Real Tolerance Training: Christian = ‘Intolerant’
by Doug TenNapelI once had a meeting with an executive regarding one of my graphic novels that had been optioned. This exec started the writer’s meeting with a few notes to change some rough spots in the story. This is normal procedure with my work. I have no problem with making these changes, since it’s part of the game given where I’m at in my career. They pay me lots of money so I like these execs when I’m sentenced to work with them. I was taken aback by the first round of notes that went something like this, “For starters, we’re gonna get rid of all this Christian shit from the story, right?”
The exec informed me that religious imagery didn’t sell to American audiences, that it was intolerant and it definitely didn’t export. This was before ‘The Passion of the Christ’ so I can forgive his ignorance of the world’s most popular religion, but it was the word intolerant that struck me. How was the inclusion of religion not tolerant while the removal of it was?
This is my baptism into the myopic view of religion by most of my friends in Hollywood. For being multicultural, the lack of humility regarding a religion they didn’t know or understand is…is…well, these days it’s typical.
Since that time when terms like tolerance or intolerance came up, I got all cringey. They don’t know what these words mean and have a funny way of showing it if they do. Given I’ve had to sit through the standard mandatory Sensitivity Training at every major studio, I’d like to return the favor by offering Tolerance Training. Only my seminar isn’t hosted by a condescending feminist lawyer from the Big Apple, so the threat level in the room has already gone down to yellow, maybe even blue.
Just to mix things up so we can get to know each other, let’s play a drinking game! Drink a slug of Old No. 7 for every Hollywood friend on Facebook who belongs to a “Stop Prop H8te” group. There’s no winner of this game but when half of my friends are this naive I prefer to Facebook under the influence.
It’s not hateful or intolerant to vote that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Tolerant isn’t a position, it’s how you treat people who hold positions you hate.
It also isn’t tolerant to believe that all ideas have equal merit. This is an irrational position I’m embarrassed to even bring up. But there are those who have claimed that if I judge a position as bad that I’m being intolerant. Can we agree that eating cute kittens alive for the fun of it doesn’t have as much merit as cuddling them? But to say that all ideas have equal merit is self-refuting because I could propose this idea “all ideas have unequal merit” and you couldn’t judge the statement as false if the first idea were true.
I hope some of you disagree with this post. Because this will be a perfect opportunity to practice true tolerance. The act of treating a political opponent with dignity and value used to be considered a high art form in debate. You can tell a lot about a person who treats someone with dignity and value whom they deeply disagree with.
We can’t practice tolerance with people we agree with so you get no credit exercising your mustard-seed amount of tolerance on your own camp. In fact, the more we disagree with each other the more tolerance must be exercised.
It’s kind of like when Uncle Jerk gets drunk at Thanksgiving and starts telling vagina jokes in front of the kids. We love him, we tolerate him, and we try to trick him into playing XBox upstairs so the rest of us can eat before hearing the punch-line that’s going to keep us from eating cranberry sauce ever again. The more you and I disagree, the more we have to practice robust, artful tolerance. To get really good at it you actually need some people who hold positions you don’t like. Start with a few conservatives, Sarah Palin, the Boy Scouts or Uncle Jerk.
All people are created equal, but all ideas are not. People should be tolerated, but ideas ought to be judged, weighed and accepted or rejected. We treat each other with civility because we are all creatures made in the image of God. But our ideas are not made in the image of God, so there are philosophical grounds to disrespect some ideas. Which is why I can be tolerant and still call your ideas of Global Warming a complete fraud.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
327 Comments
"Tolerance" as you say indeed means to treat with respect something you don't like or agree with. The Left has changed it to mean to treat with respect something you wrongly disagree with.
I think they changed "lie" too but that's another topic.
James Taranto at wsjonline did a whole series on this lefty tolerance thing awhile back. He showed how our universities practiced 'tolerance by exclusion' or something like that. Basically the atmosphere at many elite colleges is 'well we have to be open and sensitive to everyone and all ideas, so why don't you conservatives just shut up.'
I fear for future generations where the meaning of all things will be contextual. Growing up, that fallacious definition of tolerance was exactly what I was taught to be the truth. Tolerance meant accepting everything anyone else did without question. I later came to learn of the ‘Christian Exception,’ but for the most part, ’someone can’t be wrong, they just have a different opinion’ was the prevailing theology being peddled. What will my children’s friends learn if they’re parents aren’t engaged or, worse, believe in relativism.
The act of treating a political opponent with dignity and value used to be considered a high art form in debate
It isn’t a debate when rationality isn’t accepted by both sides. True rationality got dropped in the transition from the Modern to the Post Modern. Now the main tools for winning the “debate” are yelling down and intimidating your opponents, often in the name of “tolerance”. The contradiction doesn’t bother them because of the new axiom that you don’t have to be logical to be “right”.
Eventually, someone who prides themself as being “tolerant” will ask you “Who are you to judge whether something is right or wrong?”
The answer I give is “If you can’t tell the difference, someone needs to tell you. I guess it’s me.”
The Truth is too tedious to Twitter, so why bother?
We’ve not only lost the art of judicious discrimination between competing ideas, we’ve lost the attention span to partake of such an effort. Can’t be texted in 22 characters then it’s obviously boring and uncool and Jon Stewart will tell me what to think, anyway.
So good to see you here, Doug. The heartening thing is that my son is the one who introduced your work to me, years ago, so your targeting is spot-on. God bless you and all here at Big Hollywood.
Wait a sec…Doug TenNapel?
I LOVED Earthworm Jim!
…anyway, you practically retold why I believe leftist calls for “tolerance” are total bunk. At the very least, they should state that yes, they are intolerant of certain things, but then that’s “moral absolutism” and thus unenlightened and unprogressive.
There is no one more intolerant than someone claiming to act in the name of tolerance.
For what it’s worth, tolerance REQUIRES disagreement. You cannot tolerate something you agree with, or that you like. It would be like me saying I tolerate Rocky Road ice cream.
No, I love Rocky Road ice cream. I tolerate spinach.
But I think Orwell’s vision from 1984 was merely 25 years off, as we’ve come to redefine these terms in our own version of Newspeak. Now you are intolerant if you disagree with my position–although by some miracle this is a one-way street, wherein I don’t become intolerant of you for disagreeing with you. And people say magic is dead!
These days, you can’t even say, “I disagree with you but I think you have the right to express your views” for you still disagree with the group. “How dare you disagree with me, you intolerant bastard.” (And there I go showing the intolerance of the tolerant too!)
“Start with a few conservatives, Sarah Palin, the Boy Scouts or Uncle Jerk.” ~so much for your enlightened opinion on “tolerance”, you hypocrite. Seems like you lefty-weenies only support “tolerance” when the demand is to be tolerant to your own perverted slanted views, opinions and bed-fellows.
Thank you for showing how tolerant you are.
BTW, the FACTS about the Global Warming ruse are that most scientists are now abandoning the fallacy that the earth is warming due to man’s actions and/ or inaction, there are naturally occurring events that govern such things -should’ve voted Yimminy Carter back in, instead of Hussian, when Yimminy was pres we were said to be entering an age of Global Cooling, chumps. $$$ALGORE$$$
-o, and Earthworm Jim most certainly rocked, one of THE BEST video games I ever played, Thank you.
Doug,
Well said. Liberal tolerance is a canard, a one-way “Though Shalt Not Judge” policy that protects liberal ideas from criticism while simultaneously justifying contempt for everything they dislike.
A key part of making that work is to redefine the mainstream, so that ever more things are included under their protective tolerance umbrella. (It’s very much like what they do with wetlands and other protected areas.)
Big Hollywood is an essential, long overdue ally in the battle against the expansion of liberalism via popular culture.
