Skip to comments.When 'Tolerance' Backfires
Posted on 03/05/2005 7:20:03 AM PST by Pendragon_6
How did America go from Pilgrims seeking freedom to express their Judeo-Christian beliefs to today's discrimination against those very beliefs in the name of tolerance?
The journey of the evolution of tolerance began in England. When Henry VIII's divorce was not recognized by the pope, he decided to be his own "pope" of the Church of England and eventually had six wives, their fates being divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
His advisers suggested that to solidify his break with Rome, he should replace the Latin Bible with an English Bible so people there would look to England for their spiritual heritage. Henry did so, but something unexpected happened people began to read the Bible and compare what was written in it to the king divorcing and beheading his wives.
This group wanted to purify the Church of England, resulting in their nickname, "Puritans."
Funny that Henry VIII wanted the Bible in English since he had William Tyndale burned at the stake for translating it in to English. Oopsie.
So they tried to purify the church some 73 years after the king corrupted it. What's your point?
How much "tolerance" did the Massachusets Bay colonists show their fellow Christians who went to Rhode Island to worship God in their own way?
How much Christian Love was shown in Salem?
Please don't try to make Saints of the Pilgrims. They were religious zealots cut from the same cloth as Oliver Cromwell. They wanted religious freedom- so long as it applied only to them. Any religious expression beyond their narrow interpretation of Christ's teachings was heresy and punishable by fine, imprisonment or death.
The best we can hope to achieve as Americans is a civil society, with constitutionally protected freedom of religion within the confines of civil law. We must never in the name of "public morality" substitute religious doctrine for civil law. Religious freedom is a fragile thing- if we don't protect it for everyone, we haven't protected it for everyone.
For example, if we fail in this, what is there to prevent a majority sect of Christians from restricting the religious freedoms of all other Christians? I can envision a situation where Catholics are having their children taken away because they are "cultists" who worship "idols" and engage in "pagan" ritual. Do we want to live that way?
So they tried to purify the church some 73 years after the king corrupted it.
They were at it long before that.....
"Their goal was to "purify" the church of doctrines and practices they believed were still tainted by Roman Catholicism. These "Puritans," as their opponents named them in 1563, criticized Anglican liturgy and the state church's lack of spiritual discipline."
oot and aboot ....and came by boot.
Actual origins attributed the year 1517 as being pivitol for Puritans.
The first ammendment was written by some very devout protestants who realized all of this.
But if the source of morality is religious doctrine, does that mean we should be prohibited from enacting it into law?
According to this guy, Henry translated the bible into English to piss off the Pope:
"It was not that King Henry VIII had a change of conscience regarding publishing the Bible in English. His motives were more sinister but the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory.
"King Henry VIII had in fact, requested that the Pope permit him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused, and King Henry responded by killing his wife, marrying his mistress, and thumbing his nose at the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism, taking England out from under Romes religious control, and declaring himself as the reigning head of State to also be the new head of the Church.
"This new branch of the Christian Church, neither Roman Catholic nor truly Protestant, became known as the Anglican Church or the Church of England. King Henry acted essentially as its Pope. His first act was to further defy the wishes of Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English the first legal English Bible just for spite."
If you are going to name a group of Christians to feel for, it is best to list another one, besides the Puritans.
The Puritans were the religious fanatics of their day. They believed they had the right to tell everyone else what to do. They were control freaks, one and all.
Modern yankee arrogance can be traced directly back to the Puritans, they just basically replaced God with Government.
We are getting VERY CLOSE to having all Christianity declared a cult by a radical and fanatic minority that is abusing the First Amendment freedom of religion and changting it into freedom from religion.
The beliefs of the "seperation of church and state" fanatics is, in reality, an anti religious pogrom reminiscint of post 1917 Russia.
They've gone way too far and now the pendulum is going to swing back, perhaps violently so. All people will strike back when under vicious attack for their beliefs. We may have our own mass revolt, ala the Ukraine and Lebanon. Perhaps a new meaning to "Red Revolution?"
That's a real fine line to draw.
For example, let's say there's a religious group that believes in human sacrifice.
Should we outlaw this group? Pass a law forbidding human sacrifice? No and no. Either law would violate the First Amendment.
We have perfectly good civil laws covering murder and manslaughter. And if the group actually sacrifices someone, they should be charged with counts under these laws. And if their lawyer can prove that the victim was willing, the charge should be something like assisted suicide.
Of course, we are a Democratic society, and being that we were still at last count roughly 80% Christian, our civil laws are going to reflect Christian values to a certain degree. Folks who want to run around naked, have sex in public or prey on children are just going to have to conform to the will of the civil majority.
The fact that there is active, open and free debate on where to 'draw the line' on issues like homosexuality, pornography, etc. is a sign that we are a healthy society.
