Archive - tolerance RSS Feed

Fake Unity, A Water-Based Paint

May 16, 2011 in culture, Gospel, relativism, tolerance with 0 Comments

 

Over at Everyday Mommy there was a fascinating comment featured on a post. The comment was from a post that was submitted as a response to a commenter on this post, though (mercifully) was not published. The comment was this:

 

What if the Truth *is*, but God never intended for it to be something to be “hammered on” or “harped on” – and especially not at the expense of failing to show dignity and respect the children He created in His own image?  Not at the expense of creating an “us”/”them” dichotomy which fails to express the *love* of Chris? Loving one another does not mean we advocate for each and every one of each other’s sins or faulty positions – and *all* of us have them!   – rather it does mean we learn to sincerely grant everyone respect and dignity.  Whether they agree with us or not.  Whether they are even Believers or not.

This is a tragic comment that is reflective of more than an individual poster. Simply put, I will argue that this person is simply bold enough to say what too many professing believers already think, and worse — it is reflective of how an enormous number of Christians behave. The problems with what is expressed here are legion. Let me first get to the obvious thing — the premise of this comment is wholly self-defeating. The person opens by tepidly assenting that truth exists but posits the idea that maybe God doesn’t really care to see it defended. God, afterall, isn’t concerned with what’s right or good or true, right? We’re just supposed to be nice to everyone, yes?

Then why is this person opening their mouth (or typing on a keyboard, as it were)? They aren’t just writing letters down, this is offered as a correction… in the guise of an attitude of “we shouldn’t correct each other.” This is akin to the new liberal definition of tolerance: “We accept everyone and everything, except people that don’t. We hate them.” They obviously think some things are true… and by the nature of the post, they also think that some things (and some people) are wrong and need to be corrected, yet they’ve done it by suggesting that we should not advocate for truth. This philosophy is unlivable. Continue Reading…

Repost: A Recently Discovered Letter of Critique Written to the Apostle Paul

March 30, 2011 in culture, tolerance with 0 Comments

This is too good to not share.

In an exciting example of scholarly cross-collaboration and interdisciplinary research, textual critics and archaeologists have just published a translation of a recently discovered first-century letter, apparently authentic, written to the Apostle Paul himself. Scholars believe it was likely written in the late AD 40s or early 50s. The parchment was remarkably well preserved in a jar buried in a cave on the island of Satiricus. It is surmised that the author of the letter, Parodios, was an elder who had met Paul on one of his missionary journeys.

The translation, published here for the first time, reads as follows:

Parodios, a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, to our brother Paulos. Continue Reading…

America’s Hat Pulled Over Mouth

May 29, 2008 in abortion, culture, tolerance with 0 Comments

With transportation and digital communication, the size of the earth continues to shrink. And as more and more groups from different social, ethnic and cultural backgrounds are exposed to each other with a frequency unimaginable even a generation ago, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need now more than ever to band together in love, not divide in anger. You know, ‘love your neighbor.” I think that’s in the Bible somewhere?

So in order to be accommodating to all persons, the logical step seems to me to encourage an environment of tolerance. I don’t mean an outdated definition of tolerance like, “a permissive attitude towards those different from oneself.” No, friends, to even believe that someone’s view is such that it needs to be tolerated rather than accepted is the height of arrogance and is the very definition of the intolerance that we must eliminate! And by any means necessary.

No, viewpoints that seek to diminish the status of others must not be tolerated. Intolerance must be stamped out. (Note—this is not intolerance because we are seeking to encourage tolerance…) Our friendly hockey fans up north know exactly what it is I am talking aboot:

In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it “within a pro-choice realm,” and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

“You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body,” Ms. Massa said. “We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature … The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do … Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.”


Hopefully you noticed my sarcasm above.

Look at that last line, “Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.” Translation: We only value free speech when the speaker agrees with us. Though apparently, this really isn’t an issue of women’s rights either. While women obviously ought be allowed to kill their children without being criticized, a woman is not allowed to use her body to disagree with choice.

Let’s be serious for just a minute. This isn’t about the right to control one’s own body. I never heard much of a fuss over South Carolina prohibiting tattoos, nor did civil rights groups raise their needles in celebration when the ban was recently lifted.

What about alcohol? I think there are still about 20 states that have numerous “dry” counties where the sale/purchase of alcohol is not allowed. Isn’t that an autonomy issue? Where is the outcry?

And back:

Ms. Massa said the new policy would not apply to religious groups that may be opposed to abortion on doctrinal grounds. Rather, it was focused on groups, whether student or external, “whose sole purpose is to provide the anti-choice side.”

That is very kind of her to make exemptions for those “religious” people, but does anyone else see the irony in banning “anti-choice” groups? I suppose “choice” really isn’t the issue either.

This kind of thing isn’t far off in America, and in California specifically, but I wonder how long it is until it actually becomes illegal to object to abortion.