The New Tolerance

Comment

Comment by James Robertson on November 29, 2012 at 10:06am

November 29, 2012 - AmericanThinker
Target: Old White Men
By Selwyn Duke

While modern society prides itself on being unbiased, it's no exception to the rule that every age has its fashionable prejudices -- and unfashionable people. Among the latter today are white men, and the closer they are to "dead white male" status, to use a favored leftist descriptive, the greater the disdain in which they're held.

Thus do we see sneering at "old white men." Earlier this year, Senator Harry Reid -- one well acquainted through experience with old-white-male machinations -- complained of "angry old white men" who bankroll conservative causes. More recently, the old-white-media paper the Guardian published a piece about America's changing demographics titled, in part, "No country for angry old white men...." Ah, yes, it's not just that they're old, white, and men, that Triad of Turpitude. They're "angry," too. So just dismiss them out of hand, with their agenda born of blinding, irrational hatred. It's another example of projection, from the group (leftists) that makes intellect-clouding emotionalism an art.

If we're to define matters based on group identification, however -- and the left makes clear we will -- there is an irony here.

You could roughly say that old white men built the whole modern world.

You can precisely say this if you include in the category the budding old white men known as younger white men. Who were all the great inventors, innovators, and philosophers from ancient Greece and Rome up through medieval and modern Europe and the United States? Who forged the West? Who birthed democracy? Who improved upon it, giving us our Constitution and modern republican government? There is a reason why most of the busts and pictures of legendary figures portray old white men.

We might also note that while old white men probably weren't the first to practice slavery, they were the first to eliminate it. The same can be said of human rights: old white men had lots of company trampling them. They were alone in crafting the modern conception of them.

And is America really advancing as old white men's cultural and political weight wanes? During what group's hegemony were our national finances, morality, culture, and economic growth healthiest? Is there a group with a better track record of running successful civilizations? As to this, if only old white men had voted during the last 50 years, we likely wouldn't be facing the fiscal cliff that hangs over us like a sword of Damocles.

Of course, much demonization of old white men is mere artifice, an effort to sell an inferior product (liberalism) by discrediting its opposition. "Hey, why buy from these white-prune Willy Loman salesmen when you can patronize skilled salespeople? We're young, we're hip, and quick with the lip!" Yet this appeal only works by playing on very real prejudices. Exposition of the anti-white variety has been done to death in the Reality Media. It was epitomized when Susan Sontag said, "The white race is the cancer of human history" and thus proved that some white people certainly are. But far more interesting and less discussed is the other bias relevant here: that against the aged.

For most of history, old was gold. There is the stereotype of the wise old man, and, historically, societies would be governed by "elders." For example, ancient Sparta had a council of elders, and only men of at least 60 years of age qualified. And, of course, insisting that children respect their elders was once common.

This now has been turned on its head. One underappreciated reason why John McCain lost the 2008 election is that he appeared old -- an old-looking candidate hasn't won the presidency since the TV era's advent -- whereas Barack Obama seemed young and hip. And while fear that the person may die in office and our eye-candy culture certainly explain this in part, an increasingly significant factor is that many view seniors as they do our Constitution: old and yellowed and not relevant to our time. Just consider how the only consistent stereotype the hit show Seinfeld played upon was that of older people -- and it was wholly unflattering. They were portrayed as doddering, out of touch, dishonest, egotistical, argumentative, and petty, too engrossed in trivial matters to ponder what's truly important (such as, apparently, figuring out how to find someone more attractive to sleep with).

Of course, "Wisdom doesn't always come with age; sometimes age just shows up all by itself." Yet even if the two are joined at the hip, it won't matter among a people who devalue wisdom. Note that the definition of the word -- until dictionary writers lost their wisdom -- was "knowledge of what is true or good." But there is no such thing in a relativistic universe, that realm with favored mantras such as "That's your 'truth'; someone else's may be different" and "Don't impose your values on me!" There can be no objective "good" if there is no God; nothing can be truly "true" if there is no Truth. And what is left when people no longer perceive Truth's existence and thus cannot use it as a yardstick for behavior? There then is just taste, preference, and what do we call the moment's consensus tastes?

