The Royal Bank is giving out diversity flags at their branches, but not to customers. Oh no. To their employees, as an internal show of support for diversity. Rah rah, diversity. It’s the rhetoric that makes Canadian politics and society revolve, but what does it actually mean? These “diversity symbols” are causing a fracas (I like that word, by the way), naturally. What if you don’t have one? Does that mean you don’t support diversity? Subtitle: you rat bastard son of a communist. So everyone has to have a diversity flag and bow at the altar of peer pressure and Canadian rhetorical idolatry.

But here’s the question: where’s the diversity in these actions? Why should one expect uniformity of opinion when it comes to diversity? Why not diversity of opinion when it comes to diversity? Or is diversity only tolerated along narrow margins, such as if you’re homosexual? Well, it’s okay to be diverse and pluralistic if you’re the latest en vogue cause, but not alright if you’re, say, and evangelical Christian that happens to know that truth exists.

This, my friends, is why I hate plurality. It’s not only incoherent, but fundamentally unlivable: you can’t tolerate and accept everything as equal because you’ve already defined into existence the terms of your argument. There is truth, it just happens to be the One Truth to Bind Them All, that is to say that every other
so-called truth is subject to Plurality and Diversity and Tolerance and Multiculturalism.

I have no problem with people exercising their own religions around the corner from me. Really, I don’t. They probably don’t have much of a problem with me doing the same. We even prosoletyse each other on the odd occasion. What I dislike is the faux-intellectual postmodernist idiot coming along and telling me and my peaceably religious friends that we somehow violate their Holy Grail of Tolerance, and by doing so we have sown the seeds of war in our society.

Let’s be clear: Tolerance needs terms, and it needs guardians. When you let individuals do as they please when it comes to religion as long as they’re not starting jihads, you attain at least some sort of resting state, where the government need not interfere. With Tolerance, one needs to enforce it somehow. There needs to be some way of weeding out the horrid Intolerant Christians, Muslims, and whatever else comes along. Frankly, Tolerance becomes the unofficial state religion, and the state become the totalitarian guardian of that religion. Until then, Tolerance is merely another truth claim amidst a sea of truth claims; an attractive one, yes, and much more simple, but all the more easy to disprove.

And this post went on much longer than I thought it should…

No tag for this post.