Saying Silly Things

So, I was recently having a conversation with a very bright young man and he asked a very good question: "Daddy, how come we park in our driveway? It isn't enough room to drive on." The inquisitor has a point. Although only 5 years-old, he could smell an oxymoron a mile away. He concluded his inquiry by stating, "That's silly, Daddy."

Indeed it is.

That interchange got me thinking about other silly things that we say, which often times go unnoticed. Little sayings have gone unchecked and sometimes they become part of our vernacular without really pondering their implications. So here are a couple others that I personally have said:

"That was seriously, funny..."

"That play (in football) was pretty ugly." (not in reference to Tim Tebow)

"Pick up your toys before you can have a treat. That's your only choice."

"If you're not officially dating, then I don't think you should be alone together."

"After that, make sure I get the original copy."

Those are somewhat harmless little slogans and phrases that we tend to say without thinking too much about them. But there are some things we say that do have bigger consequences and larger implications. Here is one of my favorites:



"There are exceptions to every rule." This saying probably came about when someone described a rule and then proceeded to describe the various exceptions to it. Therefore, we say things like "there are exceptions to every rule."

It gets tricky when we actually take that statement and try to apply to real life. If "exceptions to every rule" is indeed true, and that this statement is a rule (which is what is implied by saying it in the first place), then the rule that there are exceptions to every rule has exceptions. The most obvious, of which, is that there are exceptions. So, what you get is a silly little dialogue like this (actual dialogue I had at Hume Lake with a camper):

ME: "You shouldn't do that."
Person B: "Why not?"
ME: "Because it's a part of the rules."
B: "Come on, you know that there are exceptions to every rule."
ME: "So, every rule has exceptions?"
B: "I just said that."
ME: "Then your rule about there being exceptions has exceptions?"
B: "Um..."
ME: "Like, that the exception of the exception rule is that there are no exceptions?"
B: "No. What I mean is that every rule has an exception. It's obvious."
ME: "Don't you mean that every rule has exceptions, except this one? and that there is no exception to this rule about all rules having exceptions?"
B: "Oh."

Another good example is the one about tolerance that is so pervasive in our culture. Many a talking head on TV will say noble and well-meaning things like: "There is no reason why someone should treat another person that way. We need to be more tolerant of other people's opinions and stop all this hatred. It's just wrong" (a morning talk show host involving all women - I can't find the clip on youtube, but if/when I do, I will post it and won't be so vague.)

Although I agree with the conclusions the Host makes, I do so, not because of tolerance, but because of Love. Tolerance cannot motivate a person to treat another person fairly; tolerance is what happens when someone is treated fairly. Love is the great motivator of justice and fairness; tolerance is what we say has happened when fairness is lived out. If we aim at love, we will soon come to see we are tolerant. If we aim at tolerance, we will soon see that we are tyrants of political correctness and slaves to the majority.

Tolerance, in a nutshell, is the attitude of not being permissive to bigotry. A bigot is someone that is intolerant of someone's beliefs, opinions, or creeds. To say it another way: a bigot is someone that differs in opinion, belief, etc. and treats people, with whom they differ, poorly because of their difference. In order to be a bigot, there must be a difference in opinion, belief, etc. AND the bigot must also treat the other person poorly or unfairly. We must remember that simply to differ is not bigotry.

Now, here is where it gets silly. Some people will view intolerance as the name given to the condition or attitude where the difference lies. For example, if you differ in opinion, belief, etc. AND you treat someone poorly because of it, then you are a bigot. However, if you treat them fairly but disagree, then you are simply being intolerant. I beg to be intolerant (differ)!

If tolerance is what is implied above -- that to disagree with someone's opinion, belief, etc. is intolerant -- then any act or attitude of disagreement is seen as an act or attitude of intolerance. However, a true, working definition of intolerance presupposes a difference in opinion and seeks to label an act or attitude as intolerant when the act or attitude works against fairness or justice. A perpetual and deliberate act or attitude that works against fairness and justice because of a difference in opinion, belief, etc. is bigotry. Unfortunately, these working definitions are not what is meant when tolerance and bigotry are often used.

An illustration with brussel sprouts may help. I think brussel sprouts are a vile weed not meant for human consumption. However, if my mom wanted me to eat them as some strange proof of my love for her, I would. I would tolerate the eating of brussel sprouts. I can maintain my dislike for the vile weed. That is tolerance. Although differing, or disliking, still there is courtesy and civility. Under the new idea of tolerance, however, simply to dislike the vile weed in the first place is intolerant. To say it another way, unless I remove the dislike, or different opinion on the vile weed, I remain intolerant. The way to true tolerance is to never differ.

So what does this mean? Well, when invoking the label "intolerance" we must be careful to not use that word to describe the act or attitude of expressing a difference in opinion, belief, etc. The reason I use the Host as an example is because of the context of their discussion. The subject of religions and personal beliefs came up and after much discussion and talking over one another, the Host summarized the segment with the above statement. In the way the Host used "intolerance", when it comes to matters of religion and personal beliefs, it is intolerant to disagree with another person. Therefore, under the Host's definition, a bigot is a person who maintains opinions, beliefs, etc. that are different than that of another person and expresses those differences by categorizing those differences into "right" and "wrong."

To use the word, or label, "tolerance/intolerance" in the way the Host uses it would mean that having a differing opinion, belief, etc. in matters of religion or personal belief is to be intolerant and to assert the notion of wrongness or rightness to those religious or personal beliefs is to be a bigot. There are two major problems with this view, but only one of which I will say here -- the second will come in another post.

This is a silly thing to say because in essence the Host is saying this: "It is wrong to say that a person's opinion, belief, etc. is wrong because if you do, then you are being intolerant and a bigot." Why is this silly? Because if it is true that it is wrong to say someone else is wrong, then it is self-incriminating. By calling someone intolerant, under this view of intolerance, you must include yourself as an intolerant person. Read this slowly: it is wrong to say someone else is wrong. Did you catch it?

What is most appalling to me is that the Host is calling the Christian worldview wrong because the Christian Worldview is, among other things, that the Christian worldview is right and others are not quite as right, or good. The Host, therefore, must become the accused and the accuser; both the one who points out wrong and the one who is wrong.

Because I am a Christian I can have a different opinion, belief, etc. and still treat you with respect and dignity and fairness and justice. I can do so, not because I want to be tolerant (in the true sense of the word, not in the Host's sense of it), but because I am called to love people for the intrinsic value they possess as human beings. Difference of opinion is not equal to hate. A difference of opinion is not intolerance. Maintaining your opinion and believing your opinion is right and another opinion is wrong is not bigotry.

My Christian Worldview gives me the basis for saying an opinion is wrong and for having the ability to be a tolerant person. A tolerant person can, and will, hold different opinion, beliefs, etc. I have excellent reason why I know Christianity is true and opinions that stand in contrast to the Christian Worldview are wrong. However, I can think someone is wrong and still give them the dignity, respect, honor, love, and grace that they deserve because according to my Christian Worldview, they are made in the image of God and have intrinsic worth and value. It is the worldview that there are no right and wrongs that screams from the rooftops that it's wrong to say someone is wrong. Ironically, it is usually those attempting to show how ridiculous the Christian Worldview is that use Jesus' own words, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them..." (Matthew 7:12 ESV) to advocate a tolerant worldview of no right and wrongs. If nothing is wrong, then nothing is right; if nothing is right, then nothing is wrong either.

"It is wrong (intolerant) to say someone else is wrong."

Oh, the silly things we say.