Fashions.

And this is where the elderly cannot compete. People who believe in Truth understand it's timeless; that those who have lived longer will generally have apprehended more of it; and that it doesn't matter if older people aren't "with the times," only whether the times are with the Truth. But the young will always be more with the fashions. And owing to that dislocation from Truth, they will often embrace fashions even when they're fallacies. They won't know they're fallacies, either, as moderns' only perceived standard for judging such things is the fashions themselves. And they won't care what elders have to say about tried and true "wisdom." It would be much like telling them that they should dispense with pizza in favor of their grandparents' 1940s biscuits and gravy. It's all a matter of preference, so why should they subordinate their tastes to those of the past?

This gets at the insidiousness of modern liberalism. The French revolutionaries sought to erase the past by starting history anew with their revolution's first year, 1789; the Khmer Rouge sought to do so with their "Year Zero." But revolutionary change is too obvious; it doesn't gently boil the frog as does modern liberalism's evolutionary change. Progressives don't make any major pronouncements, dear citizen, about the first year of the rest of your life. They simply disconnect each generation from the last -- from the past -- with the message that, hey, ya' gotta be with it, which means being nothing like grandpa. And the "it" is change, not tradition; current tastes, not Truth; fashions and not fact. Just convince the young to ignore the old or dead -- especially if they're white and male -- the people who formulated Western civilization's recipe, and that Occidental delicacy is history. Then you will have started history anew not with an iron fist, but sleight of hand that keeps the frog simmering soundly.

Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, "To be ignorant of the past is to be forever a child. For what is the time of a man, except it be interwoven with that memory of ancient things of a superior age?" Demonizing white men old or dead keeps the young and alive disconnected from them and hence from the past. This gives us a civilization of children, just the kind of people a pied piper can lead.

Comment by James Robertson on November 11, 2012 at 5:05am

In the book of Revelation, Jesus addressed a church that was spiritually sick, the church in Thyatira (see Revelation 2). The problem was they were tolerating open sin. So he focused specifically on the word “tolerance” with this church.

Isn’t that the watchword of the day? You can be anything but intolerant. I believe that all of the strong Christians I know are very tolerant. They have a worldview that comes from their study of Scripture and from their faith in Jesus Christ. And when people who hear what they have to say disagree with them, what do they do? Do they have them killed? Of course not. Do they assault them physically? Of course not. Do they scream in their face? No, they don’t do that either. They accept the choice someone makes, even though they may not agree with it. That is tolerance.

But the tolerance of today has been redefined, because when people tell you to be tolerant, they are, in effect, telling you to not only accept something, but to approve it and even validate it. They are saying, “You have no right to say that your version of truth is any better than anyone else’s version of truth. Therefore, you should accept and embrace what they believe, just as you embrace what you believe. And if you don’t, you are intolerant.”

I have found that the most intolerant people are the ones who talk the most about tolerance. They don’t allow me to simply accept something but not agree with it. They want me to endorse it.

Nowadays if you don’t agree with something, you have a phobia. To take a stand is defined as hate. Conviction is called fanaticism. Truths the church has believed for centuries now are regarded as discrimination.

But Jesus essentially told the church in Thyatira, “I am intolerant of this sin. You are allowing sexual immorality into your ranks” (see Revelation 2:20). Immorality was going on in the lives of those who professed to be believers. But you cannot be a Christian and try to live in two worlds. There are no exceptions.

When a church is tolerant of sin, when it stops moving forward spiritually, it becomes a sick church, and eventually a dead church. That was the case with another church, the church in Sardis. And here was Jesus’ prescription for spiritual recovery: “Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God” (Revelation 3:2 NIV).

This church in Sardis looked good on the outside, but the fire was gone. So Jesus essentially told them, “Wake up! Stay with me – there is still hope.”

