I strongly advise you to read your history brother. During the ''dark ages'' almost everyone was Catholic those who weren't belonged to obscure sects that had their own peculiar teachings. Otherwise they were Eastern Orthodox. To say that Catholics don't follow the teachings of Christ is a sweeping statement to make. There are Catholic teachings that are not accepted by Protestants but that doesn't mean that Catholics in general are not Christian. After the reformation Protestants were not exempt from persecuting those who opposed them. The pilgrim fathers went to America to escape persecution and it wasn't Catholics that were doing the persecuting. To brand every Muslim a terrorist does nothing to further the Gospel. It ferments hatred and racism. I have yet to meet a perfect Christian, from a human standpoint. When I do I will supply His or Her address.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I agree with one thing with you here, while I dont believe that Catholicism is from God, I do believe that there are true Christians in the Catholic church.
Id also agree that not every Muslim is a terrorist, I think that much is obvious.
The problem is, people cannot separate Islam teaching violence away from not all Muslims are terrorists.
I mean really, please share any post here that says "all Muslims are terrorists".
No one has done that, theyve merely spoken out against a doctrine that denies the true Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and one that commands war against unbelievers. The fact that some Muslims are nice literally proves nothing at all other than some Muslims are nice. Just as the fact that some Christians practice fornication proves nothing more than some Christians practice fornication.
It is not evil to call out Islam. We are Christians, right? Do we not agree that Jesus is the only way to God?
Id also agree that not every Muslim is a terrorist, I think that much is obvious.
The problem is, people cannot separate Islam teaching violence away from not all Muslims are terrorists.
I mean really, please share any post here that says "all Muslims are terrorists".
No one has done that, theyve merely spoken out against a doctrine that denies the true Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and one that commands war against unbelievers. The fact that some Muslims are nice literally proves nothing at all other than some Muslims are nice. Just as the fact that some Christians practice fornication proves nothing more than some Christians practice fornication.
It is not evil to call out Islam. We are Christians, right? Do we not agree that Jesus is the only way to God?
Guys,
Islam is something that muslim countries suffer from. It is like an illness
that needs to find a cure.
And the cure is to ignore Islam and look at the people and how they suffer.
Injustice, oppression, murder, corruption, lack of education, social opportunities,
human rights, a chance to choose your partner in life, the ability to actually make
a difference to things you care about. Nothing works in the countries because it
is feudal dictatorship, and if you word for something good between people, some
nutcase with say blasphemy and kill you.
It is this combination of corruption accusation, defending injustice and murder,
abuse of women and families, means people are so traumatised, they are frozen.
Somalia is a wreck, ungovernable, because socially nothing works.
Iran, is a corruption mess, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Sudan.
And the bigger the mess, the call for more extreme Islam cries out that makes
the death spiral worse.
Think of this. The more dedicated the christian is, what do they become, a loving
person dedicated to serve others and meet the needs of the unfortunate.
The more dedicated a muslim becomes, the more people they want to murder for
not submitting to Islam. How such a violent dictatorial psychopaths dream could be
called a way of peace is a pure propoganda dream. By their fruits you will know them.
No joke ...
But their defeat is by love and justice, putting in place real good life, and comparing this
to what their faith supports and encourages.
The problem is this truth is said to be a lie of satan because it makes Islam look bad so
must be a lie, rather than what looks bad is bad.
Islam is something that muslim countries suffer from. It is like an illness
that needs to find a cure.
And the cure is to ignore Islam and look at the people and how they suffer.
Injustice, oppression, murder, corruption, lack of education, social opportunities,
human rights, a chance to choose your partner in life, the ability to actually make
a difference to things you care about. Nothing works in the countries because it
is feudal dictatorship, and if you word for something good between people, some
nutcase with say blasphemy and kill you.
It is this combination of corruption accusation, defending injustice and murder,
abuse of women and families, means people are so traumatised, they are frozen.
Somalia is a wreck, ungovernable, because socially nothing works.
Iran, is a corruption mess, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Sudan.
And the bigger the mess, the call for more extreme Islam cries out that makes
the death spiral worse.
Think of this. The more dedicated the christian is, what do they become, a loving
person dedicated to serve others and meet the needs of the unfortunate.
The more dedicated a muslim becomes, the more people they want to murder for
not submitting to Islam. How such a violent dictatorial psychopaths dream could be
called a way of peace is a pure propoganda dream. By their fruits you will know them.
No joke ...
But their defeat is by love and justice, putting in place real good life, and comparing this
to what their faith supports and encourages.
The problem is this truth is said to be a lie of satan because it makes Islam look bad so
must be a lie, rather than what looks bad is bad.
Christians believe the teachings of Jesus and trust in the atonement of the LORD Jesus Christ... If catholicism was Christian then i would still be a catholic.. But i left that false religion when i read the Gospels and believed Jesus..
