Toleran
ce is a two-way street, but in today’s world its application is typically one-way. In the name of tolerance we are told we must tolerate those who do not believe in God, are pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, etc. Interestingly, however, those who hold to those viewpoints often refuse to tolerate us. We are forced to take down religious monuments because somebody is offended that they are forced to look at it. We are forced to forego prayers at school graduation ceremonies because someone who doesn’t believe in God may feel like an outsider. Guess what? The Constitution protects rights, not feelings. Frankly I’m not concerned with how they feel. It’s called disagreement. Everybody experiences it, and the mature person learns how to deal with it.
When you disagree with someone you have one of three options: persuade them to adopt your view, pursue change through democratic initiatives, or suck it up and deal with it. Christians have to suck it up all the time. I disagree with atheists, and I disagree with the way religion is being forced out of the public square because of a few cry-babies supported by an out-of-control judiciary, but you don’t see me shouting “offense” because I didn’t get to participate in a public graduation prayer. No one seems to be concerned about how Christians feel. We are told to lump it when we cry, but when atheists and adherents to minority religions cry they get the whole world changed for them.
While liberals tell us we need to be tolerant, they have need of their own medication. They need to learn to tolerate public prayer, religious talk, religious monuments, and national recognition of the Creator on our money and in our pledge. It’s time they learn that tolerance means “deal with it!”
October 12, 2009 at 8:24 am
Yeah, another prime example of hypocrisy. They (librals) cry down the orthodox christianity for not being tolerant. Yet aren’t they intolerant by stating that we (Christians) are intolerant? By definition, if they are 100% tolerant, then they should find no offense to tolerance, intolerance, or percieved, wickedness & injustice. Point being, i don’t think there is anyone alive who is 100% tolerant. IMO, if a person lacks thier God-given judgement to properly discern thier surroundings, then thier own survival will be greatly threatened.
They (the liberals) will serve better by being honest and state that they don’t tolerate the orthodox religious world view, thus they seek to modify the laws to fit thier beliefs. But in doing so, would highlight a clear admission that they are as intolerant of the religious world view as Christians are towards the nonbelieving, liberal world view. The result, they won’t have any leverage.
my 2 cents
LikeLike
October 12, 2009 at 11:55 am
Spot on. Nobody is 100% tolerant, and indeed, should not be. If someone tolerates child molestation, they need to be institutionalized, not praised for their tolerance! Wisdom is knowing what to tolerate, and what not to tolerate.
Jason
LikeLike
October 12, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Liberals are tolerant of religion. Even homophobic, creationist, sexist fundamentalism.
But only if it’s Islam.
LikeLike
October 12, 2009 at 4:03 pm
That is ironic, isn’t it? It’s much easier to be intolerant of those who are fairly tolerant than it is to be intolerant of those who aren’t. After all, there’s no risk of having one’s head chopped off by a Christian!
Jason
LikeLike
October 12, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Okay…so a quick observation and question….
First, you begin to admire old atheists like Stephen Jay Gould who hated the intolerance of religion of say the Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett’s of the world…While it’s sad the militant atheists (militant in their rhetoric against religion) get most of the press, I do think it worthwhile to mention that I have seen a few religious skeptics, agnostics, and atheists alike who are really now going all out against the hypocrisy of the atheists you mention…
Second my one question then is this….
For years a nearby city by me had a big gathering of Christians at an organized event outside city hall (but still on govt. property)celebrating the National Day of Prayer…It was a huge success to say the least…Orthodox Jews even took part in this ceremony if I remember correctly
but last year….
A few Hindus wanted the right to show up and either have one of two things happen: Either the right to have their own prayer said at this ceremony in front of everyone…Or to “Dejesusize” the prayer whereby one could not mention Jesus in the prayer but simply reference “God.”
This caused quite a bit of local controversy as one could imagine…
So my question to you fellows….if the prayer were to stay Christianized (with reference to Jesus), would you be open to letting the Hindus have their own prayer?
Or…perhaps a compromise could be met whereby the Christians have their day of prayer, and the Hindus have their own day of prayer on government grounds…Would this be acceptable?
And if yes, then to what extent do we allow for days of prayer on city hall for the different faiths? Do we allow the skeptics to gather at city hall to pray to the flying spaghetti monster?
LikeLike
October 13, 2009 at 6:58 am
I wouldn’t DeJesusize anything for Hindus or anyone else. CHRISTians founded the national day of prayer. If they want to pray with us they will hear the name of Jesus, if not let them get their own day.
Lynne
LikeLike
October 13, 2009 at 8:45 am
I agree. I will not refuse the name Jesus or (DeJesusize) for anyone, especially in prayer. Personally, I don’t need to pray outside city hall on the national day of prayer. So that’s a non-issue for me. Here Jesus gives a harsh consequence for denying him before men:
Matthew 10:32-33
“32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”
LikeLike
October 13, 2009 at 10:38 am
Joel,
I’m not going after just atheists. I am going after anyone who is opposed to a public expression of (conservative) Christianity. This includes liberal Christians.
As for the prayer, I don’t care much for such public displays, or publicly-led prayers. I am more interested in people praying in the privacy of their own homes throughout the year than I am them showing up once a year to pray publicly. With that said, if the nature of such prayer meetings is to offer public prayers, and if the event is not religion-specific (i.e. it is not a “Christian” day of prayer), then I see no reason to prevent a Hindu from offering a public prayer at the event. But under no circumstances should a Christian (or even Hindu for that matter) be required to not identify the God to whom he is praying. After all, everyone present knows who he is praying to anyway. He’s surely not praying to Shiva!
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2009 at 3:28 pm
You guys are being intolerant.
LikeLike
October 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Darren,
I’m only intolerant toward Texans! 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Repent! Brother, if you check God’s Drivers license, you will find He is a Texan. Didn’t you know that Texas is His home state? Wow, and I thought your were a theologian. tsk tsk.
LikeLike