And he says the same to those today who are tolerating evil, who have gone from a little compromising to full toleration and rationalization of it. It’s time to wake up.

If you are winning a 10-lap race and suddenly bow out in the ninth lap, do you still win? No. You lose. You are the same as someone who never entered the race at all. So we must finish the race. It is not enough to start the race well. It is not even enough to run it well in the middle. We have to finish what we have begun.

We are all in the race of life. And we must run it to win.
Greg Laurie - 10Nov 12 - WND

Comment by Dave Gosse on November 8, 2012 at 7:27pm

Brethren denied charity status over communion

The right of churches to decide for themselves who may attend Holy Communion is being challenged by the Charity Commission.

The Commission has refused to register a Plymouth Brethren group because its Holy Communion services are for members only.

This would have a huge impact on the group’s tax relief and would also have other implications.

Evidence

Elders from the Plymouth Brethren gave evidence on the matter to a parliamentary select committee last week.

During the evidence a letter from the Commission’s head of legal services emerged claiming that churches cannot be assumed to be acting for the public good.

It said: “This decision makes it clear that there was no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England.”

Protect

The row, which has been going on for seven years, began after the Commission denied charitable status to one of the Brethren group’s churches in Devon.

The Christian Institute is intervening in the case in a bid to protect religious liberty for all churches.

A spokeswoman for the Commission said: “The application [by the brethren] was not accepted on the basis that we were unable to conclude that the organisation is established for the advancement of religion for public benefit within the relevant law.”

Suppress

During last week’s hearing Charlie Elphicke, a Conservative MP, asked the Plymouth Brethren if they thought the Commission was “actively trying to suppress religion in the UK, particularly the Christian religion”.

The MP for Dover added: “I think they (the Commission) are committed to the suppression of religion and you are the little guys being picked on to start off a whole series of other churches who will follow you there.”

Comment by James Robertson on November 8, 2012 at 3:40pm

November 7, 2012
Maine Church Vandalized With Swastikas Allegedly for Gay Marriage Stance
By Stoyan Zaimov | Christian Post Reporter

Stockton Springs Community Church in Waldo County, Maine, has been vandalized with swastikas spray-painted on its front door and on two signs on its lawn, supposedly for the church's support of traditional marriage.

"I was shocked and horrified when I arrived at the church this morning and saw swastikas painted all over our property. Clearly, those who want to redefine marriage also want to redefine tolerance," said Pastor Steve DeGroft. "Our congregation has taken a loving and respectful stand for traditional marriage in our community, but those who disagree want to silence and intimidate us. We can't be apathetic, and can't be bullied. I urge all Mainers to go to the polls today and Vote No on Question 1."

Pastor DeGroft refers to the vote in Maine on Nov. 6 regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage, which was passed. Stockton Springs and other churches have urged people to support the traditional definition of marriage as union between one man and one woman, but their efforts were not enough on Election Day, as voters in Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington State all approved adding same-sex couples to that definition.

Carroll Conley, co-chairman of Protect Marriage Maine, who campaigned in support of traditional marriage, said in a statement that they had worked with Stockon Springs and Pastor DeGroft , who regularly spoke out from the pulpit against Question 1, posting signs urging voters to oppose the measure, and emailing members of the congregation urging them to support traditional marriage.

As to the spray-painted swastikas, Conley noted that their campaign signs were also regularly stolen and vandalized elsewhere around the state, so such a property attack is not entirely shocking.

Waldo County Sheriff's Deputy Ben Seekins has said to the Portland Press Herald that an investigation will be launched into the vandalization of the church's property, and confirmed that he has seen the spray-painted signs himself.

Comment by James Robertson on October 17, 2012 at 10:12am

When Tolerance Becomes Sinful

It is incredible just how many people who call themselves Christian never actually read the Bible. Or if they do, they seem to cafeteria-style pick and choose those bits they are happy with, while ignoring the rest. They have been spoon-fed on a steady diet of secularism and humanism, and tend to think more like worldlings than like Christians.