I hate all doctrines that lead people away from the truth of Christ.. Both catholicism and islam and also other denominations lead people away from the truth of Christ..
I hate all doctrines that lead people away from the truth of Christ.. Both catholicism and islam and also other denominations lead people away from the truth of Christ..
I believe it's primarily more towards the islam religion than individual muslims. Many of them unfortunately have been born into the religion and lives are threatened if they want to leave. So there's really no reason to hate them. Btw muslims commonly tend to redefine the q'uran when confronted with it's barbaric teachings.
Its pretty obvious that Islam is not Christian, but neither is Sikhism Hinduism or Buddhism yet how many posts have you read attacking their beliefs? Muslims being 'nice' is not the point. The point is that there seems to be a consensus here that all Muslims are either terrorists or potential terrorists.
You mention the Koran and the passages concerning unbelievers. It does not actually tell Muslims to kill all unbelievers it
allows Muslims to defend themselves if attacked. Islam spread through conquest but the conquered individuals were given
the choice between converting or paying a tax. The concept of Jihad has been twisted by extremists. It has two meanings
one is actual warfare the other is the idea of warfare within oneself against sin. The koran is actually a distorted form of the Bible with Gnostic and Pagan elements included.
You mention the Koran and the passages concerning unbelievers. It does not actually tell Muslims to kill all unbelievers it
allows Muslims to defend themselves if attacked. Islam spread through conquest but the conquered individuals were given
the choice between converting or paying a tax. The concept of Jihad has been twisted by extremists. It has two meanings
one is actual warfare the other is the idea of warfare within oneself against sin. The koran is actually a distorted form of the Bible with Gnostic and Pagan elements included.
How many of those other beliefs command violence against unbelievers?
Also, not only are those religions much smaller than Islam, they also do NOT decieve people about Jesus Christ. Those other religions are not followed by people who seek the God of Abraham. Muslims, however, ARE seeking the God of Abraham.
So theres a massive difference between buddhism and Islam.
Not even close, the entire point is that Islam commands violence against the unbelievers. And through that, terrorists are made. Not that Muslims are inherently bad people.
Not true. It entirely commands to "fight" the unbelievers, not "defend" yourselves from attackers. In fact Islamic prophecy claims that Muslims in the end days will be gathered against the Jews killing them.
Its so clear that Islam commands to fight the unbelievers and mischief makers.
Nope, that only applies to Christians and Jews-
Though the fact that you are willing to defend a doctrine that tells its followers to fight people until they give you money really says alot.
Thats right, Islam commands warfare-
"The Prophet said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree."
https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/56
So why are you against people pointing this out?
Again, take notice how I did not say "muslims are bad people", but have only pointed out what Islam commands.
Also, not only are those religions much smaller than Islam, they also do NOT decieve people about Jesus Christ. Those other religions are not followed by people who seek the God of Abraham. Muslims, however, ARE seeking the God of Abraham.
So theres a massive difference between buddhism and Islam.
Not even close, the entire point is that Islam commands violence against the unbelievers. And through that, terrorists are made. Not that Muslims are inherently bad people.
Not true. It entirely commands to "fight" the unbelievers, not "defend" yourselves from attackers. In fact Islamic prophecy claims that Muslims in the end days will be gathered against the Jews killing them.
Its so clear that Islam commands to fight the unbelievers and mischief makers.
Nope, that only applies to Christians and Jews-
Though the fact that you are willing to defend a doctrine that tells its followers to fight people until they give you money really says alot.
Thats right, Islam commands warfare-
"The Prophet said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree."
https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/56
So why are you against people pointing this out?
Again, take notice how I did not say "muslims are bad people", but have only pointed out what Islam commands.
Yes, and none of them followed the teachings of Jesus Christ which meant they were NOT being led by the Holy Spirit if Jesus Christ to go out and kill protestants who choose to follow Jesus rather than demonic man-made religion.
Yes, and it's true... all one has to do is go to the catholiks, find out from them what they are teachings and then go try and find that in the Word of God.
It's laughable to say catholiks are Christians. Many modern protestant churches have gotten to where they are no better as they teach extra biblical revelation that God never taught just like the cathloholics
Numerous warnings in the New Testament say otherwise... we are told to avoid those that do not hold to sound doctrine, even the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Praying to mary and contacting the dead is sinful, leading those that practice such straight to hell.
C'mon man... go by what God says in His Word!
The teachings of islam command them to kill those that do not follow islam, so any muzlim that is not actively trying to kill "infidels" or supporting those that do... is a bad muzlim who is not following the teachings of islam.
This is fact... many who have come out of islam that have gotten born again and love Jesus now... have spilled the beans about this.
That's just what the liberal news media says and those of the world that don't know the Lord.
