The road to perdition

Weir thinking about it

Do you remember when America was a less tolerant country? There was a time when some behavior was considered to be intolerable, and people were not afraid to say they refused to put up with conduct that was socially repugnant. 

Every civilized society must have standards of behavior that protects the culture from corruption. Just as laws are put in place to keep us safe from those who would violate our physical and material well being, behavioral mores are needed to keep us from degenerating into barbarity. In order for the barbarians to subvert those societal mores they need to create guilt in the minds of everyone who might object to any strange patterns of conduct.

There came a time in our recent history when the term, 'intolerant' became synonymous with ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, etc. In other words, if you refused to accept aberrant behavior it was because you didn't have an open mind. Hence, a narrow—minded person was someone who didn't understand the complexity of human nature with all its capacity for perversion. One of the worst insults that can me thrown at someone these days is to be accused of being intolerant.

If you object to seeing panhandlers block an intersection as they knock on your windshield, rub the glass with dirty rags, and beg for money, you're intolerant. After all, you're much better off than they are, so why not just give them some of your money? Shouldn't you feel guilty about their plight and endeavor to make their lives a little more comfortable? If a woman is promiscuous and gets pregnant without knowing or caring who the father is, should we treat her in the same manner as we treat the decent woman who planned her life carefully and is raising her children within the security of a family unit? During a more sensible time in our history, the answers to such questions would be obvious. Not anymore!

In modern day America, we have all become conditioned to be tolerant. All behavior is considered acceptable as long as it doesn't involve physical assault or the purloining of property. A woman becomes pregnant because she and her lover didn't bother to take precautions. No problem! Just destroy the living being in the womb while it's struggling to be born. Anyone who doesn't approve is simply intolerant. Homosexuals live the kind of life that is antithetical to the functionality of human sexuality with all its implications for continuing the species. But don't you dare question this euphemistically entitled, alternative lifestyle.

There are enclaves in this country in which polygamy is not only tolerated, but encouraged. Those who view it as the enslavement of women by male predators are merely showing their ignorance of the ways of certain religious groups and/or cults. Besides, why should we care how many wives a guy has? Similarly, if a man wants to marry a man, what skin is it off of our noses? By the same logic, if a woman wants to marry a German Shepherd, why should we try to prevent it? Let's not have any rules or standards whatsoever because they merely interfere with the creative juices of free expression.

At this very moment, there's a national organization dedicated to the proposition that adult males should be allowed to have sex with little boys. They argue that the boys are not being coerced because the men involved in these lascivious acts are very adept at seducing the boys with gifts and flattery. Furthermore, they argue, the only reason for public outrage is because we don't understand the sensitive relationships being developed between man and boy. If the children are not complaining, why not just mind our own business?  In other words, we should stop being intolerant.

There are many more examples I could cite, but the point is that we have become much too tolerant in this country. We have learned to keep our collective mouths shut and allow thousands of years of history to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. We have accepted the guilt that should be borne by the transgressee. Instead of condemning bad behavior, we have condoned it and blamed ourselves for finding fault with those who willingly chose the road to perdition.

In our attempts to be more understanding and considerate, we have opened the floodgates to every vile, despicable, and repulsive human conduct imaginable. All because we've systematically been conditioned to accept any form of degradation as nothing more than a person's freedom to choose. Well, if they choose to rub their dirt in your face, you also have the freedom to choose not to tolerate it. We, as a nation, must get back to a time when it was acceptable to be intolerant. Refusing to accept immoral behavior is not a definition of intolerance, it is the foundation of decency, and we must not apologize for being decent.

Bob Weir is the Editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. BobWeir777@aol.com

Weir thinking about it

Do you remember when America was a less tolerant country? There was a time when some behavior was considered to be intolerable, and people were not afraid to say they refused to put up with conduct that was socially repugnant. 

Every civilized society must have standards of behavior that protects the culture from corruption. Just as laws are put in place to keep us safe from those who would violate our physical and material well being, behavioral mores are needed to keep us from degenerating into barbarity. In order for the barbarians to subvert those societal mores they need to create guilt in the minds of everyone who might object to any strange patterns of conduct.

There came a time in our recent history when the term, 'intolerant' became synonymous with ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, etc. In other words, if you refused to accept aberrant behavior it was because you didn't have an open mind. Hence, a narrow—minded person was someone who didn't understand the complexity of human nature with all its capacity for perversion. One of the worst insults that can me thrown at someone these days is to be accused of being intolerant.

If you object to seeing panhandlers block an intersection as they knock on your windshield, rub the glass with dirty rags, and beg for money, you're intolerant. After all, you're much better off than they are, so why not just give them some of your money? Shouldn't you feel guilty about their plight and endeavor to make their lives a little more comfortable? If a woman is promiscuous and gets pregnant without knowing or caring who the father is, should we treat her in the same manner as we treat the decent woman who planned her life carefully and is raising her children within the security of a family unit? During a more sensible time in our history, the answers to such questions would be obvious. Not anymore!

In modern day America, we have all become conditioned to be tolerant. All behavior is considered acceptable as long as it doesn't involve physical assault or the purloining of property. A woman becomes pregnant because she and her lover didn't bother to take precautions. No problem! Just destroy the living being in the womb while it's struggling to be born. Anyone who doesn't approve is simply intolerant. Homosexuals live the kind of life that is antithetical to the functionality of human sexuality with all its implications for continuing the species. But don't you dare question this euphemistically entitled, alternative lifestyle.

There are enclaves in this country in which polygamy is not only tolerated, but encouraged. Those who view it as the enslavement of women by male predators are merely showing their ignorance of the ways of certain religious groups and/or cults. Besides, why should we care how many wives a guy has? Similarly, if a man wants to marry a man, what skin is it off of our noses? By the same logic, if a woman wants to marry a German Shepherd, why should we try to prevent it? Let's not have any rules or standards whatsoever because they merely interfere with the creative juices of free expression.

At this very moment, there's a national organization dedicated to the proposition that adult males should be allowed to have sex with little boys. They argue that the boys are not being coerced because the men involved in these lascivious acts are very adept at seducing the boys with gifts and flattery. Furthermore, they argue, the only reason for public outrage is because we don't understand the sensitive relationships being developed between man and boy. If the children are not complaining, why not just mind our own business?  In other words, we should stop being intolerant.

There are many more examples I could cite, but the point is that we have become much too tolerant in this country. We have learned to keep our collective mouths shut and allow thousands of years of history to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. We have accepted the guilt that should be borne by the transgressee. Instead of condemning bad behavior, we have condoned it and blamed ourselves for finding fault with those who willingly chose the road to perdition.

In our attempts to be more understanding and considerate, we have opened the floodgates to every vile, despicable, and repulsive human conduct imaginable. All because we've systematically been conditioned to accept any form of degradation as nothing more than a person's freedom to choose. Well, if they choose to rub their dirt in your face, you also have the freedom to choose not to tolerate it. We, as a nation, must get back to a time when it was acceptable to be intolerant. Refusing to accept immoral behavior is not a definition of intolerance, it is the foundation of decency, and we must not apologize for being decent.

Bob Weir is the Editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. BobWeir777@aol.com