Tolerance – I doesn’t mean what you think it means

I loathe to link to the Christian Post.

Not because it’s a home to the usual bigots but because it’s home to the most annoying auto-play advertisements. I understand that they are sometimes seen around here. If so? Tell us and we will try and get the advert pulled from rotation.

It’s not just that it’s also got posts excusing bigotry such as this, it’s also got annoying adverts that REFUSE to remain stopped or silenced.

And in this case it’s a post weeping  for the lack of tolerance the GLBT have for Christians.

Tolerance; that’s the buzzword for one of contemporary culture’s most exalted virtues. Do not judge, do not try to impose your morality on anyone else, live and let live, or so we are told.

With the important caveat of “Unless your moral choices harm, hurt or discriminate against others”. We have no problems judging racists.

It is in the furtherance of so-called tolerance that we, as Christians, are supposed to accept a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples and perhaps other couplings and groupings at some point down the line. We are called on to suspend our biblically based beliefs about right and wrong and tolerate government sanction of lifestyles that we recognize as harmful to individuals and society as a whole.

Who died and made you the King of Marriage. I mean seriously? People have been getting married for longer than Christianity has existed. This was not some remarkable concept developed by 3000 year old Jews or at the Council of Nicea. This is a concept that has been entrenched in nearly every civilisation. And I like the euphemistic reference to other couplings and groupings, because that clearly doesn’t mean poly relationships which are perfectly Biblical but probably means child molestation (Which was perfectly biblical. Remember, Mary was just 13 to 15 years old and was a child. It’s just a different time, women have traditionally been considered as adults at the age of menses and children were expected to work and get married at a time we would be considered teenagers) and beastiality. The usual go to “fears” about Gay Marriage being a slippery slope.

And this very argument can be used to oppose the government ban on slavery. After all? There is no lines about not keeping slaves in the Bible and the Bible does exhort it’s followers in Leviticus to keep slaves in specific ways if they are gentile or Jew. In fact there are direct demands from Jehovah to KEEP slaves. There was never a direct command to ban slavery.

Now an atheist would look at this and go “That’s easy, the reason there is no such demand is because the Jewish Economy like many economies of the time was powered by slavery and so it was seen as social good as long as you were the one doing all the enslaving”.

But the fundie has no such stance. In claiming to have a moral code handed down by god he must admit that the ownership of people as property is not just moral but mandated by his faith and that the law opposes his freedom.

Which is nonsensical. Oh I know there are slavery apologists who insist that slavery isn’t so bad and that an objective morality cannot prove that slavery is bad, but such philosophical escapes are of little aid to people who are slaves and is indicative of a morality that is not based on human empathy or equality.

But as our culture begins to warm up to the idea of same-sex marriage, we are discovering that tolerance – as that term is generally understood – is not nearly enough to satisfy those pushing for this new social standard. In addition to permitting same-sex unions, we are to participate in them when called upon (such as Christian cake-bakers and photographers) and we are to speak well of them when asked.

In other words, in the name of “tolerance,” differing views are not tolerated. And, apparently, anyone who fails to meet these expectations will be publically shunned and stripped of livelihood.

Just ask Phil Robertson, patriarch of the family profiled in the wildly successful Duck Dynasty series, who no longer has a place on the reality show for being a bit too real during an interview with GQ magazine.

You call your view differing. Your view is no different to those who do not wish to participate in the mixing of races in public spaces or in the god given rite of marriage. After all? Black and White don’t mix. Eww! Can you imagine what would happen if races mixed? We would look like freaks!

FREAKS!

Presumably, Robertson was sought out for the interview because of his straight-shooting, folksy style, which is almost as famous as his long, straggly beard. And Robertson did not disappoint, answering questions plainly and directly, in the whimsical manner he and his family are known for.

Because homophobia and racism are whimsical? I mean even if you don’t agree that the GLBT should have the same rights of people because you think anal sex is “icky”.

Claiming that the Black people of America were HAPPIER in the Apartheid is “racism” and an ignorance of the history of American Apartheid.