Hank
Great article! And to think, I thought art school was bad about hypocritical leftists.
I don’t mean to be agreeable, but it’s lovely to meet other judging judgers.
No one is taught to think critically anymore. At all. Ever. As a matter of fact, “critical” is a dirty word. The problem is, how do you argue politely and effectively with people for who have no concept of common sense, facts. or fictions?
Tolerance is another catchphrase of Liberal Fascism. If you don’t agree with them, you are a close minded intolerant freak who will be crushed under the foot of the new ‘tolerant’ society they are in the process of building. A society with no religion, with self determination at the very center of morals. If its okay with you, its okay with me, as long as its not Christianity…
You are absolutely correct to challenge the ‘Tolerant’ throngs of Hollywood, and especially if they are your friends. Its so easy to preach to choir, we forget to be missionaries of our ideas. Nobody has to embrace the ideas we believe in, and thats the beauty of America; but they should accept them as something sacred that we believe and that they don’t believe. That is lost in our culture, it is a perversion of what our Founders desired.
But then, these ‘Tolerance’ chimps think the Founders were nothing but a bunch of racist smokers bent on dominating women and owning slaves and therefore the ideas espoused by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, and Bill of Rights, are null and void because of that; all the while they sic the ACLU on religious organizations around the US in the name of the 1st Amendment of that ‘null’ Bill of Rights written by Christian Heterosexual White Male smoker slave owners….
Michael “Sudsy” Sutherland
I agree with you on nearly all of your points. However, let me insert a few words in this sentence and see if you still feel that the statement you’ve made is true:
“It’s not hateful or intolerant to vote that marriage should remain between a white man and a white woman.”
Civil Marriage = Civil Right
Personally, I think the only way of resolving something like Proposition 8 so that it is “tolerant” to all viewpoints is to simply dissolve marriage as a civil institution. I am willing to declare my love before God– but declaring my love before state requires a yearly donation (the marriage tax).
First of all, gays aren’t being denied a right to marriage. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, all he has to do is find one he shared decorating tastes with, decide whether to watch Ellen or The View, and head off to the courthouse.
Second of all, if its a civil right, then we are denying people the right to marry multiple spouses, animals, video game characters, stuffed animals, Lanny Davis and one of Eric Clapton’s Stratacasters. If we have to let the gays in, I’m first in line to marry the rear axle of my Mustang GT.
Besides, isn’t the point of being gay to shun all these cultural and societal normalities?
Exactly right. I have a great book on the subject by one Ryan Dobson, titled “BE INTOLERANT”. We hate the sin, not the sinner. That is Christianity. We are here to be intolerant towards evil and love the Lord.
Sarah,
What your saying makes sense if “marriage” is nothing more or less than “civil union.” However, while homosexuals have the legal right to “civil union” and the various legal benefits that accrue from same–specifically, those that accrue from marriage–what they don’t have, and what they want so much, is the social standing and acceptance conveyed by the world “marriage.” They implicitly acknowledge that marriage has special meaning (else they’d be satisfied with “civil union”), and they want that meaning applied to a kind of relationship which most people still find offensive.
Prohibiting mixed-race marriage was a mistake, and that’s been fixed. Mixed-race marriages function just like same-race marriages. Prohibiting same-sex marriage is different: same-sex unions are not like heterosexual unions. Many of us don’t wish to give up marriage, but do wish to protect it from transformation by an activist minority.
Amen, Brother. Amen.
Actually, there is a civil reason for marriage as well as religious reasons. In fact, marriage transcends religious boundaries, as every culture on Earth has a form of marriage.
Since the comments to this post aren’t really about marriage, I’ll only briefly summarize the reasons why the state does have an interest in marriage. Namely, children raised by a nuclear family tend to do better than children raised by a non-nuclear family (as in lower crime rate, better education, high income, etc.). If the government wishes to have a better society (again, as defined by lower crime rates, higher educations & incomes, etc.) then they have a vested interest in prefering the traditional nuclear family over non-traditional families.
Now there are also philosophical and religious arguments that go along with this view too. But we need not get into those to establish that the state still has a reason to encourage one type of marriage over another type of “civil union.”
And by the way, I do not believe that we should be tolerant of every viewpoint. For instance, I am not tolerant of the view that people should blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians. As the Jawa Report quotes Thomas Mann in their masthead: “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.”
You deserve a ‘golf clap’.
Gotta say this is one of the more profound posts on an already profound blog. Because true tolerance is really what’s required to make Hollywood work again.
Let them roll their eyes at us, and let us snicker right back at them. Why should that stand in the way of working in the same proximity professionally?
Clearly we resent being dumped on and fenced out, but the rabid hatred really seems to come almost exclusively from the other side.
It is time for everyone to read “The Closing of the American Mind” by Alan Bloom, once again, or for the first time, if you bought it but never read it. Relativism is Anti-Intellectual and Anti-American.
I always believed that marriage was more religious than civil. But both are to form a bond between one man and one women to legally have children NATURALLY.
Over the past few years, I have stopped watching a lot of actors/actresses because they have used their stardom to spout their politican views.
The only shows I watch now are on TVland or FOX News.
“It’s not hateful or intolerant to vote that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Tolerant isn’t a position, it’s how you treat people who hold positions you hate.”
It may not be hateful or intolorant, maybe just “ignorant”.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the law when a termanally ill gay person is not allowed visitation by a partner in a hospital simply because they are not related under the law.
No “popular” religious beliefs, christianity included, should be used as a basis at all for creating laws in America, especially ones that exclude one person over another based on any criteria(religious beliefs included). If you want to exclude people from your church or temple based on religious beliefs, more power to you.
But just because you “hate” another’s positions, why should you be able to dictate what they can and cannot do in a free society. That’s what kills me about the excessive “no on 8″ funding from the Mormon’s. How quickly they have forgotten their own past when they were considered
“the biggest threat to traditional marriage values in America”. I’m talking ignorance, not intolorance. Hollywood would be wise to review it’s own policy on “Unamerican behavior” in the 50’s and what was wrong then is still wrong now. Policy fueled by ignorance as well as intolorance.
So glad to read you here Mr. TenNaple. I enjoy your writing as much as your illustrations and graphic novels. I look forward you hearing more from you on the pages of Big Hollywood. Reminds me of that CS Lewis quote which says roughly, “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.” I prefer to be civil or respectful, but this modern version of tolerance is a canard as the very wise Hank put it just a few hours ago. Thanks to all posters, but a special thanks to Mr. TenNapel and Hank.
There’s no bigger bigot than a liberal.
(Apologies if this is a double post–got the “typing too quickly” thing.)
Brad said: “There is something fundamentally wrong with the law when a termanally ill gay person is not allowed visitation by a partner in a hospital simply because they are not related under the law.”
There is something fundamentally wrong with your example. I was in the hospital for three weeks back in 2001 (actually went in the 9/12, ironically enough), and not a single one of my coworkers was refused entry. Yet, being as how I am not in the mafia, my coworkers were not my family.
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!?!
Because I said they could see me.
Perhaps you’re thinking the hospital would refuse someone visitation rights when said person is in a coma. Fine, but how hard is it for you to get a medical power of attorney? It’s gotta be easier than trying to get a same sex marriage. And guess what? No one would protest that sort of thing.
I used to be an adherent to “Unitarian Universalism”, a “religion” which encapsulates the very worst aspects of “tolerance” and political correctness gone AWOL. To them, all beliefs held validity, except if those ideas were Christian and/or Republican. At a Wicca/nature religion gathering I attended years ago (before I started attending Christian churches), the participants told jokes, and ALL of them were anti-Republican. I decided to rock the boat and told an anti-Democrat joke. NONE of the roughly 40 participants laughed or so much as cracked a smile, and not a few of them jeered at me. “Tolerance”, my rosy red behind.
