TOLERANCE - SECULAR STYLE

At a secular discussion group on "spirituality," we were assured that spirituality took many different forms, and all were okay. Spirituality could be merely a matter of watching a program on astronomy or a enjoying a sunset.

Sounds tolerant and broad-minded, doesn't it? The group thought so until the subject of God came up. One male thought that others had a right to their faith, but that's all it is - naked faith! He insisted that no one could prove that there is a God.

I wanted to say that he couldn't prove such an outrageous claim, but I didn't get an opportunity.

One writer rose to proclaim that spirituality could only be found within ourselves and not in any external spiritual entity to many nods of agreement.

Another declared that she wished that religion would just disappear. Clearly, she didn't view “spirituality,” especially her spirituality, as religious. She continued that religion was the cause of hatred and warfare.

I could no longer hold back and interjected, "Do you regard your statements as a form of hatred?" She didn't seem to have a clue about what I was trying to point out. Nor did anyone else! (I later found out that at least one other did get it!)

I wasn’t shocked. I had seen it a thousand times before. Her words have become a mantra or a shibboleth for entry into refined society. Spirituality was respectable, but God-centered religion was held in contempt. While it was acceptable to lampoon God, “spirituality” was coddled with the greatest sensitivity and encouragement. No one seemed to see the hypocrisy. All were convinced that they were perfectly tolerant, even enlightened. It reminded me of Paul’s quotation from Isaiah:

·       "'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.'” Acts 28:26-27)

But there is always hope! Before such discussions, my wife warns me to use grace and wit. However, I never seem to be able to rise to these standards, but I trust that God can still use my impassioned words.

How to Justify Intolerance towards People with Different Viewpoints

 

I recently wrote about the rising tide of intolerance against Christians. One atheist associate responded:

• The tolerant are intolerant of the intolerant. That's an unresolvable paradox. Forcing you to stop discriminating against other people, forcing you to stop judging the divorced, or other religions, forcing you to uphold freedom from religion in classrooms. That might seem like a form of persecution, because it's only pointed at the religious. But it's just a result of wanting a tolerant society. Nobody wants Christians dead or gone, or even to stop talking. We just want you to stop pressing your religious convictions on others.

Here is my response:

You justify intolerance towards the intolerant – and you identify Christians as the intolerant – as an “unresolvable paradox.” I’d rather call it an unjust double-standard. You discriminate against Christian intolerance while giving your own intolerance a free-ride. This is both illogical and unjust.

Instead, we are all intolerant of certain things, and we should be. We – and society - shouldn’t tolerate murder, kidnapping, libel, unjust standards, and pedophilia. These will cause the unraveling of society.

Therefore, if we are all “intolerant,” we need to dialogue more precisely about what behaviors merit intolerance and what behaviors can be tolerated without horribly destructive consequences.

The claim to be “intolerant of intolerance” is therefore unworkable and counter-productive. We shouldn’t be intolerant of a law that is intolerant of murder or extortion. Instead, such “intolerance” should be welcomed and supported.

But should society be intolerant of certain viewpoints? Should socialists refuse to tolerate the expression of capitalist ideas? Or should Republicans forbid the progressive reasoning for higher taxes for the wealthy? Such intolerance would stifle free thought, learning and becomes the tool of repression of any ideas that go against the interests of the State? Do you see where your reasoning leads?

For some reason, you feel justified in silencing the expression of our religious convictions. Some argue that religion has no place in the public. However, such reasoning would silence everyone! All law is an expression of values, and values are an expression of religion, whether formal, nameless, theistic or not.

Values cannot be derived from science. Science can only tell us what is and not what ought-to-be. This instead is the provenance of religion. Besides, when we express our ideas and vote, we are no more “pressing [our] religious convictions on others” than you atheists are doing.

If we are all going to live peacefully together, we must be willing to grant each other the same rights as we possess, without trying to justify our unwarranted intolerance as “an unresolvable paradox.”

Homosexuality, Equality, Discrimination, and Free Speech

Should Christians have the right to discriminate against gays? Don’t they have a right to protection under the law, and doesn’t the First Amendment guarantee our free exercise of religion? How do we put these concerns together? Here’s my response to an atheist on this subject:

Thanks for your willingness to try to understand these issues from a Christian perspective.

There are many difficult moral/legal issues involved in these various cases. You raise the issue regarding a public employee needing to follow the law. Recently, my state of New York legalized gay marriage. There was a Christian clerk (and perhaps also a judge) who had been hoping that she could be grandfathered-in based upon her years of faithful service as a civil service employee. However, Gov. Cuomo told her that absolutely no special allowances would be made for her, even if there were others willing to transact the gay marriage in her place.