Robertson explained that he needs a savior just like anyone else. Telling his personal story of redemption, Robertson harkened back to his reckless, younger days and how he finally found meaning and fulfillment through a relationship with Jesus Christ

Had the journalist Drew Magary left it at that, Robertson would still have a spot on the show. While the idea of repentance can be unsettling to some, talk of sin is acceptable as long as it stays theoretical. But Magary probed and Robertson obliged.

It’s not my fault for being a gigantic bigot it’s the people who asked me questions and my pathological inability to understand why the words I say are bad.

Magary asked Robertson: “What, in your mind, is sinful?” To which, Robertson gave an honest understanding, paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6 from the Bible. That too could have been glossed over, except this verse happens to condemn homosexual behavior, in addition to adultery, prostitution, and drunkenness, among other things.

And mixing fibres and eating pork.

Let’s really not forget that 1 Corinthians 6  is based on Levite law which prohibits those two things and there is no repeal of those.

100% Immoral

And that’s when the comments became too personal for homosexual activists like GLAAD. We didn’t hear from any groups about the remarks putting prostitution or drunkenness in a bad light, but GLAAD was quick to defame Robertson for mentioning homosexuality, attacking both his character and his faith. And for good measure they strongly suggested A&E, the station that carries Duck Dynasty, and the sponsors of the show, reexamine their ties to Robertson.

Actually it’s because pro-sex worker groups also stand for GLBT rights and the GLBT were specifically mentioned. Most readers of GQ are not reaching for Bibles to look up Corinthians.

And secondly? Hypocrites. What fucking Hypocrites. The Bible says a lot about the actions of hypocrites. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Matthew, Luke, James… the number of references to the “evil” of a hypocrite is sufficient to consider it a bigger “No-No” than mere homosexuality.

Let’s look at their past involvement in disputes. Let’s ignore the whole “greed” aspect and the whole “Camel through the Eye of A Needle” (My suggestion? Blender and a fine spray mist) thing and remember that there were lawyers involved. Also? There is current (Pointless) litigation from lawyers over two different cases on behalf of Duck Dynasty where lawsuits are in place to get them back on air and with regards to copyright infringement.

Basically? The Duck Dynasty folks “Lawyered the Fuck Up” to deal with Law suits. Are we agreed on this.

1 Corinthians 6.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Whoops. 1 Corinthians 6 is not just about “Gays Are Icky”. Lawyers are icky too and Mr. Duck Dynasty forgot about that.

A & E knew Robertson’s views when they hired him, but when GLAAD complained, they succumbed to the pressure. The decision represents yet another notch in GLAAD’s belt, which also lists the Boy Scouts’ reversal on homosexuality as a victory for their organization.

Yes, because woe betide organisations that are allowed to discriminate and strip members of achievements based solely on legal private behaviour that does not harm others.

To be sure, a disturbing pattern is developing here. Those holding to traditional biblical values are bullied into keeping those values to themselves – all under the banner of tolerance.

Isn’t that the most intolerant view of all, to refuse to anyone else the right to hold and share a different view?

GLAAD’s stated mission is to “ampli[fy] the voice of the LGBT community by empowering real people to share their stories.” It’s a shame GLAAD feels the only way they can amplify their voice is to silence others.

Yes because people are trying to stop Christians from getting married? I would like to know one way how two gay guys getting married stops a heterosexual from getting married?

Are Christians denied service because of their religion? Are they being assaulted and beaten and murdered? Are people trying to deny them healthcare and forcing them to pretend to be Hindus?

No? I don’t think you understand what oppression is. Your religion oppresses the GLBT and so must “back off”. Freedom of religion means your religion is free to practice what it wants unless it impinges on another person’s right to freedom and happiness.

Comments

  1. Acolyte of Sagan says

    Yes because people are trying to stop Christians from getting married? I would like to know one way how two gay guys getting married stops a heterosexual from getting married?

    Are Christians denied service because of their religion? Are they being assaulted and beaten and murdered? Are people trying to deny them healthcare and forcing them to pretend to be Hindus?

