Proponents of the notion of ‘tolerance’ as it is commonly used, purport (to one degree or another) that theirs, in contrast to Christianity, is the view of open-minded, accepting people, while Christians tend to be small-minded, intolerant, unenlightened, and generally just a big uncontrollable mob of obtuse bigots. Furthermore, they would have us believe that our culture is divided up into two separate groups: one advocating the Christian “religion” versus ‘normal’ (un-religious) people who are more tolerant. |
If you've lived in this culture for awhile you yourself may have to one degree or another, assimilated this view - perhaps without knowing it. You may even be a person who considers yourself a Christian but who goes out of your way not to 'impose' your views on anyone else because you know, through living in this politically correct, 'tolerance' ... society 'how offensive' that may be perceived by some peopole. And that would - God forbid, risk you being cast you under the same umbrella as the 'intolerant' mob we hear so much about these days. If you find yourself saying "well I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you but this is what I think... " or thinking "well I better not say anything on this issue or else they'll think I'm pushing my religion at them", or "I'm not trying to be judgemental but..." you have successfully completed the tolerance indoctrination course and are now fit (according to the 'tolerance' bunch) to be a member of our society - as long as we continue to keep our religious mouths shut, mind you, and stay in your churches where you belong. The thing is, none of those who advocate the 'tolerance' view, which as I will explain shortly, is simply a euphemism for a very narrow-minded, very one-sided, very intolerant set of specific views which are no less 'religious' than those of Christianity's, are in the least worried about offending those that do not believe like they do. And in fact, the opposite is the case (keep reading). I submit then, that it is more factual to say that, rather than having a majority who are 'open-minded' and who accept others who differ from them (the tolerance group) versus a bunch of narrow-minded unenlightened Christians, it is in reality, that our culture has rejected one religion (Christianity) in favor of another (tolerance). And that the former group has been grossly mis-portrayed by the latter who venomously oppose them, as being this 'narrow-minded' etc. stereotype which as literally no semblance to real Christianity as it is practiced and characterized by millions of people in America. In fact, it is much more factual to say that Christians practice more real tolerance on a daily basis then do all those running around claiming to be so tolerant but who in fact, rather than living out their lives in true concern, not just for themselves, but for the personal/spiritual/emotional/physical well-being of those around them (which is truly the hallmark of Christian), largely pursue only their own self-interest. (stats on private christian charities vs state-run and other private). (drug clinic facts). To repeat what I said above: tolerance has become the de facto new religion of America - and those proponents of this religion have conveniently found a way to portray thier religion as not really a religion, but simply the way 'normal' (meaning people like them) people think (and should think). Because of this, the beliefs and values of the tolerance religion are enjoying full acceptance in a current cultural and legal climate which has, through use of semantic tricks and subterfuge, managed to disparage, illegitimize, and illegalize the exercise of Christianity, which is perceived in general terms as "religion" and promote their own under the guise (again) that theirs is simply the view of 'normal', scientific, modern-day, pyschologically 'enlightened' people. Under current cultural thinking (which by the way, is a new phenomenon, and not at all like people used to think) any idea, belief, or value that is perceived to be rooted in a 'religous' worldview is to be invalidated or at immediately relegated to a position of irrelevance within the culture as a whole. Politicians, educators, news media have all become versed in the new language of politcally correct tolerance - they dare not infer, imply, or hint that anything they say ... By contrast however, the proponents of the religion of 'tolerance' are free to say anything, believe anything, teach anything to our kids - simply because theirs is not 'religion' you see, it's just well - the way 'normal' people should think. Because of this, people in today's culture have been sensitized against 'religion', and toward what is presented as logical, psychologically-based, scientific and technologic knowledge and beliefs stemming from that - as if that knowledge is unchanging and ... In this way, tolerance proponents have justified the shoving of their religion down our cultures throats without us even realizing what is happening. Americans are indoctrinated from every cultural angle (education, government, news media, entertainment, etc.) into a worldview which elevates one religion (tolerance) over another (Christianity). Now "hold on" you say. "That's going too far. How can you say that the notion of 'tolerance' is a religion on the same par as Christianity?" Very easily thank you. Since religion can be simply defined as what a person thinks about God, clearly then, ‘tolerance’, as it is now understood, is in every way a religion, just as much as Christianity, since it implicitly makes the assertion that God and His standards, as historically referenced and understood, is and are not (or no longer) relevant. Moreover, aside from all that, it is preposterous at any rate to discriminate against people who believe in God, if we still consider ourselves in any way truly tolerant, accepting, etc. But as I indicated, this shift has been enabled partly because of the gross mis-portrayal of Christians as being the new nazi's of the 20th century. So what are the tenents of the 'tolerance' religion? If there was a "10 commandments" of tolerance it would read something like this: Thou shalt be thyself Thou shalt not mention God in public, except to curse and swear. Thou shalt not have any belief, idea, or value which stems directly from faith or belief in a fixed God - if you did, you sure as hell better keep it to yourself.
EXCLUSIVE: Inside look into the live of a real live narrow-minded Christian. Intolerant bigotry exposed!: From my personal experience, most Christians I know invariably have a worldview which includes a high degree of social responsibility - of concern for people they know or work with who are experiencing difficult. Christians visit people in hospitals who they don't know, Christians start outreach ministries to the local jails and prisons to people they don't know, they.. because their unenlightened enough to believe that Christ's command applies to them: ... As to the type of Christian we see stereotyped so much today - you know, the kind that 'force' you to believe like they do or are prone to resorting to violence, the kind that murder and form mobs and march in the streets, etc. etc., this portrayal is 99% a concoction of media and those pre-disposed to Christian hating (which seemingly are more numerous every day).
From a historical reference point, we as Christians really aren't surprised at the persecution that is coming our way. The America of its first 200 years was one of a few exceptions to the rule that throughout Judeo-Christian history, Jews and Christians alike have been scorned, spurned, and mis-represented in order to justify those acts. Sure, we've probably heard somewhere along the way (though not in any modern 'revisionist' history books) that in first century Rome, Nero burned Christians in his gardens, threw them to the lions, and otherwise invented inhuman ways of disposing of them. But why go back that far? Our modern day world is replete with similar examples of governmental/legal and personal persecution against Chrstians. China seems to be the hot country these days - expanding at unprecedented rates in business and industrial development and standard of living (measure by western standards). Yet, in our desire as modern-day industrialist/materialist Americans, eager to trade with and export our westernized culture to them, it is easy to overlook the fact that China ...
It has become much easier to overlook this fact partly because we no longer, as a culture, honor Christianity ourselves. As I have indicated, we have in fact, formulated our own form of religious persecution, though to date not as extreme. And I contend that, far from being a culture that prefers to be ‘religion-free” or “religion-neutral”, quite the opposite is actually the case, and that it has become a matter of our culture accepting one religion (that of ‘tolerance’) over what used to be the prevailing one (Christianity). … I contend that, by various semantic tricks and legal subterfuge our culture is increasingly accepting the virtual illegalization of Christianity and is concurrently giving legal and social validation and acceptance to what has become the state-approved 'religion' of 'tolerance. Further, it is this religion of 'tolerance' that is now being forced down our cultural throats every day. And it is only because it is not seen as a religion, that it is allowed.
The slanderous campaign of lies against our country's founders known as revisionist history notwithstanding, the historical dominance of the Christian faith and it's beliefs in our culture for over 200 years is well documented, and cannot be ignored (though they try real hard). Christian principles clearly formed the bedrock of our government, judicial, and educational systems. The Bible was the most commonly referenced source for moral, legal, and personal guidelines and its ideals at the forefront of common cultural thinking, and behind the formation of Americas institutions, governmental, educational, and social. In every town, village, hamlet, and city in America, old churches can be found - most with crosses on them. It is significant that, as a matter of practice, the first public buildings erected in new settlements were not schools, not stores, not post offices - they were churches. The early settlers had strong convictions that if God was not honored above all else, His blessing would not be on anything else they did. Such narrow-minded, superstitious, and unenlightened thinking! To think that if people ... In today's cultural climate, I think we would build a Wal-Mart, then a bank, a school to indoctrinate our kids into the lie that 'education is the answer' (meaning more computers, more ..), then a bunch of state agencies to take care of everyone, restaurants, and bars and video stores, pharmacies, hospitals, etc.
While in virtually every part of early American life, the Bible was considered to be relevant and authoratative, it is obvious in today’s culture that this is no longer the case. That there is and has been a clear bias against Christian ideas and principles which has become entrenched in popular thought, education, media and legal institutions is very evident on even a surface examination of cultural events. The State of California to teach .. but the symbol of the cross.. A student is reprimanded for creating an art project which displays a Christian Cross and a Bible verse while others… Pastor Bill Keller, author of a devotional called liveprayer.com reports about the media’s attack on Christianity on his website and says:
“Two new movies out that slam the Christian faith are “The Ten” and “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.” “The Ten” is a comedy that spoofs the Ten Commandments, featuring a portrayal of Jesus deflowering a young virgin. Another anti-Christian movie now out is, “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.” This movie is little more than a pro-homosexual propaganda that makes a mockery of Gods’ Holy Institution of Marriage. Blaspheming Christ and slamming Christians is alive and well in Hollywood in 2007! I am often curious why these great filmmakers in Hollywood don’t have the guts to mock and lampoon the false religion of Islam. They know there will be a bounty on their heads and movie theaters will be burned to the ground!”
I found those examples by doing a quick google search only to illustrate .. there are literally thousands of similar examples. Ask the ACLJ or the Christian Defense Foundation - legal organizations whose stated purpose is to defend against the encroachment of liberties of Christians. To quote Jay Sekulow, the founder of the ACLJ, "...".
So the question is, in a culture which purports to tolerate all religions, why is it that ‘revisionist’ historians and the current engineers of mainstream culture general go out of their way to disparage the founders of this country and people of faith? (I had a history book in college - 20 years ago mind you, that called the Bible a ‘myth’, painted the early settlers as a bunch of witch-burning intolerant zealots, and while it was at it, was blatantly sympathetic to communism, grossly misquoting figures of history and inventing ‘facts’ to support their views, and was undisguised in its blatant liberal slant towards social issues.) (reference).. while arrogantly presuming to be the side of the ‘factual’ and ‘scientific’. It goes without saying that today, the campaign of lies and indoctrination is much worse - with homosexuals allowed to 'teach' their 'alternative lifestyle' - that of perversion and death - to kindergarten children. These are but a few random samples among the literally thousands of similar issues going on today. Here is a recent example of UN legislation purportedly designed to defend against attacks against radical Islam (you know, those guys that want to kill Christians and blow up our buildings). If that wasn’t bad enough, it lays a legal foundation for Christian persecution, as if we are the bad guys!!!.
It is a sad day when Americans have been so brainwashed into the belief that peace-loving, God-honoring Christians - who share the same beliefs of those responsible for creating the greatest country on earth - are now seen as the 'evil, intolerants', the scapegoats for the great evils in society. Concurrently, the beliefs, values, and ideas which are directly responsible for our cultural decay are forcefully advancing, given full validation from the courtroom to the classroom, in spite of the clear statistical evidence that they are not working (more on this later).
Entire volumes could be written documenting thousands of similar examples of anti-Christian hatred and our societies increasing legal and popular validation of it. Don Feder, a writer for the Boston Herald and himself a non-Christian Jew, sees that in our current culture, Christians are targeted as the one acceptable form of discrimination and hatred.
How did this happen? Somewhere along the line, we changed our religion. We exchanged our God for another. In The Bible, God warned the Hebrew nation of forsaking the true God and his unchanging commands, for other Gods, clearly stating that his blessing would not be on them if they did this. How did it happen? They were duped - and so were we. Those waging the war against us, the various antagonists of Christian faith found in every sphere, have successfully convinced our culture into believing that theirs is the view of open-minded, tolerant people who accept all views – “live and let live”, while the narrow-minded Christians are the ones dogmatically forcing everyone to capitulate to their views. This is the farthest from the truth and part of the semantic lie I will now talk about. First of all, while Christian doctrine unapologetically affirms that there is an overriding standard (God’s law) which applies to all people, Christianity, in its true form, never imposes itself against a persons will. From its inception in the first century, the history of Christianity's rise is replete with examples of peaceful, law-abiding people being forced from their homes, being burned by Roman emperors, etc. (quote the emperor ‘cult’) Christians always gained converts through a persons free choice and as a point of fact, Jesus Christ and the writings of the NT implicitly affirm the necessity of individual choice as the pivotal factor in becoming a believer. “It is in the heart that one believes and is justified” is how Paul summarizes the conversion process. Never were true Christian converts forced to join the church, and in fact, the history of the early Christian church is a study in governmental and social persecution against a minority (if American Christians were classified as a 'minority', which by the same standards other groups are defined, we would be given all manner of special status), and of a peace-loving people seeking to peaceably live out their faith in the face of ruthless, barbaric, state-sponsored acts of hatred against them (looks as if things haven’t changed that much). Yet the rule of the one they followed was to 'turn the other cheek' and to 'pray for those that persecute them'.
Furthermore, Christians, as people of the truth, are commanded to love and respect people, regardless of what they view, in the hopes of winning them over. Though the antagonists (the media being at the forefront) love to point out ….The facts are clearly otherwise. More people.. There are mega-churches formed in this country every … Christians are leaders in business, in ….. Furthermore, more money is given by Christian ministries toward feeding the poor (and largely non-Christian) … The view of the average Christian, one rarely portrayed in media and pop culture, is …
To be sure, there have been distortions of this, abuses of power, mis-representations of ... But these are not Christian. These things were done in the name of Christianity but in no way reflect Christ or his commands. Does this mean ? Of course it doesn't - anymore than the occassional ... should ..
As to the idea of equally accepting all religions, or some kind of tolerance-based hybrid of them, first of all, it is logistically impossible to ‘accept’ all religions since they affirm beliefs which are in direct opposition. A buddhist by definition cannot be a Christian, just as an atheist cannot be a Muslim (Since Muslims believe in a God). (If you need that explained any further, stop reading now and go back to playing MineSweeper). Similarly, it is not possible to ‘morph’ Christian truth into something more 'palatable' to our current mainstream culture – that raised under the banner of … and still have this 'belief system' remain anything close to Biblical Christian Truth. The Christ of the historical New Testament claimed to be “the way, the truth, the light” (my emphasis on ‘the’), and said that “no man would come to the Father except through Me (Jesus)”… So by saying that you can accept Christianity while at the same time espousing that there are many valid beliefs and ‘ways to get to God’ is incorrect since, as I have shown, it is impossible to reconcile the words of Jesus with that view.
Thirdly, as a matter of practice, no Christian I know wants the government to mandate Christian principles - rather they want our government simply to adhere to certain principles and guidelines that have through the ages, been realized to mean unfixed and unchanging. That is why the Founding Fathers carved the 10 commandments into the walls of courtrooms - that is why we are required witnesses to swear on the Bible. They knew, as did every successful civilization since time began, that there is such a thing as divine law. A transcendant set of codes which have been handed down to us to guide our lives and .. by.. and upon which to build. No Christian I know wants the government telling us ... but they do want to see justice meted out - and when rapists and drug dealers regularly get , when...
Contrast this with the practicing ‘tolerance’ bunch whose actions and words show that they, while claiming to tolerate everyone, in reality only tolerate views which are different from and opposed to the “Faith of our Fathers” – Christianity. It is however, a fitting belief system of our current 'live for yourself' culture - one that rarely sacrifices for anything except it's own comfort and self-interest.
Furthermore, while the term ‘tolerance’ connotes the ideas of acceptance and mutual respect among disagreeing views, those on the forefront of the tolerance ‘religion’ are far from passive in their advocacy and advancement of their religion, and are not in the least bit tolerant to those who disagree with their religion. The phrase “forcing it down our throats” accurately describes the fervor and dogmatism with which the ideals of the tolerance religion has been foisted on the American culture. From media, news, education.. – some examples will follow shortly (if you really need any to be convinced).