This is very reflective of the harsh and militant secularism of today. It wasn’t always this way. Prior to this, government had a greater respect for diversity of opinion and belief. Of course, certain religious practices couldn’t be tolerated. If sexing of one’s young children was a part of religion, society understandably has a prevailing interest to not tolerate such a practice.

However, our nation has often shown itself willing to accommodate religious practices that did not serve the common good. For instance, the Supreme Court allowed for conscientious objectors, even though this provision might serve to create discord within the ranks of the military. It ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it could be argued that this provision would cause an erosion in patriotism. However, the Court rightly deemed that society could tolerate such diversity.

The secularism of yesterday had a high regard for diversity in belief, and consequently, honored the First Amendment, which forbade government from interfering with the practice of religion. This respect maintained a unity in the midst of diversity.

It also maintained professionalism. Within the mental health community, there was a certain degree of respect for differing points of view. If a therapist didn’t feel she could work effectively with a court-mandated rapist, the case was given to someone else. If a Christian couldn’t effectively counsel a gay couple who were trying to resolve their issues, it was usually deemed that these clients should be assigned to a different therapist.

However, this kind of tolerance is no longer valued. Now Christians are loosing their jobs, credentials, and are even being expelled from counseling programs simply because of their views. California just passed a law forbidding a psychotherapist from working with a youth seeking help to resist SSA!

Should Christians have the right to exercise their faith in regards to their own properties, households/businesses? Even here, the law is messy. I think that most of us would uphold certain forms of discrimination in these regards. The law shouldn’t coerce the owner of home-based B&B to employ or murderer or a pedophile. Nor should it coerce the B&B to rent a room to a known thief or to someone who will pose a threat to the welfare of the business or the patrons.

However, I do acknowledge that society has the right to impose certain restrictions. Because of the overriding social concerns, businesses should not have the right to discriminate by virtue of race or nationality.

However, these are not behaviors but morally neutral, unchanging characteristics. However, discrimination according to behavior – criminality – is entirely another matter. Sexual orientation is one thing – we are all oriented to certain types of sins – but sexual behavior is entirely another matter.

Should a B&B owner be compelled by law to rent space in their home for an adulterous fling? Or to someone who insists on smoking in their bedroom? Perhaps they are intolerant, but isn’t such intolerance warranted? Forbidding this type of “intolerance” would represent needless and malicious government encroachment – the very thing that is happening today. Because of this encroachment, many Christians have lost their businesses.

Christian businesses are now targeted by militant gays who want to force them to violate their conscience. One Christian community can no longer host weddings under their private boardwalk pavilion because of a court ruling that it represented discrimination against gays.

Today, I was discriminated against by an atheist Facebook group, which banned me. I didn’t like it, but I respect their right to do so. Christian groups also do this. They have a right to maintain the character of their group. However, universities – both public and private – have now banned Christian student groups from campus because they “discriminate.” Meanwhile, these same universities discriminate in their hiring against Christians and allow other groups that discriminate – the Young Democrats, for example.

There are so many instances of this type of thing. Mentioning individual cases serves to minimize the extent of this pervasive cultural bias.

I am not really against gay marriage. It’s something that gays have always been free to do, albeit without legal sanction. However, with legal sanction, there will be the inevitable push to silence any criticism of the gay lifestyle. In Denmark, churches are now required to marry SS couples.

Even now, the New Federal Hate Crimes Bill penalizes any speech that can be construed to lead to a hate crime. Some congressmen tried to write in an exception for responsible religious speech. However, this amendment was voted down.

Many have already lost their jobs or suffered intimidation because they have spoken outside-the-job against gay marriage.

I must conclude with one additional thought. This militant, totalitarian secularism is polarizing the nation in such a way that we will not be able to live together.

The “Wisdom” of Radical Acceptance and Non-Judgmentalness

People have radically different ideas and ideals about relationships. One highly educated woman glowingly described her small-group writing course at a leading university in our city:

• We’ve really bonded as a class. No one judges anyone else…all expressions of feelings, thoughts and actions are equally acceptable.

She evidently felt very accepted within this group, and because of this, she valued the group very highly. Of course, this made me wonder whether we Christians are too judgmental.

I visualized myself in such a group responding to one of the writers happily describing his adulterous affair. Even as I visualized the group affirming him and bonding with him around his very human feelings, I knew that I couldn’t, even though it would certainly mean the disapproval of the group. (Odd how everything is acceptable accept non-acceptance!)

Was there something the matter with me because I couldn’t always give “warm fuzzies” and adopt the prevailing norms? Perhaps, if these norms promoted bonding and a mutual sense of caring for one another, I was missing something.