    No, it’s worse than that; they’re forcing Christian cake makers and Christian photographers to participate in their ungodly ceremonies . Oh! The humanity. Won’t someone think of th….oh, never mind.

    “Camel through the Eye of A Needle” (My suggestion? Blender and a fine spray mist)…

    Wouldn’t a syringe be less messy?

  2. says

    In claiming to have a moral code handed down by god he must admit that the ownership of people as property is not just moral but mandated by his faith and that the law opposes his freedom.

    No he doesn’t. The Old Testament law also tells Jews to sacrifice animals for sin atonement. It was commanded and it was moral. For Christians, however, sacrificing animals for atonement would be an abomination. What was commanded and moral in the OT is not automatically commanded and moral in the NT. Animal sacrificing is the clear example (at least it should be) that invalidates your simpleminded “gotcha” rule. (Will you argue, stupidly, that if Christians understood their own religion we should still sacrifice animals for atonement rather than call on Jesus’ sacrifice?)

    Not to mention that Jesus himself violated OT laws, for example in the way he handled lepers. It is a stupid, common argument you are parroting. But I’m sure you’ll continue to make it without thinking.

    See #21 The Ruby Tuesday Law for more details.

  3. otranreg says

    It’s not really an autoplay ad, but since you mention ads and puling them, there is one that is seriously making me consider turning the adblocker back on. I don’t mind banners and thus bringing you income, as long as they don’t get in the way. And this bastard does.

    Here it is: once per day, if you click anywhere on any of the FTB pages (doesn’t have to be a link, it’s any click), a pop-up window appears with an address like this:

    http://axp.zedo.com/asw/pfr/305/1802166/1/o.html?cdm=xads.zedo.com&a=1802166&x=3853&g=99&c1=305008637&c2=305008637&i=0&n=305&s=1905&1=7&2=1&tg=1388648419&vr=1&m=0&w=0&os=3&p=8&h=1137627&f=2160677&b=10&u=tqVyNS8GR7KNSUZA1vpB5Q**~010214&z=0.8648248533708559&mb=13&dm=.zedo.com&pt=Advertisement&q=&sk=&l=&cd=&adm=c5.zedo.com&ldm=l1.zedo.com&exp=0&cm=&tt=0&wm=Transparent&dnt=1&tsad=0&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=&p5=&prfl=&ct=0&awd=axp.zedo.com&cl4=false

    It isn’t always this one, but it’s always ‘zedo’-something. The ad in this case was about aquarium screensavers or something.

    This really reeks of warez-site approach to advertising, and of malware/hijacking (to make it clear, I’ve observed it on different machines, different browsers and in different networks). The only time I want to open a pop-up window with an ad is when I click on a link which says ‘This will open a pop-up with an ad’ or similar.

    I reported it through the form on the ‘Tech Issues’ page a few months ago, to no response and no change.

  4. Holms says

    For Christians, however, sacrificing animals for atonement would be an abomination. What was commanded and moral in the OT is not automatically commanded and moral in the NT.

    Not to mention that Jesus himself violated OT laws, for example in the way he handled lepers.

    All you appear to be saying here is that the bible truly is as fragmented and self contradictory as we continually point out. Yes, I agree, it contradicts itself and is a ludicrous book to use as any guide to morality, as it very frequently preaches the opposite of itself on many topics. Anyone wanting to claim to be moral while adhering to the bible can simply pick and choose the bits that happen to agree with their stance on just about anything.

    As usual, christian apologetics do nothing to resolve the criticism at hand.

  5. Onamission5 says

    I find it exasperating the way the language of social justice is being co-opted by SJ opponents as a means to deflect and muddle any criticism which comes their way by the very people they harm. I am as so-called “intolerant” of someone’s attempt to create a society which is openly or subtly hostile toward me as I am of the person who’s trying to bash my head in with a hammer, which is to say, if a person or group of people espouse attitudes which cause real harm, they are not much different from the enactors of that harm, and have earned whatever criticism comes their way. Words do not stand alone, they inform ideas. Ideas do not stand alone, they inform behavior.

