The Difficulty of "Tolerance"

Well, 'intolerance' used to be a pejorative word for the 'right wingers' even though cultural critics and philosophers pointed out that the use of the word in society is often self-defeating.

In the old days, 'tolerance' is what we do to things that annoy us. The fly buzzing around my desk is annoying, so I tolerate it but I don't kill it. Intolerance is killing the fly.

It is intolerant to enslave African Americans. It is intolerant to kill Jews in the Halocaust. It is intolerant to refuse to hire someone because of their gender.

It is 'tolerant' to say profanity on public media is wrong, as long as you don't kill the person swearing. And it is 'tolerant' to disagree with homosexual practices, as long as you don't kill or slander homosexuals to push your view. It is 'tolerant' to stand in the public square why Christainty or Islam or Buddhism is wrong and shoudn't be practiced by reasonable humans, so long as you restrict those same people from saying the same. This is the old view of tolerance and the most sane version.

But today 'tolerance' and 'intolerance' mean something new. The meaning has been hijacked. 'Tolerance now means 'celebrating with someone who believes or does something opposed to what you believe is right.' 'Intolerance' is saying someone else is wrong.

And that definition of 'intolerance' is far from the mark. We aren't allowed to disagree or take a stand anymore if public opinion (e.g. the media or some high-profile, elite organization) has been swayed enough to say we shouldn't.

Yet even here is an inconsistency. We call it 'intolerant' for someone to picket an abortion clinic. But we don't cry foul when a political candidate says his opponent's view is the wrong one to follow. So deeply in the consciousness of the Western world is incoherence in search of meaning.

Yet, today's versions of 'intolerance' inflicts us all, right and left wing alike, because reason cannot be evaded forever.

We have a different case on our hands this week. In fact, what is so amazing about the recent events at Berkeley is that this bastion of free-thought likely thought themselves immune from thinking. But we all know that as soon as you call someone intolerant, you immediately become judgmental and intolerant of intolerance. You're a victim of your own accusation.

Here's an insightful article: Berkeley Council Becomes Home of Intolerance.

Some Christian Pastors Embrace Scientology

CNN published this story how some Christians are finding help with Scientology's practices.

Some Christian Pastors Embrace Scientology

Just like my post about the statues of St Joseph, modern man is growing more comfortable with having foreign gods in his house. The sheer incoherence about religion in the 'scientific' age is no surprise with the so-called death of God. "Simply enjoy your flavor of religion. I'll enjoy mine," so it goes.

Yet let's have some perspective on a slice of this. If Scientology has discovered some things that are true about the world, then does that make that truth false? If your enemy invented a better way to garden with the introduction of the shovel, does that mean you should shun all shovels?

The longstanding tradition of Natural Law is something friendly and even developed by Christianity centuries ago. The book of nature is a book laid open for all humans to read. It isn't as though the only truths we can find in the world are found in Holy Books. "The Bible may teach us to feed the poor," quipped C. S. Lewis, "but it doesn't teach us how to cook!" And the church father said it rightly when he noted, "Wherever truth is, it is the Lord's." And it is a good reminder for us to tread humbly.

The article isn't particular regarding which practices of Scientology are being taught. They could very well be a common-sense approach toward recovery. I don't know. What I do know is that it isn't automatically bad because Scientology wrote it down.

What troubles me is that these Christian pastors think they need to keep the Scientology label, pretending Scientology is the creator of those truths (if they are true afterall). This kind of labeling is the deception. And inviting people into the Scientology community (one that is no friend to Jesus and his Way) is irresponsible.

That is like inviting your enemy to be your roommate just because you bought his shovel.