Skip to comments.Why I'm intolerant and proud: Joseph Farah answers accusations from a liberal reader
Posted on 06/26/2002 12:22:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
In response to my recent column, "Why I'm not a liberal," a reader accuses me of being "intolerant."
"I think you are intolerant of those whose politics differ with you," writes Scott Mitchell, a proud liberal.
"Intolerance" is an epithet for liberals. For me, it's a compliment.
I am intolerant. I'm intolerant of evil. That's a good thing. Tolerance of evil would be evil.
I'm intolerant of Americans who don't want to live within the confines of our constitutional system. That's a good thing. Tolerance of unlawful behavior and the rule of men rather than the rule of law would be wrong.
I'm intolerant of ever-changing codes of morality. That's a good thing. Tolerance of evolutionary morality is tolerance of amorality and immorality.
I'm intolerant of all these things and I'm proud to admit it. And that's why I am intolerant of liberalism, a fiendish excuse for an ideology that, in reality, more resembles emotionalism than rational thought.
In my original treatise, I mentioned that the central tenet of liberalism is legalized theft: "Liberalism proffers that it is a good idea to forcibly take the wealth and property rightfully and legally acquired by one party and redistribute it to others."
I have never heard anyone even the most scholarly and persuasive of liberals offer the slightest moral justification for legalized theft. Mitchell tries his hand at it thusly: "Part of the wealth you made and property you collected was based on services provided by the government for the public good."
Of course, Mitchell has no idea if that is really true or to what extent it is true. Neither does the government. But, if this is indeed the basis for the government's claim to my property, there's a simple solution: Let me pay for what I use. Free me of the burden of confiscatory taxes and let me pay tolls on the government roads I use. Free me from the burden of confiscatory taxes and let me pay fees for infrastructure built by government. Free me from the confiscatory taxes and let me pay for what I want and need.
Americans today pay more in taxes than they pay for all other expenses combined. In other words, the average citizen pays more in taxes than for food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, transportation and all other costs combined. That's what I mean by confiscatory taxes.
In 1913, when the income tax was created, it was set up at a rate of 1 percent. Today, many Americans pay nearly 50 percent to the federal government. Most never even see the money. It is paid directly to the government by their employer so they won't even miss it so they won't even comprehend the magnitude of the fraud being perpetrated.
It's bad enough we live under such oppression, but when we are forced to listen to people like Mitchell excuse it, apologize for it and rationalize with pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, yes, I grow increasingly intolerant.
I'm even more intolerant of politicians elected leaders who pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States and knowingly cast votes in direct contradiction of that pledge. They should be imprisoned. Does that sound intolerant? Sue me.
I went to one of these public policy luncheons in Washington recently where congressmen are called in for "off-the-record" briefings. Never again. I heard one official, one of the most conservative in the House, explain that he knew the entire Department of Education was unconstitutional, but what really upset him was that the president's education reform bill didn't include "school choice."
He might have voted for the bill and increased funding of the unconstitutional bureaucracy if only the president had thrown the conservatives this little, meaningless bone of "school choice." He also explained he would have to vote for the new "prescription drug" bill in the House because to vote against it would be political suicide.
This is why I am not a conservative. Either we live by our principles or we don't have any principles. Conservatives today are letting liberals define them. They are defined by what they are against, more than what they are for.
I'm for constitutionally limited government. I'm for freedom. I'm for individual rights. I'm for self-government. I'm for personal responsibility and accountability to God.
Liberalism opposes all of that. That's why it's evil. That's why I am not a liberal. That's why I'm intolerant of liberalism.
This says it all, and this passage should be emblazened into every ignorant American's head, especially the morons spewed from the propaganda factories (the government schools) each day.......the chidren.
The prophet Elijah...Intolerant of Jezebel
The apostle Paul...Intolerant of witchcraft books
Thomas Jefferson...Intolerant of King George III
George Washington...Intolerant of Brittish troops
Frederick Douglas...Intolerant of slavery
Susan B. Anthony...Intolerant of only men voting
Amy Charmichael...Intolerant of child prostitution
Dietrich Bonhoeffer...Intolerant of anti-semitism
Winston Churchill...Intolerant of Hitler
Martin Luther King, Jr....Intolerant of segregation
Lech Walesa...Intolerant of Communism
Mother Theresa...Intolerant of abortion.
(This list copied from a t-shirt my husband wears)
To the FEDERAL government, or to the all government combined? Did you include the Social Security tax (yes it is a tax).
Stick me in the Intolerant column!
Amen. Although Farah's way are a bit of the maveric himself, this is the bottom line.
