Question Three

 This is the third in a series of questions to consider before casting your vote this November.  Once again let me state that I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  I hope that everyone gives it the serious consideration that it deserves.

Is intolerance of unpopular ideas (not actions) ever OK, and if so, to what extent can that intolerance be expressed?

Intolerance is the reverse of tolerance.  Tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of opinions with which one does not agree.  Hence, intolerance is the unwillingness or refusal to respect or allow the existence of opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.

The question is a difficult question.  When ideas conflict with one’s own, while one may be curious, it is also easy to become intolerant, especially of distasteful ideas.   No one wants to hear hurtful or repugnant words, racial, ethnic, or religious epithets, or other generally unaccepted views.   We would like to put a stop to hateful, and painful pronouncements.  But the difficulty here is that the inclination to silence offensive views directly implicates our First Amendment.

The First Amendment envisions a country of tolerance in which there is a free and open marketplace of ideas.  This marketplace educates us.  It may cause us to strengthen our own ideas, alter them, or improve them.  Most importantly, when speech is not suppressed, thought cannot be controlled or limited.

Tolerance and the free interchange of ideas also prohibits the suppression so necessary to a dictatorship.  One of the first things that Lenin did following his Russian revolution was to end all opposition by ending freedom of speech and the press and by instilling in the people a complete fear of speaking dissenting ideas.  Communism also denied the freedom to practice one’s religion.  There was complete intolerance of any thought, speech, or idea that did not conform to the State.

Tolerance does not mean or require acceptance of the other view.  But lack of tolerance is a demand that all think as you do.  Note that I am not talking about tolerance of actions which society, through the legislative process, has agreed are not tolerable - things like DWI, murder, rape, and many other crimes against persons or property.  I am talking about a person who has ideas with which others do not agree.  Is intolerance (the suppression of the existence) of those ideas or speech about them ever OK?  If yes, then when?  And what are the consequences of answering “yes”?

Distinguish here the emotion of disagreeing with or not wanting to hear or associate with a particular idea as opposed to actual intolerance (suppression) of that idea.    One can always walk away from an unpleasant idea or one can argue against it.  Argument signals disagreement with, not intolerance of an idea.  If the argument is civilized, everyone will learn because the differing ideas are all brought to the marketplace.  Such disagreement is not intolerance but rather a way of being tolerant of and perhaps understanding the ideas of others. 

The intolerant attempt to silence unwelcome views is often the result of fear or insecurity on the part of the intolerant one, perhaps because their intolerance is an attempt to silence all opposition, or perhaps because they simply do not understand the words of others that they have adopted as their own and thus feel threatened when “their” ideas are questioned.

In the current climate of heated political debate, both sides often accuse the other of intolerance.   But an actual review of the behavior of both sides seems to indicate far more coordinated attempts at actual suppression of ideas and speech on the part of the Left than by the Right.  This makes sense when one considers that the Left is aiming toward a complete remaking of America in a socialist mode.  Socialism cannot tolerate dissent as those in power decide what is “right” for everyone.

A free marketplace of ideas does not coordinate well with the Left’s plans for this country.  Tolerance of opposing views is not acceptable to the Left.  They will not be tolerant of those who disagree, and those who disagree must not simply tolerate the Left’s views, but actually accept them.  Their methods of being intolerant, of silencing all dissent, are many.

People will be called racist, sexist, etc. if they disagree with the Left’s agenda.  This is one method of silencing dissenting views.  Another is to file lawsuits designed to to force others to conform their views to that of the Left, for example aiming to force bakers and florists who, for religious reasons, decline services to gay weddings. 

The Left will attack people for wearing a Trump MAGA hat.  They not only ban Right-leaning speakers from campuses, but also at times assault them.  Having made the decision that intolerance of “wrong” views is acceptable, the Left seems to have concluded that whatever means necessary to silence the disapproved view is acceptable, even the use of violence.

The Left has no problem proclaiming what speech is and is not allowed.  We now have a list of words, phrases, and questions that are not allowed to be spoken about the Democrat VP candidate. 

Yes, an actual memo went out from a group of Democrats to media telling them how they are “allowed” to cover Kamala.  Any criticism will be considered racist and sexist.  Hence, if you say she seems like an angry woman you are speaking a racist code about her.  The Democrats love codes – so often when someone speaks something they do not like, they will assert that the word or phrase is code for racism or sexism or white supremacism or whatever negative -ism fits the context.

