threat to this noble tradition. Consider the Case of Catholic Adoption Agencies in Massachussetts. A similar court ruling required Catholic Adoption Services to give children to same-sex couples. Conscience demanded that the adoption agency shut down rather than violate its beliefs. Thus such 'judicial tyranny' actually kills diversity by making it impossible for good people to continue operating in violation of their own principles.

Pharmacists also face similar pressure. The development of abortion by drugs created a situation where pro-life pharmacists would violate their beliefs if they dispensed these drugs. It seems that common sense would dictate that those objecting pharmacists would be respected. There are alternative sources of these abortion drugs, but the intent is clearly not diversity but the imposition of a new civil morality that overrides Judeo-Christian principles.

Thus the new'tolerance' flies in the face of the basic guarantees of the First Amendment. The so-called 'alternatives' they seek to promote already exist in our pluralistic society. Such judicial initiatives only serve to silence opposition.

This 70 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Thomas Nelson Publishers and Zondervan is further evidence of how the 'gay agenda' is working through the courts. The specifics of this case are important to consider. The two publishers are being sued for 'publishing Bibles containing passages condemning homosexuality.' That's a Catch-22 for any publisher who seeks to provide unaltered original text to their customers.

There are plenty of 'politically correct' translations available to those who want them. When Thomas Jefferson found parts of the Bible objectionable, he published his own severely edited version. He did not seek to supress the publication of the original texts but offered his own alternative reading. Today you can find gender-neutral translations if that is what you prefer and versions that skip over the parts of Leviticus that bother some activists. Once again: "...the intent is clearly not diversity but the imposition of a new civil morality that overrides Judeo-Christian principles."

No comments: