Tolerance Be Damned!

by Paul Hein

I was channel surfing:

Click: "But wait! If you order today,---"

Click: "What we're seeing here is a protest in---"

Click: Shirtless young males, in advanced stages of cachexia, are abusing guitar-like devices, and making loud vocal noises, evidently "singing." Beethoven would be spinning in his grave--if he weren't deaf.

Click: "In addition to the set of steak knives, we'll---"

Click: A darkened room. A man, middle aged, is sitting in a chair, with his head in his hands, sobbing. He looks up slowly, directly into the camera. "What does it all mean," he groans. "Why am I here? What is the purpose of life?"

Click, and off. Enough!

Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? This guy was 50, or thereabouts, and he hadn't figured it out yet? I knew the answers to those questions when I was ten years old, and so did all my classmates at St. Gabriel school in south St. Louis. "God made me to know him, love him, and serve him in this life, and be happy with him forever in the next." We learned those answers by rote from the Baltimore catechism, which has fallen from favor. Learning by rote is considered bad form today, although it is hard to understand what we learn that isn't "by rote." Our phone number. The alphabet. Our address. Even our name, and how to spell it. The multiplication tables. Time enough to understand these things when we got older; but in the meantime, let's learn them, so we'll have something to understand. Seemed like a good idea then, and it still does.

Life was pretty much black and white 50 years ago, with precious little grey area in which to hide. We understood that certain things, like homosexual behavior, were wicked, even if we didn't know what homosexual behavior was. When we got older, and learned just what the poor wretches do to one another, we were confirmed in our belief. Abortionists were criminals, carrying out their dirty illegal work sub rosa, despised by ethical physicians. 

Having a baby out of wedlock was shameful, and brought disgrace upon the entire family. Divorce raised eyebrows, and wasn't really respectable, unless one partner, usually the husband, was downright abusive physically, or flagrantly unfaithful. Even then, the marriage was thought worth maintaining, because the partners had sworn to do so "until death do us part," not to mention "in good times and bad," etc. They took that vow seriously!

Workers were proud of their work, and thought a day's pay merited a day's work.

Oh, it was a world with sharply-drawn lines, and well-defined boundaries; quite restrictive by today's liberal standards, or lack of them. But guess what! We were happy! Society wasn't always being torn asunder with rancorous disagreement. Everyone knew the rules, and few found them burdensome. 

Today we are plagued with "tolerance," by which is really meant "indifference." We do not condemn homosexual behavior, for example, because we have no moral compass by which to determine the true course. In fact, we condemn almost nothing--except adherence to the old-time rules. Divorce is a matter of fact; no one is embarrassed by it. Never-married mothers abound, and no one thinks ill of them. On the contrary, the only ones who might be subjected to criticism regarding extra-marital sex are those who condemn it. "Judgmental," is how the believers in non-subjective rules are judged. Tolerance and diversity are always directed toward the ones who break the rules, not those who uphold them. Indeed, the very existence of rules is questioned--except for the iron-clad rule that those who believe in them are bigots and fanatics.

OK, I'm an old curmudgeon. I admit it. But being a curmudgeon doesn't make me blind or deaf. I can see the world I'm living in today, and I remember very well the days in St. Gabriel grammar school, and they were better. Teen suicide and teen crime were almost unheard of. If we were "sexually repressed" by remaining chaste before marriage, it didn't do us any harm. About the only drug we knew was aspirin. Even if we disagreed with our parents, we obeyed them. And we were happy!

Is "tolerance" tolerable? What has a generation of confusion about the principles we took for granted brought us? Is the family a more stable unit today? Are children better educated, better mannered, or even as content, as we were? Has there been some benefit to society from bringing homosexuals out of the closet? Has the burgeoning divorce rate brought happiness? Are unwed mothers pleased with their lives, and urging other young women to emulate them? Are the drug addicts (not aspirin!) finding the satisfaction they seek, and living fuller, richer, lives through the miracle of back-room chemistry? Has exposure to "sex education" made youngsters responsible and mature regarding sex, or merely whetted appetites better left unwhetted, for the time being?

People either have rules of right and wrong, or they have "tolerance" toward those who profess to march to a different drummer. That tolerance is OK if the difference concerns matters of mere taste. When fundamentals are involved, give me the rules! The hell with tolerance.

March 19, 2002