And one of the biggest nostrums of a God-denying, absolutes-phobic and truth-illusive culture is the modern baloney about tolerance. It is the idea that we must embrace and accept every lousy thought, belief, practice, lifestyle, religion and ideology that exists.

Contra the old understanding of tolerance which said I should respect you even though I may utterly reject your ideas or your beliefs, today’s version wrongly says we must accept every foolish idea which comes along, or else we are somehow guilty of being intolerant, unloving and exclusive – all big no-noes in today’s morally defunct culture.

But the truth is, there are all sorts of things we should be intolerant of. We should never tolerate that which is wrong or that which is evil. Not only should we be intolerant of it, if you are a Bible-believing Christian, you know that we should even hate it.

Yes you heard me right. There are some things that we are commanded to hate. We are to hate them because they are so bad and so destructive that if we in any way tolerate them or seek to accommodate them, they will bring ruin to us and to others.

But I can already hear some biblically–illiterate and worldly Christians sputtering, “Where does it say we should hate in the Bible?” There are in fact plenty of such texts, but let me focus on just two of them – one from each Testament. In the Old Testament we have Psalm 97:10 as an example.

It says: “Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.” James Montgomery Boice speaks to this text: “We do not naturally hate evil. In fact, the opposite is the case. We naturally love sin. We are intrigued by wrong in other people, and we do not want to part with the sins we ourselves are practicing. We must learn to hate sin, and we will, if we are getting to know God. If we do not, we will increasingly hate God.”

And in the New Testament we find these words of Paul in Romans 12:9: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” As R. Kent Hughes remarks, there is a morality to love: “Some might suppose that love is soft on evil. Not so! Evil is to be hated. Sincere love demands God-honoring moral resolve regarding good and evil.”

Or as Boice has written, “love must be discriminating. Real love does not love everything. On the contrary, it hates what is evil and clings to what is good. . . . Therefore, if we love as God loves – and we must if we are Christians – then there will be things for us to hate, just as there will be also things we must love.”

Thus to condone, accept, blink at, or tolerate evil is simply sinful – end of story. No Christian is to tolerate evil. If they do, they are committing “The Sin of Tolerance” as Billy Graham recently wrote. He put it this way: “One of the pet words of this age is tolerance. It is a good word, but we have tried to stretch it over too great an area. We have applied it, too often, where it does not belong. The word tolerant means liberal and broad-minded. In one sense, it implies the compromise of one’s convictions, a yielding of ground upon important issues.

“We have become tolerant about divorce, the use of alcohol, delinquency, wickedness in high places, immorality, crime and godlessness. We have been sapped of conviction, drained of our beliefs, and we are bereft of our faith.

“The sciences, however, are narrow-minded. There is no room for careless broad-mindedness in the laboratory. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level; it is never 100 degrees nor 189 degrees, nor 211. Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees; it is never 23 degrees nor 31.

“Mathematics is also narrow-minded. The sum of two plus two is four, never three-and-a-half. Geometry is narrow-minded. It says that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points on a plane. A compass is narrow-minded; it always points to the magnetic north. If it were broad-minded, ships at sea and planes in the air would be in danger.”

Yes quite so. Tolerance in so many areas of life is simply a recipe for disaster. We must not tolerate that which will harm us or our loved ones. We must not tolerate beliefs which are false and which will lead us away from truth. We must not tolerate lifestyles which are a danger to those involved in them and to the rest of society.

And we must not tolerate lies, falsehoods, immorality and that which is evil. If you really love someone, you will wish none of these things on the beloved. Your love, therefore, will be intolerant of many things. It will be a discerning love, a righteous love, and a holy love.

As A.W. Tozer wrote about this a half century ago in Man: The Dwelling Place of God: “A new Decalogue has been adopted by the neo-Christians of our day, the first word of which reads ‘Thou shalt not disagree;’ and a new set of Beatitudes too, which begins ‘Blessed are they that tolerate everything, for they shall not be made accountable for anything.’ It is now the accepted thing to talk over religious differences in public with the understanding that no one will try to convert another or point out errors in his belief. . . . Imagine Moses agreeing to take part in a panel discussion with Israel over the golden calf; or Elijah engaging in a gentlemanly dialogue with the prophets of Baal. Or try to picture our Lord Jesus Christ seeking a meeting of minds with the Pharisees to iron out differences.”