In other words, they were just like everyone else. But they went a lot easier on heretics compared to the Catholics or the English church.
The advantage of Protestants is that there are so many different, independent sects. That means that 1) No single group can gain too much power. And 2) compartmentalization limits the spread of corruption. The competition with other churches causes the bad ones to eventually fail.
Wasn't it King James, that wanted the Bible in English. (It was either the Tyndale Bible or one based on it that became the original King James edition)
Do you don't mean that we can't pass a law that would forbid a religious practice? I don't think so. We have all kinds of laws that forbid polygamy and incest, so why couldn't we pass others that would forbid similar practices?
And I don't think we are a democracy. Democracy is just one of the mechanisms we have for making decisions. The democratic process is subservient to the prohibitions defined in the Constitution.
I am a descendent of Roger Williams, so I'm rather familiar with that bit of history.
My entire point is that fanaticism is the enemy, not religion.
There are plenty of fanatic atheists and agnostics and they have perverted the notion of "seperation of church and state" (which is a noble and appropriate concept) into a vicious campaign to deny access to the public square for anyone who expresses a belief in religion (unless it's wicca or jihadi islam).
The Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
We are in danger of have atheism enshrined as the state religion and the prohibition of the practice (in public) of all other creeds.
It is precisely this same type of perversion of the freedom of speech provision in the First Amdendment that is being carried out in the name of "campaign finance."
Orwell was right, black is white, up is down and good is evil. He was just 20 years too early in his predictions.
Does anyone know whether there were Jews who arrived with the Puritans on the Mayflower seeking religious freedom?
What I fear is a "push back" by the nation's majority Christians that results in the persecution of non-christians and the imposition of a theocracy.
In the interest of liberty and justice, we must all work together to keep that pendulum rooted firmly in the center.
Yes, the definition of "tolerance" seems to be, "let's not kill the heretics anymore", to, "let's give the heretics a big hug and let's sue the hell out of anyone who won't let homosexuals play with the kids.
There are laws against human sacrifice -- that is murder, the laws are the same as those against murder. And the Pilgrims and Puritans? Not el mismo.
I don't know if there were Jews with the Pilgrims since Jews had been banned from England since the 13th century but I do know that Cromwell brought the Jews back when he took power since he regarded them as 'People of the Book'.
That was exactly my point. Killing a human is against our civil, democratic code of laws.
No one knows, but I seriously doubt it.
We could pass laws banning both. Neither law would violate the First.
Murder is covered already -- but just to be sure -- we could pass additional laws banned both cultic murder and cults that advocate such.
"Tolerance, the inability to say yes or no. The inability to take a stand"-A Great Historian 1888
Once it reaches the center, fine, but at present it has swung to a hateful and vicious anti-Christian extreme.
We are light years away from a "Christian theocracy" and fearing such is a paranoid delusion (but just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you).
We are very close to an "atheist theocracy," where Christians are denied jobs and access to public spaces. Where jail awaits any believing Christian who dares to actually read aloud what it says in the Bible. It's already a hate crime in Canada and we came very close with the attempt in Philadelphia this last few months.
If that does not constitute an infringment of the most fundamental meaning of "free exercise of religion" then we don't speak the same language at all.
Now, let me be very clear, I do not share the position of those protestors in Philadelphia. I have what I belive is a very modern view of the Bible and the stories and lessons in it. That's beside the point. I would feel the same way about someone denying a person the right to read aloud from a Buddhist Terma.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, short of incitement to violence. Same with freedom of religion. Once you allow anyone to criminalize religious belief then all free thought is doomed.
Read this and was struck by how it reminded of the rebellious children of Israel who were commanded to Love God with all their heart soul and mind. And were commanded
to NOT take the inhabitants of that Promised land into their tents--or to be unequally yoked to the unbeliever.
As seen in America the ancient Hebrew children were
rebellious and stiffnecked, and chose to be humanistic and
tolerant and those they left in th eland became a prick and a goad and troublesome The FOudners had habit of reading and trusted the authority of Scripture far more than we
who have rebelled against God.and are now recieving the reward for our sins.
Very unlikely. Most Christian Americans believe in the principles of the Founding Fathers, one of the most basic among them being the freedom of religion. I think we are well past the point of forcing religious conversions (unlike the islamists).
Now, the persecution of anti-christians, that's another matter. I think matters may well come to the point where self-selected soldiers for the faith strike out "with great vengence and furious anger."
Should we outlaw this group? Pass a law forbidding human sacrifice? No and no. Either law would violate the First Amendment.
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
So, if you belonged to a religion that sacrificed babies as an intergal part of worship, and this law was passed, would you stop?
Daniel 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."
As a Christian, I choose to follow God and accept the consequences.
As an American Voter, I also try to prevent that conflict from occuring.
Do you mean murder based on religious zeal? The Holy Scriptures do not condone such acts. In fact they are condemed. Murder is murder no matter if it is done by a Christian or Islamic terrorist.
