Intolerant tolerance is not tolerance at all

Editor’s Note: This op-ed originally appeared May 5, 2016, in The Salt Lake Tribune.

The recent kerfuffle over Lynette Gay and the honorary degree that the University of Utah plans to award her is a case study in the kind of intolerant tolerance that seems to be driving and, in my view destroying, meaningful public dialogue and serious debate on the important issues of our day. Crying intolerance and spewing accusations of hate have become the new go­-to strategy for shutting down debate or discrediting those who disagree with you.

Gay is an extraordinary individual with a life filled with service — the kind of person any university would love to commend with an honorary degree. Now she finds herself in a roiling debate while being bullied into resigning her position from one of the many boards on which she serves.

The portion of Gay’s biography that has caused the wild reaction and protest from two outside groups and some at the University of Utah is her association with the World Congress of Families. The organization I now lead, Sutherland Institute, was the host and sponsor of the World Congress of Families IX event, held in Salt Lake City last year. The group has a long history of strengthening families and supporting at­risk children. There is a mountain of evidence attesting to the good work it has done.

I do not wish to engage in a series of tit­for­tat, claim­and­counterclaim arguments which have become standard for TV and media. None of us should be interested in shouting matches, talking­point tirades or hyperbolic accusations. Rather, I wish to speak to the principles that undergird an open society and the processes that should guide our public discourse.

The leading voice against Gay comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). It would be easy for me to lay out a case against SPLC, identify past members of SPLC who have said or done less than honorable things, or dispute SPLC accusations which were proven flawed. Such an approach, while temporarily satisfying to some, would leave us a long way from the type of open­mindedness and dialogue we are capable of creating.

The real question is, where there are disagreements, who gets to decide who can be vilified, who is tolerant, who is filled with hate and who is not? One group declaring another group to be evil simply does not make it so. Organizations that cower before such clamor and character assassination are contributing to a less­than­tolerant environment on campus and in the public square.

The selection of individuals to be recipients of honorary degrees is hardly a canonization — and it shouldn’t be. Business success, philanthropic work, and service to community are all compelling reasons to bestow such degrees — none has to be the next Mother Teresa. Turning this process into a purity test for political correctness is neither wise nor prudent. With this precedent, some will undoubtedly argue that a potential honoree should be disqualified for having been an Eagle Scout as a youth or that a graduate of a university like the U. of U. should be rejected because of possible insensitivities to Native Americans. While seemingly absurd, such examples flow from the demonization of those with whom we might disagree.

Whipping students into a frenzy of indignation to the point that they would turn their backs on an honored son or daughter of the University is to teach them to turn their backs on the most important lessons from their university experience — openness to learning from and discussing a wide variety of thoughts and ideas. (Yes, students have every right to protest. But just because they can, doesn’t mean they should — that is part of what they should have learned during their college years.)

We believe that the LGBT community deserves respect and should be heard. The role of families, the challenges of a complex society and the needs of children are also important. The events of this week didn’t advance any of these causes but instead were an exercise in intolerant tolerance. The result, ultimately, is that we have besmirched a wonderful member of our community, the U., and numerous individuals and organizations who have a rightful claim to civic dialogue, elevated communication and respect.

If our teaching of tolerance is that we are to be tolerant only of those who agree with us and that we should disrespectfully treat and then dismissively turn our backs on everyone else — we have taught by word and deed intolerant tolerance — which really isn’t tolerance at all.

cat-animal-eyes-grey-54632

When the cat’s away, the mice will play

While Rod Arquette is away from his microphone, a great slate of local and national guests will join Sutherland’s Boyd Matheson on KNRS Talk Radio. Boyd will guest host The Rod Arquette Show on 105.9 FM from 4-7 p.m. on May 2, 3 and 4. Tune in for some deep dialogue on the country’s most pressing issues.

Here are a few highlights from the guest list:

  • Arthur Brooks, president of American Enterprise Institute; check out Brooks’ latest TedTalk to get a taste of what is to come.
  • Ben Sasse, U.S. senator from Nebraska; listen to what Sen. Sasse had to say while speaking to MSNBC.
  • Dr. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College.
  • Jim DeMint, president of The Heritage Foundation and former U.S. senator from South Carolina.
  • David Bobb, president of Bill of Rights Institute and author of Humility: An Unlikely Biography of America’s Greatest Virtue.
  • Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs and author of The Great Debate; he is also the Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a contributing editor to National Review and The Weekly Standard.
  • Stephen Hayes, columnist for The Weekly Standard and New York Times best-selling author; Hayes regularly appears on Fox News.
450px-Severan_Basilica_01

How did we get here?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Severan_Basilica_01.JPGI had the opportunity last week to participate in a panel discussion at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., on the influence of the ideas and culture of the 1960s on the family policies pursued by the government today. The conference was sponsored by the journal The Family in America.