DFAUGUST2K—I find it odd that you would jab at Doug for mentioning Sarah Palin/conservatives and the Boy Scouts in a way you percieve as intolerant, but then turn around and jab back by calling leftists “weenies” and Jimmy Carter “Yimminy”. Who’s being the hypocrite here?
It all depends on whether you consider the statement “I’m intolerant of intolerance” to be self-contradictory.
To be fair, I believe that a lot of modern society, whether we admit it or not, is built around Christian philosophy. That being said, most major religions have certain aspects that are inherently intolerant in nature. One of these aspects is almost always the concept of Salvation. Those who do not perform the proper religious rites that are part of your religion do not obtain salvation. When this is challenged, the “evils of Moral Relativism” card is immediately, and often fallaciously, played by self-billed moral absolutists. On the one hand, almost all forms of morality have common, “absolute”, aspects. All a moral relativist does is append “Thou shalt not kill” so that it says “Thou shalt not kill unless the context indicates that murder is necessary for x to happen”, where X is your personal position on what is best for you or your loved ones. On the other hand, though, considering that many Christians already implicitly accept this view by supporting things such as War (a violation of “Thou shalt not kill” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” tenents), I very much doubt that there are very many “true” Moral Absolutists out there. But I digress.
I believe a great deal of Christian logic regarding tolerance is self-contradictory. For example, I often hear the claim that opposing gay marriage rites is not intolerant, but simply definitional. This is contradicted by the fact that the past definitions of marriage have been fluid. The very definition of man and woman has changed, depending on legal age and race. Marriage has gone from being polytheistic to monotheistic. And God, it appears, has had very little to do or say about these changes. They all appear to be man-made. And now, all of sudden, the definition is frozen. Similar to how the definition of “human” was frozen to exclude black men. It is simply another form of intolerance.
You cannot call for tolerance of your religion when you yourself help perpetrate intolerance of your own. That’s like shooting someone, then throwing down your gun and saying “I’m not playing anymore” so you won’t get arrested. It’s a dodging of responsibility.
If you are perfectly tolerant of all other views that are not personally dangerous to you or your species, then it is not hypocritical to be intolerant of those who are intolerant. It is simply the logical negation of “being tolerant of tolerance”, and therefore is not self-contradictory in any way.
I do, however, agree with Mr. TenNapel about the executives. Calling ALL aspects of a religion intolerant instead of just those aspects that are intolerant is, in itself, intolerant, as well as hypocritical.
Still, it seems that the “Moral” Majority is reaping what it sows.
It’s all in the language, folks. It’s all semantics. Once you’re able to redefine particular words or phrases, like “tolerance” or even “marriage,” then you’ve rewritten the rules for any argument involving said word or phrase. You now control the argument.
So, now that “tolerance” means “acceptance” and not “agreeing to disagree” or something like that, it’s easy for any argument involving “tolerance” to devolve quickly into a “You gotta be intolerant and hateful” line of attack.
That’s what you’re seeing in this Prop 8 debate. Same-sex marriage fans know that many gays are allowed civil union benefits (depending on where in the country they live, I admit), but it’s the word “marriage” that matters. It’s changing the word to mean something completely different. If they are successful in redefining the word–and thus the entire concept–then anyone with the old definition immediately morphs into a monstrous Nazi. And nobody wants to be branded in that way, so they go along with the new definition, thus perpetuating the results of the little wordplay.
The left learned this whole language/semantics game a long time ago, and they’re winning. It’s time for conservatives/traditionalists/libertarians to get some of our own linguists to fight for us!
Just wanted to stop by and say.. Thank you for Earthworm Jim.
(Who needs dope with a Tick/Earthworm Jim cartoon hour?)
I am real tired of this falonious argument that gays are denied visitation to a terminally ill significant other. I am a nurse and have never ever heard of a hospital policy that would deny visitation of a significant other. The only time a person may possibly be denied visitation is if the patient request no visitors. This is pure balogna.
I really enjoy this website, and I’m very happy to hear the conservative voice being raised in Hollywood. Thank you Doug TenNapel for the graphic novels you have produced, and what you bring to Big Hollywood. I am none the less worried about the entrenched intolerance of the liberal left. As a writer myself trying to break into the field, I know that my right leaning works will not be accepted. I look forward to when conservatives are in the position to accept works with values.
Another issue is the use of forgiveness. The was especially apparent during the Clinton impeachment. How many times did we hear, well he’s admitted his mistakes, we should forgive him and move on.” What they were asking for is not forgiveness but absolution. Forgiveness is to admit your mistake/sin and willingly take whatever consequences come about because of your actions. It is not admit you are wrong and thereby avoid all punishment. We can choose to ignore, but there is only One who can provide absolution.
I would typically respond to the above by saying I forgive you but that doesn’t mean you can avoid the consequences.
But what else do you expect from an ideology that thinks ‘1984′ is a blueprint for society.
So sad. All of it.
I believe it appropriate to refer to a South Park episode at this point…
“Here, intolerance will not be tolerated.”
Mary: I wish all hospitals were as good as yours but unfortunately they aren’t……
MIAMI — The family vacation cruise that Janice Langbehn, her partner Lisa Marie Pond and three of their four children set out to take in February 2007 was designed to be a celebration of the lesbian couple’s 18 years together.
But when Pond suffered a massive stroke onboard before the ship left port and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, administrators refused to let Langbehn into the Pond’s hospital room. A social worker told them they were in an “anti-gay city and state.”
Langbehn filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday charging the hospital with negligence and “anti-gay animus” in refusing to recognize her and the children as Pond’s family, even after a power of attorney was faxed to the hospital within an hour of their arrival.
nuffsed.
Brad C., this is about Hollywood and Doug mentioned the Proposition 8 issue in California. Under domestic partnership law here in California, your hospital visitation scenario would be a nonissue because registered same-sex domestic partners have the same rights as a married couple.
It’s great to see Doug posting here!
But isn’t reading comics sinful? Praise White Jesus!
[...] piece, from Doug TenNapel takes a thoughtful look at one of my own pet peeves: the intolerance of those who claim that religious people are [...]
Unfortunately SARAH represents the misinformed and clueless people you have to deal with in Hollyweird. They substitute sexual preference for race when they have no basis to do so but their feelings of fairness which can change daily. Ask these people what the middle passage was and half don’t know. Ask them to cite a study which supports their opinion that someone’s sexual preference is innate and I’m sure 99% can’t(for the record there isn’t one). Talented, entitled and ignorant is a lethal combination.
BRAD CONSTANTINE
“Langbehn filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday charging the hospital with negligence and “anti-gay animus” in refusing to recognize her and the children as Pond’s family, even after a power of attorney was faxed to the hospital within an hour of their arrival.”
It is certainly terrible that someone who loved this woman was denied the ability to visit her in the hospital. But this doesn’t mean we need to redefine marriage, it means we need to change hospital/medical privacy laws. I hope these ladies sue the pants off that hospital. I doubt producing their marriage certificate, instead of power of attorney, would have made much difference.
Lots of good happens in hospitals, but occasionally something bad happens in a hospital. Yes, hospitals are run by people, so you will find all kinds of misdeeds, mistakes, and errors in judgement among all the millions of visits by all the millions of people in America.
The standard liberal answer to a single misdeed, mistake, or error in judgment is to spread blame and punishment far beyond where it is due, as if more laws and regulations will prevent all of life’s disappointments.
This one-sided story is certainly not representative of American hospitals today. Far from it.
I’m an RN and have worked in five states, north and south, conservative and liberal, city and rural, big hospitals and small hospitals. I’ve never seen and can’t imagine a case where even a good friend would not be allowed to visit under circumstances like these unless the patient’s condition were so critical that safety wouldn’t allow it *or* the potential visitor were behaving in an especially disruptive or abusive manner.
