Hey everyone, I'm back with another book review. Although, I will admit this is actually less of a book review as a whole and more of a commentary on the state of the world. This book was written in 2005, and yet there is one specific conversation in the book that is eerily exactly what we see today 16 years later.
This book is the 3rd in the Babylon Rising series by Christian author Tim LaHaye, who is famous for his Left Behind Series about the Rapture and the Book of Revelations. The series as a whole is entertaining, lots of action, adventure, and deathly peril. With the protagonist a devout Christian, who teaches Biblical Archeology at a University. The only part of the series I don't particularly like is the way that they seemed to have forced a romance into the stories. It just doesn't come off as authentic or real. If you like these types of books it is a must read. He is a great writer, and doesn't disappoint on that end.
"Tolerance is respecting other people's viewpoints and holding them on an equal level with your viewpoints. You should give them equal time to share their concepts and not be judgmental of someone else's beliefs or behaviors."
"That sounds good and politically correct, Archer, but that's not what tolerance means according to the dictionary. Part of what you're saying is true. Yes, we should respect the right of other people to believe what they desire. Not everyone believes on the same level as what I believe."
"You have racially profiled terrorists. I think that you're phobic against Arabs and Russians!"
"Because I have strong opinions and convictions that differ from what you believe, that makes me phobic? Is that the game? When I have a different viewpoint, you begin to call me names?"
"And who determines which way to think or believe, Archer? Is it you? If anyone disagrees with you, do we then call out the thought police and put them in jail? If we are to hold everyone's beliefs and behaviors on the same level and become tolerant and accepting of them, why don't you hold my opinions on the same level as yours? Why aren't you tolerant of them? Why must I give up what I believe and only approve what you believe in? Don't you see a double standard here? Isn't Preston University a place where ideas are shared and free speech is allowed?"
"Having convictions, values, and moral standards does not equal fanaticism."
Have you read through all the passages? Yes, you sure? Ok, just wanted to make sure. So, you should know exactly what my thoughts are going to be on the passages above. I feel like the Left, and Cancel Culture, has taken the place of the Dean from what we see in these passages. This book was written 16 years ago and we are still seeing this hypocritical double standard when it comes to "tolerance" for all. The left have a tendency to label anything as phobic, or intolerant, if it doesn't agree with their thoughts, beliefs, and agenda. As Michael says, "Why don't you hold my opinions on the same level as yours? Why aren't you tolerant of them?" And that really is what it comes down to with the Left, and Cancel Culture, they really aren't as tolerant as they claim to be. They would tell you that they are tolerant, just not tolerant of hate, but just because someone doesn't think like you doesn't automatically make it hateful, or hate speech.
When Michael says, "Because I have strong opinions and convictions that differ from what you believe, that makes me phobic? Is that the game? When I have a different viewpoint, you begin to call me names?" I couldn't help think that this is exactly the world we live in right now in 2021. Do you opinions and convictions differ from the Left's agenda, you're labeled a racist, or phobic. if you've watched any of the hundreds of videos out there of people asking the Liberal Left who define something they are protesting, or to give examples or proof of something they are talking about, than you have seen how the majority of them react. Their first response is to name call. Name Call, hilarious. They cry racist, and they scream phobic, and that they don't need to explain or prove anything because this person is (insert mean name here) or (insert other mean name here). Which is exactly what the authors of this book are describing in this scene 16 years prior. Something describe of as fiction, that didn't really happen much in our society is now commonplace. Have we really devolved that much as human beings?
The Dean in this passage refers to Michael as fanatical, but I don't really see that. I couldn't find a good definition of the word, it was very general. However, I did find this as an extra on Dictionary.com, "This sense of the word is typically used negatively to imply that someone takes such devotion too far, as in They’re considered religious fanatics due to their extreme practices." While the word is largely associated with religion it specifically uses the language "extreme practices," and I feel like that is the key. This character is a Christian, and holds conservative Christian beliefs. He believes in the bible, and not just as fiction. In the eyes of the Dean, or the Liberal Left, this automatically makes you a fanatical crazy. I don't think just having Christian beliefs makes you fanatical, but that's what society seems to be leading to. If you believe in the Bible, you are eventually going to be automatically labeled intolerant and phobic of something. We are living in a circus and are being lead by the damn clowns.
That's it for this book review. Let me know your thoughts and opinions in the comment section below. I'd love to hear what you all have to say.
Words by Ali
No comments:
Post a Comment