“Tolerance” is Virtue on the Cheap

Via Charles C. Cooke, I ran across an appalling story from Great Britain.  According to The Telegraph, a British couple had three foster children removed from their home because the couple belonged to the UK Independence Party, and social welfare officials have deemed the party “racist.”  In a rational world, the foster parents would be considered exemplary citizens:

The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.

Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.

They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.

Yet our world is far from rational. From my many encounters with the hard Left, I learned long ago that you are deemed an evil person — regardless of your other virtues — if you believe men shouldn’t have sex with each other or that babies shouldn’t be dismembered in the womb on a mother’s whim, but I can sometimes forget how smugly self-satisfied the disciples of tolerance can be.  You see, just as you can serve your country, your fellow man, and feed the hungry for your entire adult life and still be considered nothing more than a lowlife bigot if you don’t adopt the latest fad in modern sexual morality, so can an absolutely miserly prick be considered “good” for simply having the “correct” thoughts bouncing around his otherwise self-indulgent brain.

I’m reminded of the ongoing, public vilification of Michele Bachmann.  Here’s a woman who — by any objective measure — has dedicated an enormous part of her adult life to helping the “least of these.”  Who among us has taken in more than twenty foster children (she fostered 23)?  Who among us has taken in even one foster child?  Yet is there a more mocked and despised woman in all of Congress?

The secular Kingdom of Man so painstakingly constructed by our cultural elite is pretty appealing, in concept.  In this secular kingdom, your sexual experimentation is virtuous (brave, even), you can delegate charitable service to the welfare bureaucracy, and you can even convert what would otherwise be intolerance and totalitarianism into “tolerance” and “civil rights” so long as you choose the right targets for your venom and vengeance.  And as the social costs of your libertinism continue to build and build, simply kick the can down to unborn future generations while ostracizing from polite society anyone with the temerity to ask that either the self-indulgence or the fiscal irresponsibility slow or — God forbid — stop.

And so the innocent will once suffer — after the horror that necessitated the initial “emergency placement,” they are removed from yet another home, disrupted again — to serve the lords of tolerance.  But at least three underprivileged kids won’t be exposed to bad politics, so British social welfare bureaucrats can sleep soundly at night, secure in a job well done.

Patricia Arquette, It’s Time to Admit: It’s a Great Time to Be a Girl
Question for the New York Times: If Gays Are Offended, Do Christians Have Rights?
Hugh Grant’s “The Re-Write” Delves into Love, Failure, and Family
How Political Correctness Improved My Life
  • Craig

    David French knows too little about both tolerance and the foster system. One of the best things we can do for would-be foster children is to promote marriage, especially among the LBGT community. A gay married couple will tend to provide a far better home life for adopted children than many of these state-employed foster “parents”.

  • Mark Meed

    When one reads prose of this quality and lucidity it’s like a shot of pure oxygen. Thank you.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    A ridiculous knee-jerk reaction by officials in an overly-PC society blown out of proportion to further fuel the hysterics of the “culture war”. Color me surprised.
    Never mind, I’m not.

  • DJ Nash

    It is too true that merely being a foster parent -of even dozens of foster children- does not suggest virtuosity. I agree that gay married couples should definitely be allowed the opportunity to assist, there is nothing that suggests they shouldn’t, (other than outdated religious beliefs) and my experience has been that their own experiences as gay people in America have taught gays and lesbians a great deal about patience, tolerance and compassion.

    My guess would be that there’s some aspect of this story which isn’t being told.

  • Rick

    1. Find the most extreme story of overreach.
    2. Insist that the other side (the Left or the Right) does this kind of thing ALL THE TIME.
    3. Insult that side as hopelessly unrealistic, even evil.
    4. Misrespresent it’s worldview.
    5. Conclude that your worldview is much, much better than the monstrous one on the other side.

    There — a template for all your blog posts going forward. You’re welcome!

  • Sus

    Michele Bachmann makes it easy to mock and despise her with the antics she participates in. Her latest tomfoolery was saying Huma Abedin, who is on Hilary Clinton’s staff, is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Michele being a foster parent does nothing to redeem her intolerant views towards people who happen to be gay. I think someone like her should be prohibited from fostering. What would happen is one of the foster kids is gay? Would they be forced into counseling to “pray the gay away”? She denied that was happening but the company got caught on a secret camera doing exactly that.