Is Tolerance an End, or a Means?

Lots of continuing commentary going on in the blogosphere, especially the Catholic part of it, regarding the Accepting Abundance “public morality” post we discussed here yesterday.  Over at Little Catholic Bubble, Leila posted an interesting quote:

We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. – Archbishop Chaput

The left long ago learned the trick of using a nice-sounding word to cover a wicked agenda.  The key is to find a word that is hard to argue against, claim that the word covers some desired, liberal goal and then say anyone who opposes this goal is opposed to the nice-sounding word.  “Tolerance” is one of those words being misused – like using “choice” for abortion; if you are opposed to abortion you are not opposed to murdering babies, you are opposed to people choosing, you see?  These days, the left uses the word “tolerance” as the nice-sounding word to cover the concept of homosexuality being morally the same as heterosexuality.

Just as the left would never get anywhere advocating for baby killing, so they wouldn’t get anywhere trying to convince common-sense people that gay and straight sex are morally the same…so, “choice” instead of “baby killing” and “tolerance” instead of “gay same as straight”.  And if you oppose the concept of homosexuality being morally the same as heterosexuality, then you are being intolerant…even though you’ve never said anything against gay people and, indeed, strongly advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination against them be removed (as all believing Catholics, for instance, hold).

We need to scrape away the lies which have grown up in our society -the various words and phrases the left has twisted to cover the bad and unpopular things they wish to impose on us.  Tolerance is a means, not an end – it is something we do because we wish to live in a peaceful, civil society…but it must not and cannot mean approval.  I am not being intolerant when I say that homosexual sex is inherently disordered…I am merely stating the truth as I understand it.  If the left wants to persist in using that word, then we have to force them to use it properly…and right now, if “tolerance” is the goal, then they’ve won…gay people are broadly tolerated in the American populace and none but a few kooks would dream of putting the slightest legal disability upon homosexuals (good to keep in mind, liberals, that I and plenty of other conservative Christians are, for instance, not opposed to openly gay people serving in the military…and until you went and tried to judicially impose gay marriage, most of us were in favor of some sort of civil union legislation). But that is as far as we can go – to go beyond that, especially for a Christian, is impossible.  We can’t say that what is wrong is right – we are, indeed, supposed to die rather than do any such thing.

Let us start having debates without lies – no more code words, twisted phrases or rhetorical misdirection.  Words mean what they mean, and we should use them as they were intended.  Truth is not subjective – what is right is not dependent upon the ideological viewpoint of the individual.  There is a truth to adhere to – to discover as best we can and then attempt to apply it as best we can in our lives.  To do otherwise is to sink in to a morass of dishonesty where reason cannot exist…and to play the liberals game of undermining us by the clever tricks of the propagandist.

27 thoughts on “Is Tolerance an End, or a Means?

  1. Cluster August 31, 2011 / 1:44 pm

    “Compromise” is also a word the left throws around a lot to further a distasteful agenda. In 2008 Obama campaigned on “transformational change” to America, and now after the election is doing just that. Why would we ever “compromise” with the agenda??

  2. Bodie August 31, 2011 / 1:59 pm

    Deleted. //Moderator # 2

    • Luckee August 31, 2011 / 2:08 pm

      Bodie do you ever post an idea or do you just come here to insult and call names? Do you even have real ideas that go beyond blind hatred and vicious attacks?

      • Leonard L'Farte August 31, 2011 / 5:17 pm


        I’ve only been here a short time, but I have yet to see Bodie post anything of substance. I suspect he’s just a young person who somehow gets off on being nasty. Not really worth dwelling on or responding to.

      • Count d'Haricots August 31, 2011 / 5:28 pm

        I frankly don’t understand why the moderators don’t delete everything this pin-head posts. I know at one time he so thoroughly disturbed everyone with his infantile rants that his posts were found and deleted everywhere he left them.

        I guess the moderators thought he’d learned his lesson and allowed him to start polluting this blog again. But he doesn’t learn, he never learns.

        I’ll tell you what, those moderators are better persons than I; I’d pop every one of his post like a pimple on his pubertal face if it were up to me.

        Bodie/Monty/Jeffy/Slccr has his posts on speed-dial. I can’t speak for the other Moderator, but I’ve deleted some of his posts a dozen or more times. It would take a 24/7 Moderator to keep up with his reposting, and the blog owners don’t seem to be interesting in banning him. Is ignoring him really that difficult?//Moderator

      • Count d'Haricots August 31, 2011 / 6:26 pm

        What’s that voice in my head? Are you my Conscience?

        I’m sorry Conscience; I didn’t mean to imply that the moderators haven’t tried to make this nudzh disappear. I’m just pointing out that it’s hard to have an adult conversation with the constant buzzing of annoying gnat-brains.

      • Bodie September 1, 2011 / 11:28 am

        Deleted. Again. //Moderator

      • Bodie September 3, 2011 / 9:11 pm

        Awww, poor, poor Beans Burgundy. Go play dress-up with scotch and cigars; it’ll make you feel better.

    • Mark Edward Noonan August 31, 2011 / 11:24 pm


      If you can demonstrate that I have ever told a lie, I will retract it and apologize. Of course, it would be worthwhile if you actually knew what a lie is – the deliberate statement of something demonstrably false and which I either knew was false when I stated it, or reasonably should have known.

      Good luck finding something like that…

      • Bodie September 1, 2011 / 11:25 am

        Deleted //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs September 1, 2011 / 12:07 pm

        so, mark, in short, jeffy can’t prove squat.

        This is his typical MO. He claims to prove it or that it has been proven, but provides nothing to back it up.

        While, he thinks what he says is gospel.

      • Bodie September 1, 2011 / 5:39 pm

        Deleted. //Moderator

      • Bodie September 3, 2011 / 9:10 pm

        Your cowardice demonstrates your dishonesty, Mark. I have proven that you are a liar, and I have proven that you don’t want your lies to be called out as such. Lies and cowardice are the very core of your being, and your performance in this thread is a perfect demonstration of that fact.

  3. Count d'Haricots August 31, 2011 / 6:00 pm

    I watched a debate first hand at which two gentlemen were at loggerheads. The moderator turned to one debater and said, “What we need here is tolerance.”

    The other debater shouted angrily, “The last thing I need right now is to be tolerated! HE’S going to tolerate ME? No WAY! I have a right to my opinion, and you have no right to disrespect me. “

    The moderator was attempting to admonish the first debater in deference to the second based on what the moderator felt was the second debater’s indefensible position. The second debater recognized this as covert discrimination, and insisted on both positions being given equal opportunity to be heard, and judged on their merit .

    I find myself very much in agreement with the second gentleman. The word “tolerance” should be universally used as understanding, forbearance, acceptance and lenience when confronted with ambiguity. In NewSpeak tolerance now means to abide the intolerable over probity since context no longer matters. That’s what the second debater heard, and he felt it was demeaning to his position.

  4. js August 31, 2011 / 6:12 pm

    all too often…liberals like to play the games…act stupid and hold to a lie…when confronted…rinse and repeat…

    tolerance should be held out to those who dont know better…not to those who use it to advance thier agenda…

  5. casper August 31, 2011 / 6:54 pm

    tolerance |ˈtäl(ə)rəns|
    1 the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with : the tolerance of corruption | an advocate of religious tolerance.

    • Dvindice August 31, 2011 / 7:06 pm

      Knowing is 1/2 the battle. The true test is not just knowing what tolerance is but practicing it. (from what I’ve seen from our liberal friends, tolerance is a one way street in their favor)

    • Green Mountain Boy August 31, 2011 / 7:39 pm

      “Tolerance is the virtue of men who no longer believe in anything.” Some old dead probably white dude said this. How true .

    • js August 31, 2011 / 8:41 pm

      as in a drug addiction…tolerance toward others who pratice unnatural and unhealthy lifestyles is encouraged…as they also have free will, which is a gift from God…but when that practice causes danger and becomes a threat then tolerance should cease…

      just like an addict needs to cease when it becomes apparent that his/her addiction demands larger and larger doses to achieve the same results…before it kills them…just like toleration of deviant sexual behavior and abortions can kill society…

      no lesson learned every guaranteed that the subject matter would not be needed to relearned by future generations…for 2 thousand years men recognized that sodomy was a filthy and unatural behavior…and today we are learning that same lesson all over…

    • Mark Edward Noonan August 31, 2011 / 11:27 pm


      But tolerance is still just a means – I tolerate your views because I want a peaceful society…the end is a peaceful society, the means is tolerance…but if I take tolerance as my lodestar, then I might find myself tolerating things which lead to anything but a peaceful society. Such as the tolerance of gratuitous violence in popular culture…by tolerating the objective evil of glorified violence, I make it more likely that some in our society will become violent. This defeats the real end…and shows that for some things, intolerance is preferable to tolerance.

    • Count d'Haricots September 1, 2011 / 12:00 pm

      dis·crim·i·nat·ing   /dɪˈskrɪməˌneɪtɪŋ/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-ting] Show IPA
      1. differentiating; analytical.
      2. noting differences or distinctions with nicety; discerning; perspicacious: a discriminating interpreter of events.
      3. having excellent taste or judgment: a discriminating interior designer.
      4. differential, as a tariff.
      5. possessing distinctive features; capable of being differentiated; discriminative.

      And yet to a liberal, discriminating is an evil crime.

      • tiredoflibbs September 1, 2011 / 12:09 pm

        Count, liberals have overused “discriminating”, “bigot” and “racist” so often that they have lost their true meaning!

        They have become talking points, slogans, popular themes to attack one’s opponent, etc. etc.


      • Count d'Haricots September 1, 2011 / 2:03 pm

        Thanks, that’s what I was trying to say in my earlier post regarding “tolerance”, you’ve stated it better than I did.

        What the word should be understood to mean and its general application, and what the NewSpeak language nazis have done to the word are far different.

      • Bodie September 1, 2011 / 5:36 pm

        Deleted. //Moderator

      • neocon1 September 1, 2011 / 5:40 pm

        animal farm
        and alynski 101

      • neocon1 September 1, 2011 / 5:42 pm

        Dheads have overused “wingnuts” so many times they sound stupider than they usually do.
        a seemingly impossible trait, congratulations boobie.

  6. Majordomo Pain September 4, 2011 / 1:09 pm

    Mark you are flawed in your reasoning. The difference between what you want [a nation where your religious sensibilities are given primacy ] and what Liberals desire [equal rights to self determination for all citizens within a framework of secular law] is that more people get their rights in a Liberal society. What you are seeking is that the values of your religion be used as a barrier to civil rights not a spring board.

    That sort of thinking coupled with your inability to brook any criticism of your Church is proof that your view is archaic and un American. Yet We note that in a Liberal America you will have the right to worship as you please, marry as you please, love as you please and live as you please. Under your system this is not the case.

Comments are closed.