The
Way I See It
By Joseph C. Phillips
Righteousness Where Art Thou?
A dear friend of mine is fond of observing that God doesn’t let the good people know who the bad people are lest all the good people hunt down the bad and slaughter them. The salient point being that the cloak of righteousness is as easily discarded as it is donned.
The same can be said of that most popular of catch phrases, tolerance. Those that proclaim its virtues the most often practice it the least.
I do not mean tolerance in the way it has come to be defined as the willingness to accept the relative equality of all ideas and behaviors. Rather I favor the classical meaning of tolerance: the permitting or allowing of ideas that one disagrees with while still respecting the person. True tolerance is the acknowledgement that while all ideas are not of equal value, all people are due equal respect. My years writing this column have taught me that the cultural wind blows in exactly the opposite direction.
Following the publication of a column that defended traditional marriage I received an email from a lesbian flight attendant. She informed me that she found my opposition to homosexual marriage offensive, so offensive that she threatened if I was ever lucky enough to be a passenger on one of her flights she would spit in my food. Righteousness where art thou?
I wrote her back explaining that my evil pro-family views would not prevent me from treating her with courtesy, working with her or even having her as a guest in my home. How could she defend the virtue of her position with threats to spit in my food? When I suggested she rethink her threats she responded by suggesting I engage in an act of self-love.
Hypocrisy is not the exclusive province of this reader. Nor is it unique to advocates of homosexual marriage, though as of late they have been rather ardent practitioners of the art.
Following California’s passage of Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, anti prop 8 activists, decrying the lack of tolerance shown by the majority of California voters who passed the measure, took to the streets. In the name of tolerance they called for the burning of churches, physically harassed their neighbors and vandalized property.
After it was discovered that Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, had made a $1000 donation to support the proposition he was forced to resign. Not satisfied with the head of Eckert on a pike, advocates for homosexual marriage have published a blacklist that includes not only individuals that donated money to the pro marriage amendment, but also lists those corporations that employ people that donated money. Yes, that is correct. Those of good conscience are now called upon to boycott corporations that employ those with whom they disagree. The righteous now demand we punish not violators of law or morality, but those guilty of the exercise of free political speech.
Witness the vitriol leveled at the 70% of Black voters that supported the proposition. Promoters of gay marriage are not content with high jacking the Black American fight for civil rights, they demand strict allegiance to their agenda. The vote in November was an obvious deviation and was greeted with ugly and often racist insults leveled at Black voters, who were strangely blamed for the measures passage even though we are only 6% of the states population and represent approximately 1 million registered voters.
Intimidation and threats seem the antithesis of a definition of tolerance that claims to be rooted in the universal respect and honor of all cultural ideals. Of course those of us that believe in the veracity of traditional marriage reject such relativism. We argue that all love relationships are not equal nor are they equally deserving of societies’ sanction and promotion, though all people are due a measure of respect and civility. This has made the homosexual marriage crowd indignant. And it would appear righteously so.
Email Article
Send Feedback
Share Article