I don’t know if I can tolerate the way liberals use the word “tolerance” anymore. They use it so indiscriminately it has lost its meaning. In fact, they use it like a swearword.

You know, the four-letter kind. The one most rap “artists” sprinkle into their lyrics for poetic effect and poise. Perhaps they’d use “tolerance,” too, if weren’t for all those syllables. Even with their quick (and foul) mouths, most rappers would have trouble spitting out that word to any kind of rhythm while sounding cool and intimidating at the same time.

But forget about the way the word sounds when rappers use it and think about the way it is used by liberals.

In their world, tolerance is used to justify virtually every kind of degenerate behavior you can imagine, the kind of behavior four-letter words customarily describe.

If a man wants to “marry” another man, tolerate it!

If a woman wants to “abort” an inconvenient pregnancy, tolerate it!

If homosexual activists want “access” to kids at our schools, tolerate it!

Accept it.

Celebrate it.

Tolerate it.

That is, tolerate it … or else!

That is how liberals use the word today.

It wasn’t always like this.

The word “tolerance” finds its origins in the English-Common Law tradition. Tolerance in that context referred to the discretionary (note that – discretionary) acceptance of an opposing religious view.

The English Parliament of 1689 passed a law that granted partial freedom of worship to dissenters from the established Church of England. They called it the “Toleration Act.”

In that context, the word tolerance did not mean to sanction, endorse or “embrace for the sake of diversity” the views of those not associated with the Church of England. It simply meant that they agreed to disagree for the sake of civil peace. That is all it meant.

Of course, today’s secular liberals, who may or may not talk like rappers, but manifestly act like them, really can’t be bothered with things like the history of words and meanings, and as a consequence, they miss the irony of their own hypocrisy.

Actually, the post-modern mind has no real use for definitions, because it has no room for meaning, either in an etymological or a metaphysical sense. Remember, the first and most important tenet of postmodernism is that there is no ultimate truth (which of course is a claim about ultimate “meaning” – but let’s not get picky).

This is why today anyone who insists on proper “definitions” is generally treated with the same truculence that is heaped on those who have the temerity to believe in objective truth.

We are told: “Words are what you want them to mean.” And tolerance doesn’t mean “to discreetly accept with conditions.” No, for liberals it means you either endorse their point of view or shut up.

Nothing demonstrates this more than when a conservative engages the public square on the current social acceptance and promotion of homosexuality. Just try to express an opposing view on the normalization of homosexuality, one that reflects the natural order, human history and a historic Christian perspective, and you’ll quickly discover just how “tolerant” postmodern liberals really are.

You should just read some of the “tolerant” letters I receive on a regular basis. They are concrete evidence that civility and polite discourse are real priorities for these people.

For example, because I believe in the one-man/one-woman covenant union called “marriage,” one person ended his diatribe on my so-called lack of tolerance by saying: “You’re a pig.”

And another, totally befuddled that I believe in the Bible in a day where science has supposedly “trumped” faith, began his “courtesy” note by saying: “I wish you’d shut up and die … you @#&!”

And then there is the standard equivalence argument: “You’re no different than the Taliban.” Or my personal favorite: “You’re the Christian Osama.”

Such is the sophistication of liberal “tolerance.”

Honestly, it’s getting to the point that I wish they weren’t so tolerant.

But they illustrate my point, that tolerance has become the politically correct swearword of choice for secular-liberals. For while they screech on about my so-called lack of “tolerance” for all things lascivious and degenerate, these liberals take great pride in demonizing those of us who believe in the Judeo-Christian foundation of North America and take a stand against their immorality.

“Tolerance” in the secular-liberal world is a one-way street. It is what they want it to mean that matters, not what the word actually means. And if you don’t accept their definition, relative as it is, if you don’t endorse, sanction and otherwise acquiesce to them, well then you might as well …

You know, tolerate it or just “@#&!!!!”

Related special offers:

“Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion”

“Male and Female He Made Them”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.