Tolerance: For some but not for others

"The 1990's saw the total mutilation of the English language and American behavior patterns for the sheer sake of ripping apart long-standing American cultural and family traditions to enforce conformity and make nonconformity either intolerable or illegal.

We all used to know what it meant to "tolerate" someone. We put up with them even though we didn't particularly like or approve of them or their behavior. Examples we all know: the guy who lets his lawn grow to the height of an alfalfa field before mowing it. The neighbor who minds everyone else's business. The office kissup who is first to suggest anything that might please the boss. The neighbors whose brats are always running through our newly-planted flower beds. That's what we meant by "tolerate" and there was no confusion between tolerance and acceptance. If we tolerated certain people it surely had nothing to do with accepting them as friends, or saying their way of life (disrupting the neighborhood or the office tranquility) was acceptable to us. We knew, we understood, we agreed on the language even if we might have different ideas of the person or brats involved.

I grew up in a world where we were free to decide what people would be our friends, generally based on those with whom we had common ideas and a common background or, to use a new phrase, similar worldview. Maybe we simply had the same religious beliefs or nominal church membership or opposition to churches.

This is now the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.) definition of tolerance as it applies to interpersonal relationships (not mathematical tolerances or medical applications):

tolerance. n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Specifically, "tolerance" was redefined to enforce a recalcitrant American public to set aside years of tradition, personal religious beliefs and the personal freedom to make choices in order to shove heretofore unacceptable persons and behaviors down the throats of American citizens. Government knows one cannot legislate belief systems, at least not until they can enforce total thought control. But they can set standards and legislate penalties for violating them.

This redefined tolerance is most actively seen in forcing people of different beliefs, and Christians in particular, to accept and embrace the politically correct, unnatural and repugnant acts of homosexuality and the minority (thus privileged) status of the entire homosexual communities under penalty of law.

Unlike Dr. Martin Luther King's dream where all persons of all colors would be accepted by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, "tolerance' means you accept non-European or non-white people regardless of their behavior. And this is to be enforced at a time when whites are a minority among the world's population (as they always have been), in a nation built largely by European immigrants through hard work and individual entrepreneurial effort.

Tolerance means we, the Americans who have built and developed this country by our work, shall, under penalty of law:

* Allow federalized education to inculcate the children with sex education, including the "fact" that homosexuality is an approved alternative lifestyle. Sex education is the responsibility of parents, but the government has taken charge, while removing from parents the authority to invest their children with the values of their heredity and culture, particularly if it is Christian or Bible-based.

* Accept the fact that parental discipline can be punishable by law (even a swat on the behind) to the extent that the government can remove the children from the offending parents and make them wards of the state, and many such children have been placed in foster care where their entire lives have been mutilated, traumatized and even terminated by intent or by neglect.

* We are to like all people of different races and colors even though in American history, the traditional European whites (which is ridiculous, no one is really white) were never legally bound to like one another. The law prevailed when it came to limitations on dislike, hence assault and battery or murder have always been illegal and punishable offenses. But to be forced to like one another? The mere thought was violative of basic American freedoms of choice, association and privacy.

More here