The New Intolerance

[tbieter]

The "new tolerance" is also known as "political correctness."

" A. Carson, a well-known Reformed theologian and exegete, has written a clear and well-reasoned analysis of today’s imperialistic tolerance from an Evangelical and classically liberal standpoint.

He tells us that the new understanding of tolerance has meant a shift from accepting the right of others to hold dissenting views to demanding acceptance of such views as equally valid. It thus implies a shift from free discussion of conflicting truth claims to suppressing conflicts by silencing truth claims. This shift, he says, makes the new tolerance intellectually debilitating as well as blind, intolerant, and socially dangerous."
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/boo ... ws-itself/

[The Voice of Time]

Well, I think we should let other people be able to think that their views are valid, that is, we shouldn't try to force them to accept anything else. But I don't think I should have to accept other people's views as valid, and I should have the right to challenge them.

[Harbal]

I think political correctness needs to be resisted. If challenging it directly is too risky try and find an inventive way round it.

[Impenitent]

political correctness is double plus good.

-Imp

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







.....................................................................










.

[tillingborn]

The link leads to a website, the copyright holders being The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal,

the Center’s mission is to strengthen the foundations—cultural, economic, and religious—of Western civilization and the American experience within it.

The author of the article:

James Kalb is a writer living in Brooklyn. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism.

The author

of the book in question, The Intolerance of Tolerance by D. A. Carson.

has no trouble coming up with a wide variety of examples to illustrate the perverse intolerance that results. Many of these have to do with suppression of Christianity on account of its truth claims, not least those regarding sexual morality.

It's on the basis of their truth claims, that certain Christians feel entitled to tell people how to lead their lives. It is not Christianity that is being suppressed, but the meddling of some Christians in other people's business.
The point about tolerating different metaphysical viewpoints is not that they are equally valid so much as they are equally nonsensical. It is a complete waste of time arguing whether something that is invisible and moves in mysterious ways exists or doesn't.

The new tolerance can’t deal with evil, for example, so serious discussion of human life and the public good becomes impossible.

Terrible things happen, there is no evidence that terribleness exists independently of terrible events, not even if you call it evil. The idea that people must believe in evil to contribute to 'serious discussion of human life and the public good' is idiotic.

A possible shortcoming of the book is a failure to give the devil all he is due.

It is a struggle to take seriously anyone who makes claims of that nature. Perhaps James Kalb could suggest a book that isn't true of.

[marjoramblues]

.

[tillingborn]

Thanks for that, tillingborn. Your useful pointers to content; clear and concise criticism, with good use of quotes, inspired me to click the link.

Still found it difficult to untangle the article.

The reason I found it difficult to untangle, I think, is that in order for it to make sense, you have to take on trust a lot of things I simply don't believe, for example: religious conservatives have a right to tell people what to do that far exceeds their democratic mandate; that at least you can have a reasoned argument about, at least in theory, which is not true of: the devil exists.

Is there a legal need to give copyright information ?

None whatsoever, that's just me being absurdly fussy about making sure I don't get into pointless discussions about who actually operates the website. If anyone asks how I know who holds the copyright, I can direct them to the bit where it says so.

[Kuznetzova]

The author notes that the Christian emphasis on truth makes Christianity intolerant and therefore illegitimate by the new definition of tolerance. He therefore ends the book with a discussion of how Christians (and indeed perhaps other religious believers as well) should proceed today. At the intellectual level, he says, they should stand for civility and the principle of the supremacy of truth.

This book is primarily aimed at the Theological Seminary crowd, and various literate christians who want to take us back to a catholic-centered society prior to the Reformation.

If rational discussion is impossible democracy becomes unworkable, and power inevitably flows upward to manipulative and irresponsible elites.

The problems of democracy being antithetical to rational discussion, are the problems inherent in mass hysteria and the whipped-up emotional frenzies of mobs. Democracy is all about vote-counting. And vote-counting means I simply must accumulate enough idiots on my side so that the size of my Idiot Mob is larger than the size of your Idiot Mob.

Rational discussion does not go hand-in-hand with democracy. Democracy is antithetical to all discussion. Taking a vote and then tallying the votes, is adherence to a principle of mob mentality. In democracy, the mob has spoken, and do not disagree with the mob's conclusions. But more to the point here regarding the above quote -- The mob is under no obligation to explain itself or its reasons for voting such a way, which is the very reason why it is antithetical to RATIONAL DISCUSSION.

There many many examples which corroborate what I'm saying here. But for brevity, let me pluck a few at random. One being the criminalization of marijuana and the other the illegality of prostitution in the United States. Marijuana was criminalized essentially by a single man, named Harry Anslinger in the 1930s, when he was assigned as commander of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. His reasons for making marijuana criminal were both racist and twinged with superstition.

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers… Their satanic music, jazz, and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others

That is, marijuana was made illegal because it was quote-un-quote, "satanic" and made white women have sex with black men.

During recent years regarding the DE-criminalization of marijuana -- In this case, legislatures demand 6 to 10 double-blind scientific studies of the effects of marijuana and its possible harmful effects, from 6 to 10 major universities.

So lets review. When it comes to throwing people in prison for possession of a substance, all that is needed is the that the mob vote it illegal. The reasons for doing so are never pronounced, never written down, never scrutinized and never put under the RATIONAL DISCUSSION that James Kalb would demand of us. In a democracy under the democratic process of blindly counting votes, the mob decides when a person is thrown in prison for possession of a substance. The mob need not explain or rationally discuss this decision at all. For all we know, the mob's reasoning could be as crazy and ridiculous as the substance being satanic and making white women sleep with negroes!

(We may never know. Rational discussion was never done. Just let the mob vote and go with the largest number. Period. End-of-story. The mob has spoken).

Ironically, when it comes to the decision to STOP throwing people in prison and branding them felons -- well well slown down my dear debator -- that will require six to 10 double-blind scientific studies from six to 10 major universities, won't it? Suddenly, as if by magic, the decision to stop inflicting mob justice unto the individual requires not only rational discussion, but corroborated scientific studies spread among many universities to carefully remove all bias!!

So consider this question. Wouldn't it be nice, if the decision to throw a person in a prison cell and brand them a felon .. wouldn't it be nice if a decision to do that transcended the mere up-and-down votes of a mob? Wouldn't it be nice if that was subject to, at the very least, rational discussion? (at the very best, a cluster of scientific studies?)

{transitional pause}

Exactly the same observation regarding marijuana crimes and be re-told in an identical story by replacing marijuana with prostitution.

The problems of democracy being antithetical to rational discussion, are the problems inherent in mass hysteria and the whipped-up emotional frenzies of mobs. Democracy is all about vote-counting. And vote-counting means I simply must accumulate enough idiots on my side so that the size of my Idiot Mob is larger than the size of your Idiot Mob. The job is to merely accumulate enough emotional, self-righteous fools by swaying them with fear and charismatic presentation. It is only a matter of making them really afraid, and then springboarding on those fears by arming them with emotions of self-righteousness to feed that fear in a feedback loop.

The feedback loop proceeds

fear <---- * -----> Self righteousness

These emotions feed on one another, and this mental process is known by cable television executives. This method was also used as a science by NAZI propagandists. It is the reason millions of people tune in to Oprah Winfrey, Montel Williams, The View, and the other cluster of popular talkshows.

If you think this social phenomena is not real, see this article and its underlying references section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult