I read an article in the Courier Journal about a high school project where all of these students were making individual videos to support religious tolerance. Each student was from a different faith. A thought occurred to me that is not new, but the article rekindled a passion that escapes my senses. This happens because lies are so often thrown at us in this culture that we often become desensitized. First, what does it mean to be tolerant? I don't ever hear about Buddhists and Christians at each other's throats in back alley knife fights. When was the last time you heard of a Hindu gunned down in a drive by by a group of Hasidic Jews? If we all lived in the ivory towers that our media resides in one would think there are Christians hiding in nativity scenes with Tech 9s and Glocks waiting for unsuspecting Mormons to come by and gun them down after they are made to eat their own name tags.
Do you think in a million years the media would have reported a film festival where the videos were pleading with radical Muslims to show tolerance? Do you think our liberal educated high school teachers would ever have allowed a festival such as that? I doubt it. How about a truly educational film where good hermeneutical principles are applied to the Koran that shows that the radical Muslim may be more in line with the Koran than their counter parts? We all know they wouldn't. First, it would highlight who is really being tolerant and who isn't. Secondly, it would demonstrate that religions are largely tolerant and this political correctness (new speak as its called in 1984) has tried to change the meaning of tolerance. Lastly, it would show that not all religions are morally equal, some are evil. If this last statement bothers you, watch out, you may have been lured into the lie. All religions are not the same and yet they can be tolerant while respectfully disagreeing. They don't all lead to the same place, but we can have a conversation. It's the ones who are truly violent that are the intolerant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Travis, well put. J. Greshem Machen makes a profound point in CHRISTIANITY AND LIBERALISM - page 22: "'Whether in pretense or in truth,' he said, 'Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice' (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance. But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. 'But though we,' he said, 'or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed' (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases?...The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false."
That is fascinating to me. When I first read that in college I put a question mark beside it and asked if Machen was talking about epistemological or social tolerance. He is clearly talking about epistemological tolerance and intolerance. Paul's beef was not with the people per se, but with their message, which was full of intellectual content.
Religions, by definition, hold sets of epistemological truth claims about the world. Those sets of truth claims are contradictory with other sets of truth claims. It should be completely acceptable and encouraged for people to be epistemologically intolerant. By that, I mean people should be free to disagree with and disbelieve certain truth claims about the world.
It should be completely unacceptable and discouraged for people to be socially intolerant. By that, I mean people should never kill, oppress, or persecute in any way someone who disagrees with or disbelieves their truth claims about the world.
When we make the distinction between epistemological and social tolerance, some interesting things arise. Jihadic Islam is epistemologically and socially intolerant of other belief systems. They want to kill the infidels. Biblical Christianity is epistemologically intolerant of other belief systems but is socially tolerant of other belief systems. Biblical Christianty does not kill unbeleivers, it evangelizes them (contrary to certain unbiblical views from the middle ages).
Now, however, the media and general American ethos regarding religious ideas are changing in a dramatic way. There is a confusion and blurring between epistemological and social tolerance. I have tended to think that the liberal media and liberal educators are simply being epistemologically intolerant of Christian beliefs. But, I don't think that accurately depicts what is going on in our world now. Instead, I think that because the liberals disagree with our epistimological truth claims they are circumscribing our social freedoms by telling us that we need to be more open minded. In other words, we are no longer free to disagree. This is manifestly opposite what the Apostle Paul modeled in Rome and Galatia. The problem is not that the liberal media is disagreeing with our claims about reality. The problem is that they are trying to silence us by removing our right to discourse in the public square. When is the last time you heard a solid biblical apologetic for some Christian doctrine in the media? As far as I can remember, the Christian always gets shouted down. And yet, sub-Christian, or anti-Christian beliefs are bandied about in the Media all the time. We are moving toward a place of social intolerance against Biblical Christian truth claims and it goes completely against any idea of religious liberty.
Religious liberty never guarantees anyone that their views will be accepted as true. It simply guarantees that person the freedom to believe their views in society without persecution. But persecution is not the same thing as disagreement. And we all need to remember that distinction. -- Jason
Wow! Best critique of the tolerance issue I have read! I should switch our posts and make yours the official blog post, lol. Good job Jason, very enlightening.
Post a Comment