Claiming it's racism to not agree with islam is laughable! You do now that islam is NOT a race, right??? It's a false religion not a race. Anybody with a little common sense knows this and those that don't are listening to this world's narrative and have been deceived into bowing down to islam and the one world agenda.
islam is a crock and it to be opposed along with all other false religions according to scripture.
We must proclaim to all muzlims that Jesus Christ is THE only way of salvation, to coddle islam and play mind games is a sin and a disservice to the lost as we are called to proclaim Jesus to the world.
Praise the Lord Jesus, good for you!
If you knew more about their religious writings, you'd know this is actually true.
You'd also know that they are taught to lie and deceive to further their cause so you cannot believe anything a muzlim tells you... which is why trying to reason with them is a joke!
Yes, and it's true... all one has to do is go to the catholiks, find out from them what they are teachings and then go try and find that in the Word of God.
It's laughable to say catholiks are Christians. Many modern protestant churches have gotten to where they are no better as they teach extra biblical revelation that God never taught just like the cathloholics
Numerous warnings in the New Testament say otherwise... we are told to avoid those that do not hold to sound doctrine, even the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Praying to mary and contacting the dead is sinful, leading those that practice such straight to hell.
C'mon man... go by what God says in His Word!
The teachings of islam command them to kill those that do not follow islam, so any muzlim that is not actively trying to kill "infidels" or supporting those that do... is a bad muzlim who is not following the teachings of islam.
This is fact... many who have come out of islam that have gotten born again and love Jesus now... have spilled the beans about this.
That's just what the liberal news media says and those of the world that don't know the Lord.
Claiming it's racism to not agree with islam is laughable! You do now that islam is NOT a race, right??? It's a false religion not a race. Anybody with a little common sense knows this and those that don't are listening to this world's narrative and have been deceived into bowing down to islam and the one world agenda.
islam is a crock and it to be opposed along with all other false religions according to scripture.
We must proclaim to all muzlims that Jesus Christ is THE only way of salvation, to coddle islam and play mind games is a sin and a disservice to the lost as we are called to proclaim Jesus to the world.
Praise the Lord Jesus, good for you!
If you knew more about their religious writings, you'd know this is actually true.
You'd also know that they are taught to lie and deceive to further their cause so you cannot believe anything a muzlim tells you... which is why trying to reason with them is a joke!
I'm so tired of others defining what "hate" means. Hate IS NOT pointing out facts OR disagreement with others!! Especially the young has been indoctrinated with the nonsense that disagreement equates to hatred.
I'm offended by these people that constantly say I, and others, are hateful for st[video=youtube;pSPvnFDDQHk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk[/video]ating the obvious about Islam, homosexuality, and others because I disagree with them or their beliefs. I LOVE EVERYBODY!! But I won't be silenced or bullied with PC language by posts like the OP that try to silence and bully me.
I challenge you to watch this video BY A MUSLIM WOMAN who explains what the problem with Islam is:
I'm offended by these people that constantly say I, and others, are hateful for st[video=youtube;pSPvnFDDQHk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk[/video]ating the obvious about Islam, homosexuality, and others because I disagree with them or their beliefs. I LOVE EVERYBODY!! But I won't be silenced or bullied with PC language by posts like the OP that try to silence and bully me.
I challenge you to watch this video BY A MUSLIM WOMAN who explains what the problem with Islam is:
An answer to all my detractors. I am not defending Islam, I am not saying that it is wrong to point out the errors of another persons beliefs. What I do find disturbing is the way some choose to go about it. The thread title in case you need reminding is Why do you hate Muslims? It is not my thread but the very fact that the question is asked should make some stop and think.
In another thread recently, I was called all kinds of names and had all manner of false accusations leveled at me, none of which anyone was able to give any evidence whatsoever for, simply for wishing to expose the evils of what Islam explicitly teaches. What I present has been called hate, fear mongering, half truths, etc etc, and even Angela started making up all kinds of nonsense and leveling a multitude of false accusations at me and another poster in that same thread, while she goes around speaking against Islam, so the hypocrisy is quite perplexing. One person called me Satanic and said I was trying to keep the truth from Muslims and prevent the spread of the gospel, and then turned around and invited polite correspondence from me, as if she thought her ridiculous assertions were polite remarks.
Clearly the hate is coming from those who fail to recognize the threat of Islam. They want to pretend that anyone who speaks against Islam is hateful, while they hate on us for carrying a message that needs to be heard. They are all about shooting the messenger.
Clearly the hate is coming from those who fail to recognize the threat of Islam. They want to pretend that anyone who speaks against Islam is hateful, while they hate on us for carrying a message that needs to be heard. They are all about shooting the messenger.
Yeah, its "why do you hate Muslims" literally refering to the people of this site. Its yet another thread that accuses people who speak out against an evil in the world as hateful. Just like when someone makes a thread about homosexuality, and someone comes in and goes on about how everyone who posted on the subject is hateful.
