David Hudson: ‘Tolerance’ has more than one definition
In his column of July 29, Steven Craig extols the virtues of “tolerance and moral acceptance.” He writes: “If we all genuinely lived by our own moral precepts, the world would be a much better place.” Wow, that sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, most people DO in fact live by their own self-defined moral precepts, with horrible results. Certainly Saddam Hussein, Hitler and Stalin must have lived by their own moral precepts. Most criminals would likely tell you they live by their own moral precepts. Closer to home, all of us at some point justify our own bad behavior and rationalize it as moral. Deceit, lust, greed, envy, theft, murder – all of man’s deficiencies known as sin – are the result of “living by our own moral precepts” rather than God’s precepts.
Protesting “moral superiority that justifies the right to dictate and impose your moral choices on others,” Craig ironically believes his own moral choice of “tolerance” to be superior to the choices of the folks he deems “intolerant.” Unlike Craig’s subjective moral precepts, an objective standard of right and wrong exists. In the name of “tolerance” our culture is rapidly losing sight of that standard and rejecting our Judeo-Christian heritage, to our own peril.
Interestingly, Mr. Craig also rails against “massive distortions” of Christ’s teachings, yet he distorts scripture, telling only half the story from the Gospel of John, Chapter 8. He conveniently omits the conclusion, where Jesus said to the adulterous woman “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Like Mr. Mayfield before him, Mr. Craig carefully chooses words of Jesus in order to justify his own beliefs and actions, rejecting those words that don’t fit his model of “tolerance and acceptance.”
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.