Have you ever asked yourself why there is this need to “fundamentally change America”? Long before our current Administration, there was this cry for “tolerance” and “diversity”. Upon looking up the meaning of “toleration,” this is what I found.
Toleration is “the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves. One can meaningfully speak of tolerating—i.e., of allowing or permitting—only if one is in a position to disallow.” It has also been defined as “to bear or endure” or “to nourish, sustain or preserve.” Toleration may signify “no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful.”
One can voluntarily choose to tolerate an opposing view or behavior, or one can be coerced to tolerate an opposing view or behavior. That coercion usually comes through government edict or the creation of law. The effort, of course, is to enforce compatibility among people with opposing ideas or world views. An example of this would be the striking down of the “traditional” view of marriage by the Supreme Court. Another would be Executive Orders by the President allowing illegal aliens to avoid deportation in opposition to current immigration law. The ideas of “tolerance” and “diversity” have cultural implications that are confusing and contradictory.
What happens when we are asked to tolerate the “intolerable.” There are examples of this in history. The following is from K-house News.
General Sir Charles James Napier (1782–1853) was a general of the British Empire. For a time in the late 1840s he was commander of all British forces in India. A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:
“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
Napier practiced a concept of moral absolutism. He believed in a single, triune God — an absolute Lawgiver. If there is an absolute Lawgiver, there must be an absolute law. Hindus, on the other hand, do not have a concept of one God. To them, God is utterly beyond form and definition; he is both unknown and unknowable. Their concept of god is more attune with the forces of nature, therefore there are many gods. If there are many gods, then there are many “truths.” That means “the truth” is relative. Your truth is different from my truth. All truth is valid. (Reference: https://www.khouse.org/enews/2015-09-28/)
One does not have to go very deep in this example to see the roots of coming conflict. Was Sir Charles James Napier supposed to “tolerate” this custom, or was he supposed to act according to his faith and convictions? This story is not much different from what our soldiers are facing in Afghanistan today regarding the custom of “bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means ‘boy player.’ The men like to boast about it.” (Reference: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/07/10/routine-child-rape-by-afghan-police/) These men who practice “bacha baz” occupy positions of authority, and indulge in this practice with impunity. Any American soldier who interferes with the custom is punished, as in the case of Captain Quinn, American Special Forces, and Sargent First Class, Charles Martland. The two beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. Both were immediately relieved of command and removed. “The Army contends that Martland and others should have looked the other way.” (Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0) The reason put forth for ignoring this activity is that the practice is cultural. Ah yes, moral relativism is in full view. We must respect another “culture” by “tolerating” this practice. And who gets to pay the price for this, — the mothers and young boys of Afghanistan. Such are the perils of “tolerance.”
Even the greatest leader in history fell to the folly of “moral relativism.” The tutor of Alexander the Great and his Companions was Aristotle. Alexander’s Father, Phillip II, had recruited Aristotle to educate his young lion. What is not well known, but documented, is the great rift that existed between Aristotle and Alexander. “Alexander was a deep believer in the importance of different cultures, not in the primacy of any single one, so we can be certain that he must have taken objection to Aristotle’s strongly held beliefs about the supremacy of Greek culture and civilization —.” (Reference: “Alexander the Great’s Art of Strategy”; copyright 2003; by Partha Bose; page 40.) Alexander adopted the mores and culture of the Persians late in his rule. Many customs of the Persians were contradictory to Macedonian values. One such Persian custom Alexander’s soldiers found intolerable was prostrating one’s self before the King. In Macedonian culture, kings were treated as equals, even though kings were believed to be descendants from the Olympian gods. Persians were inducted into Alexander’s advisory entourage. He eventually faced a soft rebellion among his countrymen. A Companion officer pointed out, “Oh King, what grieves us Macedonians the most is that you have already made Persians your kinsmen — they have the honor of calling themselves ‘Alexander’s kinsmen’ — and salute you with a kiss, yet none of the Macedonian so far had enjoyed this honor.” (Reference: Alexander the Great’s Art of Strategy; Page 245) Despite his belief in different cultures, Alexander had alienated his culture of origin in favor of another. There-in lies the contradiction. In the end, we must choose. “Aristotle himself, toward the end of Alexander’s reign, had lost all respect for his protégé’s ruling style and actions. ‘No one,’ he is reported to have said, ‘would voluntarily endure such a rule.'” (Reference: Alexander the Great’s Art of Strategy; page 248) And he was right.
As illegal and legal immigrants come to America, I wonder what their motivation is for coming, and why they are leaving their culture and country of origin behind. I recently read where Arabic is the fastest growing language in America. Also, when American Muslims were asked if they preferred the Constitution or Sharia Law, most responded that they preferred Sharia Law. Here, again, is the rub. In Islam, people and lands fall under one of two “houses,” — Dar al-Islam, the house of Islam, — and Dar al-Harb, the house of war. Dar al-Harb is also referred to as Dar al-Garb, meaning house of the West. If a land or people fall under Dar al-Harb, the house of war, you are considered unclean until annexed in to Dar al-Islam, the house of Islam. At that time denizens must either convert to Islam, or be killed, — or if allowed (tolerated), one can pay the “jizya” (tax) and live in the land as a dhimme, — a second class citizen with restricted rights. (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam) The idea of living in America, yet — holding on to these cultural values contradictory to our own Constitution, — stands the idea of “tolerance” on its head. We, as Americans, are being asked to “tolerate” values that are not tolerant of the American Culture. Why on earth people who moved out of the madness of another culture would want to bring the madness with them, I will never pretend to understand.
As with Sir Charles James Napier in India, we will have to choose. Will we dismantle the American Culture under the guise of “tolerance” and “moral relativism”? If we continue on the path we are on, moral anarchy will be the result. “If we are free to decide our own standard of morality, laws will be meaningless and human rights cannot exist.” (Reference: https://www.khouse.org/enews/2015-09-28/) Moral relativism will lead to moral anarchy, eventually cultural upheaval, and possibly the end of the American Culture. At times, I believe anarchy is the goal of our intellectual opponents. I pray that Americans soon wake up to the threat. The future of our children and grandchildren may depend on it.
How terrible it will be for those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute what is bitter for what is sweet and what is sweet for what is bitter! — Isaiah 5:20, (ISV)