The problem isnt that people who speak out against Islam are hateful, its that there are people that are confused on what is hateful and what is true. They have been lead to believe that criticizing Islam is fueled only by hate for those who are different than you, and they are told that Islam makes no commands of violence, and instead of looking into it themselves, they just accept that Islam makes no commands of violence, and assume that everyone who says so just hates people that are different from them.
It is entirely deceitful, yet people who want to be accepted as kind and loving let themselves believe that the right thing to do is to "get along" and not point out that something is wrong, because if someone becomes upset by an argument, an act of violence has just happened.
The problem isnt that people who speak out against Islam are hateful, its that there are people that are confused on what is hateful and what is true. They have been lead to believe that criticizing Islam is fueled only by hate for those who are different than you, and they are told that Islam makes no commands of violence, and instead of looking into it themselves, they just accept that Islam makes no commands of violence, and assume that everyone who says so just hates people that are different from them.
It is entirely deceitful, yet people who want to be accepted as kind and loving let themselves believe that the right thing to do is to "get along" and not point out that something is wrong, because if someone becomes upset by an argument, an act of violence has just happened.
False accusations should make you stop and think. Nobody is speaking against Muslims in general, and this has been brought forward over and over again. We speak against the spread of ISLAM because of what it explicitly teaches, and because of what their stated goal is, which is mandated in their so-called holy books. There is a difference that seems too fine a point for many to grasp, and those people hate on the messengers instead of considering the truth of what is being presented.
This is long...... Only the concerned will read it.... And probably only the wise will understand it.
"Shut Up, Bigot!": The Intolerance of Tolerance
By: Ben R. Crenshaw within Culture, Marriage
August 12th, 2015
Conservatives are called bigots because those who embrace the new sexual mores are beholden to the new tolerance as a plausibility structure. Postmodern liberals cannot comprehend the idea that one could simultaneously reject a belief and accept the person who holds it.
America is in the midst of a raging national debate on issues surrounding sexuality and gender. If you dare to suggest that gender is determined by sex and is immutable, that same-sex sex acts are immoral, or that marriage is a permanent, exclusive union of husband and wife, then you will be called an intolerant bigot, hater, and homophobe.
Where does the charge of bigotry come from? Is it just a passing fad, a political and social tool for power and control, or do its roots go deeper?
Bigotry is defined as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” Notice that bigotry is not intolerance toward the opinions or beliefs of persons other than yourself, but intolerance of the other person. Bigotry is not simply disagreeing with what someone else believes; it is an unwillingness to tolerate or accept the person who holds those beliefs.
A little reflection on this definition will reveal that the vast majority of bigotry accusations populating the internet and in public discourse are not legitimate ones. On the contrary, they are the consequence of a mistaken view of tolerance that is itself a product of a warped postmodern epistemology.
Two Views of Tolerance
Under the traditional view of tolerance, two aspects were required: first, that you respected the right of the person or individual in question to hold his beliefs and voice his opinions; and second, that you had a right to disagree with those beliefs and contest them both privately and publicly. As D.A. Carson paraphrases it in The Intolerance of Tolerance, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” You do not have to like the person with whom you disagree, but you do have to respect and tolerate his right to speak.
This conception entails tolerance toward the person while allowing intolerance toward beliefs. Since beliefs are abstract objects communicated through propositions in written or spoken language, they have no inherent dignity in themselves. It does them no harm or offense to disagree with them or offer a rebuttal. Disagreeing with or being intolerant of a belief, in this view, is fundamentally different from being intolerant or hateful toward the person who holds that belief. In other words, this definition is built on a clear and obvious distinction between a person and his beliefs.
The traditional understanding of tolerance reflects a certain epistemology: namely, that there is such a thing as truth, it can be known, and the best way to discover the truth is through debate, reflection, and investigation. The pursuit of truth requires mutual cooperation, serious consideration of opposing beliefs, and persuasion through the use of reason. Coercion, exclusion, slander, and threats of force have no place in the search for truth.
Over the course of the last century, however, the old view of tolerance has been slowly transformed. The emergent new tolerance holds that persons who are truly tolerant accept the views of others and treat these individuals fairly. The key distinction is that under the old tolerance, one would accept the existence of other views even while rejecting some views as false; but under the new tolerance, one accepts these other views. In other words, all views are seen as equally valid and true.
The new tolerance rejects “dogmatism and absolutism,” affirms that each person has the right to live by his convictions, and eschews imposing one’s views upon others. Yet underlying this view of tolerance is a fundamental contradiction. Is not this concept of tolerance being imposed on all peoples and cultures, in direct violation of one of its own tenets? And as Carson points out, “does not the assertion, ‘Tolerance... involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism’ sound a little, well... dogmatic and absolute?"