So as much as the ‘tolerance’ advocates would have us believe America should validate a “religion-neutral” stance, with each one purportedly free to exercise his chosen beliefs, that is not at all the goal or practice of these radical evangelists. While our culture has clearly become less and less deferential toward (and to the same degree, ignorant about) the tenets of Christian faith, the new religion of choice has rapidly taken its place - the various manifest versions of sechular humanism (tolerance, multi-culturalism, political-correctness, etc.) which are rapidly taking over and concurrently destroying, our culture.
In George Orwell's Classic "1984", the visionary author describes the common practice of governmental subterfuge through the use of euphemisms. In this well-known fiction novel, the government’s “Ministry of Love” was in actuality a brutal state agency which relied on torture, fear, and brainwashing to achieve compliance of thought and belief among its citizenry. In light of this, it is not too great a stretch to understand why the current state-approved religion - which is ruthlessly anti-Christian, anti-freedom, and anti-tolerant to all but its own views, would be named ‘tolerance’.
How much the tenets of this religion have insidiously yet forcefully been entrenched in our culture’s thinking over the last 20 years can be seen when we examine some current news items: a Harvard professor ‘slips’ and makes a remark that obliquely disparages a minority. He is forced to apologize and/or resign. A … is reprimanded and given detention for creating an art project that displays a Christian Cross and a reference to God’s love – while the same … What gives here? Would that have happened 100 years ago? No – it wouldn’t have happened even 20 years ago, before the tentacles of political correctness and tolerance had reached into every facet of public life, infiltrating the minds of …, suffocating the previously accepted notions of faith, objective law, God, reason and common sense.
Another modern day example of Orwellian euphemism is the ACLU, who, as a matter of policy seeks out cases http://www.blessedcause.org/Antichrist%20ID/ACLU%20attacks%20Constitution.htm which attack any expression of ‘traditional’ or faith-based liberties (you know, those guaranteed by the first amendment), such as a fourth grader being banned from mentioning the name of Jesus Christ in a homework assignment / report on his favorite season. Read it here: http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=534 Whose civil liberties were they protecting there? But under the new paradigm, Christians are not allowed liberties (ya know, cuz we're 'religious'), as is evidenced by literally thousands of similar cases over the organizations history. These reveal that there can be no doubt that the ACLU is not about advancing civil liberties but about promoting an agenda that is anti-Christian at its core. Read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05092102.html. The ACLU exists to eradicate all vestiges of Christian thought and practice, along with the concept of a fixed morality while advancing the opposing ideas of sechular humanism under a banner of 'justice' and ‘tolerance’ and has become the legal Special Forces Unit of the entrenched left.
A point needs to be made concerning the concept of ‘accepting’ and ‘respecting’ people as opposed to accepting their beliefs. I can and very often do, as a Christian, disagree with many people’s views and beliefs – but I do not hate nor dis-respect them as people. This is another semantic trick played by the intolerant left. Painting the picture of so called ‘hate-mongering’ Christians who, just because they hold culturally un-popular views, are immediately branded as biggots, intolerants, etc etc. ad nauseum. If this same rule was applied to them, .. (my stargazette blogs)...And this is the implicit justification for our denial of all civil rights (and as far as that goes, I believe that we ain't seen nothin yet). And I have already pointed out that they in no way adhere to their own rule (remember, they think everyone should think like they do), and think nothing of using the terms ".... " - the last Presidential campaign was replete with examples of a liberal, anti-chrisitian, anti-conservative media blatantly demonstrating these attitudes and bias against their target of choice - Sarah Palin. Shamelessly and without reservation they blasted her in what could only be called "hate-speech". (examples) simply because she didn't fit into the model of what they thought a woman should be - you know, an angry, anti-man 'feminist' liberal. The medias onslaught of disdain was palpable. There was in many cases no attempt even to disguise their venom - in their stooping to personal attacks about her ... instead of questioning her views. Apparently they were counting on the fact that the average American thinks on the level of the average teenage American girl. Are they really that stupid to think that everyone thinks like they do? Fortunately, in America, everyone does not think like they do.
