This ethic allowed the dominant worldview to accept – tolerate – other views and opinions and even practices that were in direct opposition to it!  The common Christian saying was to “love the sinner; hate the sin”, so that people who were living in opposition to the worldview were still to be loved!

This powerful ethic led to the freedoms of religion, assembly, personal property, the press, self-defense and speech, just to name a few.  Even those who disagree with us or hate us are still worthy of the dignity that comes with being created in the Image of God.

Tolerance

For many years, it was noted that the opposing worldviews (atheism, progressivism, naturalism, humanism, etc.) had a major fixation on “tolerance”.  The traditional definition of tolerance was penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in “Friends of Voltaire”:  “I disapprove of what you say/do but I will defend to the death your right to say/do it.”

This meant that our Judeo-Christian worldview had an ethic for accepting diverse and even offensive views.    I don’t imply that pornography, satanism, fascism, or other extreme perspectives weren’t offensive – they were!  I am not saying that they aren’t/weren’t morally wrong – some were! 

But the Judeo-Christian ethic allows us to tolerate the various views and opinions.  We disagree with your belief – we will not condone it, but we will dignify you and defend your right to hold and verbalize it, because we believe that God made you in His image and treasures you.  Again, I know that hasn’t always been practiced, but it is the ethic.

Not so the new Humanist, Secular, Progressive, Naturalist, Atheist worldview(s). They do NOT have an ethic for tolerance.   (Moving forward, I will call this the “Crowdmodern” worldview for simplicity.  I will explain why later.)

Properly understood, “the Judeo-Christian worldview does not define people by their sins because we’ve already defined them as someone created in the image of God. The latter is their primary identity, whether they recognize it or not; so when we try to say people are sinners first or define people by whatever sin is most obvious then we are necessarily trying to undermine the Imago Dei in them by rendering it secondary to their sin.” (Ryan Denison)  Again, we have not always understood rightly or lived well according to this foundation for true tolerance, but it was always there.

The “Crowdmodern” worldview seemed to seek tolerance for the last few decades merely because it wanted to be tolerated when it wasn’t the dominant worldview. Since it has no internal ethic for tolerance, it will only honor agreement and the power to make that agreement count. All others must be swept away as immoral, not tolerated.

I predict more and more evidence of this will come clear.  These worldviews will call upon the culture and government to take away freedoms of speech, assembly, self-protection, and the practice of religion.

These freedoms will come under attack, and if the “Crowdmodern” worldview is victorious, will fall.

In other countries where the Crowdmodern worldview has taken dominance, this pattern is already in place.  Those who espouse the same worldview here will follow this same pathway as soon as they can.   Recently, Norway made it punishable by a year in prison, to utter even “private remarks” that are considered offensive and hate speech... Public declarations carry even longer terms.

I predict another experience to become more common:  people following the Judeo-Christian worldview will start losing friends.  We will start being “unfriended” by even long-term friends who are part of the other worldviews as it becomes more dominant.  You have been able to be friends with them for decades even though you have disagreed about key things the whole time…

But now they will not be willing to be your friend because you are on the wrong side of history.  You could tolerate them, even with what you would have called hateful being part of their beliefs.  They will not be able or willing to do that same.  You will be treated and labelled as hateful, bigoted, even evil or crazy.  Standing by Judeo-Christian beliefs will be evidence that you are part of a cult or delusion not fit to have a voice in civil culture.

Crowdmodern

I am using this term in connection with the metaphysical views of premodern, modern and postmodernism.  I am curious as to whether we are on the verge of a new metaphysic or merely a shift in worldviews, but that is a discussion for a future article – and probably needs to be handled by real philosophers.

This name comes from the new epistemology – the wiki source of knowledge and truth. 

This can be confusing in a worldview that idolizes the self – the “expressive individualism” and “radical autonomy” viewpoints. However, which autonomous views will be supported? People speak in terms of “preference” but they actually mean “demanded.” Is a person’s personal preferred pronoun just preferred? My full name is “Christopher” but I prefer “Chris.” I do not ask the government to legally demand that you call me “Chris”; I do not ask media agencies to shut you up if you call me “Christopher”; I do not ask corporations to remove or punish you if you don’t follow my preferences… because it is merely a preference.

How do people know whose autonomy to accept? Mine, if I autonomously don’t want to engage with someone according to their demands, or theirs according to their demand? The crowd determines who to honor and who to criminalize, literally or figuratively. The great mass of people – the wiki – the “Us”, is who decides.

It also comes from the source of ethics and morality connected to it… “US”.   How can someone know if something is wrong or right?  There is a nameless, generalized, faceless “US” that will let you know if US approves or not.  If not, you will be abandoned, rejected, ignored and, of course, cancelled.

Eventually, you will be mobbed or arrested if US disapproves.

So, as I considered different names for my own understanding, “Usmodern” or “wikimodern seemed less clear than “Crowdmodern” – more in Part III, concluded.