There’s been a lot of talk over the past 4-5 years or so about how we
must be tolerant. Tolerance is the thing
that will allow us to live together. I’m
not saying that tolerance is bad, but the degree of “tolerance” we supposed to
show each other depends on the perspective.
My wife has a t-shirt that has a saying on it that goes something like
this: I’m becoming intolerant of the tolerance I’m supposed to tolerate.
Miriam Webster defines tolerance in part as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing
from or conflicting with one's own.”
In other words (and at least in our society) that should mean that someone
has the ability to say what’s on their mind.
We don’t have to agree with
what’s being said, only that we give others the ability to speak their mind and
at least think about their perspective.
Tolerance does not mean we have to accept or embrace that belief that differs from
our own, and this is where the definition of tolerance becomes convoluted. There are too many groups in our society
today that demand that we agree with and accept their beliefs. If we don’t, we’re called bigots, prejudiced,
biased, intolerant, inflexible, and other names I’m not going to repeat here. This is not
tolerance.
We’ve gone out of our way to accommodate
other religious groups because we must be tolerant and allow the free
expression of their religion. Many
times, this is done at the expense of religious liberty of other groups. The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) and
the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) are known for their efforts to
eliminate Christianity from schools and other public forums. According to the Independent Journal Review
(IJR) the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded that the “Huron
Park Elementary School in Roseville, Michigan stop handing out permission slips
for students to participate in voluntary Bible lessons – off school
property. Not only did the school
acquiesce and stop the practice; it apologized for doing so” (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/56576-got-hypocrisy-cair-demands-school-accomodate-muslim-prayer-attacks-voluntary-bible-lessons/).
This was in 2009.
“The same CAIR-Michigan demanded that
Dearborn, Michigan Public Schools accommodate Muslim prayer – on school property.” No word yet
on whether the ACLU or FFRF will weigh in on the latest CAIR demands, but I
wouldn’t hold my breath – I believe neither of these two groups possess either
the intestinal fortitude or vertebrae to do it.
It wouldn’t be ”tolerant.” I want
to make it clear that I’m not anti-Muslim or anti-Islam. This is about equality, isn’t it? If Muslim prayer is allowed in school,
Christian prayer should be allowed as well.
And that’s not the only one. A
school outside Washington D.C. “Parkdale
High School now allows a handful of its students to be excused to pray (http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/high-school-oks-muslims-prayer-time-for-good-grades/).
The article goes on to say “Prince George
County High School Principal Cheryl J. Logan said the initiative is in response
to the “needs of the growing Muslim community,” the Washington Post reported.” Isn’t there a large Christian community in the area?
If the ACLU and FFRF don’t make a stand against these “attacks”
against the separation of church and state “doctrine” they so loudly and
publicly defend, they will be exposed for what they really are: instruments of
satan. Plain and simple. Again, not because we should be anti-Muslim
or –Islam, but because what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander,
right? Shouldn’t everyone’s religious freedoms be protected?
You’d think that a person that founded an anti-bullying campaign would be tolerant of opposing
opinions, right? At least he wouldn’t
attack students that walked out in protest after he cursed the Bible and
Christianity, right? A truly tolerant
person that doesn’t believe in bullying wouldn’t attack individual students for
having a differing opinion, right? Obviously
you know where I’m going with this, the answer is no.
In April of 2012, Dan Savage, founder of “It Gets
Better” anti-bullying campaign, was speaking to an audience of high school
students at the National High School Journalism Convention in Seattle. “Some said the antibullying advocate’s
remarks became abusive when Savage began talking about “bulls--t in the Bible
about gay people” (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/04/29/students-walk-out-on-dan-savage.html).
As the students and advisers walked out, Savage began heckling them,
creating what many perceived was a hostile environment. Yeah, this is tolerance. “Savage did offer a sarcastic apology “if I
hurt anyone’s feelings” (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html), very much like the apology Janet Jackson
gave after her “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl XXXVIII. And to show I’m not a hater or one sided, he
did later make a better apology on his blog site (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/30/11477048-dan-savage-apologizes-for-criticizing-students-who-walked-out-of-lecture?lite).
But after an anti-bullying campaigner bullied those that chose to
exercise their freedom of speech, I just have to wonder how sincere it really
is. This isn’t an anti-gay thing,
either. It’s about the hypocrisy he
showed when he actually bullied the students.
If he truly believes in
anti-bullying, he wouldn’t have attacked them.
Plain and simple.
According to Greg Koukl of the “Apologetics Does God
Exist?” website, tolerance contains three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or
point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process
(http://www.cbn.com/special/apologetics/articles/Koukl_the_intolerance_of_tolerance.aspx).
Sound familiar? An important
aspect of tolerance, says Koukl, is that we can’t tolerate someone with whom we
agree. We can only tolerate those we don’t agree with. Deep, huh?
Koukl also says “This essential element of tolerance – disagreement –
has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re
called intolerant. This presents a
curious problem”, he continues. “One
must first think another is wrong in order to exercise tolerance toward him,
yet doing so brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance is
impossible.” There’s more to this
webpage, I recommend reading it.
If you’re a Christian, the word tolerance is thrown
in your face any time you disagree with someone. (Is this tolerance? Check one: Yes No) We’re told (often by people that haven’t even
read the Bible) that as Christians, God calls us to be tolerant. Next time someone tells you that, ask them to
show you where specifically it says
in the Bible God tells us to be tolerant.
But God is love, isn’t he? Didn’t
Jesus tell us to love everyone? Yes and
yes. But the God and Jesus (in the form
of the Bible) both tell us we are not to tolerant sin. But didn’t Jesus associate with the “untouchables”
of the day? Yes again. He had dinner with tax collectors (the most
despicable of the day – not much unlike today’s IRS, huh?), spoke with
prostitutes, healed the lame, and did many other miracles for those that the
rest of society didn’t deem human.
But don’t be distracted or fooled. Jesus did not
tolerate the sin. Just see what he said
to the Scribes, Pharisees, and Saducees when they challenged him. His interaction with the sinners changed their
lives for the better. Remember the story of Zaccheus? When
Jesus saw him in a tree and called him down so that he could go to his house to
eat, Zaccheus said “But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of
my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I
will pay back four times the amount.’” (Luke 19:8). Jesus called everyone to repent of their
sins, he didn’t tolerate them. So in
some cases, Jesus calls us to be intolerant,
at least when it comes to sin. For more
on this perspective, read this article: http://www.okwu.edu/keating-center/2013/05/i-am-100-intolerant/.
So are you tolerant?
If you disagree with me, can you allow me to speak my mind even though
you disagree with me? If you disagree
with me, can you remain civil and respect my point of view (without agreeing
with it)? If you answered yes, then you’re
pretty tolerant.
I’m not asking you to accept my point of view, just
tolerate it. It’s my two cents … for
what it’s worth.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment