Only 7 hours until the main event! :)

Days until mandibular reduction (jaw surgery): 1 day, 8 hours
Days since arriving back in Philly: 19

I've been meaning to blog on this for a while now...


The Untimely Death of Traditional Tolerance

Firstly, words change. Well, the definitions do anyway. This is English. It is dynamic. Watch it slowly evolve before your eyes. Fascinating huh?

Now in the past decade (or so) a new concept called political correctness has become popular. I hope this isn't news. In a lot of respects I welcome it. Indians are from India by the way. However of course not all change is good. The title of 'sanitation engineer', while dignified, is a little unwieldy and ambiguous. You cannot then differentiate a landfill operator from a janitor. The most articulate form of verbal communication uses the most efficient, and least ambiguous language. This is where tolerance ought to concern us.

Traditional tolerance is defined well by R. C. Sproul as a practice of giving equal treatment under law and a recognition of a legal right to exist. To tolerate was to allow to be or to be done without hindrance. It is a mutual respect for the right of those who disagree with us. Tolerance was a passive, wise, and virtuous act. In most cases, this was behavior worth aspiring to.

Now we enter the post-modern era. The 'cutting edge' philosophy is ethical relativism. There is no objective truth. No longer does anything possess an intrinsic value. The individual and subjective beliefs of each person are now much more significant and important. Why? They are valid. If all beliefs are valid, we have no grounds to disagree. To do so would be intolerant.

This is how tolerance has changed. We now must no longer merely allow to exist but also accept as valid the beliefs of another. This is not wise or virtuous. By this philosophy, justice and law cannot exist. The judge cannot tell the murderer, "What you did was wrong." The authority of the inherent moral standard of humanity has been superceded by the beliefs of the individual.

Say a blindfolded individual believes he is walking in the center of a field. From our perspective, we observe he is about to walk off the edge of a cliff. We are faced with a dilemma. It would indeed be intolerant to attempt to correct him. It would also be unethical not to correct him. Does our acceptance of the beliefs of others take precedence over their welfare? What would any human do?

While the definition of tolerance has changed, it really may not be the most pressing issue. The real problem is much more insidious. While the newer definition of tolerance is widely understood, there is still a strong association made with the virtue of the former definition. For the general public, to act in opposition to tolerance is to act in opposition to virtue itself. This is very subtle, but it carries very significant and obvious implications.

In the same way most people would correct the blindfolded individual, a Christian will value the welfare of a non-Christian greatly enough to suggest existence of an apparent danger. People may be offended by this. They will at least be uncomfortable. But, if they heed the warning, they may not fall to their deaths.

What do you think?

Days until mandibular reduction (jaw surgery): 10
Days since arriving back in Philly: 11

"Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator," he added, "and I hope he's removed as soon as possible. But nonviolently." -Michael Moore

Hmmm, lets think here...
Possible Situations
X 1. Saddam can be removed nonviolently and Mr. Moore knows how but isn't telling us.
X 2. Saddam can be removed nonviolently but Mr. Moore (along with Bush, Blair, the UN, etc.) does not know how.
X 3. Saddam cannot be removed nonviolently yet Mr. Moore believes he knows how and isn't telling us.
O 4 Saddam cannot be removed nonviolently and Mr. Moore in actuality does not know how.

Option (1) is possible but very unlikely. Option (3) is possible yet again, we lack any sort of plausible motive. Opton (2) is both possible and self-negating for without the means we cannot achieve the end. This points us to option (4) which is entirely possible, and I believe, most probable. So then when Mr. Moore demands that we remove Saddam but without violence, we can conclude that he is being both unreasonable and absurd. Nonviolent inspections alone, given yet another thirteen years, may have indeed removed the WOMD, but they could not ever have removed the brutal dictator who would be willing to use them use them or other more rudimentary implements (kalashnikov) as a means of accomplishing his own ends.

[SATIRE]
We like nonfiction, yet we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious (writers producing nonficiton films about fictitious events, facts and people). We live in a time where we have a man (recieving an Academy Award for a fictitious and innaccurate film). Whether it's the fiction of (weapons inspections), or the fiction of (the French). We are against this nonsense, Mr. (Moore). Shame on you, Mr. (Moore), shame on you. And any time you've got (logic and reason) against you, your time is up. Thank you very much."
[/SATIRE]

While I am on a conservative rant, I want to add: "remember to...

This isn't meant to imply anything racial, political, or intolerant*... Its just funny!

*(I reluctantly use this word in the most current of liberal contexts. Did I mention I have a real big problem with word manipulation?)