I’ve heard many loved ones say, “My needs aren’t most important. Do what you have to do to help her.” Sometimes that’s what it takes.
I’ve heard a few loved ones complain that their needs weren’t properly attended under very similar circumstances. Sometimes, that happens intentionally, due to the demand of first priorities. Less often, it is accidental or negligent.
I’ve also run into a few very belligerant, disruptive, and abusive individuals who were not permitted to enter the intensive care unit as visitors *for this reason alone*. And there are good reasons for this, for everyone’s safety. Entry to the ICU *is* a privilege and not a right.
Generally speaking, so little as “this is my dearest friend and we’re far from home” is enough to gain admittance.
This allegation doesn’t prove anything about gay marriage. In fact, it doesn’t prove anything about anything until we hear from the defense.
Nicely put, Doug. It saddens me that people continue to insist there is no Liberal bias in Hollywood (adding they’re only there to make money), despite a never-ending stream of stories like yours. The truth is, being a Christian or Conservative bigot is not bigotry at all in their eyes. Being someone in the Center politically, it drives me crazy (just as much as far Right people who insist things that seem to have no relation to the facts as far as I can see). All I want is for people to be honest, then discuss their differences from there. As evidenced by the talkbacks here (which are extremely non-confrontational in comparison to some of what’s out there), that is an impossibility for a lot of people. Until we can agree on the facts in question, it will just continue to be a shouting match where ideas are discussed, and we’ll become more fractured as a country.
One of the tricks in the “compassionate anti-tolerance” brigade is precisely to define people by their beliefs. So if I critique Islam I am attacking Muslims so being “Islamophobic” which is analogous to being racist. This comes naturally to the progressivists (‘liberals in Yank-speak) because they define themselves as good/wise/knowing people by their beliefs.
When you say that we need to separate respect for the person from respect for their views you are, in fact, attacking one of the fundamental pillars of the progressivist/”liberal” mindset which is that views maketh the person.
On the same-sex marriage sidetrack, it really is an equal protection of the laws issue and so analogies with other cases are instructive. Such as:
If we give women the vote, we will have to give dogs the vote!
If we give women the vote, we will have to give men more than one vote!
Treating the Jews equally with Christians undermines the pillars of our civilization!
etc.
Like a lot of non-monotheist cultures, many Amerindian cultures acknowledged same-sex marriage. Since the Spanish and Portugese had a tendency to burn such folk alive, or throw them to dogs to be eaten alive, and so on, the social form was suppressed. But Montaigne reports people being burnt alive for participating in same-sex marriages in Rome in the 1570s. (You have to hand it to the Church regnant, it did its social engineering with a certain pyromaniac flair.)
A certain, persistent, proportion of the human race is oriented towards their own sex. They will build lives together. The issue is whether the law will protect those lives they build together or not–equal protection of the laws.
And, like the Hollywood progressivists who create the hostile environment that lead conservatives in Hollywood and the artistic world generally to live “in the closet”, all this contempt for one’s fellow humans was paraded as “defending simple moral decency”.
I just added one of your lines to my email signature. Tolerant isn’t a position, it’s how you treat people who hold positions you hate. Somehow I am expected to tolerate the opinions of everyone who is different than me, but they get to say I’m intolerant for not agreeing with their negative opinion of my views. What the hell is that???
First, I am pro the Iraq War, I voted for Bush the second time. I spent time and money trying to get Palin and McCain elected. I know most of GW is not man made. And, I am an Agnostic ATHEIST Activist,
Now time for some logic:
Are you tolerant of those who think sex with little kids is OK? How about those who think blowing up men, women, children and babies is good stuff?
The facts are being tolerant of SOME beliefs, opinions and ideas is totally STUPID!
Next, Oh ILLOGICAL Religious people, the odds are nearly 100% the reason you believe in the religion and the god (or gods) you do, is simply because of who raised you.
Had they FORCE FED you the religious BS of some OTHER religion than the one you now believe in, you would then be positive that religion (one of hundreds of thousands of religions) and “god” (only one god out of MANY THOUSANDS of “gods”) were the ONLY TRUE “religion” and “god”
Nearly ALL, if not ALL, of YOU were PROGRAMMED into the belief in YOUR god and YOUR religion LONG before you had ANY clue about damn near anything except how to suck on mommies tit! or cry because you wet your diaper.
I doubt you had clue as to what city you lived in much less what state, country or which hemisphere. Brain washed LONG BEFORE you had a clue about math or biology or common sense.
YOU were over and over again, simply Force Fed your religious beliefs long before you were capable of rational thought and using logic. NOW, you hang on to your programming like a drowsing persons grasping for a life preserver.
And while you have rejected the concept storks bring babies, the Tooth Fairy bring money and *Santa Claus brings gifts, you still ACTUALLY believe there really is a ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING, KIND, COMPASSIONATE AND CARING GOD!
A god who either CAUSES and/or FAILS TO PREVENT Earthquakes, Birth Defects. Foods, Plagues, Fires, Hurricanes, Wars, Tornados, HATE and all the religious persecution one religion does to other religions and to we former religious people who now know the truth.
I would not only NEVER worship the god of the Christians, I’d no more accept such an incompetent he/she/it to be my friend than I would William Ayers or ODUMA.
Tolerance?
Most of you Christians have NO CLUE what tolerance is or you would not have your religious BS on OUR Money and IN our Pledge.
If Christians were tolerant, they would not discriminate and persecute Atheists the way you do, There would still not, as late a 2005, be WITCH Trials being held with Christian after Christian LYING about the facts.
2005 American WITCH TRAIL!
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/smalkowski.htm
And here is what some of your “Tolerant”
Christian “Leaders” say:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm
IF Christian where actually “tolerant” then MOST Americans who ARE Atheists would NOT be so AFRAID of how you Christians would treat them, they would publicly state they are Atheists. Some Americans who are Atheists are so afraid they will not even inform their “friends” and family how they truly feel about the childish myths called religion.
Last, I URGE all Christians to carefully read the Bible from cover to cover and take notes. This to keep track of all the conflictions, the number of times you are instructed to KILL OTHERS & the millions of innocent people the Christian god kill for no valid reason.
Yep, we Atheists want people to read the Bible as it is one of the MAIN reasons so many MILLIONS of FORMER Christians are NOW Atheists!
Neil C Reinhardt
Doug, this is fabulous. I’m sorry, but I’m not aware of your books, but, I am very impressed with your evaluation of what you see here. I’ve been thinking about this subject for a while, too. Here’s how I see it, and, yes, I am a Christian. (OK, no, I don’t have one eye and two heads…..)
The deal is (I think) that for me to be a Christian, I cannot change my values, if I try to follow Christ. Because shouldn’t my values be the ones He has??? ~~~ He gave the greatest news of all time: that people who are bent and warped and wonderful and hurting, ie, all of us…..need forgiveness. Some people want to hear it, some people don’t. ~~~ I think that if a person really wants to follow Jesus, he has to be the same as his Master, don’t you? Jesus offers perfect love to those who want Him, and an unswerving standard to those who don’t.
The problem has been that for various reasons, frequently we Christians have been too self-righteous, and not full of the love of God WHILE we have been trying to take a stand. We have also sometimes put on a holy face without getting our own lives right. And that has rightfully turned people off. But yet, if you look back through history, and try to imagine a world with no Jesus, or Christianity, ever….the world is very dark, indeed.
But Christians DO need to be true to their Saviour and His standards, yet, absolutely done with love. And have tolerance without changing their beliefs, because I think that is true mercy…..when we stay true to what is right, yet hold out love to our world.
