RAZORMOUTH: Tolerate This!!!

I don’t know if I can tolerate one more letter or article on tolerance. This word has lost all meaning. It’s been relegated to the status of a swear word. You know, the four-letter type used by bar-hopping, dope-smoking, baby-making adolescents whose acumen for the English language is equivalent to that of a Neanderthal; the only problem is there are too many letters. But really, this word is used to justify every licentious practice under the sun, so it may as well be a swear word.

Tolerance, as a judicial concept, interestingly enough finds its origins in Christian jurisprudence. Tolerance refers to the discretionary acceptance of an opposing religious view. For example, the English parliament of 1689 passed a law that granted partial freedom of worship to dissenters from the established Church of England. They called it the Toleration Act.

Now, I’m not here to argue the merits, or non-merits of that act, but I want to point out a very important point, tolerance means: limited and discretionary acceptance. To be tolerant of something or someone doesn’t mean acquiescence, and it doesn’t mean that you can’t speak out in opposition.

But based on the flurry of articles all decrying the rhetoric of the religious-right and calling for toleration, it’s clear that this word has been co-opted by some of the least discretionary people. To add insult to injury, many of them are indiscreetly propagating their immorality and insisting that traditional Christians turn a blind eye, shut off their minds, empty their hearts, flush their moral and religious views down the toilet, and shut up! Tolerance to them means total capitulation to their view.

The irony is that while they’re clamouring for us to zip it up, they’ve got every Christophobic pundit out there preaching about their god-given rights. “If a man wants to sodomize another man—tolerate it!” “If a woman wants to terminate an inconvenient child—tolerate it!” “If the public schools are going to be used for the purposes of homosexual propaganda—tolerate it!” “If tax dollars are used to promote queer causes—tolerate it!” With one accord the hue and cry is: “Tolerate it, or else!”

Tolerance they say? Well, tolerate this. I don’t have to agree with your lascivious and self-destructive lifestyle. And I, and every other Christian, has the right to openly express our opinions, judgments and God-given wisdom—tolerate that. And, just like homosexual-activists, we have every right to promote our religious views and influence an uninformed populace—tolerate that! And if a homosexual embraces Christ and rejects his lifestyle all because we, by the grace of God, intervened, well, I guess you’ll just have to tolerate it.

Yes, tolerance. I believe in tolerance. I believe in it so much, I won’t harass people just because they disagree with me. In fact, I won’t use the Human Rights Commission to impose my moral disposition on those who propagate views and lifestyles which are inherently sinful and self-destructive. I don’t sue those who promote perversion. I don’t threaten. I don’t harm in anyway. No, I tolerate.

And I’m not alone, many others do the same. We tolerate. Our tolerance is a fait accompli, because we believe in the rule of law and respect for human life. We believe in civility, and we believe in due process. But we keep hearing the same tired song: “If only we would learn to tolerate each other.” Folks, our tolerance is tolerance!

But, our tolerance stops far short of complete capitulation. Toleration, doesn’t mean we’ll empty our minds and suddenly be overwhelmed with warm fuzzies for the opposition. It does not mean that we’ll shut up, zip up and go away. And tolerance does not mean we’ll stop being political and use the democratic process to gain the upper hand, influence society, and see the dawn of civility return to America, or Canada, where I live.

Let’s get something straight: Toleration doesn’t mean that traditional Christians will hide in the closet, which I suspect is what all Christophobes want. Tolerate that!

Actually, JMJ, I fear that you do hate Christians, your denials notwithstanding. This is why I hope you read my posts to Who is George Salt on another thread. You seem to be very much like him.

The problem with her self-serving post is that she was the one immediately after the new year who engaged in a dialogue with another poster (EODGUY???) specifically about me for not other purpose than to mock me directly and insinuate that I am not saved. She even made it clear that she would not respond to me and did not want to even be flagged by me in the future. Gosh, I'm simply following her request. For that, she now complains and even has the nerve to suggest that I am not being decent.

Then, to top off the cake, she makes sure that she in her self-serving post will appear magnanimous by giving me the last word.

You never figured out why I said what I did about the Pope's pray for peace train ride. You would rather deflect it by saying that I hate the Pope and I hate Catholics. Nevertheless, it is completely accurate in its description of what happened Jan 24.

It seems to me that anyone who puts forth an opinion without acknowledging that they might be wrong could be considered "intolerant". Opinion is just the perception of man or woman, all of whom are more than capable of error. So anyone who concludes that they are in no way wrong is intolerant and ego-centric to boot.

That said, I think Mr. Emmanuel has some good points, but I think that many points are just another justification to stand in judgement of other people.

I'm also somewhat troubled by the number of people that said "Hey, there's some great ammo in there. Thanks!" Seems to me that if this is how you feel you'd be able to so without reading someone else's argument. If your only purpose is to prove someone else wrong then have at it I guess.

Some of these things go well beyond "opinion."

For example, homosexuality is morally reprehensible. We know that, and so do they. The homosexuals just won't acknowledge what they definitely do know already!

Evangelicals are derided for their refusal to act like their stance is only a matter of opinion. Well, it's not really that simple. Tolerance is not just a matter of prefacing everything with "Well, of course, I might be wrong." We would be liars if we were to apologize even one iota for our stance on certain things.

When evangelicals definitely have clear Scriptural arguments backing them, they must show a measure of civility, but they must not wallow in apologies like Uriah Heep.

Of course, our very boldness in presenting clear Truth without compromising DOES offend people. But the GOSPEL ITSELF is offensive.

I'm also somewhat troubled by the number of people that said "Hey, there's some great ammo in there. Thanks!" - dsb

Bump to doc's post! Most of us who really know the Bible need nothing extra in the way of ammo. We already have all we need in the sword we have the honor to carry:

Psalm 149:5-9 Let the saints be joyful in glory; let them sing aloud on their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance on the nations, and punishments on the peoples; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute on them the written judgment--this honor have all His saints.

Praise the LORD!

Thanks for the bump doc.

Good post OP. I heard a sermon on on this very subject a couple of years ago. We are called upon to love our neighbors, not merely tolerate them. There is a world of difference.

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.