By Tera Ertz
One of the words that has wended its way into our political discourse over the last several years that has always irritated me is the word tolerance. “We must show tolerance toward those who believe differently than we do.” “We must be tolerant of other cultures.” More recently, this word has once again cropped up in discussions of the Israeli/Palestinian war as Palestine has applied to the UN for statehood. The liberals in this country have longed preached the message of tolerance, and this President has been one of the loudest cheerleaders for increased tolerance from the Israelis, from the West in general and from America’s citizens in particular, on matter ranging from homosexuality, to abortion to Islam, even as he denounces conservatives, Tea Party folks, and any who disagree with him as uncivilized. I decided perhaps it was time to take a look at what exactly tolerance means. Traipsing around at dictionary.com, I came across the following:
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
Now, that sounds lovely, doesn’t it? I mean, after all no one wants to be bigoted. We all would like to think ourselves fair and objective, if not necessarily permissive in our attitudes toward others. This country prides itself on freedom of religion and expression. So, of course we would like to increase the tolerance we show in this respect, right? This is the typical definition we think of when someone speaks of tolerance.
But, when we look more discerningly at the definition, we have to ask, should we permit ALL practices? For instance, is it intolerant for the citizens of this country to denounce stoning women to death or beheading them for seeking a divorce? After all, this falls within the religious practices of a certain segment of the Islamic population, and it has actually occurred in this country, not just on some distant shores. Should we be tolerant of the differing view point?
Should not those who seek to make their homes on our shores also be required to be more tolerant of our practices, religion and nationality? Is it fair and objective for students in Southwestern schools to be penalized for wearing shirts with the American flag on them to school? Is it permissive to denounce the citizens of this country for not wanting a mosque built on the site of one of the most devastating attacks on this country? Is it tolerant for Black Panther supporters to confront college students and threaten to exercise his second amendment right against another student organizing for a group passing out the Constitution? Is it objective for this administration to condemn Israel for standing up for its sovereign rights as a nation in the face of perpetual attack from its neighbors? Is it fair to support the use of tax payer dollars, against the wishes of a majority of American, to fund abortion both here and abroad, and attempt to silence and drown out those who speak out against such things?
None of these actions, all of which have been perpetrated by this administration, the liberals, and the media, seem to meet these particular criteria for tolerance. But there does seem to be a pattern to the behavior. Is this perhaps once again a misunderstanding on the part of the general populace of this word? A word that has been being used for years to try to silence dissent through intimidation or guilt by making people feel they will be labeled a bigot or unfair? My trusty dictionary did come up with another definition that might better explain the policies, positions and people that the liberals in this country promote.
The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.
Perhaps under this definition the calls for tolerance become clearer. Liberalism promotes programs that are parasitical in nature, growing government far beyond its useful limits. It promotes regimes that strike at the heart of our nation while demanding concessions and “tolerance” from the citizens it damages. It promotes a loosening of traditional morals and family bonds that are the foundational strength of this nation through pathogenic poisons like gay marriage, easy divorce laws, promoting promiscuity in the name of feminism, and abortion, all while calling the baby in the womb the parasite. Liberalism has been promoting tolerance for decades, increasing its poisonous effects on our culture, our country, and our international relations slowly over time. Because, my friends, that’s how you build a tolerance to the things that will eventually kill you. And that’s how you keep people from deciding the discomfort of being slowly killed is great enough to find a cure. Don’t you think it’s about time we all stop acceding to the demands of the poisoners to let them keep upping the dosage? Isn’t it time we start working on purging our body politic of those that are trying to keep us ailing for their benefit for as long as they can until they deliver the terminal dose? Learn the Lingo, and be wary the wielders of words.