    It amuses and aggravates me that when Phil says words, they’re just words and people should grow a thicker skin (this is the convo I have been having over and over and over) but when his critics– the very people affected by the harmful, hateful attitudes he supports– say words, we’re violating his right to somesuch freedom Jesus America.

  6. says

    Holmes @5,

    Thank you for a textbook internet atheist response. A predictable response based on the ubiquitous model among non-thinking atheists:

    1) The old testament laws are there for all to read
    2) The old testament laws must still apply because it is a double victory for us:
       a. It is convenient for us to point out how brutal they are.
       b. It is especially convenient to point out that the only reason Christians do not call for the adherence of OT laws (especially its capital offenses) is that they don’t have the stomach for it.
    3) We will summarily dismiss any attempt to say that the NT nullifies the OT laws as “cafeteria Christianity.” This must be done at all costs to maintain our advantage.
    4) Don’t be afraid to employ this model—it is guaranteed to achieve maximal nods of approval and backslapping. With the added benefit that you don’t have to do any homework.

    As usual, atheist apologetics adds nothing to the discussion at hand.

  7. says

    I run my own nameserver, so I can block entire domains that serve up content I’d rather they didn’t. Needless to say, zedo.com is among the blocked ones.

  8. Schlumbumbi says

    *Tolerance – it doesn’t mean what Avicenna thinks it means*

    The latin “tolerare” means nothing else, than to endure and to suffer. It’s an explicit reference to things you don’t approve of. If you find yourself unable to respect the presence of things you don’t approve of – you’re intolerant. And that’s a spot-on description for must social juicers and LGBBQ acvitivists.

  9. says

    Unfortunately, you stepped on one of my pet peeves! (So I’m going to rant a bit — please take no offense.) Incorrect understanding of the word “judge“! (Which is also unfortunately ironic given the title of your post.)

    transitive verb
    1
    : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises

    It is not a synonym for the word “condemn,” which is how it often gets used in contexts such as this. With that, I totally disagree with your statement, “With the important caveat of ‘Unless your moral choices harm, hurt or discriminate against others’. We have no problems judging racists.” Because how are you determining harm? You’re making a judgement! We can judge things to be both bad and good (or perhaps rather “not bad” which would include a neutral judgement).

  10. says

    @7 heddle

    In your critiques of “a textbook internet atheist response,” you have completely missed the point!!! #3 was particularly ironic! “We will summarily dismiss any attempt…” Yep, you basically summarily dismissed Holm’s attempt to explain why your original post was flawed. Congrats on the lack of self-awareness.

    With that said, I am going to try to reiterate the point. Please don’t summarily dismiss it this time. In your second response, #2 is flawed. It is not because it is “convenient,” it is because the Christians offer no clear objective standard by which to determine which laws supposedly apply and which do not. Worse, they often say that their god is both the source for the laws and that this god is unchanging. So how, then, did the laws change?

    I think we fully recognize that Christians don’t follow the OT laws, but the fact they don’t seems to better fit the idea that morality changes over time and that it is not, as Christians often claim, that it is “absolute.” There are contradictions in their claims and they have failed to adequately resolve these issues. And I and other atheists are going to continue to point out the contradictions until that time comes (which I doubt will ever happen). Capiche?

  11. says

    Leo Buzalsky,

    Worse, they often say that their god is both the source for the laws and that this god is unchanging. So how, then, did the laws change?

    We do not rule out changes in the law and if you had bothered to read you would have noted I gave an example. Here it is again, where I will use “all” as a synonym for an overwhelming majority:

    1) All Christians would agree that it was commanded (it was the law) and it was moral to sacrifice animals for a sin atonement before Christ.

    2) All Christians would agree that now it is no longer the law and it would be utterly immoral (an abomination, in fact) to sacrifice animals for a sin atonement.