The problem with intolerance is that it silences dissent.  It allows the one doing the silencing to eliminate any questioning of, and discussion about the approved or tolerated views.  Being aggressively intolerant of opposing thoughts really has the same effect as Lenin’s secret police.  Eventually it will instill enough fear that others will stop even attempting to voice those ideas.  The hope of the intolerant and the requirement of the socialist is that ultimately everyone will fully conform to and fully accept what those in power assert, even that 2+2=5.

This Country was built on the idea of tolerance, tolerance of other ideas, of others who are different.  This does not mean required acceptance of diverse views, but it does mean accepting that those diverse from us have a right to exist and to express their beliefs. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Those are the words of the FIRST Amendment.  The most important amendment.  It protects the people from a government that would deny them of their very right to free thought.  It demands tolerance, even of views with which we deeply disagree. 

The words seem to be meaningless to the Democrats who cannot tolerate even the slightest question or criticism.  The “thought police” have been around for some time.   But the Democrats seem to have taken it to a new level as they try in every way possible to silence opposing and especially conservative thought.  

The Left would have us all think alike; their purpose is to achieve and hold the power that will allow them to lead us into their socialist “utopia.”  And now we have the Left-supported “cancel culture” with its accompanying violence.  Whatever else the purpose of all this may be, it certainly has a chilling effect on those who would speak out or even question the Democrat mantras. 

Tolerance can be difficult.  But it is key to freedom.  Intolerance, once accepted into society, can be fickle: intolerance by one today may become intolerance against them tomorrow.  With intolerance comes the threat of suppression of thought for everyone. 

Those for whom freedom of thought is important must do what they can to stop the Democrat oppression of ideas that are not theirs.  One thing we can do is to vote Republican in November.

 

 

The Bloodthirsty Left

Two years and counting since the blind hatred of the Left began to boil.  One would think it would be cooling, but its temperature continues rising daily.

The Left wants to destroy everyone that does not bow down to them and all their views.  Now it is a group of high school boys who were attacked, accused of being attackers, and, though that has been proven untrue, continue to be the subjects of hatred and violent threats.  What did they do wrong?  Well, for starters some wore MAGA hats – an unpardonable sin in the Left’s view.  They go to a Catholic school and assert their Christian faith and values in the face of vitriolic hatred.  Those values are another unpardonable sin.  So, the Left calls for doxing of their names (publication of their names and addresses for malicious intent).  They and their families are receiving hate and death threats.  Their school is closed due to security concerns.  All this for simply peacefully wearing a hat and holding true to their faith. 

This is the Left.  This is their normal behavior.  Silence in any way possible those who do not hold their views.   Destroy anyone who is not them.  We saw this with their attempted destruction of Justice Kavanaugh and his family.  They failed – or did they? They now call for perjury charges against him – for what?  For telling the truth in the face of their lies and false charges against him.

The Left believes that their views are the only ones that should be allowed.  Regardless of their factual truth.  Notwithstanding that in this country we protect diverse views – or at least that used to be one of our ideals.  The Left would silence if not destroy all who disagree.

I understand this tactic of their leaders who, as any examination of the actual facts of their behavior reveals, seek a world in which they hold absolute power and control every thought and act of their subjects, keeping those subjects fully dependent on their every whim.  But, what I do not understand is that their followers accept, indeed follow them.

I do not understand how anyone with even half a brain or half a heart or any understanding of American values can accept the behavior of the Left.  Their continued calls for violence against anyone not holding their views.  Their many ways, both subtle and blatant, of intimidating those who are not one of them.  It is as if so many of their followers are in some sort of a drugged state as they follow blindly behind this destructive leadership of the Left.

The Left loves to throw feel good promises to their followers.  I have been listening to their candidates throwing their hats into the 2020 ring.  They all use the word “fight” in their speeches.  I will fight for this or that group.  They continue to stoke the hatred of identity politics.  I have yet to hear any of them assert that they will fight for the tolerance and respect for diverse views that is a cornerstone of our democracy.  Their promises that their government will give every group everything they want is a true “opiate of the masses.”  Yet, that opiate will destroy America.

The bloodthirsty Left cares only about itself.  Promises to this or that group are ways to gain that group’s support, but as soon as they are not useful, the Left will be happy to destroy them as well.  The Left’s thirst is for their own power and to keep that power they will destroy anything and anyone; they will keep necessary supporters not by empowering them, but by keeping them dependent and by feeding them lies.

This is a very scary time to be anything but a lock-step Leftist.  The hatred being stoked by the Left grows daily.  They want their way and only their way and they are happy to destroy any and all who stand between them and the ultimate power that they seek.  Their calls for killing (yes, killing!) of the young boys who they wrongfully accused and attacked, should shock us all, but sadly, it is the sort of thing we hear daily from the Left.  Yet, we must not let ourselves become immune to this.