Or as Richard J. Mouw put it in Uncommon Decency: “Christian civility does not commit us to a relativistic perspective. Being civil doesn’t mean that we cannot criticize what goes on around us. Civility doesn’t require us to approve of what other people believe and do. It is one thing to insist that other people have the right to express their basic convictions; it is another thing to say that they are right in doing so. Civility requires us to live by the first of these principles. But it does not commit us to the second formula. To say that all beliefs and values deserve to be treated as if they were on a par is to endorse relativism – a perspective that is incompatible with Christian faith and practice. Christian civility does not mean refusing to make judgments about what is good and true. For one thing, it really isn’t possible to be completely nonjudgmental. Even telling someone else that she is being judgmental is a rather judgmental thing to do!”

John Stott put it this way: “Tolerance is not a spiritual gift; it is the distinguishing mark of postmodernism; and sadly, it has permeated the very fiber of Christianity. Why is it that those who have no biblical convictions or theology to govern and direct their actions are tolerated and the standard or truth of God’s Word rightly divided and applied is dismissed as extreme opinion or legalism?”

Or as I have been wont to say: “It is time to start getting intolerant about tolerance.”
Bill Muehlenberg's CultureWatch

Comment by James Robertson on October 1, 2012 at 12:42pm

10-01-2012  •  Raw Story 

The TSA, known for its loose hiring guidelines, is in hot water yet again after records show that the agency hired a priest who had been forced out of the priesthood after allegations of child molestation. The former priest was given the job of patting down passengers, including children, before being promoted to baggage claims.
 (Another case of tolerance and diversity at work in our government)

Comment by James Robertson on September 27, 2012 at 10:45am

Tolerance and Reciprocity
ANTHONY ESOLEN
What's not so often acknowledged is that tolerance implies reciprocity from the person whose behavior is tolerated.
Thomas Aquinas, practical fellow that he was, understood that not all bad things can feasibly be proscribed by human law. It isn't because people disagree about what is bad, but rather that a well-governed polity should require few laws, easily promulgated and understood, broadly promoting the common good, wherein the lawgiver can attend to things that are obviously within his scope of competence. Custom and the ordinary interchanges between human beings must take care of the rest. Since human beings are wayward — since they suffer the ills of pride, envy, avarice, lust, and the other deadlies — we will always require the modest virtue of tolerance to get through a day without knocking one another about the head.

The root meaning of the word suggests what the virtue involves. The Latin tol- is related to a group of words having to do with carrying a burden: German dulden, to be patient, to endure; Old English tholian, to suffer; Latin tuli, I have borne. When we tolerate we bear with someone or something; we bear the existence of a wrong. We do so because, given the circumstances, to protest would invite a greater wrong. There is a time for public correction, and a time for quiet endurance and, if the opportunity arises, private correction.

I should like to distinguish tolerance from an even more modest virtue, one without a name; it is part civility, part equanimity, part humility. It is sometimes called "pluralism," but that isn't quite right. We acknowledge that no one person can ever grasp the whole of the human condition, or the common good in its fullness. We are fallible, first of all; but we are also endowed with a variety of interests and talents. So we welcome a certain freedom of action, within the bounds of common courtesy and the moral law. One man works on cars in his spare time, another plants grapevines, another reads philosophy. It is to our general benefit that this should be so. But in these cases there is nothing really to tolerate. Tolerance properly understood always suggests the bearing of some trouble, or even of moral wrong.

What's not so often acknowledged is that tolerance implies reciprocity from the person whose behavior is tolerated. For tolerance of wrongdoing is freely given; it is an act of graciousness, and not the paying of a debt. Therefore it rests with the offender, at the very least, to refrain from aggravating the burden of tolerance.

