boxcar
02-13-2002, 10:49 PM
Tonight Bill O'Reilly of The Factor dealt with a "tolerance" issue. This is one of my favorite topics, and I've written some about it previously.
The specific topic on the show dealt with non-teachers indoctrinating (they would call it "teaching") young grade school kids in hundreds of schools out in California in the tolerance of homosexual behavior. The reason, of course, is because some homosexuals have been subject to name calling and physical abuse. The Left uses these kinds of incidents as a pretext for teaching (read indoctrinating or brainwashing) its tolerance philosophy.
O'Reilly had both sides of the issue represented in that segment by lawyers. One represented the school districts; and the other represented the parents who were suing the districts because they did not bother to seek parental permission before the classes had begun.
While O'Reilly is okay on some things, I find him to be quite the ligtweight on other matters, most especially those that are "politically correctness-sensitive". So, I took the liberty to drop him a line, knowing that my letter would never get aired, anyway. (For one thing, it wasn't "pithy" enough.)
One item I would like to briefly touch upon, that I did not make mention of in my letter (a copy of which is below). Very briefly -- when the state tries to establish itself as the final authority over any relgious person's conscience by trying to modify that person's deeply held religious convictions, and mold them into the state's secular belief system, that action constitutes nothing less than an aggregious violation of that person's constitutional right to the free _exercise_ of his or her religion.
In short, two wrongs don't make a right. The state cannot attempt to right a violation of one group's rights at the expense of the constituional rights of other groups. That simple.
Below is the copy of the letter I sent to O'Reilly. You will find the "punch line" in my last paragraph.
Boxcar
------------------------
Bill, it seems to me you haven't a clue about what the Left's agenda is in their continual bombardment with and indoctrination in homosexuality to our innnocent youth, and even to adults by getting "gay rights" legislation passed. Perhaps you'll let me clarify the Left's real agenda.
One should not "name call", "abuse" or hurt anyone in any manner on the basis of his or her sexual orientation out of basic and fundmamental _respect_ for that person's human dignity. This reason alone is sufficient to constrain unseemly or abusive behavior toward anyone with whom we have legitimate disagreements.
However, when the Left says that we must "tolerate" or even "accept" any kind of conduct which we believe (perhaps due to our deeply held religious beliefs)is morally objectionable or even rephreshensible, and we balk at that, we are branded as bigots! (The Preachers of Tolerance should not be taking up stones here, should they?)
Perhaps a real-life analogy will drive the point home to you. The state makes laws and enforces them. When someone breaks a criminal law, does anyone try to enjoin the state to "tolerate" or "accept" that criminal behavior out of concern for the charged person's rights? Of course not! The state _respects_ the rights of even its law-breakers out of a fundamental regard for their human dignity, while simultaneously and categorically rejecting and even condemning their criminal behavior.
So, then, why is the state trying to force many of its citizens to accept or tolerate behavior that we find morally objectionable? The last time I checked, sexual conduct, in the bible, is still a moral issue. What gives the state the right to become the lord of my conscience, or of anyone else's for that matter, by trying to dictate to us what we must tolerate or accept -- at the terrible risk of being branded "bigots", if we dont?
In totolitarian states, the goverment not only seeks to control behavior, but it seeks to control attitudes and thought processes, as well. Think about it.
The specific topic on the show dealt with non-teachers indoctrinating (they would call it "teaching") young grade school kids in hundreds of schools out in California in the tolerance of homosexual behavior. The reason, of course, is because some homosexuals have been subject to name calling and physical abuse. The Left uses these kinds of incidents as a pretext for teaching (read indoctrinating or brainwashing) its tolerance philosophy.
O'Reilly had both sides of the issue represented in that segment by lawyers. One represented the school districts; and the other represented the parents who were suing the districts because they did not bother to seek parental permission before the classes had begun.
While O'Reilly is okay on some things, I find him to be quite the ligtweight on other matters, most especially those that are "politically correctness-sensitive". So, I took the liberty to drop him a line, knowing that my letter would never get aired, anyway. (For one thing, it wasn't "pithy" enough.)
One item I would like to briefly touch upon, that I did not make mention of in my letter (a copy of which is below). Very briefly -- when the state tries to establish itself as the final authority over any relgious person's conscience by trying to modify that person's deeply held religious convictions, and mold them into the state's secular belief system, that action constitutes nothing less than an aggregious violation of that person's constitutional right to the free _exercise_ of his or her religion.
In short, two wrongs don't make a right. The state cannot attempt to right a violation of one group's rights at the expense of the constituional rights of other groups. That simple.
Below is the copy of the letter I sent to O'Reilly. You will find the "punch line" in my last paragraph.
Boxcar
------------------------
Bill, it seems to me you haven't a clue about what the Left's agenda is in their continual bombardment with and indoctrination in homosexuality to our innnocent youth, and even to adults by getting "gay rights" legislation passed. Perhaps you'll let me clarify the Left's real agenda.
One should not "name call", "abuse" or hurt anyone in any manner on the basis of his or her sexual orientation out of basic and fundmamental _respect_ for that person's human dignity. This reason alone is sufficient to constrain unseemly or abusive behavior toward anyone with whom we have legitimate disagreements.
However, when the Left says that we must "tolerate" or even "accept" any kind of conduct which we believe (perhaps due to our deeply held religious beliefs)is morally objectionable or even rephreshensible, and we balk at that, we are branded as bigots! (The Preachers of Tolerance should not be taking up stones here, should they?)
Perhaps a real-life analogy will drive the point home to you. The state makes laws and enforces them. When someone breaks a criminal law, does anyone try to enjoin the state to "tolerate" or "accept" that criminal behavior out of concern for the charged person's rights? Of course not! The state _respects_ the rights of even its law-breakers out of a fundamental regard for their human dignity, while simultaneously and categorically rejecting and even condemning their criminal behavior.
So, then, why is the state trying to force many of its citizens to accept or tolerate behavior that we find morally objectionable? The last time I checked, sexual conduct, in the bible, is still a moral issue. What gives the state the right to become the lord of my conscience, or of anyone else's for that matter, by trying to dictate to us what we must tolerate or accept -- at the terrible risk of being branded "bigots", if we dont?
In totolitarian states, the goverment not only seeks to control behavior, but it seeks to control attitudes and thought processes, as well. Think about it.