The other panelists were Ryan MacPherson, who talked about how no-fault divorce became entrenched through a combination of inaction by religious groups and an aggressive push by the legal industry; and Anne Roback Morse of the Population Research Institute, who talked about the powerful forces behind the United States’ aggressive promotion of contraception and sterilization, sometimes without consent, in minority communities and in other nations.

My portion of the discussion focused on how, in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court began actively promoting in its decisions the ideologies associated with the sexual revolution. Where before the 1960s, what I described as Act I in the drama of marriage and family in constitutional law, the Supreme Court had pretty consistently recognized the inherited wisdom about marriage and family, specifically: “[S]exual expression was a moral act with significant consequences. Marriage was the only licit setting for sexual expression. It united two very different types of people, a man and a woman, and the union was not merely an expression of momentary desire or even of calculated bargaining but a real joining which created reciprocal obligations and obligations to the children the union alone could create. Though the act of marrying was freely chosen, its consequences could not really be. Children born to married couples enjoyed the blessing of belonging and a setting of stability, complementarity and usually biological connectedness.”

In the mid-1960s, the intermission of the play, the Court began to talk about marriage in a radically different way. The most famous Supreme Court case referred to marriage as an “association” rather than a union of two people which was “hopefully” enduring.

When the curtain went up for Act II, the Court’s treatment of family was now nearly the polar opposite of what it had been. The Court’s decisions began to treat marriage and non-marriage as essentially equivalent, marriage and family as mere lifestyle choices important only to the degree they allowed individuals to express themselves in increasingly idiosyncratic ways.

The Court’s logic followed a predictable pattern, endorsing contraception for married then unmarried couples, creating a right to abortion, requiring the state to facilitate contraceptive access, striking down distinctions between households of families and households of unrelated people (like “hippie communes”), and on and on; most recently striking down the federal law definition of marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

The ideology the Court majority now seems to endorse “imagines no differences of significance between men and women. Sexual expression is a means of obtaining pleasure, though it may rise to an act of self-creation since it is the most potent item in the toolkit of expressive individualism. By rights, it ought to have no consequences that are not freely chosen by the consenting individuals. Thus, each has a right to be shielded and, indeed, the state has a duty to shield individuals, from those consequences (by increasing access to contraception or streamlined divorce). If consequences—pregnancy or unhappiness, for instance—still show up, the state must provide other escape routes. No freely chosen sexual coupling is illicit and none should be privileged above another. Civil marriage is but a manifestation of individual will, valuable because it allows the state to bestow dignity on individuals by valorizing their intimate choices. If the parties desire, marriage could be useful to the project of “defin[ing] one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  Secondarily, marriage may be accessorized by children who may provide personal satisfaction to the spouses. These children will presumably be benefitted by access to the resources of two adults and to the government benefits provided to married couples.”

The same-sex marriage cases the Court is now considering give the Court an opportunity to step away from its ideological project of reframing norms of morality and redefining marriage and an opportunity to decentralize decision making power regarding the family.

Whatever the Court does, the current ferment over marriage provides an opportunity for other institutions, like churches, to champion the competing model of marriage and family rooted in experience and inherited wisdom.

An archived version of the lecture can be found at www.frc.org/university.

For Sutherland Institute, I’m Dave Buer. Thanks for listening.

This post is an expanded transcript of the Sutherland Soapbox, a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations. The podcast can be found at the bottom of this post.

Receive this broadcast each week directly to your iTunes by clicking here

Moral standards and redemptive values — in Hollywood? Yes! Sutherland Soapbox, 2/10/15

b

reel

This post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations. The podcast can be found at the bottom of this post.

Hollywood is just a cesspool of filth rotting our souls and ruining our children. Or at least that’s a narrative we often hear, right? While the entertainment industry does produce its fair share of garbage, there is a lot to celebrate.

