On Tolerance

"... The sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die." Dorothy Sayers.

This word is the cornerstone of a certain type of morally bankrupt liberalism. We cannot read a newspaper, or listen to the television or radio, without this modern virtue being extolled incessantly as the ideal to which we should aspire. The contexts within which we are strongly urged to apply these notions are generally race, religion, gender and culture i.e. the most basic things that determine the future of any people.

Tolerance and compromise are the liberal 'virtues', the characteristics that, taken to extremes are destroying our culture. Consider your beliefs. If they are true why compromise them for something less? And why tolerate, at least in the sense of not commenting upon, wrong beliefs, wrong actions and untruthfulness?

We are told that it is bad to be intolerant, good to be tolerant and 'permissive'. Why? Admittedly, in its original context, that of being tolerant of other people's behaviour that did not affect one, it was a positive ideal. Like many things, though, the forces against which we struggle have twisted the concept. They have been so successful that the condemnation of crime, perversion and evil in general is deemed to be bad. If we do not want pornography to be available to our children we are called 'intolerant'. If we are sick of living in a society where criminals are running out of control we are 'intolerant' to condemn them, their 'lifestyle' or even their behaviour. If our culture is attacked and derided we are 'intolerant' if we stand up for it. If we take our religious faith seriously we are certainly judged as being 'intolerant'. We are expected to smile when we explain ourselves, as if to say 'we don't really mean it... '.

The perversion of our language and culture has gone so far that many would claim that the opposite of intolerance is not 'tolerance' at all, but 'understanding'. The great motto is 'to understand all is to forgive all'. This is palpably untrue, especially when the meaning attached to the word 'forgive' is itself subverted to become a synonym for the tolerance of injustice.

A Christian on the Net, calling himself 'Mr GoodSalt' provided an interesting insight. He pointed out that morality is the line dividing what should be tolerated from what should not. So, what does this actually mean in the context of our religion?

The core response is laid down in the Havamal, and is unequivocal:
If aware that another is wicked, say so:
Make no truce or treaty with foes.

Speak out - do not remain silent. Silence implies assent, and makes it harder for others to speak in turn. If we do not fight for what is right, who will? Stand up and be noticed. Help turn the tide.

For us it is not merely the proffering of an idle opinion - it is our duty as laid upon us by The High One himself.