TOLERATING THE INTOLERABLE

TOLERATING THE INTOLERABLE

"What a f*****g idiot!" --CBS Early Show host Bryant Gumbel, caught by an open mike on national television giving his opinion of Bob Knight, a representative of the Family Research Council, who had been Gumbel's guest moments before. Knight argued that the recent Supreme Court ruling, which allows the Boy Scouts of America to ban gay scout leaders, made sense.

"The sensual and dark rebel in vain, Slaves by their own compulsion! In mad game They burst their manacles and wear the name Of Freedom, graven on a heavier chain!" --Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "France: An Ode"

We live in what could be appropriately labeled as "The Age of Tolerance." Behind this innocuous-sounding designation lurks a monster few can even comprehend. This beast has many forms, but at its most dangerous, it rears its head as the modern doctrine of relativism.

This idea, which holds that no particular philosophy or viewpoint has any more claim to truth than any other, has captured the imagination of our culture in a way that few ideas have previously done. In fact, despite our nation's constitutional guarantees of free speech and free expression, it is becoming increasingly dangerous to challenge popular wisdom as it pertains to relativism. Those who argue for absolutes -- in any area of social interaction -- are increasingly singled out for societally sanctioned persecution.

The Director of the Family Research Council's Cultural Studies Department, Bob Knight, was recently exposed to a tongue lashing that would have scarcely been tolerated had he been a liberal proponent of "alternative lifestyles." Knight, in an appearance on CBS's Early Show, was treated with incredible rudeness by host Bryant Gumbel. At the conclusion of the interview, Gumbel, still obviously annoyed, was caught uttering an expletive on national television as he expressed his opinion of Knight's remarks.

This was mild, compared with what befell FRC employee Yvette Schneider, as she delivered a speech at Dartmouth University. Schneider, a former practicing lesbian, was speaking at the invitation of the campus Christian student organization, which wanted to hear her powerful testimony about how her life had been transformed from homosexuality to Evangelical Christianity. Schneider was rudely and obscenely interrupted by enraged homosexual activists, who publicly accused her of Nazi tendencies. The highlight of the evening came when the crowd grew dangerously hostile, forcing Schneider to flee the building under police escort.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, one of the nation's most popular radio talk show hosts, has been engaged by a powerful array of pro-homosexual groups who are striving to force various networks to ban her upcoming television program. Schlessinger's crime? She believes homosexuality is a choice and an "unnatural behavior."

Social conservatives should take heed of these recent happenings. Powerful forces are using all of the tools at their disposal to force those with whom they disagree out of the public forum.

Homosexual activists have pulled out the stops on their efforts to force American society to grant an unwilling witness to their lifestyle. New media and legislative campaigns are taking aim at conservatives who dare to disagree. Homosexual Republicans were successful in their efforts to ban anti-gay speakers and placards at this year's GOP convention in Philadelphia.

The slow erosion of morality in America has speeded up perceptibly as public exposure of homosexuality has increased. Indeed, history records that virtually all major civilizations and empires began a quick decline when homosexual behavior was publicly tolerated and legally promoted.

And that's the issue.

No one would disagree that all individual citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law -- indeed, it's each citizen's constitutional right as an American. What many conservatives take issue with is the idea that laws should acknowledge and affirm the homosexual lifestyle, because it violates the "nature of man."

One wonders if gay rights advocates care so much about the thousands of individuals they have enticed into the dark realms of sexual deviance as they do about their own power, and more importantly, their own pleasure. They have gone far beyond wanting their lifestyle legally protected; they now seek societal legitimization and acceptance.

No one seems to see the ugly hypocrisy underlying much of this debate; when Christian Americans are barred from discussing their viewpoints as to the immorality of homosexual behavior, then they are the ones who have been denied the equal protection of the laws. Society has come to the place where it is no longer permissible to oppose what is known as "homosexual rights."

And that's dangerous.

Regardless of your perspective, philosophical opponents in America are legally allowed to express their ideas in a constitutionally protected forum. Perhaps liberals who are uncomfortable with this unpalatable bit of Constitutional law should remember the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself no friend of Christianity, when he said, "Freedom of speech is not only for the ideas you like, but for the ideas you hate."

Increasing attempts by homosexual activists to ban and intimidate conservatives who disagree with them should be met with all the power of the Constitution. If homosexuals can't bear to hear opposing views regarding their lifestyle, the problem lies not with those who hold opposing views.

It lies within.