Doug, I think your ideas are wonderful, and dare I say…..downright
Christian.
The exec informed me that religious imagery didn’t sell to American audiences, that it was intolerant and it definitely didn’t export.
I seem to find the “Intolerant Christianity” mantra chanted the loudest by people who understand at a base level that their actions and beliefs are contrary to the teachings of Christianity, and they instinctively react that way out of guilt, not finger-wagging condemnation of Christians.
Thanks for voicing this Doug. Though I live a long way from Hollywood, this thinking has crept into every corner of America.
In response to Neil C. Reinhart: I find it interesting that, as an atheist, you feel the need to proselytize so heavily. Why do you care if Christians have their beliefs? And, to challenge your views: I’m curious how life gets any inherent value if man has no one to give it to him. Because to say that he has value because he “is” or “thinks he is” is to worship the self.
Good points Doug. I have no problem with the intolerance line that people take, it is the inability to debate ideas rather than attacking the person they are debating. What happened to the civil exchange of ideas? These days, it seems you not only have to crush a person’s philosophy but also the person. Just because I disagree, I am not some evil bigot who wants to take the world back to the dark ages.
Jon
I feel badly for you Neil. What a miserable existence you must have, but that’s your right. Free will is our second greatest gift after life. Try to hate the happy people less. It only hurts you.
Call me when “Intolerant Christians” start beheading people.
BTW, Awesome meeting you the other night, man.
One reason why many, such as myself cannot accept gay marriage. Civil unions fine!: When you intentionally deny and do not respect these natural purposes of marriage between a man and a women, one distorts the God-given/ sociologic history, (as has been recorded since recording of history began) and natural purpose of the sexual relationship between husband and wife.
One can ask what are natural laws? Allow me to explain by analogy.
If I were to ask “why do we need to eat?” The number one reason given would be for nutrition and sustenance. It’s a law of nature that our bodies must take in calories in order to survive. Now as someone who enjoys good food my next answer would immediately be because food tastes good. Pleasure is indeed a natural part of eating (unless of course, we’re talking about Brussels sprouts!).
There are natural reasons for eating. So, what do we call it when we distort or try to deny the natural purposes and consequences of eating? For example:
• What’s it called when someone who wants to enjoy food but deny their body the natural consequences of the calories they just took in by binging and purging? It’s called bulimia and it’s known as an eating ”disorder.”
• What’s it called when someone denies the body’s natural need for calories by not eating enough food in order to be thin? It’s called anorexia. It too is known as an eating ”disorder.”
• Finally, what’s it called when someone takes in more calories than necessary by elevating the pleasure of eating above the natural limited number of calories needed in order to be healthy? It’s called gluttony and it too is “disordered” in relation to our nature and the purposes for our bodies.
Can everyone see where this analogy was heading it should be starting to make sense. And it begs the question: What happens when we distort the God-given and historical history of marriage between a man an women? What kind of disorder or distortion should be applied?
What the opposition to Prop 8 tells a rational person, is that the gay community wants to live unnaturally! This same community is also asking for special rights, not civil rights.
Attempts to make Civil Marriage = Civil Right, is neither rational nor natural. Can anyone show how a gay couple can naturally reproduce?
This site is fantastic, and past due.
can you imagine, one MAN wants to stick his private PART where the sun dont shine, and they consider that “Marriage”?
wow, thats weird!
“What the opposition to Prop 8 tells a rational person, is that the gay community wants to live unnaturally! This same community is also asking for special rights, not civil rights.
Attempts to make Civil Marriage = Civil Right, is neither rational nor natural. Can anyone show how a gay couple can naturally reproduce?”
On the contrary, what the opposition to prop 8 has taught us REALLY is that there are a lot of very religious people in the United States who just can’t seperate church from state. All Americans are entitled to the same everything as everyone else. Period. If you do not believe in Gay Marriage, Don’t have one. A gay marriage is not going to change your religious core beliefs in any way or your way of life. It is not going to compromise your children’s future because little Jenny in Kindergarten has two mommies. There are a lot of gay couples who adopt children and do try to live as normal a life as they can within American suberbia. They go to PTA, they go to churches (that will have them), they are exactly the same kind of family as everyone else. The days of classifying all gays as some sort of anti establishment, extreme, dangerous group have got to come to an end. We, as americans, have come a long way to fight discrimination against all sorts of groups of people. History has seen the exclusions of Irish, jews, mormons, christians,blacks,women,muslims, and now finally gays…Back to Hollywood..I really feel for Doug for having his content questioned..It’s a painful, hurtful feeling that transends all religious and social boundries…descrimination. just like the gays feel. On a final note, the Priest I grew up with, that taught me sunday school, and confirmed me, and even married me and my wife is now living with a former acolyte from my youth. Go figure.
David,
I think the chief issue that you illustrate was well summed up by Robert Heinlein in his 1973 at the Naval academy:
I now define “moral behavior” as “behavior that tends toward survival.” I won’t argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word “moral” to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define “behavior that tends toward extinction” as being “moral” without stretching the word “moral” all out of shape.
The last line was the kicker
. Great article.
Kudos on a well-written, articulate think piece. Made me laugh, made me wince, made me sigh, made me hopeful. But I sadly doubt anyone who has an intolerance for tolerance, or a tolerance for only those things with a certain cachet that are not “mainstream” would make it through reading the opening paragraph, whether he or she was a lefty or a righty. Thumbs up on this one, David – keep up the stellar work.
Gee, imagine that. Defining people by their beliefs. Is it better to define people by their skin color? How would you “define” people? A height-based system? And are you really saying that no one in the “intolerant anti-scapegoat” brigade defines anyone by their beliefs?
The real question is why we must “define” people at all. (Other than by behavior or actions that are harmful to others & should have consequences.) So they can be divided into groups & set against one another? Try defining what you have in common w/ others. Don’t let the elitist media separate you from your fellow Americans.
After all, as a large part of recent chatter from the “right” is how full of hate the “left” is, the right are now the hippy-dippy flower-children, aren’t they? Now you all can be tolerant, & stop trying to impose your beliefs & morality on other people. We know it’ll be hard to compensate for the loss in self-righteousness, but you can preach at each other extra hard.
Brad said, “what the opposition to prop 8 has taught us REALLY is that there are a lot of very religious people in the United States who just can’t seperate church from state.”
I beg to differ….What the opposition to prop 8 has taught us is that gays/lesbians like to intimidate, riot, assault little old ladies, destroy the livleyhood of those who don’t believe what they believe, etc….
I notice that, in Massachusetts (for example) when gay marriage was legalized by their Supreme Court, there was no violence, rioting, destruction of property, etc that we’ve seen in California.
I have a gay nephew. I don’t think that is they “way it’s supposed to be”, simply for the scientific fact that 2 males cannot reproduce. That said, I still welcome him (and his boyfriend, partner, spouse, or whatever they want to call each other) into my home. They are both nice people and wonderful friends.
M.Bouffant – Someone is going to to reply to your statement with
“By asking me not to push my beliefs you’re actually pushing your beliefs on me.”
Yes, just like the Moooslims, the Xians are required by their story-book to push their myths into everyone else’s face. And when it doesn’t work, the Islamists turn to the proverbial sword, & the Xians turn to the gov’t. The differences are just a matter of degree.
SUDSY states:
“….but they should accept them as something sacred that we believe and that they don’t believe.”
Nonsense! Your believing in little men that aren’t there is not deserving of any respect. It is ignorant and pre-scientific, based on the fables of typically illiterate middle eastern men with deep superstitions of 2 millenniums ago. The concept of ’sacred’ does not exist to some of us out here. We may be a minority in today’s world but we will eventually prevail unless you stone age religious Luddites have your way.