But the point of this article is only to point out that Americans have been duped into this false view of ‘tolerance’, (partly through the unconstitutional notion of ‘separation of church and state’) because they have swallowed the definition of the word ‘religion’ as put forth by the ‘tolerance’ bunch. That is, those who hold to ‘religious’ views should be excluded from participation in public decision-making. Anyone who operates from a worldview based on the belief that there is a God that holds people accountable to his objective, fixed law (which obviously includes Christians) should be disqualified, penalized, and otherwise disparaged. It is legal, for instance for ..to promote homosexuality but illegal to .. This is a clear discrimination against Christian ideals and a clear bias in favor of the religion of “tolerance”. Why is this so? Because (by the erroneous, twisted thinking that has been foisted on us, and even made into law), the latter view is a “religious” view and the former is (supposedly) the view of a discriminated minority who, because of their 'victim' status has been granted special rights, above and beyond those guaranteed to others (especially those bigoted Christians). * The tolerance group is responsible also for the existence in our current culture of a twisted view of 'fairness' which has basically come to mean that if a lot of people believe one way, we should penalize them in favor of the one lone voice (the victim) who believes differently. If an atheist if 'offended' at a manger scene in the public square, get rid of the manger scene - even though 97% of the people are not offended - and in fact see it as a valid expression of their faith and in celebrating thier contsitutionally-guaranteed expression of it. This line of thinking has turned the consitutionally-designed concept of democracy on its ear and has ushered in this warped notion of rule by the mal-content, the anti-social, the wacko - the population of which is increasing at alarming numbers today. This view has pervaded so many areas of our thinking that we now think it 'open-minded' and 'fair' to .. to give taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal immigrants, to .. Would you expect that .. they would mandate everyone to speak in English or American Independance Day would be celebrated as a national holiday? That an American living in .. could petition the local authorities to remove the ... because I found it offensive? Get real.
Two points on this official prejudice towards the "tolerance" religion bear mentioning. One, it is very obvious that this latter view ('tolerance') is a view about God, just as much as the Christian view is. Clearly, every person has a view about God in one form or another. So then, everyone (following the ‘reason’ of the 'tolerance' bunch) should be excluded from acting in the public sphere and their ideas should be eradicated from general society. They believe in a different God than that of the Bible (the real one), and believe that their god allows them to ... Or they don't believe in any god and so this justifies to them any behavior as valid. But in any case, the point is, their beliefs about God shape their opinions/views/beliefs which are played out in the real world.
Secondly, the notion of validating discrimination because of ones stated faith, is nonsensical not the least of which because of our constitutional rights and our historical heritage, which were unarguably and in virtually every way Christian. The early settlers did not see how or why one should separate ones 'religous' beliefs from their 'personal' beliefs anymore than they believed it right or possible to separate their understanding of God's divine law and principles from the government, legal, and justice systems that they set up. By contrast, the tolerance bunch implies that it is possible (and somehow acceptable) for one to separate and limit the expression of ones personal beliefs from their activity in the 'real world', if those are of a 'religious' nature. That my actions, beliefs, and ideals are derived from my faith has become the litmus test upon which culture now judges my right to act on those beliefs within the public sphere (read 'real world'). In other words, Christians and other people of faith are only 'allowed' to stay within the confines of their church but, because of the 'religous' nature of their convictions, while those advocating a 'non-religious' view (supposedly) can and should have the real say on what goes on.
But even if this were somehow decided upon as ...it is clearly not the case that people who do no believe faith is relevant ... The fact is that nearly every belief, value, opinion... is a reflection of what we believe. The fanatics that blew up the WTC believed that ... So while they have tried to convince us it’s a matter of… it is in fact that we have as a culture accepted the religion of “tolerance” over the ‘religion’ of Christianity. And not only have we accepted it, it is, as they love to apply the phrase to us, being shoved down our throats everywhere we look. Sensitivity training. Cannot get a job at Verizon without signing off on my beliefs. I cannot watch a TV show or ride the bus for that matter without hearing someone curse the name of the one I consider to be the Son of God. It has been said that Christians are the acceptable form of discrimination left in our culture. (I would also add to that list white men, but that's the subject of another blog). A politician running for office dare not articulate a moral position without somehow disavowing that his ... I guess the founding Fathers never heard of that interpretation of ... when they instituted prayer at the beginning of every congressional session, carved the 10 commandments into the steps of the courthouse, kneeled in extended prayer to the Christian God at the first continental congress, quoted lengthy passages of scripture in their speeches at public, state-centered functions.