Michael Medved was talking to some liberal caller about the 10 commandments and why it is okay to keep them up. Medved mentioned that most of the founding fathers were religious zealots. But they all had their different views and couldn't come up with a "theocracy" that they all would agree on. So-----worship who/what you want!
To the pillory with thee!
Maybe I am a little paranoid. I think it's that whole "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing.
The only Christians I'm nervous about are the ones who are led astray by the Adversary into judgement, hatred, and violence.
Strange as it may sound, I find I follow Jesus' teachings more closely than a lot of self-named Christians.
I definitely agree that there's a strong anti-Christian and anti-religious bias creeping into the country. And it's collateral damage from a massive popular reaction against this that I worry about (just a tiny bit.)
If a Christian is denied a job because of religion, they have the same remedies under law that a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Wiccan has in the same circumstance.
And as far as access to public space, it has to be all-or-nothing. Either allow access to all religious groups equally, or deny access to all religious groups.
Does the law care if 20 friends get together in a public park, read Dr. Seuss and sing nursery rhymes? Of course not. Why should the law say then say the same 20 people can't get together in the same public park, read bible verses and sing hymns? Under the First Amendment, the law shouldn't care- and the Supreme Court should affirm this.
My only gripe would be if the Baptists get let in the park early for Easter sunrise, but the Unitarians can't get in early for Solstice sunrise. This would violate the principle of equal protection under law.
And yeah, as much as this may upset some folks on this board, if we let the Baptists and the Unitarians in the park outside regular hours, we have to let the Wiccans in on full moon nights too- so long as they obey the laws on public nudity, weapons possession, open burning, etc.
We have civil laws against polygamy. This is equally inconvenient to Muslims, Pagans and certain splinter sect Mormons. The law prohibits a certain action- taking more than one wife. This is because- and only because- a majority of Americans think this should be the law.
If a sufficient majority of Americans ever decide that that particular law needs to be changed, it can be- that's democracy.
And the incest laws have a valid basis. The State has an interest in protecting public health- in this case, protecting unborn children from genetic disorders resulting from inbreeding. This makes no mention of religion.
And as much as I love and treasure the Constitution, the will of the people is NOT subservient to it!! How many amendments are we up to now?
No, we are not a pure democracy- that's mob rule. We are both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic, with a unique system of checks and balances that has kept us more free and more prosperous than any other people on earth for over 225 years. The fact that this diverse nation of rebels, outcasts and malcontents from all across the globe is still holding itself together is a wonderful thing indeed.
The significance of Jesus Christ as the "faithful and true witness" is that He not only witnesses against those who are at war against God, but He also executes them.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 574.
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.
But .. Christians are the ones being attacked. It isn't the Christians who are trying to restrict anything. Christians just want - what they always wanted - the FREEDOM to worship GOD - in their own way.
I have a mosque a few miles away from me. I don't picket them, I don't disparage them when I see them in the stores. Quite the contrary - I find their children adorable and smile at them when I see them. I don't fellowship with them, but I don't try to stop them from worshiping their god in the way they choose.
However, LIBERALS, DEMOCRATS, COMMUNISTS, and other left-leaning organizations do not like any religion that worships ALMIGHTY GOD - because they want to be "god-like" to the people; that's why these groups do not have a problem with Muslims, and do have a problem with Christians.
Are you saying there is no arrogance in the New East U.S.?
Are you saying there is no arrogance in the NORTHEastern U.S.?
we are NOT a democracy. we are a republic. the founders REJECTED the idea of being a democracy. they said the life of all democracies in history had been nasty, brutal, and short, to borrow a phrase from another subject.
Yeah, I've wondered if God didn't say regarding certain cults 'Destroy Them Utterly, Leave No One Left Alive" because they were so foul that they really would corrupt the Israelis if they mingled with them. And God didn't say that about all of the groups the Izzies encountered. I don't call them the Jews because there were 12 tribes of which the Judahites were only one.
How about if the Church of the Creator want to have a sunrise service and burn a cross?
NO! All it takes is Nine Perverts in Black Robes to decide that that law needs to be changed, and they are perilously close to doing it. In fact I would not bet against it happening, and happening very soon, within the next year.
The will of the people is subservient to the Constitution because they must abide by the provisions of the Constitution in order to amend it. It takes a two thirds majority of the states.
Of course that's in theory. In practice, there are the "living document" types who think they can water the Constitution and it will grow branches.
Tell that to the Yankees who make bigoted jokes towards Southerners.
I think this goes to the heart of the problem. We once had the right of free association. We could choose who we hired and allowed into our organizations. We no longer have that right. And this is where "tolerance" has gone bad. It is state-enforced tolerance.
We should have the right to discriminate. Without the right to be separate from others, Christians will disappear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.