THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

March 15, 2003

-> Two words, "Tolerance" and "Acceptance," seem to have lost any distinction from each other in our common political vernacular, and this is a crying shame. Let me tell you the episode that told me to write about this.

I was in the grocery store this week and just a few check-outs down there were two ‘gentlemen’ engaging in what we used to call "PDA" or "Public Display of Affection." Unfortunately, hand-held computers have usurped that acronym, but I digress. I was repulsed and then immediately chastised myself because of all the PC crap about tolerance, acceptance and generally putting up with other people’s poor taste.

And that is when it dawned on me. I do have to tolerate their behavior in the sense that I cannot go up to them and force them to cease and desist, but I do not have to accept it. I do not have to say it is right; I do not even have to say it is right "for them." ‘Acceptance’ says more than not interfering with someone or something; ‘acceptance’ connotes approval, or at a minimum neutrality.

Homosexuality is clearly wrong as I read the Bible; I don’t really see much room for debate. The homosexual then responds that Christ loved sinners. Surely He did, but he did not accept their behavior. His entire ministry was designed to provide them with the power to overcome that sin, not wallow in it.

What we have here is an issue not of "tolerance and acceptance" but of communication. Somehow Jesus was able to sit with sinners and at once make them feel loved and change their ways. Do you think that after hookers sat with Jesus they turned back out on the street? – I don’t.

The answer here seems to be obvious. The means to save the church lies not in greater "tolerance and acceptance," but in increasingly taking on the image of Christ.

-> Watching the world tear itself apart over whether or not to start a war against the likes of Saddam Hussien has given me pause over the fall of the Roman Empire. Common wisdom seems to be that they became too fat and sassy and decadent. I think that decadent part does not effectively communication what happened. I think they became so civilized that they lost touch with how barbaric man can be.

I simply cannot believe that this war is worthy of the intensity of debate that it is receiving. I guess the Cold War spoiled people. Actually war was unacceptable during the Cold War because of Mutually Assured Destruction. But that is not the case here, Hussien or any of these other third world tin pots can only acquire enough WMD to kill thousands or tens of thousands, but they cannot destroy us. So the question is a simple on, "Are we going to sit around for 9-11 to happen again, or are we going to try and prevent it?"

Do we believe he will not use those WMD? -- Not likely. If we have such a belief we really have lost touch with how barbaric some people can be.

Maybe an analogy would help. You come home one day to find your ten-year-old child playing with a gun. First you are going to ask him to carefully give you the gun. If he refuses you are going to demand that he give you the gun. If he continues to refuse you will start yelling, maybe even bribing. If your child is particularly recalcitrant, he may even playfully point the gun at you. What do you do at that point? You physically take the gun away from the child; that’s what. Yes, you may accidentally get shot in the process, but there are two very important things at stake here. If you let the child keep the gun, you have abdicated your role as parent and given control to the child. Secondly, there is no question that eventually the child will hurt you or someone else with the gun.

Some may object to casting the US in the role of global parent. Fair enough, but we are unquestionably the biggest bear in the woods and has such the world is ours to control and it would be foolish to let little sh*&^ like Hussien take that control from us. Better us than the barbarians.

-> You know, most people work very hard to not discuss politics in the workplace. It makes for strained working relationships, and interferes with productivity. It seems to me that concerts, televisions, theaters, and movies are the workplace of those whose job description falls under the general category of "entertainer." Like the rest of us they might be well advised to keep their politics out of there.

If they don’t they might develop those strained relationships I was talking about. How do I know? Well, ratings for the "West Wing" are hugely down and Dixie Chicks CD’s are being burned in effigy. Is this censorship? Is this restraint of expression? No, it’s just a typically strained response to mentioning politics in the workplace. And I used to kinda like the Dixie Chicks…

With Love,