Therefore, despite its appeal and aplomb, the new tolerance is both intolerant and internally incoherent.
Intolerance: The Supreme Sin
A critical error of the new tolerance is that it conflates beliefs and persons. In this view, to accept divergent beliefs is to be accepting and respectful of the person who holds them; conversely, to reject a belief as untrue is thought to be a rejection of the person who holds that belief. To say, “I think your view is false,” is akin to saying something unkind and insensitive about the person with that belief.
Thus according to the new tolerance, to be intolerant toward another’s beliefs is to be intolerant toward the person. And intolerance toward persons, incidentally, is the definition of bigotry. So when traditionalists voice dissent against the array of beliefs held by sexual liberals, this is interpreted as a rejection of the people who hold those views. Thus, within the incoherent paradigm of the new tolerance, the accusation of bigotry appears justified.
For practitioners of the new tolerance, intolerance is thought to be the supreme sin because it offends and disrespects persons. No one deserves to be offended or disrespected, and such an offense is considered an assault on their very dignity as a human being. This is why the rejection of same-sex marriage, homosexual practice, and transgenderism is believed to be an attack on the dignity of people with such attractions and lifestyles. This is why Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion in Obergefell vs. Hodges, appealed repeatedly to the dignity of LGBT individuals as a basis for their inclusion in the institution of marriage (as opposed to the metaphysical nature of marriage). To exclude them would have been an intolerant act, a defacing of their human dignity, and a supreme vice.
The claims of bigotry that stem from the new tolerance are moral claims: To reject the beliefs of the new sexual mores is to be intolerant of persons and to attack their dignity, and this is wrong. It is impossible to be a virtuous citizen if you are intolerant in this manner, and unvirtuous citizens who are bigots have no place in the public square; they are to be ridiculed, excluded, and publicly shamed.
This is why the battle for religious liberty and freedom of conscience is so important. There is the very real possibility that conservative voices and freedoms will be stamped out just as racist behaviors and attitudes have been. Some individuals naively claim that Obergefell v. Hodges will have no effect on issues of religious liberty, but such views ignore the current attacks against those who hold to traditional sexual norms.
If the current view of tolerance retains its cultural grip, conservatives will be systematically discriminated against and socially ostracized. Teachers will be excluded from faculty at liberal universities or denied tenure altogether. Businesses will be forced to abide by laws that conflict with their religious beliefs and consciences. Commencement speakers and guest lecturers will be uninvited to academic events, publishing houses and journals will refuse to print certain perspectives, colleges and universities will be denied accreditation and federal funding, and on and on. In other words, while the letter of our First Amendment rights might be upheld, their spirit and practice will be rejected by the greater society that is still functioning according to the mistaken view of tolerance.
Due to such repercussions it is imperative that conservatives, libertarians, and traditionalists work together to dislodge the new view of tolerance from its cultural pedestal.
The New Tolerance’s Rotten Postmodern Foundation
The conceptual underpinnings of the new tolerance can be traced back to postmodern epistemology. Postmodernism is complex, to be sure, but at its heart it is a form of cultural relativism. It rejects metaphysical realism in favor of the claim that reality is a social construct.
Objective and universally binding truth claims are thought to be impossible.
The only way to discredit the new intolerance is by attacking the philosophical foundations of postmodern theory. Unfortunately, postmodernism has thoroughly worked itself into Western culture, shaping Western assumptions and plausibility structures. “Plausibility structures” is a phrase coined by sociologist Peter Berger, referring to structures of thought widely and unquestionably accepted throughout a given culture. They dictate what individuals in that culture will consider to be possible or impossible, plausible or implausible.
Over the past half century, the new view of tolerance has become a foundational plank in the conceptual structure of Western thought. This means that individuals who act according to the old understanding of tolerance will be met first with befuddlement, and then with scorn. The old tolerance is unrecognizable in a culture that has embraced the new vision of tolerance and adopted it as a plausibility structure.
Conservatives who dispute the views of sexual liberalism are called bigots because those who embrace the new sexual mores are beholden to the new tolerance as a plausibility structure. Postmodern liberals cannot even comprehend how one can simultaneously reject a belief and accept the person who holds it. Thus, the charges of bigotry that spew forth reveal the intellectual and interpersonal poverty and dysfunction in which these persons live.
The Way Forward
The new tolerance turns out to be just as intolerant as the intolerance it abhors. By demanding that all views be considered equally valid, it cannot tolerate the old but correct view of tolerance, and it therefore becomes the intolerance of true tolerance. In the end, tolerance itself is destroyed, yielding instead to tyranny. When this happens, the new tolerance wields the libel of bigotry in order to intimidate and silence dissenters and impose conformity.