Suppose my neighbor has left his wife for another woman. It's not against the law, although perhaps it should be. But it is a wrong. He can complain all day about how exasperating his wife is, but that won't change the fact that he is breaking a vow, and doing his part to undermine the fundamental institution of society. I like my neighbor, poor man. He's on the brink of a nervous breakdown. His mother is very ill. For these and other reasons I decide to tolerate his behavior. I am not going to take him to the woodshed. But I'm not going to give him my approval, either.

No matter whether my tolerance in this case is prudent or only timid, it demands reciprocity from my neighbor. He will refrain from bringing the new woman to my house, to meet my wife and children. He will refrain from lounging with her in his front yard, in affectionate embrace. He will refrain from publicizing the adultery. He will certainly not celebrate it.

That too is an offense against tolerance. It is to make one's neighbor always aware of his tolerance: to weary him with it, to pester him little by little into giving in, because it is so much easier to condone than to tolerate.

The discretion he must practice is, as it were, tolerance's doppelganger. I tolerate his vice; he "tolerates" my tolerance, and owes it to me to do so. Another example. The local convenience store sells Playboy magazine. They are legally permitted to sell it. But it is a wrong; it degrades the beauty of the human body and turns sexuality from its proper sphere in marriage to the private quest for gratification. If they tacitly request tolerance, they tacitly incur a debt of reciprocity. They will keep the offensive magazine out of sight.

The reader will note that the two examples above have to do with sex. They needn't have; the principle remains. Suppose my auto mechanic accepts cash from his customers, giving them a break on their expenses, with the understanding that the money changes hands under the table, beyond the ken of the tax man. I know that it is dishonest to sign a tax form with a false declaration of income. He knows it too, because he himself would never hire a contractor who signed his name to false expense accounts. I pay him by check, and do not turn him in. I tolerate the evil. Now suppose he were to run for public office, on a platform of fiscal reform. That would be to heap another burden upon my back. It would make a mockery of tolerance itself.

And yet, because of the great leeway the law allows to sexual rather than financial relations, and because of the vagaries of human desire, behavior that touches upon our sexual nature will offer plenty of opportunities for tolerance — and for the reciprocity that tolerance is owed.

I am the father of a twelve-year-old boy. I want my son to be comfortable being a boy. I want him to grow up to be attracted to women, and to be attractive to them in turn. I want him to have natural, matter-of-course friendships with other men; not the suffocating touchy-needy relationships that stunt a boy's maturity. I want him to walk and talk and work and play and fight and laugh like the man I see developing within him. I want him to love the beauty and grace and wisdom of girls and women, and to see himself as perfecting them and being perfected by them. I hope he will marry a good woman and raise happy children, who will look like him and his wife, and maybe a little like me and my wife. It's perfectly natural for me to want this. It's what fathers have always wanted for their sons.

Therefore it is natural that I should want no one to lay a snare in the boy's path. Adolescence comes with a maelstrom of new feelings: frustration with still being so young, fear that one is already too old, longing for some indefinite thing of beauty, curiosity re garding good things that are mysterious, and bad things that seem so; no one can chart a map for every adolescent child. Adolescents are, then, peculiarly vulnerable. We owe it to them to make their passage as healthy and easy as possible.

All right, then. I understand there are men who have not attained the healthy masculine nature I hope my son will attain. I don't make fun of them. I don't wish them ill. I count some among my friends. I extend to them my tolerance of a state that is at least a significant falling-short of a natural good. But it requires pretty serious reciprocity. For one, the rights of my son should be respected. No snares in his path, thank you. He should not have to suffer, by suggestion or invitation or public example or enticement or moral sophistry, any complication along his way to becoming a healthy man, able to love a woman in a healthy way. Mr. Madison and Mr. Unger live in the same apartment: they are roommates. The history teacher, Mr. Delvecchio, is 40 and unmarried. Well, some people are confirmed bachelors. And indeed they may be. The freedom-clearing presumption of normality ought to obtain.