    That is the clearest example that refutes the simplistic (and incorrect though convenient) view that we believe that God’s laws never change. It then becomes only a question of which laws. That was my whole point (God’s law can and does change) and the example is sufficient to make that point, and to make it irrefutably.

    How one makes that decision (which laws change) is not “pick and choose” but rather is tied to one’s systematic theology. If you are interested I wrote about that here.

    When we say “God is unchanging” we do not mean that laws do not change. The bible has many, many examples of situational ethics or case law. (You may not kill your neighbor’s bull. Unless it knocks down your fence and does this that or the other). When we say God’s law is absolute we mean there is no moral relativism. If it is wrong for me to do X in circumstance Y and time Z then is wrong for anyone to do X in circumstance Y in time Z. That is quite different than saying it is always wrong to do X.

    God, without himself changing, can establish law that is appropriate for a place, people and time (e.g., Israel, ethnic Jews, before Christ) that are superseded by laws for a different place, people, and time (all races, tribes & tongues after Jesus’ atoning death.) In is unthinking to “demand” (because it is convenient) that our declaration of God’s immutability requires that laws never change.

  12. Holms says

    Heddle, you appear to be treating all of christianity as if it were a single, monolithic set of values and beliefs, with only one way of interpreting the bible. Moreover, you are treating your interpretation of the bible as if it were the only one on offer.

    In the real world however, we see a vast array of denominations, an equally vast array of interpretations of the bible. You may assert that your interpretation regards the Old Testament as no longer relevant, but there are many that disagree.

    A great example of this can be seen in those that consider themselves young earth creationists. One of the defining characteristics of young earth creationism is that the Genesis chapter is taken literally. Since this is part of the Old rather than New, we see that there are in fact a great many people that take the Old Testament quite seriously.

    Bear in mind that this group is estimated to be 33% of America, plus however many others may exist eksewhere.

    Hence:

    2) The old testament laws must still apply because it is a double victory for us…

    is incorrect. We do not point to the old testament because it is a convenient ‘gotcha’. We point to it because plenty of christians continue to make use of it.

  13. says

    @Holms 13

    Heddle, you appear to be treating all of christianity as if it were a single, monolithic set of values and beliefs, with only one way of interpreting the bible. Moreover, you are treating your interpretation of the bible as if it were the only one on offer.

    Where have I done this? Because I try to be careful to state when it is my opinion or my theology school’s position. The only blanket statement I made (correct me if I am wrong) about essentially all Christians is they they would agree that the law was once that we should sacrifice animals and that is no longer the law. I’ll stand by that generalization.

    we see that there are in fact a great many people that take the Old Testament quite seriously.

    That has nothing to do with my argument. I don’t say the OT should be thrown away or should not be taken seriously. I continue to make use of it. But I read it as fulfilled prophecy and foreshadowing but no longer the rule of law. But even in what it says about the law it is important and instructive in that it describes a nation (ancient Israel) that was an integral part of redemptive history.

  14. smrnda says

    I don’t see how baking a cake is participating in a wedding. If I baked a cake for sale for a birthday party, I have not *participated* in any meaningful sense. Photographers are paid to take pictures of events, and plenty of photographers take pictures of events they don’t agree with nor endorse all the time – that’s kind of a huge chunk of what photo-journalism is. Throwing a hissy fit over taking pictures of a same sex wedding? Do people throw these hissy fits when someone asks them to do some kind of job for a church? I don’t think so.

    Christians who object to same sex marriage do not have to have their own clergy perform such marriages – churches are as free as they ever have been to marry only people they want to marry, and churches will often only perform marriages to members in good standing. This right isn’t under assault at all. Nor are Christians required to accept invitations as guests to same sex weddings. However, doing a job in which one serves the public is not an area where it is legal to discriminate, and given that it’s for $$$, once you decided you wanted to open a for profit, Mammon grubbing business, you agreed to follow the rules laid out by the government.

  15. devilsadvocate says

    It’s very simple little children: you cannot oppress people because of their religion in the United States – even if that religion is (allegedly) a monolithic majority (it’s not).

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>