Is this an example of ‘freedom of religion?? Is this what it means to ‘tolerate’, to ‘live and let live?’. There’s an inbred blindness to these facts and an attitude of presumption on the part of those advocates of ‘tolerance’ – it’s an arrogance that presumes that everyone does or should think like they do. And if people don’t think like they do, they must be ignorant, bigoted, or unenlightened and should be excluded from voicing their public voice on culturally significant matters (politics, education, media, etc.) Undoubtedly, more and more people in this culture are thinking like they do, due to the success of their cultural indoctrination - the spreading of the tolerance religion. It is a mindset that views people of faith as different than normal people (read, people like them who don’t think belief in God is necessary or culturally significant, at any rate). This is the definition of prejudice and if you’re not quite certain about it, refer to virtually any portrayal of priests, pastors, ministers, faith-healers, etc. in pop culture, movies, tv, or theatre. Virtually all are painted as morally weak, superstitious …, despicably devious, unmanly and … and in every way totally inaccurate. The amazing thing is that in a culture which prizes itself on access to information and unbiased analysis of facts… there is virtually no accurate portrayals or representation of a large and growing segment of our population - modern, church-going, Bible-believing Americans who, though they may caste themselves under various denominational banners, adhere more or less to the same core beliefs based on Biblical principles – the ten commandments, belief in moral absolutes, and the necessity of personal relationship to the Creator. The growth of mega-churches (those defined as membership over 2000) has been well-documented (here, here, here).
The Un-enlightened Media: You know what guys? - you should get out more. I have noticed that the things people believe is insignificant are the things they will be the most ignorant of and will make the quickest, most stereotypical, non-factual opinions about. It is a statistical fact that most modern media are by their definition, non-religious (research in the early 80’s revealed that 86% of polled members of the media did not regularly attend religious services - the vast majority are/were also identified themselves as politically liberal.) And since ‘religion’ isn’t that important to them, even though it’s in thier job description to be a fact-finder, a researcher of the stories and world they cover, they typically will not bother taking the time to really find out … and instead rely on whatever the cultural stereo-type of the day happens to be.
It is an unstated view of those adherents to tolerance that it’s okay for the religious types to stay in their churches (for now – soon that right will be taken away, as it is being taken away even now - refer to hate-speech laws), but Christians really have no business being out there in the public arena, on school boards, in local government, even voicing their opinions around the water cooler, or writing letters to the editor (refer to my blog), if it references personal faith it is loudly met with hate and … from those very 'tolerant' .. Something is very wrong here. Christians and other people of faith have been herded into corners for the last 20 years and it’s time we stampeded. That this notion would have been considered outrageously preposterous to those who actually wrote the constitution is clearly evident in light of history. So what does tolerance believe? Tolerance has become a euphemism for a set of clearly-defined edicts which purport to tolerate all views but which in reality tolerate only those that adhere to those edicts. There are innumerable examples which attest to the reality of this current onslaught against Christian faith that is and has been going on for a number of years. The …clearly shows that our culture, largely influenced by anti-Christ, anti-Bible believing humanists in varying flavors, have decided against them and in favor of this new religion of tolerance. It is much more palatable to a culture that really doesn’t want to answer to anyone or any accept any overriding standard of human behavior (moral/ethical/personal) for anything it does.
