Liberal Intolerance

Left-leaning columnist Joel Connolly surprisingly but refreshingly took the liberal establishment in Washington State to task for its hypocrisy in their attack of pharmacists right to legally object based on conscience to administer certain drugs. The current compromise, which made accommodations for objectors, mandates that the pharmacist must refer the customer to another pharmacist who will willingly distribute the drug in question. This compromise has been deemed as unacceptable to some, who believe that the right solution is to compel people to violate their conscience or hand over their license.

Connolly points out that this is contrary to this country's long tradition of legally recognizing objections of conscience. He writes "We've allowed pacifists to opt out of military service and provided for alternative service. We, as a society, have also sanctioned the primacy of free speech." But the same liberals who once championed the paramount importance of following conscience seem to want to throw that out of the window when consciences are telling individuals to do things which are "un-liberal".

Chris Carlson, a champion for assisted-suicide and presumably no supported of conservative causes even noted, "They want a pharmacist forced to provide Plan B's morning after pill and if a pharmacist can't in good conscience do so, their attitude is the state should strip this person of license and livelihood." Does this sound like the heartbeat of the progressive and liberal soul? The belief that either you share my beliefs, act on my beliefs or pay severe consequences awfully like a sound-bite from the common "right-wing religious nuts shouldn't impose their beliefs on other people" rant. NARAL Pro-Choice Washington screamed, "No one should be able to impose their personal beliefs..." while essentially doing exactly that in the process.

Laughingly, some liberals are apparently hiding behind the "a strong majority of us agree" tact, which provides a false sense of "everybody's knows this is the right thing" certainty while implying that those who don't are on the fringe. Even Connolly acknowledges and mocks it: "Oh, to be so certain and so stigmatize those who disagree. Again, however, a broader question: Should everyone be forced to acquiesce to a majority view, even if the majority is slim or conflicted?"

To be fair, I see this phenomena on both sides of the political spectrum. Sadly, there is no shortage of people who are the majority willing to bully those who have alternate beliefs. What's particularly sad and hypocritical is that a group which prides itself of being so inclusive and tolerant doesn't see the irony in their actions. Perhaps they'll be forced to acknowledge that there are things that are absolute and worth fighting for (even if we don't agree on what these are) - so these conflicts will be rightfully revealed be as disagreements of perspectives as opposed to "tolerance" versus "intolerance".