Beyond that, we assist the tolerance of our neighbors by keeping our serpents to ourselves.

It follows too that if the public parading of a wrong is an offense against tolerance, so is the public declaration of a propensity to engage in the wrong. Every person alive is beset by temptations. We may utter them to our confessors, or, less often, to our best friends on condition of secrecy, or to our spouses, when it would not cause needless pain. Beyond that, we assist the tolerance of our neighbors by keeping our serpents to ourselves.

If a married man says, "I'm attracted to your daughter, but be assured I'll never act upon my attraction," he has at a stroke made it impossible for you ever to see him and your daughter in the same room without the shadow crossing your mind. He has, in his false and hypocritical show of honesty, loaded a heavy burden of decision upon you. Sever your friendship, and the self-hugging candid fellow can soothe himself by saying, "It was he who turned away from me."

There are things we are better off not knowing about. But there's more. The man who parades his temptation may be seeking approval. "Look at me! I am tempted to do things with another man that God and nature never intended. But I'm not going to do them. Aren't I to be congratulated?" No, not a bit. If a man said, "Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to open fire upon a bus full of professionals. Oh, I'll never do it, but just imagine the blood," we'd rightly consider reporting him to the police. And then it is a small step from approving the brave fellow who makes his temptation conspicuous and conspicuously averts the sin, to suggesting that perhaps the sin isn't really so bad after all, if such a conspicuously virtuous fellow is tempted by it.

That too is an offense against tolerance. It is to make one's neighbor always aware of his tolerance: to weary him with it, to pester him little by little into giving in, because it is so much easier to condone than to tolerate. So it is that the most intolerant among us frequently preach about tolerance — to nag their opponents into submission, and to get their way.

Comment by James Robertson on September 13, 2012 at 7:01am

Comment by James Robertson on August 27, 2012 at 6:41am

If not Islam, then what?
Exclusive: Barbara Simpson warns, 'The progressives among us are working overtime'
26 Aug 12 - WND

If you want to know one of the reasons why free American citizens resent Muslims, it’s because people of their beliefs have invaded our individual privacy and freedoms, to say nothing of their militancy to further their goals of Islamization of the world, which essentially means outright war against the free world of Western civilization.

If that offends you, tough.

Like it or not, it’s a fact, and Americans and others in the West deal with it on a daily basis. If it were just inconvenience, that would be one thing, but it isn’t.

It boils down to the real fact that there are Muslims out there who are bound and determined to kill every westerner they encounter and to put an end to Christianity, Judaism and other religions – essentially, anything that is not Islamic.

Does that bother you? Tough.

Ever since 9/11, American citizens have been subjected to a virtual onslaught of Islam.

On the one hand, we’re instructed – no, actually lectured – how to behave in the face of Islamic practices and how to accept Islam as simply just another culture.

That is true. Islam is another culture and not a Western one at that.

On the other hand, we’re subjected to the horrific means they’ve devised to trap and kill our military and innocent civilians.

Some westerners are so brainwashed into the mentality of not recognizing what is clearly in front of their eyes, that they have trouble even calling such vicious confrontations “war” – whether terrorists destroy civilians, as in 9/11, or blow up U.S. and NATO forces wearing military uniforms in Afghanistan.

It is also true that all Muslims are not terrorists but unfortunately, those who are, regardless of which country they come from, have made an indelible impression on Western countries and peoples, an impression that is outlined in blood – the blood of innocents.

So where do we draw the line on the supposed safety of our own country?

How do we know who is next to us and what devious scheme they may have in mind?

We are made to feel guilty even to think such things.

It’s bad enough that we have to be concerned with pickpockets and muggers, but when the issue is that we might find ourselves blown to bits by someone who finds explosives a satisfactory way to right their view of historic wrongs – so say nothing of doing that to find their own way to their version of heaven, populated or not by 72 virgins.