Conclusion: If you have taken issue with anything (or everything) I have said and are not buying into my views, try an experiment in open-mindedness for the next few minutes. Try imagining or considering for the next few minutes, that what I have said above and what I am about to say could actually be true. There is a God. What's more, this God has standards and commandments (not suggestions) and ideas about how human beings should act morally, ethically, relationally, and in any other way that there is to act. And that these are unchanging and independent of culture, class, current trends in pop culture or psychological thought, fad or fashion. And so they overidingly apply to all people and to which we, as people (and not Gods), have no right in trying to edit or amend. They are the same standards upon which great civilizations were built and which, when ignored, have brought about the destruction of the same…Furthermore, the Bible (the same revered and referenced innumerable times by our founding Fathers and the institutions they founded) affirms that there is a direct correlation between an individual, culture, or nations adherence to these standards and the success and prosperity of the same. In short, there are blessings associated with following God’s standards and bad consequences (curses) for breaking them. Now consider that America had become indisputably the greatest nation in the earth (by measures of wealth and education and science, invention, etc.) in a relatively short 200 years (by comparison the Roman Empire did not attain it’s world dominance for almost 2000 years). And it became great because of its collective recognition of the Biblical God and reverence for His laws and standards. Revisionist historians have attempted to paint the picture of the early founders as being intolerant, small-minded, superstitious, etc. etc. But this, as was stated earlier, this is totally inaccurate. Their work is an attempt to create a smokescreen to the blatantly obvious fact that these people, and the beliefs, values, and faith which motivated them, were responsible for creating the foundation of the unprecedented success that America became. Moreover, the culture of the America that used to be, was made up of people whose religion of choice was not the 'tolerance' as we know it today or any version of sechular humanism. People did not believe it was okay to … did not have divorce rates as high as …did not believe it okay to , did not advocate the right of human choice over human responsibility to live in light of God’s truth. The religion of choice for that America was Christian truth. And because of that (remember, you’re still being open-minded and considering what I’m saying might be true even if you have taken issue with me), the blessings of the Creator reigned down on this country, manifesting itself in the enormous prosperity of the first 200 years of our country. The Bible says “Blessed is the nation who God is the Lords (Hebrew Yahweh)”. Consider for this moment that this key principle explains a great deal about the trends in our society over the last 40 years or so. If the Bible is right, than by changing our religion – in reality, exchanging our God, Jahweh, for other ones – new age, materialism, man as his own god, than we have unwittingly forfeited the blessing of God which we have come to take for granted as Americans (because of previous generations). And because of that, we can no longer expect to experience the high levels of blessing and prosperity which we have come to take for granted. Indeed, this is the current experience of our culture and is becoming moreso with each step we take away from the principles of our Judeo-Christian heritage. To the degree which we have exchanged our reverence for the God of the Bible, for something else - anything else, we can expect to have increases in all the curses which the Bible clearly lays out… I think it valuable to list some of them briefly because they are familiar. Dut 10. Have these curses not become the daily experience of our everyday lives? Statistics show that … There – I’m done. Now you can raise your objections to what some would consider the rambings of a ‘narrow-minded’ fundamentalist Bible-thumper. But if that is anywhere close to what you think, consider that those perceptions and labels (which, incidentally, were invented by the ‘tolerance’ bunch - go figure) have been programmed into you from having lived under the influence of the religion of tolerance, which on no terms accepts or in any way reveres, seeks to understand, or in the least ways tolerates the true tenets of the Christian faith, and so has campaigned against Christians with these (false) stereotypes.
Statistical realties support my statements above. Take a look at these graphs: Even a casual viewer will observe something significant near the beginning of the timeline. On every graph, each of which represents the amount of one form of social 'ill health' or another (divorce, suicide, drug addictions, etc.), a sharp increase happens almost to the day in 1962. Christians are grossly misrepresented as being …. And consider that these views are a relatively new phenomenon, and that the views which held sway in this country since its founding until this current shift which started en masse somewhere in the 60’s, have been those which advocate reverence for the Creator and acknowledgement of a set of fixed laws and standards for human behavior, legal and moral. It is strange to consider that knowledge once viewed as common sense is now viewed, under the various euphemisms of enlightenment, modern thinking, science, tolerance, etc. etc. as radical extremism. Such has been the completeness of the inundation of tolerance into our cultures thinking. But clearly this is the way of truth in a world currently under the influence of spiritual darkness – The Bible says “The wisdom of God is foolishness to and the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. For man, in his wisdom did not find God. *I believe that this raises a relevant issue on what factors culture should use in determining and defining a 'minority' group or the 'victim' class. Why (for God sakes) should it be sexual practice? Why not hair color? Why not being left-handed? I can almost envision, with the current trend in our cultures thinking (if you can call it that), (and the heretofore legal validations of it) that these motions could seriously be put forth. And we would have some kind of special legal protection guaranteed for left-handed red-heads (for instance).