We must challenge postmodern thought at a fundamental level and reintroduce the old vision of tolerance into society. This will be most effective if we practice the old tolerance, visibly and powerfully demonstrating that it is possible to hold to objective truths and dissenting views while being respectful and loving toward those with whom we disagree. Such interpersonal virtues are rarely seen in a culture where social media exchanges and comment threads overflow with vitriol. Only by consistently and unfailingly teaching and practicing the old tolerance—and defending its epistemological foundations—will there be any chance of overturning the new tolerance.
So what will the future of American society and culture be? Will it be a place for true tolerance, where competing ideas and visions of human flourishing are openly and respectfully debated in the public square? Or will the new tolerance create a totalitarian regime that controls both private thought and public engagement through accusations of bigotry while masquerading as enlightenment and progress?
It’s up to American citizens to decide. We must not be intimidated, and we must not be silenced, for the freedom and flourishing of an entire culture and her people are at stake.
Ben R. Crenshaw is pursuing a double MA at Denver Seminary and is a teaching fellow at the Gordon Lewis Center for Christian Thought and Culture.
"Shut Up, Bigot!": The Intolerance of Tolerance
By: Ben R. Crenshaw within Culture, Marriage
August 12th, 2015
Conservatives are called bigots because those who embrace the new sexual mores are beholden to the new tolerance as a plausibility structure. Postmodern liberals cannot comprehend the idea that one could simultaneously reject a belief and accept the person who holds it.
America is in the midst of a raging national debate on issues surrounding sexuality and gender. If you dare to suggest that gender is determined by sex and is immutable, that same-sex sex acts are immoral, or that marriage is a permanent, exclusive union of husband and wife, then you will be called an intolerant bigot, hater, and homophobe.
Where does the charge of bigotry come from? Is it just a passing fad, a political and social tool for power and control, or do its roots go deeper?
Bigotry is defined as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” Notice that bigotry is not intolerance toward the opinions or beliefs of persons other than yourself, but intolerance of the other person. Bigotry is not simply disagreeing with what someone else believes; it is an unwillingness to tolerate or accept the person who holds those beliefs.
A little reflection on this definition will reveal that the vast majority of bigotry accusations populating the internet and in public discourse are not legitimate ones. On the contrary, they are the consequence of a mistaken view of tolerance that is itself a product of a warped postmodern epistemology.
Two Views of Tolerance
Under the traditional view of tolerance, two aspects were required: first, that you respected the right of the person or individual in question to hold his beliefs and voice his opinions; and second, that you had a right to disagree with those beliefs and contest them both privately and publicly. As D.A. Carson paraphrases it in The Intolerance of Tolerance, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” You do not have to like the person with whom you disagree, but you do have to respect and tolerate his right to speak.
This conception entails tolerance toward the person while allowing intolerance toward beliefs. Since beliefs are abstract objects communicated through propositions in written or spoken language, they have no inherent dignity in themselves. It does them no harm or offense to disagree with them or offer a rebuttal. Disagreeing with or being intolerant of a belief, in this view, is fundamentally different from being intolerant or hateful toward the person who holds that belief. In other words, this definition is built on a clear and obvious distinction between a person and his beliefs.
The traditional understanding of tolerance reflects a certain epistemology: namely, that there is such a thing as truth, it can be known, and the best way to discover the truth is through debate, reflection, and investigation. The pursuit of truth requires mutual cooperation, serious consideration of opposing beliefs, and persuasion through the use of reason. Coercion, exclusion, slander, and threats of force have no place in the search for truth.
Over the course of the last century, however, the old view of tolerance has been slowly transformed. The emergent new tolerance holds that persons who are truly tolerant accept the views of others and treat these individuals fairly. The key distinction is that under the old tolerance, one would accept the existence of other views even while rejecting some views as false; but under the new tolerance, one accepts these other views. In other words, all views are seen as equally valid and true.
The new tolerance rejects “dogmatism and absolutism,” affirms that each person has the right to live by his convictions, and eschews imposing one’s views upon others. Yet underlying this view of tolerance is a fundamental contradiction. Is not this concept of tolerance being imposed on all peoples and cultures, in direct violation of one of its own tenets? And as Carson points out, “does not the assertion, ‘Tolerance... involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism’ sound a little, well... dogmatic and absolute?"
Therefore, despite its appeal and aplomb, the new tolerance is both intolerant and internally incoherent.
Intolerance: The Supreme Sin
A critical error of the new tolerance is that it conflates beliefs and persons. In this view, to accept divergent beliefs is to be accepting and respectful of the person who holds them; conversely, to reject a belief as untrue is thought to be a rejection of the person who holds that belief. To say, “I think your view is false,” is akin to saying something unkind and insensitive about the person with that belief.