The behavior of the Left is irrational and bloodthirsty hatred.  It is destructive, both to the specific individuals whom are attacked and also to the people of this country as a whole. Those who are lulled by their promises of a glorious future must see those promises for what they are – useful hooks to lure in support for the Left’s own power.  This is a frightening time for America – a time where we could lose the dignity and diversity of the individual that is a key to this and any democracy.  We must not let the hatred of the Left succeed.

Sticks and Stones and Bones and Souls

There is an old children’s rhyme: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.“ This rhyme, it turns out, is a lie. The name calling such as that which the Left now engages in against those of different political persuasions cuts to the quick – to the soul. More accurate than the children’s rhyme is this from Ecclesiasticus 28:17-18: “The stroke of the whip makes marks in the flesh, but a stroke of the tongue breaks the bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.”

Words can be lethal weapons that injure the spirit and crush the soul. Many on the left have learned how to weaponize words. Words can do damage far worse than a stick or a stone. Bruises heal, they are superficial, the hurt is short lived. Sharply weaponized words attack the very soul of an individual – the inner self that makes the person whom he or she is. It silences what could and probably should be a very vibrant part of whom they are.

Recently (the admittedly Right-wing source) Breitbart printed a list of 632 verified political acts against those not supporting Leftist agenda; many of these were acts of verbal harassment. (see article here) This list does not include the acts of name-calling and shaming that occur daily in simple attempts at conversation between people of differing political views. All are attempts to intimidate and silence.

I along with others I know, have personally been the recipient of nearly every epithet in the Democrat repertoire when daring to state a point of view contrary to theirs. Even though false, these epithets hurt deeply, in the way that it hurts when one is accused falsely of a crime and any attempt to prove innocence is impossible. When the attack has been especially vitriolic, I have afterwards felt a deep sadness, a sort of aloneness that reaches deep into my soul.

Are those who engage in these verbal assaults attempting to wound their perceived opponent’s soul? Maybe (this question of course assumes that they believe in such things as a soul). Do they know that this name calling is a weapon that they are using intending to cause hurt? Most probably. Is it intended to silence diverse views? Most definitely.

This weaponized name-calling is an adult version of the sticks and stones of childhood. When a child on the playground doesn’t know how to deal with something he doesn’t like or understand, he might throw a rock. These Democrat adults seem unable to handle views contrary to their own and so, instead of throwing a rock they throw an epithet. But, the intent is the same – to hurt and silence the one causing them confusion or discomfort; to make them go away.

It is bullying, and bullying is a result of intolerance. Intolerance of those who do not look, think, or behave as the bully would like. It is an attempt to have the victim either go away or change behavior. It results from ignorance and dislike of anything different. It is an attempt to silence that which one does not understand.

Verbal attacks do more than silence the words of opponents; do more than simply stop them from speaking their views. They create an intimidation that reaches one’s soul as they attempt to reform one’s very being into one that the Left find’s acceptable - a clone of their every view. That creates a separation of being as the victims understand that they are seen as some sort of evil worthy only of shaming and exclusion. This sort of intolerance is wrong. Whether it is addressed toward someone’s looks or race or sexual orientation or religious persuasion or political stance, it is bullying, plain and simple. And the wounds often remain, silencing one’s soul for a lifetime.

I suspect many on the Left would condemn words that may have effected the silencing of others in the past: hateful words flung at gays or Blacks or Jews or mentally disabled or anyone else who looks or behaves differently from some “norm” of the attacker. Yet how different is that from berating one with words like racist, supremacist, hater, inhumane (the list goes on and on) or banishing someone from one’s world simply because a person holds a different political view, a view that the Left is unwilling to tolerate or understand?

While they often accuse those on the Right of intolerance, the Left has a blanket intolerance for any and all who do not think like them. This is what those without tolerance seek: silence of those whom they choose not to tolerate. The Left’s use of bullying words is nothing more than evidence of their intolerance and unwillingness to listen to those with whom they disagree; their assaults are intended to shame or intimidate differing views into silence. They break the bones of the victims' souls.

The Left’s use of verbal assaults is cruel and heartless and by its very nature flies in the face of all they claim to stand for; it belies their claims of caring for humanity from all walks of life while proving their real objective of claiming uncontested and ultimate power for themselves.

Yes, sticks and stones may break one’s bones, but the Left's words of intolerance break the soul – the soul of the victim, of free and open discussion, and of America itself.