I say this as a fiscally conservative social Libertarian who does not believe that ANY religion should be ‘respected’. I have no tolerance for ignorance when used as an excuse to limit my social or financial freedoms. I will not try to force you to live by my standards and you can live by your own. But if you try to use YOUR RELIGION as an excuse to take my freedom or to force me to live YOUR WAY, I WILL KILL YOU DEAD AS A ROCK AND YOU CAN GO SEE IF YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT YOUR GOD! Or you might kill me, but unless you are muslim that doesn’t really fit your beliefs…or does it?
On the other hand, I will have no problem with you believing any stupid superstition you want as long as you keep it in your own house and church/mosque/temple/doghouse or whatever and don’t try to force it on me in the public square, the public school or the public courthouse. If you can do that we can be good neighbors and I will easily ‘tolerate’ your ignorance of the real universe. That is how it should be. Not some false level of respect for superstitious ignorance.
rAT
I found your piece quite…tolerable.
Brad C. says, “If you do not believe in Gay Marriage, Don’t have one.”
Is that like, If you don’t believe in slavery, don’t own one?
==my parents are both Christians and they voted against Prop 8, and are supporters of gay marriage.==
Then, they are pushing up against God Who condemns homosexuality.
== Why?==
Cuz they’re ignorant of the Word of God.
== Because it doesn’t harm their marriage in any way…==
That would be the selfish way of looking at it. However, it disturbs the culture, the society and the country. We are citizens. What disturbs our country disturbs us.
==…and they understand that homosexuality isn’t a choice.==
They understand wrongly. Homosexuality IS a choice.
== And they know that God will sort it all out in the end.==
That can’t be good for those who claim to be homosexual.
[...] by Lissa on January 16, 2009 It’s not hateful or intolerant to vote that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Tolerant isn’t a [...]
“Start with a few conservatives, Sarah Palin, the Boy Scouts or Uncle Jerk.”
Is the author equating conservatives, Sarah Palin and the Boy Scouts with Uncle Jerk?
If so I don’t accept the statement as valid. If not, the author must find a better way of phrasing the sentence.
[...] from such a hijacking is the word “tolerance.” Doug TenApel expresses himself on the word as well those who use and abuse it: Since that time when terms like tolerance or intolerance came up, I got all cringey. They [...]
==Mr. Incredible: Change is uncomfortable.==
What kinda change? Change for change’s sake?
==Change that is necessary is often difficult…==
Changing, the way that those who claim to be homosexual say we oughta change, is not necessary, nor advisable.
==This is just another uncomfortable change that the Christian right is going to have to come to terms with. It will happen.==
In other words, you wanna impose your agenda on the rest of us. We already got that.
==Some people have an issue with homosexuality.==
Most do.
== That is their right.==
Nnnoooowww you’re starting to get it.
== The do NOT have the right to impose their will with whom they have issue. ==
So, then, you people need to stop doing that.
==Homosexuality is NOT a choice.==
Yes, it is.
== When did you choose to be straight?==
God chose for all of us to be heterosexual. Some chose to go their own way and go homosexual.
== The short answer is, you didn’t.==
God did, and I love God, through His Son, and so I detest what He detests.
== Engaging in homosexual sex IS a choice…==
However, first, you must choose to go homosexual.
==…and if you want to condemn gays for having sex, then so be it.==
I don’t condemn them. God says that those who reject the Light are already condemned.
== But to condemn who they are for something they have no control over is just as bigoted as hating a black man for being black or a woman for being a woman.==
Not the same. Race is an immutable, human characteristic. Homosexuality is mutable cuz it’s choice.
==The third is a Christian who says she’s going to hell because she’s gay. She’s depressed and suicidal because she hates herself.==
That oughta be a clue to stop choosing homosexuality.
== One day I asked her bluntly, “Can you be straight? Is it your choice to be gay?” Her answer was a resounding no.==
She chooses homosexuality over God. Nothing new about that. The sin nature has a hold of her.
==Yet she clings to the religion that has damned her.==
God is trying to tell her something, like to stop her homosexuality.
== It must offer her some hope, but I do not know what that is.==
Scoffers never know what it is.
==If two of my friends tried with all their might to become straight and failed, how can I possibly say that homosexuality is a choice?==
Cuz the sin nature in them is stronger than the Godly nature, and they choose what the sin nature tells them cuz it fits with what they wanna do, and, so, it feels “natural.”
==since it isn’t a choice, I refuse to believe that God, a merciful God, would condemn someone for being exactly who He made them.==
But He made all heterosexual, and some made themselves homosexual through choice.
== Ask yourself, what would Jesus do and say if he knew my friend?==
I know only what He, as God, said.
==It is you, sir, who is wrong.==
Not really, cuz I go by the Word of God.
== whether or not God will judge my friends and damn them, that isn’t for you to say. ==
It is for me to say since I report only what the Word of God says about it.
==…our nation is not a theocracy.==
So what?
== Your church (or any other) does not get to decide on America’s behalf what is right and what is wrong.==
We get to propagate what the Word of God says. Get used to it.
== …I am protected from your meddling.==
Read the First Amendment.
==…stop meddling with my country.==
No.
Now what?
==Your entire argument of why homosexuality is a choice comes down to “because I say it is,”…==
No, it’s “cuz God says it is.”
==I gave very strong reasons why i know that homosexuality is not a choice, and your response is, “nuh-uh, you’re wrong!”==
Then, you didn’t read what I wrote. I said more than, “You’re wrong!” I told you why.
==You have clearly never had a heart to heart talk with a gay person about their homosexuality.==
That’s cuz thdey don’t listen. So, there’s no use unless they are willing to change. If they are not, and they are looking for excuses to say they cannot, while pretending to be willing to change, it will do no good.
== Perhaps you think homosexuality is a choice because you’re gay…==
Typical Homosexual Internet Militia propaganda.
Now, if I were to claim that I am homosexual, why would I be here to argue against it according to the Word of God. Can a house divided stand?
==… and choose to be faking your way through life as a straight man? ==
As I say, and as Jesus said, a house divided cannot stand.
==…very tolerant of homosexuals.==
What’s “tolerant” of those who say they are homosexuals? Are YOU tolerant of us??
==…people who aren’t Christian have just as much right to determine the course of this nation as you do.==
And,as an indication, the People of the State of California determined the outcome of Prop 8, and you reject it. Hypocrisy, hmmm?
== The tide is turning, friend.==
I’m not your friend.
== Soon all the homos will be able to marry their gay lovers, and you’ll just have to sit there and be angry and offended by it.==
So, to you people, it’s all about “in your face,” huh.
== And the rest of us will rejoice and call it a great day.==
As I say, it’s all about “in your face,” and that’s part of what’s offensive, and YOU wonder why we won’t have a “heart to heart.”
==…for your children’s sake, I hope none of them are gay.==
No prob.
Doug, your profile says Earthworm Jim earned “unmerited” acclaim… I don’t think that’s right, since EJ one of the earliest great American videogames and all its acclaim would be quite…merited. Either I’m missing something or somebody ought to fix that.
First, and foremost, I do not want to offend, regardless of another’s stance on this topic. I wish to respect Everyone as human beings. Nor do I wish to present my comment as some kind of ‘complete truth,’ for I am certain that, as with everything else in this world, I am woefully ignorant. As a result, I gladly welcome criticism to anything I write.
As defined, homosexuality refers to the sexual behavior or attraction between two individuals of the same sex. As a result, the defining characteristic of homosexuality is the sexual attraction/activity between two individuals.
Although sexuality, the drive to have sex, is an instinct which humans are born with, the decision to participate in sexual relations is itself a choice, just as choosing to speak, eat, breath, and appease addictions are controlled by choice. This is not to say that individuals are born with genetic variation that does affect their sex drive. (i.e. the common difference between female and male sex drive, or even the variation in the female sex drive based on cyclic variation). And although science has no support for the genetic inheritance of homosexuality, the possibility cannot be entirely denied.