Thus according to the new tolerance, to be intolerant toward another’s beliefs is to be intolerant toward the person. And intolerance toward persons, incidentally, is the definition of bigotry. So when traditionalists voice dissent against the array of beliefs held by sexual liberals, this is interpreted as a rejection of the people who hold those views. Thus, within the incoherent paradigm of the new tolerance, the accusation of bigotry appears justified.
For practitioners of the new tolerance, intolerance is thought to be the supreme sin because it offends and disrespects persons. No one deserves to be offended or disrespected, and such an offense is considered an assault on their very dignity as a human being. This is why the rejection of same-sex marriage, homosexual practice, and transgenderism is believed to be an attack on the dignity of people with such attractions and lifestyles. This is why Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion in Obergefell vs. Hodges, appealed repeatedly to the dignity of LGBT individuals as a basis for their inclusion in the institution of marriage (as opposed to the metaphysical nature of marriage). To exclude them would have been an intolerant act, a defacing of their human dignity, and a supreme vice.
The claims of bigotry that stem from the new tolerance are moral claims: To reject the beliefs of the new sexual mores is to be intolerant of persons and to attack their dignity, and this is wrong. It is impossible to be a virtuous citizen if you are intolerant in this manner, and unvirtuous citizens who are bigots have no place in the public square; they are to be ridiculed, excluded, and publicly shamed.
This is why the battle for religious liberty and freedom of conscience is so important. There is the very real possibility that conservative voices and freedoms will be stamped out just as racist behaviors and attitudes have been. Some individuals naively claim that Obergefell v. Hodges will have no effect on issues of religious liberty, but such views ignore the current attacks against those who hold to traditional sexual norms.
If the current view of tolerance retains its cultural grip, conservatives will be systematically discriminated against and socially ostracized. Teachers will be excluded from faculty at liberal universities or denied tenure altogether. Businesses will be forced to abide by laws that conflict with their religious beliefs and consciences. Commencement speakers and guest lecturers will be uninvited to academic events, publishing houses and journals will refuse to print certain perspectives, colleges and universities will be denied accreditation and federal funding, and on and on. In other words, while the letter of our First Amendment rights might be upheld, their spirit and practice will be rejected by the greater society that is still functioning according to the mistaken view of tolerance.
Due to such repercussions it is imperative that conservatives, libertarians, and traditionalists work together to dislodge the new view of tolerance from its cultural pedestal.
The New Tolerance’s Rotten Postmodern Foundation
The conceptual underpinnings of the new tolerance can be traced back to postmodern epistemology. Postmodernism is complex, to be sure, but at its heart it is a form of cultural relativism. It rejects metaphysical realism in favor of the claim that reality is a social construct.
Objective and universally binding truth claims are thought to be impossible.
The only way to discredit the new intolerance is by attacking the philosophical foundations of postmodern theory. Unfortunately, postmodernism has thoroughly worked itself into Western culture, shaping Western assumptions and plausibility structures. “Plausibility structures” is a phrase coined by sociologist Peter Berger, referring to structures of thought widely and unquestionably accepted throughout a given culture. They dictate what individuals in that culture will consider to be possible or impossible, plausible or implausible.
Over the past half century, the new view of tolerance has become a foundational plank in the conceptual structure of Western thought. This means that individuals who act according to the old understanding of tolerance will be met first with befuddlement, and then with scorn. The old tolerance is unrecognizable in a culture that has embraced the new vision of tolerance and adopted it as a plausibility structure.
Conservatives who dispute the views of sexual liberalism are called bigots because those who embrace the new sexual mores are beholden to the new tolerance as a plausibility structure. Postmodern liberals cannot even comprehend how one can simultaneously reject a belief and accept the person who holds it. Thus, the charges of bigotry that spew forth reveal the intellectual and interpersonal poverty and dysfunction in which these persons live.
The Way Forward
The new tolerance turns out to be just as intolerant as the intolerance it abhors. By demanding that all views be considered equally valid, it cannot tolerate the old but correct view of tolerance, and it therefore becomes the intolerance of true tolerance. In the end, tolerance itself is destroyed, yielding instead to tyranny. When this happens, the new tolerance wields the libel of bigotry in order to intimidate and silence dissenters and impose conformity.
We must challenge postmodern thought at a fundamental level and reintroduce the old vision of tolerance into society. This will be most effective if we practice the old tolerance, visibly and powerfully demonstrating that it is possible to hold to objective truths and dissenting views while being respectful and loving toward those with whom we disagree. Such interpersonal virtues are rarely seen in a culture where social media exchanges and comment threads overflow with vitriol. Only by consistently and unfailingly teaching and practicing the old tolerance—and defending its epistemological foundations—will there be any chance of overturning the new tolerance.
