Are Facts Obsolete?

In an article entitled “Are Facts Obsolete?,” Thomas Sowell writes:

“We learn from the media's filtered facts that there are countries with stronger gun-control laws than ours which have lower murder rates. We seldom, if ever, learn from the media about countries which have stronger gun-control laws than ours and whose murder rates are two or three times higher than ours.”

He concludes his piece by stating:

“Apparently scholars, as well as journalists, have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.”

The Intolerance of Today’s Tolerance Movement

Unfortunately, true tolerance has become so perverted over recent times that a counterfeit tolerance has emerged. This false notion of tolerance has actually led towards true intolerance. In order for authentic tolerance to once again be embraced by our culture, people first need to understand what it actually is, and what it is not.

Basic to its understanding, one must first look at how tolerance is applied. As outlined by Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason, there are three possible applications of tolerance: always towards a person; and always towards either a behavior, or an idea. True tolerance – as classical defined – must be done with civility, respecting the person in the process, and must offer the freedom to express one’s ideas without fear of reprisal, yet without necessarily putting up with every type of behavior.

Some behaviors violate the sanctity of the common good. That is why we have laws on the books. For instance, one does not have the right to dump anything they want in our common rivers. As Lincoln said, “There is no right to do wrong.” A major implication of the proliferation of today’s definition of tolerance is that many deleterious behaviors have been overlooked. The list is long: from speeding to felonies. Un-enforced laws lead to a greater violation of those laws by those tempted to break them. The lawbreaker could reason, “If I’m not being punished for the behavior, then it must not really be a bad thing.”

The irrationality and absurdity of today’s definition of tolerance has also led to a modern myth that true tolerance consists of neutrality. But nothing could be further from the truth. As Koukl points out, the essential element of tolerance is disagreement. Tolerance is defined by Webster as “to allow or permit, to recognize and respect other’s beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.” Think about it for a second. Isn’t it true that one cannot tolerate something unless one disagrees with that thing? One cannot put up with something unless they disagree with that idea or behavior – in other words, they think that idea or behavior is wrong.

Yet if you accuse someone – either implicitly or explicitly – of saying that another person is wrong, the person will most likely say, “oh, no! I don’t think they’re wrong.” They say this because the forces of political correctness have intimidated them. Many folks in our culture have sadly been duped into believing that if they are thought of as thinking someone is wrong, then they will be viewed as intolerant. And they would never want to be labeled intolerant, because afterall – and here’s the irony – that would be wrong.

Isn’t this politically correct thinking just ridiculous? If one doesn’t think another is wrong, then wouldn’t he or she think this other person is right? And if he or she thinks this other is right, then what could they possibly be in need of tolerating? We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong. How can we tolerate something unless we first disagree with that thing? That thing can be either a particular conduct or maybe it’s a point of view one holds. How can we tolerate an idea unless we first think that idea is wrong? One must first think someone is wrong before that person can exercise tolerance; yet expressing those thoughts brings the accusation of intolerance in our society.

This popular, yet perverted, view of tolerance today, not only leads to a passivity toward harmful behaviors, and suppression of the reality of real disagreements, but it also demands all views, or beliefs (mine included), be accepted as equally valid, or of equal worth or merit, as everyone else’s. But this is simply sheer nonsense!

Let’s say I actually give them the benefit of the doubt and test out what the “neo-tolerant” purveyors actually say the way the world really is. If their view were indeed correct, that is, that all views are right, then that would mean that my view is right. But here’s my view: I believe that not all views are right. (You heard me right. I’m not trying to “pull one over on you” with some fancy trickery or slight of hand. That’s why I’m writing it out. So you can read it, and re-read it, and more importantly, think it out, carefully.) In essence, my view would negate their view. If my view is the way the world really is, then that would make their view wrong. Conversely, if their view is right, in other words, the world operates in such a way that all views are right, then it would be impossible for someone to hold the view that I hold to – namely, that some views are wrong. But I do hold this view! Therefore, the sheer existence of my belief causes their “reality machine” to self-destruct.

Koukl further points out that this empty philosophy – which happens to be a modern convention of our post-modern, relativistic culture – advocates no morality, yet demands that no one ought to judge anyone else. They fail to realize that the word “ought” they use implicitly conotates a moral claim. So the next time someone tells you “you shouldn’t judge,” ask him or her if they consider themselves tolerant. And if they say yes, then ask them why they are pushing their beliefs on you. Don’t be surprised if they give you a blank stare. After the shock wears off, be sure to invite them to put on their thinking caps. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of true tolerance. To argue to the contrary simply lacks good, old-fashioned common sense.

