I had an interesting conservation with a long-time friend who told me about a symposium that took place in the former Soviet Union. Three people were invited — a well known academic, a representative from a prominent libertarian think tank, and a writer from a former Eastern bloc nation who now lives in the United States with his family.
The libertarian is a self-professed homosexual. He did not like the religious perspective of the former Eastern-bloc resident who made the point that it was the Reformation moral worldview that transformed the West and made it the success that it’s been for nearly 500 years. The West’s near rejection of the Christian worldview, exemplified in the legalization of abortion and homosexuality and the legitimization of fiat money, is destroying the vitality of a once great nation.
The homosexual was incensed. In an outburst of rage, he turned to the former Eastern-bloc resident and told him that he and those like him should be killed for their views, and if the homosexual movement ever gets enough political power in the United States, they would see that it happens.[product id=”1066″ align=”right” size=”small”]
Although an extreme example, this follows what I’ve said over the years about those who claim that we all should be tolerant of differing worldviews.
“All worldviews are tolerated except the worldview that says not all worldviews should be tolerated.”
Tolerance only goes so far before a tolerated worldview becomes the dominate worldview that stops all toleration of competing worldviews.
“If everyone ought to be tolerant, then tolerance is an objective moral norm. And therefore, moral relativism is false. Also, tolerance presupposes that there is something good about being tolerant, such as being able to learn from others with whom one disagrees or to impart knowledge and wisdom to that person. But that presupposes objective moral values, namely, that knowledge and wisdom are good things. Moreover, tolerance presupposes that someone may be correct about his or her moral perspective. That is to say, it seems that part of the motivation for advocating tolerance is to encourage people to be open to the possibility that one may be able to gain truth and insight from another who may possess it. If that is the case, then there are objective moral truths one can learn.”1
Consider that homosexuals, bi-sexuals, and the transgendered make up only 3.4 percent of the population and yet they have tremendous political clout, and they are indoctrinating the children of America hoping to make them intolerant of anyone opposing their agenda.
“While gay activists usually deny that they want to indoctrinate children, said [Queerty contributor Daniel] Villarreal, ‘let’s face it — that’s a lie.’ ‘We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it,’ he wrote.[product id=”105″ align=”left” size=”small”]
“Villarreal pointed to the tactics of a gay activist group FCKH8, which fought a recent Tennessee bill prohibiting classroom discussion of homosexuality in grade school by ‘hir[ing]some little girls to drop F-bombs’ in their controversial online ad campaign, and handing out gay paraphernalia to schoolchildren. ‘Recruiting children? You bet we are,’ he said.
“‘Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?’”
Villarreal is upfront with his indoctrination strategy: “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.”
It’s about toleration today; it’s about compulsion tomorrow.
- Francis J. Beckwith, “Why I am Not a Moral Relativist,” Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, ed. Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman, rev. and ex. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,  2006), 26–27.(↩)