Color me happily intolerant!! (and a gun-toting Constitutionalist to boot!). Great find JH2!!
Amen, Joe my feelings to the dot.
Great posting JH2!
GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS! GAY-ISTAS!
That oughta help. );-)
Randall gave me the t-shirt as a gift. I cannot find it listed in the products he sells on his website, but perhaps you can email, or find a phone number there...?
The only sizes on hand when I was given the shirt were L and XL, so I wore it as a nightshirt 'til my husband came along. He wears it often, and proudly. ( :
While I believe if Jesus were alive he would be Pro-Gun, the church does not have the authority to do this. But otherwise I agree with your post.
Why not? of course they'd have to do it as a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit organization (if they charged for use of it) but there is no biblical prohibition that I am aware of that stops a church from providing a service. A church food bank essentially serves as a grocery store. A church clothing bank serves as a clothing store. Several churches provide handyman services etc to their communities. Our Church serves as the local disaster preparedness center. Why could we not also operate a firing range? Training in the proper use of tools is a need that is often unmet in ou communities
God Save America (Please)
I like your profile page. We seem to be into the same things. For instance, I don't even own a TV, much less a VCR, but you can bet your elfin boots I'll be buying a copy of the Lord of the Rings when it comes out in August!
Silence does NOT give consent where God is concerned. Two men (priests) were struck dead by God for offering something He hadn't commanded (Lev. 10:1). The Bible doesn't say that they were punished for offering something that God has specifically condemned. Whatever reasoning they used for obtaining fire from another source is not given. They might have reasoned, "Fire is fire, and one burns as well as another", or, "Well, after all, God didn't say not to use this other fire.." Whatever their reasoning was, it was not acceptable to God. It was not that God had specifically forbidden the fire they used, but rather he had specified what fire they must use.. (Lev. 16:12; Numbers 16:46). God didn't have to go down a list of other sources of fire, specifically forbidding each source..just tell them what fire to use was enough. Whatever is unauthorized, (i.e. not commanded, or lacks biblical approval) is wrong. Failing to adhere to what God has said, failure to respect His silence, is to manifest disrespect for God. God is "treated as holy" when we have enough respect and awe for our God that we simply are happy to do what He has said, no more and no less. These priests were innovators and progressive. They were on the cutting edge of expanding the worship. They were trying something different and experimenting. And God wasn't impressed. Biblical authority spares us from the religious rat-race to try everything and anything, lest we lose our members to a religion that is trying the latest religious fad (Mormons or Heaven's Gate..take your pick). It keeps us from being blackmailed by the argument, "If we don't do this, we will be left behind". And since fads are always changing, it keeps us from becoming irrelevant.
Read Hebrews 7-8. In 8:4, it is affirmed that Jesus Christ, if on earth, could not function as a priest. And why was that the case? Because, as indicated in 7:14, Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (not Levi). Here is my point: concerning priests from the tribe of Judah, "Moses spake nothing," or, to say the same thing in another way: He was silent about it!
Silence amounts to no authority, and is thus prohibitive. If it were the case that anything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament is permissible in Christianity, then we could not only use Marilyn Manson CD's to accompany our singing but "blessed" beads to aid our prayers, crucifixes to focus our devotion, and hashish to enhance our sensitivity. We could also initiate an organizational network similar to that which has been protested so strongly in Catholicism or begin financing church projects with bingo games (where legal) on Tuesday nights. Not one of these things is explicitly forbidden in the New Testament...right?
The Book of Judges ends with the statement, "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (21:21). And that is exactly where we are headed if we start adding to the church those things that are not authorized by Him. One can easily see this in Catholicism. Any any event, when God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding.
Silence does NOT give consent where God is concerned. Two men (priests) were struck dead by God for offering something He hadn't commanded (Lev. 10:1).
They offered fire that was expressly NOT what God had commanded. That is why they were struck down. It is not that they did what God didn't command it's that they did wrongly what God did command.
As to the rest of your post, no where in the bible does it command Vacation Bible Schools, regular schools, meals on wheels, clothing banks, or for that matter, any organized charity through the church. (We are all commanded to do these things but the church IIRC is not so commanded). If we did only what God expressly commanded we'd be just like the pharisees, making great show of obeying the letter of the law but totally missing the spirit of the law.
Any any event, when God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding.
So you basically believe that whatever is not mandatory is forbidden? I guess our readings of the Word are a bit different.
1 John 3:17 But whoso hath this worlds good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
The bible tells us to fill a need when we see it. Seems that some people are in need of small arms practice, why shouldn't the church make possible the filling of that need?