To learn more clear-thinking from a Christian worldview – from which I derived most of this thinking myself – go to Stand To Reason’s website at: www.str.org.

copyright © 2006 Ed Nicholson, All Rights Reserved

The Days of Whine and Madness

Commentary by Pete Winn, associate editor, Citizenlink.org

I laughed for five minutes or more when I came across the following story:

A study published in the Journal of Research into Personality by a University of California Berkeley professor found that, after tracking 95 kids for over two decades, those who were "whiny, insecure" kids in nursery school turned out later to be conservatives as adults. They were, to quote the author -- "rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity."

Those kids whom the author, Jack Block, described as "confident" turned out liberal and "were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults withwide interests."

Hmm. Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha . . .

To be perfectly serious, I think I would have to know a whole lot more about how the study was conducted before I could pass serious judgment on its scientific validity -- and would need answers to questions such as: "Were these 95 kids the children of UC Berkeley professors, perchance, and, if so, wouldn't that kind of skew the sample?" or "Did they seriously control for all variables?" – but frankly, I don't think I'll even attempt to analyze this study scientifically. I'll let others make that determination.

I'm just going to laugh out loud.

I do think I understand what's going on here. I recognize the tactic. It feels to me very much that Professor Block is psychologizing -- or scientizing -- his personal bias. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany used to do politicized science. They developed it into an art form.

There's always a message behind politicized science: It almost always involves debunking something you oppose, or labeling someone in order to dismiss or marginalize them.

If this is a politicized study, here's what the "message" seems to me to be: Conservatism is the outworking of a fearful, angst-ridden personality. Psychologically healthy people don't turn out to be conservatives.

But hey, why stop there? Why not take it further? "Conservatism is a form of neurosis."

Or, how about: "Conservatism is a form of mental disorder"?

Or, why not: "Conservatives are insane"?

Aha! I've heard this before.

It was a couple of decades ago in college. From time to time, at my alma mater, I would hear certain liberal students and professors utter things such as: "Those conservatives are deluded" or "You have to be crazy to hold to a conservative line."

But those liberals meant "deluded" and "crazy" metaphorically -- symbolically, if you will. They weren't saying that conservatives were actually, medically insane -- just that they thought conservative beliefs were, well, wacky.

This study seems to me to be a couple of steps on the continuum of thought back from "Conservatism is a neurosis," but it's still more hardcore than "Conservatives are crazy/wacky."

The problem here in the 21st century seems to be that we take our metaphors, our word pictures, a little too seriously.

The Russians used to do that. In fact, no one has done it better. Or to worse effect, to be more exact. In the early '80s, in a book called, "A Question of Madness," former Soviet historian Roy Medvedev and his brother Zhores painted a chilling picture of what they called "repression by psychiatry."

Both Medvedevs -- twins, actually -- were outstanding academics who were exiled and ostracized because they had become Soviet dissidents who opposed the Russian Communist regime.

Roy Medvedev was placed for a time in a psychiatric institution, not because he was insane, but because of his political beliefs; because he was a "person who opposed the system."

It takes a few steps to go from the idea that "Whiny kids turn out to be conservatives" to "No sane person can think conservatively" to "those who question the orthodox view (be it Communist in 1960s Russia, or liberal in 2006 in the United States) suffer from a mental disorder."

But if we try to start proving such things "scientifically," we can travel down that road way too quickly -- especially if there isn't something called common sense around to put the brakes on such "insanity."

That has me concerned a little.

Then again, I might just be whining too much.

Brokeback v. Narnia: DVDs Hit Stores Today

As reported to me by Citizenlink.org, two movies that could not be any different hit DVD store shelves today: Brokeback Mountain and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. The figures clearly demonstrate which of these two movies stands out as the people’s choice for the best use of their entertainment dollars. Brokeback is estimated to have pulled in about $83 million nationwide. On the other hand, Narnia, earned over $290 million, more than three times the amount of the "gay cowboy movie." Worldwide saw an even greater difference: Brokeback made about $165 million whereas Narnia earned roughly four times that much at over $718 million. 83 v. 290; 165 v. 718. I say no contest. But even though people of all different cultures and countries and perspectives have responded more favorably to Narnia than Brokeback, here’s the question for ya: which film will receive more media exposure in the coming weeks? Keep your eyes pealed as you get exposed to the media hype around you and then report back here in the comments what you see.

Sex, Lies, and the Truth

Are young people being told the sad but real consequences associated with the pursuit of so-called “safe sex”? Every parent needs to listen to these Focus on the Family broadcasts. Listen here: part 1 / part 2 *

* these online clips are available for free for a limited time only.
download RealPlayer here