This past weekend, a few of my Sutherland Institute colleagues and I had the chance to attend the 23rd Annual Movieguide Awards in Hollywood. The awards gala honors films that feature high moral standards and redemptive values. In attendance were directors, producers, actors and studio executives for films such as “Big Hero 6,” “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” “Mr. Peabody & Sherman,” “Unbroken,” and “Muppets Most Wanted.” Stevie Wonder even made a surprise musical appearance.

But the thing that stood out to me most was the economics of moral creative content. And I’m not talking about moral content in the form of an in-your-face, condemning-you-to-the-fires-of-hell sermon disguised as a movie. That stuff just doesn’t work. If you want to preach, be a preacher. If you want to teach, be a teacher. But if you want to be a filmmaker, you better learn how to entertain. That is, after all, why most people go to the movies. To have fun. To be entertained. And perhaps, along the way, folks might also be inspired, outraged or moved to action. The trick is to elicit that emotion without alienating the audience. And the movies honored at the Movieguide Awards did just that. And that’s where the economics comes in.

During the event, Movieguide presented a statistical analysis of the biggest box office movies of 2014, as they have done for decades. Their analysis shows where the real money is. Of the 25 highest grossing films of 2014, only four were rated R. Movies with a very strong Christian, redemptive or moral worldview raked in $2.2 billion, while movies with a very strong non-Christian worldview earned less than half a billion dollars.

As I list off the top-10 grossing films of 2014, think of all of the funny, inspiring, amazing and entertaining moments from these films. Read more

Trigger warnings and microaggressions — Sutherland Soapbox, 1/13/15

silenceThis post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations. The podcast can be found at the bottom of this post.

There’s a couple of interesting trends that have been brewing for a while that I’d like to talk about today because they might be symptoms of a larger issue. One is the rise of trigger warnings.

Trigger warnings have their origin in the completely rational and noble effort to protect the mentally ill or victims of violent crimes, such as child abuse or rape, from experiencing things like flashbacks or post-traumatic stress disorder. The warnings are given before exposing the consumer to anything that might “trigger” those painful memories. That’s great. There’s no reason to needlessly put the vulnerable through that trauma.

Unfortunately, there are some, including many on college campuses, who have taken this concept to the extreme. At one time, Oberlin College’s list included “racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression.” To their credit, the administration changed the policy after some of Oberlin’s faculty voiced their displeasure. A New Republic article reported at the time,

In the faculty’s eyes, trigger warnings threaten not just academic freedom but the intrinsic nature of the liberal arts educational model. “We need to … challenge students, to conduct open inquiry in classrooms, to make students feel uncomfortable,” explained [Oberlin professor] Marc Blecher. “Making students feel uncomfortable is at the core of liberal arts education.”

A second trend gaining steam is the rise of the concept of microaggressions. The idea is that degrading stereotypes related to things like gender, race, religion and ethnicity often occur in subtle ways. Microaggressions are the seemingly innocuous comments or gestures the offending individual commits but is almost always unaware he or she has committed. It could be something like a male holding a door open for a female. Read more

Peace, truth, freedom and functional culture — Sutherland Soapbox, 12/23/14

TruthThis post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations. The podcast can be found at the bottom of this post.

Some years ago, an influential organizational leader observed that the measure of peace experienced by an individual is a manifestation of the degree of congruity between not only a person’s values and their behavior, but also the extent to which the person’s values conform to truth. This is a compelling idea and one I’ve come to recognize as applying also to groups of people, indeed to all functional human cultures.

The interrelationship of truth and freedom seems also to be essential – as proclaimed by The Prince of Peace, whose birth Christendom now celebrates: “…ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) “Free from what?” we might ask. Free from distorted perceptions and erroneous thinking and thus free from the bonds of ignorance and from the errors and wasted opportunities ignorance produces.

Meaningful consideration of these concepts is incomplete without some definition of “truth.” I regard truth as immutable; as functioning independent of our awareness of it and irrespective of whether we agree or concur with it. As such, we have the privilege and responsibility to discover and choose to live consistent with, or to disregard, the truth. What is not available to us is the amending or redefining of it.

In 1978, Neal Maxwell addressed many of these fundamentals in a remarkable message presented to members of the Rotary Club International. A former professor of political science and later executive vice-president at the University of Utah and at the time a member of the presidency of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Maxwell’s remarks are stunningly relevant today even though he shared them nearly 37 years ago. Read more

On Point video: Holly Mullen on rape culture, 12/5/14

In this episode of On Point, Holly Mullen, executive director of the Rape Recovery Center, discusses rape culture with “Holly on the Hill” blogger Holly Richardson and Michelle Mumford, former assistant dean at BYU Law School.

