Dennis Prager on Tolerance

The always worth reading Dennis Prager wrote a few days ago about the abuse of power in the name of tolerance. 

The key case that sparked his column is described in these words by Prager:

"Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.

"The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony to which she religiously objected. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, people can go to prison for refusing to participate in an event to which they object."   (More)

So the key here is not merely discrimination, because in this case the photographer had not, in other cases, discriminated.   Her objection was religious - specifically, she did not want to be present at a religious ceremony which violated her religious beliefs about marriage.   

So the net result is in order to enforce a non-discrimination stance against a gay couple, the photographers right to her religious beliefs were invalidated and shredded.   She has no right to decline participation in a religious event on the basis of her own religious beliefs.

Prager had a couple of vital quotes worth repeating:  

"For the left, tolerance does not mean tolerance. It means first, acceptance. And second, celebration. That is totalitarianism: You not only have to live with what you may differ with, dear citizen, you have to celebrate it or pay a steep price."

This is precisely correct.   What is desired by the left is not tolerance toward a different lifestyle, that is, an agreement to "live and let live".  What is desired it fundamental agreement.   It is not enough to simply say, "I disagree with you, but I will respect your viewpoint", because the words "I disagree with you" on this and other issues is seen as violating the "personhood" of the other in some way.   Unless "I disagree with you" is supplanted with "I celebrate and support your choice", in the eyes of the totalitarian left, discrimination still exists.

Of course it does not go the other way.   The gay does not have to say to the Christian, "I celebrate and support your choice".  Nor does the gay have to say to the Christian even "I disagree, but respect your viewpoint".   In the new tolerant America, the gay can simply say to the Christian, "support my lifestyle or face legal consequences".

Prager begins his column by recounting an oft repeated phrase, ""When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."  I've seen this nonsense parroted by the leadership of the progressive Christian movement in some form often enough, but Prager makes the correct point in rebuttal.  

"There is actually no threat to America of fascism coming from the right. The essence of the American right, after all, is less government; and fascism, by definition, demands ever larger government.

"Therefore, if there is a real fascist threat to America, it comes from the left, whose appetite for state power is essentially unlimited."

And here we see just one example of exactly that, an individual essentially being told by the state that she has no right to refuse to participate in a religious ceremony despite her religious beliefs.  Prager cites other examples, Catholic Charities being forced out of the adoption business, California mandating that guys who self-identify as gals must be accommodated by girls sports teams and given bathroom and locker room privileges.   State control, more state control and more state control, less and less individual liberty.  Religious freedom lost in the name of a secular goal of sexuality without boundaries or definitions.

I am not a libertarian, nor do I think for a moment that there should be no state control of anything.  I am not an anarchist who thinks all state acts or all laws are evil.

But there is a game being played here.   This is not about tolerance.   Tolerance is just a word, an idea that is used to advance an agenda.   The agenda is for one side to defeat the other side.   The secular progressive viewpoint must win and the traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint must be silenced.

Alinsky, the prophet of the left, taught that "the issue is never the issue" and taught his organizers to use issues to gain power.   Cynical, subversive and dangerous.  But it seems, largely successful.   In many places the hard left holds all the cards.

Today,  churches are burned in Egypt and Christians are killed in Nigeria, we don't yet face that kind of situation here.  But when the force of law can be brought down on citizens for simply declining to be a part of a religious ceremony, and church services have been rudely interrupted, how far are we from more serious persecution?