Tolerance, political correctness and the death of truth

Kay Bailey, GUEST COLUMNIST

Brendan Eich could be considered a useful computer technologist. He co-founded the Mozilla Project which birthed the Firefox web browser, and helped create JavaScript, among other contributions. For 10 days, he was the CEO of the Mozilla Corporation until he was harassed into resigning on April 3 because eight years prior, he donated US$1,000 to the Californian Proposition 8 campaign supporting the traditional definition of marriage. Accused of being against 'equality', 'diversity' and 'love', Mr Eich was pressured to leave his workplace of 15 years because he personally believed that marriage means the union of one man and one woman.

This episode has brought into increased focus the ongoing dilemma over the meaning of words, and moral thinking facing Western societies such as the USA. Having been 'enlightened' into rejecting the necessary existence of God (a transcendent source of fixed moral rules), they must now formulate a new 'morality' and its attendant categories of right and wrong.

The redefinition of certain words is an option being implemented to this end. Whereas their original meanings placed boundaries around individual behaviour for the common good, the boundaries of these words are being removed under the pretext of 'political correctness' and 'modernity'.

The alarming result is the use of a 'newspeak' that imposes a new set of 'moral' rules dictated by a secular elite who aspire to become the Ubermensch - the 'Supermen', or new 'gods', of our times. This is neither progressive nor democratic.

rebranding

It is instructive to consider the concepts of tolerance, diversity, equality, discrimination and love in order to appreciate the implications of the redefinitions that are being imposed.

Traditionally, tolerance referred to enduring what one considered to be unsatisfactory. Three elements are inherent therein: (i) fairly, (ii) permitting another, (iii) to have a different opinion or behaviour. Proponents of the new 'tolerance', however, demand that all behaviours be regarded as equally good and satisfactory. As such, moral criticism is denounced as intolerance and bigotry.

The rebranded 'tolerance' now becomes a tool for stifling criticism or dissent, and punishing any person or institution that dares to promote adherence to an objective or absolute moral standard, as in the case of Mr Eich and the Mozilla Corporation. Ironically, in the imposed morality of the new elite, holding on to the old definition of tolerance is one attitude that will not be tolerated. The inevitable outcomes are the absence of real debate and the subsequent loss of freedom of speech and conscience. Society becomes free for some, definitely not 'justice for all'.

It is strange to hear calls for recognition of 'diversity', for diversity has always been part of the animal and plant kingdoms. Human beings are of equal inherent worth, while possessing a variety of physical and functional attributes. The rejection of racism and promotion of respect for the disabled and elderly are premised on the inherent worth of persons and the acceptance of diversity.

The new 'diversity' denies objective norms or categories, and proposes that whatever exists is normal. The outcome of this word distortion is that any form of sexual expression - regardless of the negative consequences to the individual and society - is to be accepted as part of human 'diversity'. A teenager with male genitalia who 'feels' like a female now has the right to use the female bathrooms, as currently applies in the Massachusetts school district. Why? Because 'diversity' demands it.

This brings us to equality, which traditionally implies sameness of quantity or value, uniformity of operation and effect. The underlying idea is a comparison of similar entities. The redefinition of the word ignores fundamental differences. 'Equality' is now demanded and imposed for dissimilar entities.

The counterintuitive claim of "marriage equality" is a case in point. Fundamental dissimilarity in design and outcomes means that the union of two persons of the same gender cannot be 'equal' to heterosexual marriage. Once dissimilar entities are treated as equal, where else will 'equality' be demanded?

Related to the notion of equality is discrimination. Discrimination - or its synonym, differentiation - is a neutral concept. It is part of critical thinking and is the exercise of choice between ideas, preferences and behaviours. We all discriminate. The real question should be whether discrimination is exercised arbitrarily or on defensible grounds. Therefore, men and women in similar employment should be similarly paid, and children can be justifiably entitled to lower bus fares than adults.

insidious strategy

The accusation of being 'unloving' or 'hateful' if you oppose someone's behavioural choices is a strategy rapidly gaining currency. The redefinition of love to mean a blanket accommodation of whatever another says and does represents an appeal to false care and compassion. If love means seeking the good of another, I must be ready and willing to 'speak the truth, cost it what it will', for wilful suppression of the truth benefits no one.

Refusing to encourage and uplift, or discourage and caution, may be personally convenient, but only temporarily, for 'love' that evades the truth will have serious implications for all. Love accepts the other, does not justify what is wrong, and facilitates redemption of the wrongdoer.

Demanding a free-for-all society deceptively masks the truth that without a transcendent, objective, moral standard, there is either lawlessness and anarchy, or, unpredictable restraints imposed by an elite on those who do not conform or approve of their 'new morality'.

Mozilla itself confessed on its blog post that it found it hard to reconcile its beliefs in 'equality and freedom of speech'. Additionally, a blogger who rejoiced at Brendan Eich's departure has called for all corporate employees who financially supported Proposition 8 to be removed.

The social experiment of word distortion is dangerous. The unravelling of age-old definitions is a manifestation of the death of truth at the hands of secularism/atheism in public policy. This should be refuted and resisted by all well-thinking Jamaicans.

Kay Bailey is a paediatrician and member of the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jchsadvocate@gmail.com.