However, the participation in sexual activity of any kind, and the attraction of one individual to another, either heterosexual or homosexual, is a choice. Even though my environment, including my body has a significant impact on my identity and often has a substantial impact on decisions, I still choose to act in the way that I do. Likewise, the desire to have sex with one gender or another is a choice, even in the face of whatever genetic variation may be present.
I find it surprising that a homosexual would ‘defend’ their sexual orientation by forsaking their acknowledgement of personal choice. (I am not saying that all homosexuals justify their actions this way, although I have a number do so.)
Please reply.
==…although science has no support for the genetic inheritance of homosexuality, the possibility cannot be entirely denied.==
Why not? That Science cannot find a genetic link to homosexuality coincides with the fact that God made Man heterosexual. Science will never find a genetic link, only a choice link which we have found already.
== Because it doesn’t harm their marriage in any way…==
We have to pay taxes that would go to support what is called “same-sex ‘marriages.’” That, if nothing else, makes it our bidness.
Keri, I would be very interested in your response to my previous post, I you are willing.
(I am sorry you have had to deal with such an incredible amount of crap on this blog.)
= Why not? That Science cannot find a genetic link to homosexuality coincides with the fact that God made Man heterosexual. Science will never find a genetic link, only a choice link which we have found already. =
Would it matter in terms of human responsibility if we did find a genetic link to predisposed genetic homosexuality since, as you have claimed yourself, homosexuality is a choice?
To reject the possibility that there is a correlation between a human’s genetic makeup and homosexuality requires far more study than we have currently conducted.
Personally, however, I think it is highly unlikely that there would be a correlation between genetic makeup and homosexuality considering the reproductive obstacle it would imply.
For one to say that “science will never find a genetic link [to homosexuality]” implies an infinite knowledge of this topic, an unadulterated truth that I highly suspect no human possesses. I would be very hesitant to speak in absolutes unless 1. you are God. 2. you are refering directly to Truth 3. you intend to insight division.
==Science cannot find a genetic link to homosexuality coincides with the fact that God made Man heterosexual==
Based upon your logic, Incredible, the fact that Native Americans are genetically predisposed to alcoholism (Which, unlike homosexuality, has been thoroughly studied.) (This fact does not negate one’s ability of choice, however.) would mean that God created those of Native American ancestry with the genetic disposition to alcoholism. Perhaps a thought to consider.
==For one to say that “science will never find a genetic link [to homosexuality]” implies an infinite knowledge of this topic, an unadulterated truth that I highly suspect no human possesses.==
Except that God gives us this Truth that too many reject.
== I would be very hesitant to speak in absolutes unless 1. you are God. 2. you are refering directly to Truth 3. you intend to insight division.==
I merely report the Word of Truth in which I trust. Whether others trust in Him is up to them and they must bear the responsibility for choosing the wrong way.
==/==Science cannot find a genetic link to homosexuality coincides with the fact that God made Man heterosexual==
Based upon your logic, Incredible, the fact that Native Americans are genetically predisposed to alcoholism (Which, unlike homosexuality, has been thoroughly studied.)==
If this is so, it is because they consume alcohol in such amounts so as to change their makeup. It’s possible, then, that those who claim to be homosexual have done what they chose to do so much that it shows up as some kinda difference in brain MRIs; and those who studied those MRIs say, too, that those apparent changes are prob’ly the result, not of in-born homosexuality, rather of the influence of behavior and Will.
== (This fact does not negate one’s ability of choice, however.) would mean that God created those of Native American ancestry with the genetic disposition to alcoholism. Perhaps a thought to consider.==
Well, I’ve considered it and, now, I reject it. God would not graft onto an individual, nor a bunch of them, something He told everybody to avoid. He is not in the bidness of saying one thing and doing another.
All I’m sayin’ here, Ethaniel, is that, if God told us not to do homosexuality, He would not have created some people homosexual, thereby licensing them in the homosexual conduct He detests. That, then, indicates choice of the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option. For them to assign to God what He clearly did not do is to run afoul of Romans 1:18, at least, not to mention the Commandment not to bear false witness [to the Truth].
Ethaniel,
The sin nature is of such power that it persuades a person that doing what is ungodly seems natural. It is THAT deceptive. That is why we should be grateful for the Word of God for protection.
The so-called “victims” of the sin nature either
1. hold the Truth in unrighteousness, purposely torturing Him to say what they want Him to say for their own benefit, or
2. they ignore Him altogether, hoping that He won’t notice, or will fo’give their self-willed ignorance at some later date.
He won’t let them get away with it in any case.
In other words, if God created some people homosexual, He would not have told us not to do homosexuality, and He would not have spent the entire Word referring to a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, never referring to a Godly, homosexual encounter; He would not have related the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, as a parallel of/to the marriage of Christ, the Groom, to His Church, the bride.
God created two people, one male and one female. He told them to pro-create (multiply). Two people of the same sex can’t pro-create, by standards of biological function when God created the two. Everyone born since those first two are now genetically pre-dispositioned to have a sickness that eventually causes death. You and I were not created by God, we were created by our father and mother. We are all born to die and if we live long enough and think often or not, we may come to realize that life choices have an eternal effect.
Even the athiest(s) agree that choices have consequences.
For Christians, Jesus said that He doesn’t judge, we judge ourselves by not accepting the truth about Him.
He is not the kind of person His enemies have made him out to be.
Excellent article!
That sickness I was referring to is sin. It is a path that leads to death, starting with the first two people and passed down generations. We are to either follow self and always promote what we are inclined to feel(survival of the fittest), or we use reasoning powers to think through situations and make a choice based on evidence of truth. if you are a Christian or an athiest who has moral pinnings, right and wrong are clear, with right usually being the harder path to follow. The tolerant and intolerant minority have trouble with decisions based on truth and evidence.
I regret if anyone has misunderstood my intentions of this post, as I am not an intellectual wannabe, but enjoy reading this stuff!
==You and I were not created by God…==
Yes, we were.
==…we were created by our father and mother.==
No, we weren’t.
== We are all born to die…==
If you are not born again, that’s true.
==Jesus said that He doesn’t judge…==
He didn’t say that. He said that He came not to condemn, rather to save. That doesn’t mean that there is no Judgment, no condemnation. It means that His Mission was to deliver the Message of God’s offer of Reconciliation with Man which too many reject to their own peril.
==… we judge ourselves by not accepting the truth about Him.==
He said that those who reject Him are condemned already.
==He is not the kind of person His enemies have made him out to be.==
His enemies, like the Devil, have an agenda, and they must demonize their “enemies.”
==gay Christians ==
An oxymoron.
==I had to sit through three days of incredibly horrendous droolings, warm and fuzzy psychobabble, and stealth condemnation of everything white and male because my organization was sued by minorities who, in fact, were discriminated against. The settlement included mandatory diversity training.==
You are not required to go through conscience-changing indoc. They cannot require you to to be assaulted by views that challenge your conscience without your having some way to challenge those views equally. To deny you is what the law calls “viewpoint discrimination.” You may opt out on concientious objection, on the notion that such indoc would impose on you and force you to accept values opposite what God tells you.
==I had to sit through three days of incredibly horrendous droolings, warm and fuzzy psychobabble, and stealth condemnation of everything white and male because my organization was sued by minorities who, in fact, were discriminated against. The settlement included mandatory diversity training.==
On the other hand, if I were you, I might’ve taken a small recorder into that reëducation session and released it to the news media. That would be no more illegal than it was for an oil company board exec recording a meeting about 15 years ago and getting some peoople there in heap big trouble.
Good article, and very true for the atmosphere over here (esp. during the dark 'politically correct' eighties and nineties) too.
The silliest thing about the whole 'all religions are equal/the same' sort of tolerance is that religions (and different traditions within those religions) are clearly not the same as anyone with any real knowledge of different religions has knows (take eg the subject of freedom of will). Another falacy is the idea that it would be ipso facto 'intolerant, ignorant' to make political choices based on one's religious outlook but perfectly 'logical/sensible' to make those kind of choices based on one's ideological and/or philosophical outlook, as if in their very essence both wouldn't boil down to 'I believe this to be the morally right decision'. In a similar vein, ALL political choices amount to imposing beliefs upon others to an extend – acting as if some choices don't is not being entirely truthful.
Regarding the homosexual 'marriage' discussion: besides the question wether trying to immitate heterosexuals isn't a sign of being uncomfortable with one's sexuality, it's ludicrous to act as if only Christians oppose homosexual 'marriage'. Try having a discussion with eg the Daila Lama, the Chinese Communist Party or any Muslim about homosexuality and the whole 'abstinance' issue seems tame in comparison.
Obama Bought The Presidency
This article is okay. I agree that we do not have to forfeit our right to critical judgment in order to be deemed “tolerant.” It’s a classic case of non-Christian ideology hijacking Christian precepts: ie, Judge not lest ye be judged. Christians do have the right to judge thought, decisions and choices–just not force those judgments on others in the name of God. Part of Free Will is careful Judgment.
Question: why do you assume Uncle Jerk is a conservative like Sarah Palin and the Boy Scouts? Perhaps it was faulty sentence structure (there are a couple of examples in the article of this)and you didn’t mean to lump them together… I would argue that, just maybe, Uncle Jerk is the family leftist “agnostic”…we’ve all got one!
==…not force those judgments on others in the name of God.==
How would they do that? By mere posting?
Neil C. Rheinhart is frothing at the mouth over his own imagination. His hatred of the One True God and Christians clearly shows that he has gievn his heart over to demons.
Neil, since when are atheists afraid of how Christians will treat them? Atheists forced prayer out of our public schools, then tried to make homeschooling illegal (because the practioners are usually Believers). Atheists are the people who have forced “In God We Trust” off of the new $1 coins and onto the edge where it is barely legible. It is atheists who demand that there be no displays of Christ, a nativity or any Godly emblems during Christmas and Easter. It is called “tyranny of the minority”
Can we all pray for Neil to open his heart back up to Jesus? Thank you.
==So sinners can’t be Christians? Huh.==
Correct.
To be born again is to repent of sin, at least. At that point, He fo’gives cuz THAT’s part of the Deal He made with Man. Those who reject the Offer do not agree with Him, and those who don’t agree with Him do not walk with Him.
== I guess there are no Christians on earth then.==
Those who accept His Offer of Reconciliation are born again and are not guilty. Take a look at Romans 8:1, if it won’t burn your eyes.
Those who claim to be homosexual say that they are open to Him and that, according to them, He approves of their filth. And, yet, they cannot point to ONE place in the Word where God approves of homosexuality. Well, they can point to a place in the Homosexual Revised Reverse Translation [HRRT] of the Word of God, of course, but not in the legit text.
==/==So sinners can’t be Christians? Huh.==
“Correct.”
No, you’re wrong. Flat out wrong.==
No, I’m correct. Flat out correct. It’s either hot, or cold.
==What’s with the missing R in forgives?==
It’s not missing. It’s accounted fo’.
== And the cuz?==
It’s stylized writing. You don’t like it, don’t read it.
== Please, write like an adult, preferably an educated one at that.==
You write the way you wanna write, and I’ll write the way I wanna write.
==And gay Christians…==
An oxymoron.
==… can truly repent of being gay…==
They can repent and, if they keep on doing homosexuality, the repentance doesn’t land.
==… (not that that would make them straight, because it’s not a choice)…==
It IS a choice, and they can change IF they wanna change. They repent, but they wanna not change so they can try to justify themselves by saying, “Gee, I repented and it didn’t take.”
==…and they’re definitely Christian.==
No, they’re not. When you love God, through Christ, you want not to do the things He detests, and you change.
== You. Are. Wrong.==
No. I’m, Not.
==My gay friend who is a Christian and hates herself for being gay, but can’t do anything but try to live a celibate lifestyle.==
“Try to live.” See? She doesn’t wanna change.
== She can never be straight…==
Cuz she wants not to change.
==… but at least she can repent and choose to not participate in that lifestyle.==
So, it IS choice. See how easy that is?
==>Those who accept His Offer of Reconciliation are born again and are not >guilty.
So gay people who repent of their sin of homosexuality are fine then? That’s what I thought!==
Not quite.
They must repent and want not to do homosexuality and, then, not do homosexuality. They must wanna change, then change.
==>Take a look at Romans 8:1, if it won’t burn your eyes.
HAHAHAHA! Dude, you’re retarded.==
The condemnation doesn’t land.
== “1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” which says to me that if someone who is gay accepts Jesus, then they’re forgiven.==
Not quite. They must wanna change and, then change. It’s not good enough to repent, then go out and continue the sin.
== Just like any other sinner. Once a murderer, always a murderer, yet murderers are forgiven for their sin if they truly repent.==
Not quite. They must wanna stop murdering, then stop murdering.
== Why would it be any different for gays?==
As I wrote, it isn’t.
== I mean, according to your definition, homosexuality is a choice, and obviously so is murder. Both are sins. So why is one sin forgivable and the other not?==
They are all fo’given upon accepting Jesus, repenting, wanting to change and actually changing.
== Homosexuality isn’t even one of the Ten Commandments…==
Irrelevant. It doesn’t have to be. It’s enough that it’s an abomination to Him.
==… so I am really baffled why the Christian Right is so worried about gay people being happy.==
We’re also worried that wifebeaters are perfectly happy beatin’ down their wives.
== You are missing the forest for one single tree.==
That’s the way you choose to see it.
==It’s much easier to live by a set of rules (like don’t have gay sex…==
An abomination, to God.
==… don’t work on the Sabbath…==
Even to heal somebody???
==…don’t kill…==
The Commandment, in the Hebrew, is “Don’t murder.”
==… don’t eat shellfish)…==
Jesus said that it isn’t what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, rather what comes outta the mouth. After all, death and lifeare in the power of the tongue, “Power” being “the Word.”
==… than it is to emulate Christ…==
We have the mind of Christ.
==… and live a compassionate…==
You’re trippin’ on what the world thinks “compassion” is.
==… loving lifestyle…==
Biblical “love” is “unselfish concern for the Salvation of others.”
==… where no one is your enemy and everyone is your brother or sister.==
Evil is not my brother, nor sister.
== Obviously, because you are failing at it.==
Doesn’t land. No condemnation.
== Your hatred of gays…==
I love all — that is, I have unselfish concern for the Salvation of others, including those who claim to be homosexual.
==… who I am assuming have done NOTHING to you…==
Except that they threaten this society, this culture and this country. All less than 2 per cent of them.
==And you are EXACTLY why non-Christians call Christians intolerant.==
Just an excuse. Somebody to blame. Doesn’t land, though.
== Because you are.==
Translation: “Let everybody do what they want, like me.”
== I hope every day you thank God that you weren’t born gay.==
I wouldn’t have been cuz God made us all hererosexual. I thank God that I realize that.
== They have done nothing to earn your derision or your hatred…==
However, I am commanded to spread the Word of God, which I do here. Those who claim to be homosexual take that as being “hate” cuz tghey want the Word to say what THEY want Him to say so they can feel better about pushin’ up against God.
You must be logged in to post a comment.