Peddling tolerance
In response to the controversy, the students asked me to participate in a forum on civility in politics. It was a great conversation under the beautiful arches of Penfield Hall.
We had the forum because a small group of liberal mostly female professors and a handful of students decided they could be the arbiters of which alumnus was an acceptable Founders Day speaker. It was abundantly obvious from their criticisms that while they hid behind some of my statements, they really disliked my worldview as a prominent Christian evangelical conservative.
Given their questions and statements, we can be certain that had the Pope himself been asked to speak, they would have been upset. Their standard seemed to be that if you believe in much of anything at all outside their beliefs, you are unacceptable no matter your accomplishments in life.
This is a problem with modern discourse. When either side of the political spectrum decides it can be the arbiter of who is or is not acceptable on the other side, the system cannot work. Conservatives have no place telling liberals who is or is not acceptable on the liberal side any more than liberals have of telling conservatives who is or is not an acceptable conservative.











Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The entire point of doing so is advancing your own causes and weeding out your opposition. Once your opposition dies off, you win.
Ergo, anything that’s conservative is hateful and bigoted and must be crushed. Anything that is liberal you might not necessarily agree with, but you must first “open your mind,” then “tolerate” and then “accept.” And once they get America to the point of acceptance, then anyone who speaks out against the newly defined consensus is again hateful and bigoted and must be crushed.
Lather, rinse, and repeat.
Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2013 at 1:54 PM
Uh hoh geez…Listen to him.
RedState runs their comments section like a Japanese prison camp.
NeoKong on February 16, 2013 at 1:57 PM
Errrrr…
steebo77 on February 16, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Erick-Woods could definitely stand a refresher course in comma usage.
steebo77 on February 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Sorry for the OT, HA, but when will you report on the story that’s been headlining Drudge all day?
Yet another Obama donor gets a kickback.
Well, that’s happened so often, maybe it’s not that big of a story.
Except for the magnitude of the kickback!
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-15/facebook-gets-a-multi-billion-dollar-tax-break
itsnotaboutme on February 16, 2013 at 2:06 PM
I don’t always agree with Erickson, but here he is spot-on (and funny).
Wethal on February 16, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Erick Erickson talking about tolerance? Now that it delicious. Instead of attacking liberals, half the effort spent on RedState is devoted to deleting posts and banning people with opinions.
astonerii on February 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM