Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron

It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and  here).  It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge.  Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:

The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:

The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices

In other words, what did you “endure”?  Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices.  There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.”  In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.

But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance.  They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.

The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.

An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:

 A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda

But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true.  Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:

Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”

Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.

Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.

Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).

Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.”  So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness.  I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it.  And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition.  Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation.  I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant – and oh, yeah, misandrist – liberal.

As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be.  I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.  And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden.  God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said.  But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.

And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin.  Which resulted in total human depravity.  Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.

That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.

Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives?  They sure do have a funny way of showing it:

Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?

That is a very accurate description, given that:

Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.

The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again?  Darn.  We’re so, so sorry.  Better luck next year.  And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that.  Or maybe the year after that.

Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE.  “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door.  Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.

Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation.  Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right???  I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.

Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.

Yeah, that’s right.  I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world.  And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.

For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me.  Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood.  Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God.  We made up our minds.  And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since.  Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron”

  1. truthunites Says:

    What puzzles me is when liberals are unable to see their hypocrisy in this particular situation. It’s so glaringly obvious.

    Lauren Jacobs: “it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).”

    It would not surprise me if there are many liberals who are unable to see their own liberal Pharasaic hypocrisy.

    Furthermore, it would not surprise me if they got extremely mad at anyone who points out their blatant hypocrisy.

  2. Beeker D. Says:

    Gave up ‘entirely` on trying to have any kind of a civil debate with so-called Liberals/Progressives(socialists) many years ago on the old AOL comment boards.
    `CIVIL`, to liberals/progressives/sociofascists means; They get to call you all the vile words and descriptions one can think of while you should remain tolerant or just `SHUT UP` altogether!
    ‘ZERO’ and I mean ‘ZERO’ patience/tolerance for any of those baseless bigoted animals now!
    They do not want or accept any form of civil discourse so why waste your time with the whole lot of Greedy, Selfish, Spoiled, Childish, Hateful, Small Minded, Bigoted Racists but that’s enough
    complements and again I have given THOSE ANIMALS to much of my time!

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    What puzzles me is when liberals are unable to see their hypocrisy in this particular situation. It’s so glaringly obvious.

    truthunites,

    When you’re dealing with bad people, nothing you catch them at matters unless you can punish them with stuff like prison or execution. Imagine how our criminal justice system would be today if we decided to simply prove that they were guilty of their crimes and scold them. They wouldn’t give a damn; because they are bad people who are incapable of shame, or honor, or decency.

    And frankly, that’s the way liberals are.

    The bottom line is that these are people who simply do not love the truth. In fact, they hate it. And so you document that one of them is an abject hypocrite and they couldn’t care less, because all that is is another example of a truth that they despise. To that end, take the devil that liberal strategist whose “rules” Obama taught as a community organizer dedicated his work to: does the devil know he’s a hypocrite? I’m sure he does. Because his problem isn’t that he’s stupid, but that he is truly evil. And for bad people, “lies” and “hypocrisy” are merely tactics that they use because they simply have no “morality” the way we do. That’s why Alinsky said, “Make opponents live up to their own book of rules” even though he himself recognized NO rule that liberals should live by.

    If Rush Limbaugh or some important GOP actor instructed me to lie and cheat and hypocritically force liberals to act morally while saying that Republicans shouldn’t practice any kind of morality themselves, I’d abandon them. I’d certainly never vote for a Republican president who actually TAUGHT such strategies the way Democrats voted for Obama when HE taught that vile Saul Alinsky garbage. But like I said, these people have no morality, no integrity and no decency. And so so what if they’re the worst kind of hypocrites???

    That’s my view of what we face.

  4. rogerisright Says:

    Great article …except for the references to Israel you hit this one out of the park. The sad truth is that Israel is guilty of doing exactly what you described and worse. They have one of the worst records of human rights violations on the planet. Israel is also an apartheid state which runs against everything we believe as a people and against everything that Jesus taught. That doesn’t even begin to address their ungodly activities they take part in across the globe. Here is my blog post on “The Intolerance of Tolerance” where I prove that it not only doesn’t exist …logically it can’t. lol

    http://therightwingextremist.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-intolerance-of-tolerance-no-longer-a-virtue-just-a-logical-implausibility/

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    rogerisright,

    Regarding Israel, I simply couldn’t disagree with you more.

    On your view, Israel a) has no right to defend itself and b) has a duty to cease to exist while c) Islamic jihadism is morally superior to a democracy.

