Throughout history, “tolerance” has meant different things to different people. A century ago, most Americans would have defined it as civility toward disagreeable persons, not as acceptance of contrary views.
In contrast, today’s “tolerance” demands acceptance of “politically correct” views but intolerance toward those who prefer “traditional” values. While media leaders feel free to mock Christians, believers are losing their freedom to state their convictions. After all, they might hurt someone’s feelings.
This transformation did NOT “just happen.”
During the 20th century, socialist visionaries redefined tolerance and began using it as an effective weapon against Biblical values. Trained facilitators (in schools, government, corporations and churches) began turning cultural norms upside down — then held the masses accountable to the new cultural guidelines. NEA leader, Professor Raymond Houghton, summarized the deception in 1970,
“…absolute behavior control is imminent…. The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will… never self-consciously know that it has happened.”
Yuri Bezmenov – Ex-KGB Propagandist – 1984 Interview
Former Carnegie strategist Marc Tucker, a friend of Hillary Clinton and the master-mind behind America’s “School-to-Work” agenda, shared that vision: “[Our objective] will require a change in the prevailing culture — the attitudes, values, norms and accepted ways of doing things.“
Tucker had followed the footsteps of mind-changing behavioral “scientists” such as Herbert Marcuse, a transformational Marxist trained in the “inner circle” at the revolutionary Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in pre-war Germany. With Hitler’s rise to power, that “inner circle” fled to America. In 1934, Marcuse, called “the father of political correctness,” joined other socialist change agents at Columbia University, where they built on the liberal foundation laid by John Dewey. Years later, Marcuse wrote the report, Repressive Tolerance, which exposed his oppressive Communist goals:
“The uncertainty of chance… necessitates tolerance. However, this tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal… it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the’ possibilities of liberation…. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates…. But society cannot be indiscriminate… where freedom and happiness themselves are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.”
Marcuse became a hero to the revolutionary student movements during the chaotic 1960s. Now, forty years later, we see the fruit of his labor: moral corruption and intolerance toward traditional values. Facing these painful consequences, Kevin, a young Christian, sent us this note:
“On my school bus kids would like to sing rap songs that includes a lot of profanity and perversion…. Liberals, gays and others say we Christians are intolerant when they are intolerant themselves. One time my seventh grade teacher said those who say God forbids or hates homosexuality are racists!”
Few of today’s results-driven churches will take their stand with believers like Kevin. Inspired by “successful” leaders like Rick Warren, churches — like the corporate world — now wield their new “tolerance” like a whip with which to intimidate resisters who still cling to Biblical certainties and intolerant-sounding truths. After all, such “lone rangers” hinder today’s collective march toward the envisioned earthly kingdom of universal peace and solidarity.
In his popular book, The Secret Message of Jesus, Pastor Brian McLaren seems to echo Marcuse. “…to be truly inclusive,” he writes, “the kingdom must exclude exclusive people, to be truly reconciling, the kingdom must not reconcile with those who refuse reconciliation…. [T]he kingdom of God is open to all, except those who want to ruin it by dividing it against itself.”
THE CHANGEABLE NATURE OF TOLERANCE
Tolerance is never neutral. Its boundaries keep changing — often through self-serving governments that mandate public values through state-controlled religious hierarchies. Using various forms of propaganda and discipline, powerful establishments have turned public intolerance against foes of the planned solidarity.
I often ask such visitors if they would want to outlaw websites like ours. Many answer “Yes.” They don’t believe we have the right to share our “offensive” views publicly. Instead, they claim the right not to be offended by inconvenient facts or logic.