So what will the future of American society and culture be? Will it be a place for true tolerance, where competing ideas and visions of human flourishing are openly and respectfully debated in the public square? Or will the new tolerance create a totalitarian regime that controls both private thought and public engagement through accusations of bigotry while masquerading as enlightenment and progress?
It’s up to American citizens to decide. We must not be intimidated, and we must not be silenced, for the freedom and flourishing of an entire culture and her people are at stake.
Ben R. Crenshaw is pursuing a double MA at Denver Seminary and is a teaching fellow at the Gordon Lewis Center for Christian Thought and Culture.
While, it is true that Christians are called to love everyone including Muslims. Those who are Muslims are not God's children. That is false theology. God's creation, yes. God's children, no. Here is the Bible verse that refutes that statement.
John 1:12-13
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Thanks. God bless.
John 1:12-13
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Thanks. God bless.
One thing some may not be aware of is that Mohammed claims Ishmael as an ancestor, while he rejects Isaac as the son of promise to Abraham and Sarah. In this way Mohammed supplants Jesus Christ, elevating himself above God. To Muslims it is blasphemy (shirk) not only to call Jesus God, but to tell the truth about Mohammed, or portray anything Islamic in a negative light. The UN right now is chipping away at your rights to free speech in this regard, also.
The Koran had passages removed because Mohammed admitted he had been deceived by Satan. Mohammed was illiterate and did not even understand the Bible, and he alternately says the Bible should be believed, and the Bible is corrupted and cannot be trusted.
Many Muslims leave their countries of origin because they want to get away from Islam, but one of the problems for them is that once you are a Muslim, you are not allowed to leave that false religion. Do you shy away from calling their religion false? Do you really think they are worshiping the same God? They reject God's Word, they reject Jesus Christ, and they are told not just to kill us wherever they find us, but to kill those who leave the faith.
That is explicitly taught in the Koran, no matter how many times you wish to deny it or say, oh, well, Christians did bad things too, hundreds of yeas ago. You cannot compare the two because Christians are not told in the Bible to go out and kill those who refuse to submit to them!
So the peace seeking Muslims leave their country of origin and then others of their kind follow them and they have Islam forced on them all over again, because, why? Were you paying attention??? They are not allowed to leave the faith of their fathers. This is why Obama was considered a Muslim, not to mention all his mockery of Scripture while he constantly praised the Koran, and brought people into high level positions in the White House who were known to have ties to Islamic terrorism... two words which, by the way, Obama himself never once allowed to be uttered by himself.
The Koran had passages removed because Mohammed admitted he had been deceived by Satan. Mohammed was illiterate and did not even understand the Bible, and he alternately says the Bible should be believed, and the Bible is corrupted and cannot be trusted.
Many Muslims leave their countries of origin because they want to get away from Islam, but one of the problems for them is that once you are a Muslim, you are not allowed to leave that false religion. Do you shy away from calling their religion false? Do you really think they are worshiping the same God? They reject God's Word, they reject Jesus Christ, and they are told not just to kill us wherever they find us, but to kill those who leave the faith.
That is explicitly taught in the Koran, no matter how many times you wish to deny it or say, oh, well, Christians did bad things too, hundreds of yeas ago. You cannot compare the two because Christians are not told in the Bible to go out and kill those who refuse to submit to them!
So the peace seeking Muslims leave their country of origin and then others of their kind follow them and they have Islam forced on them all over again, because, why? Were you paying attention??? They are not allowed to leave the faith of their fathers. This is why Obama was considered a Muslim, not to mention all his mockery of Scripture while he constantly praised the Koran, and brought people into high level positions in the White House who were known to have ties to Islamic terrorism... two words which, by the way, Obama himself never once allowed to be uttered by himself.
Quran 5:75 "Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers who passed away before him"
Quran 4:171 "O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs."
Islam absolutely denies Jesus Christ and replaces Him with a prophet who did nothing more than tell the Jews to worship allah.
Well I may hate their religion and may hate their attitudes towards Christians but to hate them themselves? This isn't what I was taught love is. Honestly since I became a Christian i don't even think I am capable of actually hating anyone, but that is what happens when God molds your heart isn't it? After all we are called love and to be love and the Christian is to be Christ like, I will sometimes however get very angry with people rarely but sometimes yes.
Mainly it's the judgemental boasting self righteous I am right you are wrong Christians that fuel my anger, even if a satanist attacked me(which several have) I would respond in a calm and loving manner but for some reason it's the ones who claim to be love and yet show anything but that infuriates me.
For me it's not loving my enemies that is hard it's dealing with so called believers who show anything but love
Mainly it's the judgemental boasting self righteous I am right you are wrong Christians that fuel my anger, even if a satanist attacked me(which several have) I would respond in a calm and loving manner but for some reason it's the ones who claim to be love and yet show anything but that infuriates me.
For me it's not loving my enemies that is hard it's dealing with so called believers who show anything but love