    Israel has now REPEATEDLY been the victim of unprovoked rocket attacks. And I mean tens of thousands of rockets launched over foreign borders at them. And according to you, they have absolutely zero right to retaliate or to defend themselves. According to you, the ONLY democracy in THE ENTIRE HISTORY of the Arab world is wicked and all the terrorist-sponsored nations around her are morally superior.

    You are also simply wrong in your “facts.” In Israel, there ARE Arab citizens and those Arab citizens DO have the right to vote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

    Just what the hell do you propose Israel does? I mean, if you claim they are an “apartheid” state, you are directly claiming that the state of Israel has no right to exist. And that the Bible is wrong and that God was wrong when He gave the land of Israel to the Jews as an ETERNAL POSSESSION.

    If you demanded America acted this way, we would be morally wrong to defend ourselves even when we were under direct military attack on our own soil by foreign powers who wanted to murder every single American man, woman and child.

    I’ll agree that Israel doesn’t do very much of what Jesus taught. Israel is currently NOT Christian and doesn’t accept Jesus as Messiah, so I frankly wouldn’t expect them to do everything that Jesus taught.

    But since that is your standard to damn Israel, just where do you plan to live? In America, where we’ve murdered 55 million of God’s precious babies while increasingly imposing sodomy??? And do you believe that liberals are right in a) severing the state from God and then replacing God with the State? Is that what you think your Bible teaches??? I mean, understand, your president and your United States Senate say that we should separate the church from the state; then they say that when government forcibly seizes wealth and redistributes it that they who separated God and State ARE God and that the godless State takes over for the God whom they booted under separation of Church and state.

    If you don’t think Israel has a right to exist because of “ungodly activities,” I sure hope you moved the hell out of the United States so it can be given back to the Indians. Because these days we’re doing more “ungodly activities” than Israel ever DREAMED of doing.

  6. Crispina of Thagara Says:

    Israel has every right to defend itself …it just doesn’t have the right to
    [deleted by moderator who will explain why]

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Crispina of Thagara,

    I’ll allow you to say everything you said. All you have to do is SOURCE IT.

    I’m NOT going to allow you to assert whatever the hell you want about how evil all the Jews in Israel are without you documenting it.

    I’ll say this: let’s assume for the record that I have stated that I refuse to recognize your right to exist and your family’s right to exist. I have every intention of murdering you the first chance I get.

    Question: will you please give me the keys to your house and any alarm codes you have so I can have unrestricted access to your family’s home?

    You’d better say yes or I’ll be on you like stink on poop for being an abject hypocrite.

    Because that’s Israel’s problem. You demand that they treat people who refuse to recognize their right to exist, who literally support terrorists’ right to launch terrorist attacks inside Israel by a greater margin than elected Obama president. In fact, in ALL OF THE WORLD:

    Support for suicide bombing and other violence aimed at civilian targets is most widespread in the Palestinian territories, with 62% of Muslims saying that such attacks are often or sometimes justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Support is strong both in Hamas-ruled Gaza (64%) and the Fatah-governed West Bank (60%).”

    I submit that your demand that Israel treat people who want to murder them in their beds as honored guests merely shows how truly rabidly anti-Semitic you are.

    Israel is in an impossible situation. If you were surrounded by people who wanted you and your family violently murdered, and you were stupid enough to allow them to come into your home, you at least wouldn’t be an abject hypocrite. But I have a feeling you’d act the exact same way the Jews have acted.

    In 1948 Israel was declared a state by the United Nations. Israel accepted all of the conditions of that statehood, including how land was to be apportioned between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs rejected it and attacked Israel, vowing to drive the Jews into the Red Sea and kill them all. Miraculously, in spite of impossible odds, Israel prevailed.

    They won the war, they won the land. That has been the way history has ALWAYS been. I suggest you give up whatever land you or your family own to the American Indians or to Mexico if you live in America. If you live somewhere else, don’t worry: your ancestors “stole” it in war from some other poor, oppressed people, there is no doubt. This notion that Israel won the war but is supposed to lose the peace is evil and is the result of wicked minds. War has consequences. And when you take the consequences away for starting a war, all you will get is unending war because there is no reason not to start the next one because you’ll get your way win or lose. Had the Arabs won and succeeded where Hitler failed, I know that people like you wouldn’t be weeping for them, that’s for sure.

    Then there’s the corollary: democracy as self-suicide. If you have a group of people determined to kill you, you should let them vote and keep voting until they form a majority and then you should meekly be herded up and killed because after all, the murderers won the popular vote. That’s the situation that Israel would be in if you had your way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: