Neutrality With Blood on Its Hands
When “choice” becomes the highest public good, the weak don't become safer. They become easier to sacrifice. Tolerance is often praised as a civic virtue, but in reality it begins as a wound. I tolerate only what I judge to be wrong, offensive, or dangerous, and only when I have the power to resist and yet refrain. There is no tolerance where nothing in me protests. There is no tolerance where I am indifferent. Tolerance isn't the absence of moral judgment. It's moral judgment under restraint. Modern liberalism likes to imagine it's found a way around this. It dreams of a public square so neutral that no conviction can stain it, a state so hygienic that no moral odor clings to its hands. But this is a fantasy. A referee who can't be offended can't tolerate anything. He merely permits. He doesn't stand above the conflict; he's already defined it in a way that hides his own involvement. That illusion collapses most dramatically in abortion, because abortio...