"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in
:

On Tolerance

"... The sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to
know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing,
finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because
there is nothing for which it will die." Dorothy Sayers.

This word is the cornerstone of a certain type of morally bankrupt
liberalism. We cannot read a newspaper, or listen to the television or
radio, without this modern virtue being extolled incessantly as the
ideal to which we should aspire. The contexts within which we are
strongly urged to apply these notions are generally race, religion,
gender and culture i.e. the most basic things that determine the
future of any people.

IOW Djirkie is upset that he can't call people ******s anymore.


Bertie

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in
:


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
m...
Dirk Bruere wrote:

Tolerance and compromise are the liberal 'virtues', the
characteristics that, taken to extremes are destroying our culture.

But tolerance and compromise are two extremely different things.
Those who confuse them muddy the waters.

They are related issues.

Consider your beliefs.
If they are true why compromise them for something less? And why
tolerate,
at least in the sense of not commenting upon, wrong beliefs, wrong
actions
and untruthfulness?

If they are true, should you impose them on others? That's how I
find the line between tolerance and tyranny.

If the beliefs of others impinge upon us physically, then we should
strive to impose our views upon them.

They have been so successful that the
condemnation of crime, perversion and evil in general is deemed to
be
bad.
...
The perversion of our language and culture has gone so far that
many
would
claim that the opposite of intolerance is not 'tolerance' at all,
but 'understanding'. The great motto is 'to understand all is to
forgive
all'.

Tolerance is not approval. Tolerance is not agreement. Tolerance is
not understanding. Tolerance is live and let live so long as neither
hurts the other. Oh-so many have lost this meaning of the word
tolerance.

True.

A Christian on the Net, calling himself 'Mr GoodSalt' provided an
interesting insight. He pointed out that morality is the line
dividing
what
should be tolerated from what should not. So, what does this
actually
mean
in the context of our religion?

The core response is laid down in the Havamal, and is unequivocal:
If aware that another is wicked, say so:

But what is wicked? Hurtfull is wicked. Disagreeing with me isn't
wicked. Far too many see someone who disagrees with them and out
comes the label wicked. Not so. Different does not mean wicked.
Hurtfull is wicked.

Different, when it conflicts with our values and is imposed upon us,
is wicked.

Make no truce or treaty with foes.

That's enemies not opponents. Another distinction that Asatru has
that is lacking in some other faiths. We have dieties who change
sides like football players in a trade. Skadhi joining the Aesir,
Gerd joing the Aesir. Loki never being completely on either side.
And we have dieties who are steadfast on one side. Tyr and Thor
with us, Surt against us.

Yes.

Too many folks are too quick to use the label enemy on the opponents,
and knowing that too many folks decline to label enemies as such
but mistakenly view them as opponents. Opponents may change sides,
enemies won't.

Enemies are those that strive for our destruction, irresepctive of our
beliefs.

Speak out - do not remain silent. Silence implies assent, and makes
it harder for others to speak in turn. If we do not fight for what
is
right,
who will? Stand up and be noticed. Help turn the tide.

For us it is not merely the proffering of an idle opinion - it is
our
duty
as laid upon us by The High One himself.

And so the recent traffic here. Thanks.


FFF
Dirk


Spoken like a true leader, Djirkie

I can almost see your arm going up and down.


Berti e