You can watch all the half-hour On Point videos here on Sutherland’s YouTube channel.

Use this link to subscribe to the On Point podcast on iTunes.

Or use this link to subscribe to the RSS feed.

A head-scratching analysis of (dead) American adulthood

questionA story by New York Times film critic A.O. Scott last month declared adulthood dead in the United States. Well, maybe, but his reasons for thinking so are not the ones I’d choose.

Much of his argument seems to rest on the death of patriarchy in pop culture, with a side journey into American literature and history. Go ahead, read the whole meandering thing here.

Among other things, he cringes at the fact that American adults are reading (gasp!) young adult fiction. Well … that might have something to do with the fact that Harry Potter and other high-quality juvenile books are better written than many books aimed at “adults.” (Please forgive those of us “adults” who enjoy plots and moral clarity.)

Scott also sniffs at middle-age men “wearing shorts and flip-flops,” as if they should all be in Cary Grant-type suits 24/7.

David Marcus, in the Federalist, gave Scott’s New York Times piece a big eyeroll:

The first object of Scott’s imagination that needs to be tackled is his argument that “Mad Men,” “Breaking Bad,” and “The Sopranos” are influencing and reflecting a turn away from male adulthood in our culture. …

Scott doesn’t fare much better as he wades into the history of America and its letters to find foreshadowing for our current crisis of masculinity. His readers are treated to a description of the founders of the United States in which they are not fathers, but “late adolescents.” Benjamin Franklin is his primary example, and while it’s true Franklin had his dalliances, he also pretty much invented everything we use in our houses. Meanwhile, the notion that Adams, Jefferson, and Washington were adolescent is really just bizarre. In Scott’s version, the American Revolution is little more than a temper tantrum directed at daddy figure George III.

Click here to read the rest of Marcus’ entertaining critique.

In search of best income equality? Utah’s the place – Mero Moment, 6/18/14

This post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations.

Mind_the_income_gapIncome inequality is the new buzzword for progressives in their never-ending assault on the character of America – not that America doesn’t need a mirror held to its face every now and then. But progressives seem to relish every opportunity to remind Americans that we’re not that special after all.

Admittedly, I am an unabashed cheerleader for Utah exceptionalism. Last year, I wrote a short book about how Utah leads the nation in faith, family and freedom. Little did I realize at the time that Utah is also the most equal state in the Union in terms of income.

It turns out the research on income inequality has been ubiquitous for several years now, a new best-selling book on the subject has made it a cause célèbre once again. Progressives are eating up Thomas Piketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty First Century, and use it now in conjunction with liberal Senator Elizabeth Warren’s push for a living minimum wage.

As it turns out, much to the chagrin of progressives everywhere, Utah is the most income-equal state in the Union. The goal of income equality is a large middle class where the divide between the rich and poor is at its absolute minimum. Utah is the best in this category. Yes, homogenous, patriarchal, church-going, Republican-dominated, liquor-hating, federalism-loving, politically conservative Utah does income equality better than any blue state in the nation. Read more

The new American religion – Mero Moment, 5/20/14

[display_podcast]

Mary_Magdalene_Crying_StatueThis post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations.

As I’ve watched the continuing decline of American culture and the rise of progressivism, I have searched for words to describe this transfer of culture. I’ve pinned the blame on selfish individualism, political correctness, secular humanism and progressivism on the left and right.

One author calls it “utilitarian hedonism.” Utilitarian meaning that life is about maximizing personal pleasure and reducing personal pain. Hedonism meaning that pleasure is the only intrinsic human good. Combined it describes a political philosophy wherein “the pursuit of happiness” is debased as the pursuit of pleasure. Don’t do or say anything that gives me discomfort – let me do what I want to do.

This guy’s on to something. He describes a new American religion. He writes that this new faith “tries to make respectable the old disparaging slogan ‘eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we will die.’” He writes that the “lowest common denominator” of this new faith “boils down to this: suffering is worse than being happy, and being alive is better than being dead – except if it means that you will suffer.”

He says, “It’s the only rational way to explain to your grandmother how it is that gay marriage is now legal in most places where cigarette smoking isn’t, and why states that shrug at sadistic pornography grimly insist upon seat belts.” Read more