I knew how I would be regarded in such a group – rigid, ignorant, judgmental, condemning, and perhaps even up-tight. I was unwilling to let myself go to enjoy what the group was sharing together. I smugly judged from above.

I didn’t like seeing myself through these eyes. I experienced their contempt, but was it a well-deserved contempt? Was I lacking in appreciation of what they shared? I wondered if this sense of “bonding” could be brought home to their wives, husbands and children. And would it remain the same if these students had to live together, clean house, share groceries, and formulate house rules about guests, hours, noise...?

I think that even they would admit that it wouldn’t – it couldn’t! Well, if this experiment couldn’t be brought into the real world of dirty toilet bowls and unwashed dishes, what then should we think of their class “bonding?” Shouldn’t we conclude that there is something unreal, even illusory, about their classroom experience?

At this point, I can hear my friend saying,

• Well, what if it is something that we can only experience in such an artificial environment? What if it isn’t reality? So what! Can’t we just enjoy it for what it is? Can’t we merely piece together our affiliations in isolated islands of peace, even if removed from the rest of our lives? What’s the matter with that?

Perhaps nothing? We go to movies and enjoy entering into someone else’s fantasy for two hours and might even shed some warm, comforting tears. We might even draw some lessons from what we have seen. However, we are still able to differentiate the fantasy of the movie from life.

However, I was beginning to wonder whether my friend was able to maintain the distinction between her group and her life? Non-judgmentalism worked in the group. It seemed as if she was suggesting that, because it worked in the group, it should be able to work in our real lives.

Even worse, if radical tolerance is the answer to our social/relational problems, then any form of intolerance isn’t the answer! This means that we shouldn’t censure the adulterer. (Only our non-accepting husband, who is not progressive enough!) Perhaps by merely showing the adulterer radical acceptance, he will naturally abandon his adulterous affair?

Of course, this is patently ridiculous! If this formula was a solution to our social ills, then we should rid ourselves of the police, the courts, jails and any form of punishment and moral instruction. Just love and accept people to death! One size fits all!

Once society accepts these idealistic norms, it surrenders its resources to deal with the problems and will eventually self-destruct! In contrast to radical tolerance, the Scriptures provide a very different wisdom – that love requires that we set limits and pass laws. Love doesn’t allow its infant to cross the street unattended; it doesn’t allow its teenager to throw drug-infested parties. Instead, love warns of dangers and provides vital instruction:

• Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. (Deut. 6:4-7)

 If there is wisdom, then there is also the absence of wisdom – folly. If wisdom protects, then folly removes that protection. Radical acceptance and tolerance represents a refusal to make the critical distinctions. My friend had asserted that “all expressions of feelings, thoughts and actions are equally acceptable.” If this is so, then wisdom and discernment have become meaningless, and maturity is only a matter of leaving your mind at the door.

The Intolerance of “Tolerance”

Vanderbilt University was founded by Methodists in the 1870s. However, things have changed. According to AlbertMohler,

• In more recent months, Vanderbilt’s administration decided to push secularism to the extreme — launching a virtual vendetta against religious organizations on campus. Officials of the university informed religious groups that had been recognized student organizations that they would have to comply with an absolute non-discrimination policy. This means that religious organizations (primarily Christian) must now allow any Vanderbilt student to be a candidate for a leadership office, regardless of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. In other words, a Christian student group would be forced to allow the candidacy of an atheist. A group of Christians who believe in the Bible’s standard of sexual morality would be required to allow the candidacy of a homosexual member. There can be absolutely no discrimination, the university insists, even if that means that Christian organizations are no longer actually Christian.

Vanderbilt’s position represents the intolerance that secretly piggy-backs on “tolerance.” In their “tolerance,” they are intolerant of Christian groups. It also reflects a hypocritical double-standard – a policy that is not enforced across the board, as David French of The National Review has observed:

• The reality, of course, is that Vanderbilt is trying to force the orthodox Christian viewpoint off campus. The ‘nondiscrimination’ rhetoric is mere subterfuge. How can we know this? Because even as it works mightily to make sure that atheists can run Christian organizations, it is working just as mightily to protect the place and prerogatives of Vanderbilt’s powerful fraternities and sororities — organizations that explicitly discriminate, have never been open to ‘all comers,’ and cause more real heartache each semester for rejected students than any religious organization has ever inflicted in its entire history on campus. Vanderbilt’s embattled religious organizations welcome all students with open arms; Vanderbilt’s fraternities and sororities routinely reject their fellow students based on little more than appearance, family heritage, or personality quirks.

If French is right, Vanderbilt is a case study in intolerance – a growing trend within secular society – not tolerance. If the fraternities are allowed to discriminate according to their petty criteria, why is Vanderbilt intolerant of Christian criteria – the very standards that built almost all of our Ivy League schools?