GABRIEL'S CLARION (apr16gab.htm)
SATURDAY
April 16, 2005
vol 16, no. 106
Illogical Myth

The Desecration of Tolerance

    Part Three

The moral pretzel can be twisted anyway they want, but it is still twisted logic to think one can be intolerant of the intolerant or tolerant of the intolerant for in so doing they themselves have betrayed their own stance.

      "Under the present distorted view of tolerance, the only true tolerant person would be one who accepts intolerance which would be accepting that which violates precisely what one stands for! However, if I accept that which violates what I stand for, then I am contradicting and invalidating what I stand for. "

    Having discussed and shown how the pure, original, and sacred meaning of tolerance has been profaned into its present evil state, we now move to the greatest and most telling weakness of that present evil state. This weakness points both to the falsity of present tolerance and the purity and truth of original, sacred tolerance. Likewise, it clearly identifies the author of present tolerance for it shows his fingerprints!

No Logic Found Here

    Numerous writers have pointed out that modern tolerance is a logical trap that makes no sense upon rational analysis. First of all, natural and divine law clearly point to the fact that there are greater and lesser goods and greater and lesser evils. These laws also point out that there is an inherent truth and that God is that inherent, unchanging truth which He has revealed to us through His Word and the guidance and example of His Son Christ. If God is above all things and He is inherent Truth, then it stands to reason that all other things are less than and less infused with that truth than God is. It therefore follows that some things are truer than others and that some things are therefore less true than others. Given the above, it is clear that all things cannot be equally true nor equal in general. Since present tolerance and the relativism on which it is based claim that all things are equally right, then these two systems are false and in error of themselves, thereby disproving their own assertions. Present tolerance, therefore, is at the outset wrong and misguided.

    Secondly, present tolerance is based on a refusal to judge ideas or place value judgments upon those ideas. It claims that anyone who judges ideas or places such judgments upon any ideas is intolerant. In view of this claim, it may rightly be said that present tolerance forbids moral outrage since such outrage implies a value judgment. Now, if I claim to be tolerant I cannot be annoyed or outraged by anyone who places such judgments since to be so annoyed or outraged would be to be intolerant thus contradicting or violating my own claim of being tolerant!

    Under the present distorted view of tolerance, the only true tolerant person would be one who accepts intolerance which would be accepting that which violates precisely what one stands for! However, if I accept that which violates what I stand for, then I am contradicting and invalidating what I stand for.

    Additionally, if tolerance means that everything is equally right or valid, then that would include the belief that intolerance is equally as right or valid as tolerance. Such a claim would be inherently contradictory and absurd since how can one claim that no position is superior while at the same time claiming that all positions are equal!

    All of this nicely mirrors the absurd foolishness of those who argue that religious people are intolerant while they themselves are clearly intolerant of religious people! To accept the validity of present tolerance is to accept that all views, beliefs, and positions are based on individual whim and therefore no view, belief, or position has superiority over another. This must be so because if no view is better than another, then my decision to believe X cannot be based on any intelligent evaluation of point X but rather my own personal desire to believe X. Additionally, why waste time trying to evaluate point X if it is equal to all other points? At the end of the day, I will choose X over Y based on my personal taste and nothing else. Moral decisions become like choosing ice cream. Favoring abortion is like favoring higher interest rates. If all this is so, however, how can I protest against Pro-life people claiming they are intolerant when my own protest against them is being intolerant itself?

    The logical trap here is evident. If you are intolerant of the intolerant then you are also intolerant. If you tolerate the intolerant then you validate their intolerance while claiming that said intolerance is wrong. It is in this kind of logical, rational, and moral pretzel that we may leave these fools, so intoxicated in their own stupidity.

No Truth Found Here

    In The Myth of Tolerance Greg Koukl stated that "most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice". Present tolerance dislikes rational discourse. Michael Horner, author of Tolerance and Truth has noted that "when tolerance is valued at the expense of truth, it becomes intolerance". Both men note that intolerance is necessary if one is to fight against injustice, lies, evil, and immorality. To attempt to face injustice and evil without intolerance is to approach an army with no weapons. Tragically, it is more like approaching that army with a white flag of surrender. All in the name of unity and peace, of course. Koukl also notes that relativism itself is an illogical myth since it claims that there is no absolute truth while positioning itself as an absolute truth that there is no such truth. There goes another one of the devil's pretzels.

    Author Paul Copan notes that religions are not the same and are radically different and exclusive in how they view truth, the nature of ultimate reality, humankind, the nature of existence, the purpose of life, and salvation. The mere fact different religions exist does not automatically confer on all of them the mantle of truth or validity, yet present tolerance ignorantly and arrogantly does this in the name of equality and respect. It is a fact that religions contradict each other and what one religion says cannot be accepted without rejecting what five other religions claim. To pretend that all of these contradictions can be ignored, glossed over, or are just a figment of our imaginations is absurd and the height of arrogance. As Francis J. Beckwith has pointed out, to accept present tolerance is to render moral saints and moral devils a mythical divide. Douglas Groothuis, author of Thinking Straight About Tolerance, reminds us that Islam denies Christ's Divinity while the Bible repeatedly affirms it in places such as John 1:1-3 and Colossians 2:9.

Impact Upon Education

    William Lane Craig has observed that once one accepts the present definition of tolerance, one must accept that the purpose of education is not to find truth or master facts but rather to develop skills to become wealthy, gain power, become famous, and develop influence. Truth is irrelevant since it is both subjective and changing. Spending one's time trying to discover that which changes with the wind and varies with each individual would seem to be the height of waste and foolishness. Besides, I will not be hired because I claim to know the truths of accounting but rather because I have developed the skills to be an effective accountant. In the old days, those skills would be seen as an outgrowth of basic truths about accounting developed over the years. Today, such skills are more seen as one's ability to adapt and modify those truths as needed. The end result is the same…truth is a myth. We see the present damage to education of this kind of thinking where 12-year olds are told that it is better to discuss and experience than to learn facts.

No God Found Here

    A simple comparison between original, pure, and sacred tolerance and the present disaster that this society calls tolerance is enough to show that God has nothing to do with this mess. This tragedy is laced with distortion, deception, corruption, profanation, arrogance, selfishness, arrogance, and all manner of foul philosophy. Since we know who is the prince, the master, the source of all such evil, it does not take an advanced degree to figure out who is the author of this present definition of tolerance and where this definition will ultimately lead us. Unfortunately, this society and this world are so drunk in their own sin and delusion that they neither recognize nor accept their present state of intoxication. Rather than accept their weakness and ask Christ to be their designated spiritual driver, these fools arrogantly continue to drive themselves and those they touch toward perdition!

Gabriel Garnica

    Next: Final Part: True Catholic Defiance


    Editor's Note: Heaven is once again under attack by those who would seek to ignore and overthrow God's majesty and authority. Gabriel Garnica, educator and attorney, submits regular insights and commentaries to remind and help guide readers toward a deeper and more assertive faith. Touching on topics and issues ranging from personal faith, doctrine, education, scripture, the media, family life, morality, and values, Gabriel's notes are music to traditional ears but unpleasant tones to those who have bought into the misguided notions so prevalent and spreading in today's Catholic world.


    Gabriel's Clarion
    April 16, 2005
    Volume 16, no. 106