Personally, I don’t care about their reasons for threats against the West. I want free Americans, in fact, free people everywhere to be able to live their lives in their countries without the threat from individuals from other cultures who hold a very long-standing grudge.

The progressives among us are working overtime, trying to beat us into submission under the guise of toleration.

We must be polite and most of all, we must be nonjudgmental and, above all, quiet. It is simply not acceptable to be critical of anything Islamic.

We must tolerate. If we don’t, then any resulting anger from Muslims becomes our fault.

Have you noticed that nowhere do you read or hear of Muslims in Western countries being counseled or advised or – bite your tongue – ordered to be tolerant of us?

No, don’t hold your breath waiting; it hasn’t happened, and it won’t.

The reason is that the West, and the do-gooders who are more than willing to sacrifice freedom for what they perceive as safety, are quite simply, afraid.

They know, because they’ve seen examples of it across the world, that when militant Muslims don’t get what they want, or perceive any word or action as an insult to their religion and beliefs, the results are threats and mobs and violence and death to anyone they perceive as being the “enemy.”

When innocent people capitulate to such examples and even unspoken threats of violence, you don’t need an overt war.

The other side has already won.

Back in the days of the Cold War, there was a mantra in this country by those who didn’t have the courage to stand up for their beliefs and for freedom. Do you remember it?

Better Red than dead.

To clarify: they’re rather be a communist than fight for freedom.

What’s the slogan now?

How about Shariah or bust.

It’s as good as any, and just as cowardly.

Comment by James Robertson on August 24, 2012 at 1:40pm

Guilty: Homosexual activist admits sending death threats to pro-life, pro-marriage leader
LSN ^ | 8.24.2012 | Ben Johnson

A Connecticut homosexual pled guilty on Tuesday to sending 300 threatening messages, including death threats, to the leader of a state pro-life, pro-marriage organization.

53-year-old Daniel Sarno of Enfield, Connecticut, admitted intimidating Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, over a six-month period from last November until May.

One message read: “No mercy for homophobes. I suggest you make your funeral arrangements real soon, Mr. Wolfgang.”

Another said, “I sure hope somebody blows you away. Yer dead.”

Sarno once asked, “Are ‘family values’ worth dying for, Mr. Wolfgang?”

Wolfgang said Sarno identified himself as a homosexual in the letters, which came addressed “Attention: Peter Wolfgang.”

“Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident,” Wolfgang said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “In fact it is part of a growing and disturbing intimidation campaign among some proponents of same-sex ‘marriage.’ It is clear that their pretense of ‘tolerance’ is over.”

The conviction comes as other homosexual extremists have turned violent.

LGBT activist Floyd Corkins II shot security guard Leo Johnson at the Family Research Council’s headquarters last Wednesday after saying, “I don’t like your politics.”

In April, a group of self-proclaimed “angry queers” smashed the windows of a 100-year-old church in Oregon, because it opposes redefining marriage. “The only dialog we need with scum like Mars Hill [church] is hammers through their windows,” their note read.

Traditional Values Coalition President Andrea Lafferty told LifeSiteNews.com her organization has received “many, many threats from the homosexual and transgender community” dating as far back as the 1980s, but the Obama administration’s leadership “does not believe they need to protect us.” Attorney General Eric Holder, she said, “has put Christians at a low priority.”

In Connecticut, everyone was happy things were resolved without violence.

“Using death threats to stifle debate is un-American,” Wolfgang said, promising to remain unbowed. “These types of tactics won’t work. The Family Institute of Connecticut will continue its work to strengthen and protect marriage, life and religious freedom.” He thanked local police for protecting his family members and employees.

The Hartford Courant blasted Wolfgang, even as it condemned threats of violence. The paper stated in an unsigned editorial, “Threats of violence don’t produce understanding. And it is a hypocrisy when those who plead for tolerance are themselves intolerant.”

Sarno plead guilty to two counts of mailing threatening material. He could receive up to 10 years in prison and a maximum of $500,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Ellen Bree Burns set the sentencing hearing for next January 3 in New Haven.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page