Excellent point, and shows like “Sesame Street” are good building blocks for teaching tolerance. However, as children age, their reasoning skills sharpen, while at the same time education takes on new roles in their development. There comes a point where kids stop thinking in such black and white and start questioning those shades of gray (“Tommy acts kind of girly, and my parents told me not to hang around with him anymore, but he’s my best friend and I don’t care how he acts.”) There comes a point in a child’s education when we must directly address their more and more pointed questions; in effect, we must teach them as “little adults” rather than “big kids.”
Assuming this is true (and it wouldn’t surprise me), hasn’t the Christian community then imposed its religious will on the children in those schools, putting beliefs ahead of scientific research? Isn’t this exactly what JerseyDiamond is against?
No argument there. The choice remains what values we, as a society, wish to impart on our youth, and I don’t think that particular back-and-forth will ever be settled.
This has been discussed before. I find the attitude to be repugnant, demeaning, insulting and holier-than-thou. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is the biggest cop-out the Christian community has ever imparted on this country, IMHO. If you (not you ;)) don’t like what I do, it doesn’t give you some right to tell me it’s wrong - I really couldn’t care less, as you’re not living my life and I’m not living yours. I don’t tell you it’s wrong to believe what you believe (as repugnant as I find it), don’t tell me it’s wrong to do what I do.
You claim that your only complaint is that the joke wasn’t funny, but strangely enough I’ve seen a number of unfunny jokes, but the only one I’ve seen you complain about is that one.
[/quote]
I certainly hope you see the difference between teaching tolerance of gays and lesbians to school kids and Cecil’s purile (and borderline offensive) attempt at humor.
Has anybody read this? It’s amazing. It like…1984 if it were written by O’Brian. A fanatical Christian group takes over the government in the middle of the night (through a perfectly legitimate election, held at 3:00 AM, and electing a candidate no one has ever heard of before),kicks out the foreign press, suspends questioning of government policy by our press, bans lethal injection on the ground that it’s not painful enough, orders the execution of anyone who SPEAKS in favor of abortion…and this is a GOOD THING. This is this guy’s HOPE for the country. And it’s Day One. At the end it says “If you enjoyed Day One, you’ll love Day Two.” No doubt.
Ok, I’m sure he doesn’t have a huge following but even a small group fantasizing about stuff like this is disturbing.
Cite, please. My understanding is that the Christian is to preach the Good News, make disciples of all who will listen, etc. He is never to judge another, or another’s actions, in his role as a Christian. (He may find himself in a specific role which calls for judgment, as for example a teacher, a person evaluating for a license, a judge of a court, etc.) The one quasi-judicial role he is permitted as a Christian is to point out the errors his brother or sister in Christ might appear to be making (as I am doing here) with an eye to enabling him/her to see that error (if error it be) and reform his/her ways accordingly.
I know of no cite which permits, much less commands Christians to judge the actions of others.
Ptahlis:
True. I approve of gay marriages, myself. Of course, I don’t hold with that condemnation either. But I’m by no means a typical Christian (though far more believe as I do than are publicly evident – it’s not “news” the way Jerry Falwell’s latest fulmination is.
Ptahlis again:
[/quote]
Can a Christian practice tolerance and still condemn homosexuals? Can a Christian practice tolerance and let other Christians suppress teaching tolerance?
[/quote]
To which Esprix commented:
Poignant, too. [Poly visualizes soft rubber question marks from a toddler’s foam alphabet set bounding across the countryside going “poing, poing, poing.”]
Of course the answer is no to both questions. The point, though, is that Christians are not necessarily supposed to be “tolerant” (at least on the conservative perspective), but rather downright intolerant of evil. And by that confusion of orientation, behavior, and “lifestyle” (yuk!) that I mentioned above, the whole schmear becomes evil on this point of view, and the people with it. Jersey is trying to draw the distinction between person and action that is the first step towards getting it right. But he’s still operating (IMHO) from a legalistic perspective. And Paul, of all people, is the first one to condemn such a perspective.
I’m going to go over to the “How can homosexuality be a sin?” thread to deal with the rest of this. “Now, Miss Piggy, this is the melody to ‘Twinkle, twinkle little star…’”
Okay. But how does one balance “intolerance toward evil” with “love thy neighbor as thyself?” It seems that one requires tolerance of homosexuals and support for their struggle against prejudice despite one’s disagreement with their sex lives, while the other demands that Christians speak out against them, thereby increasing said prejudice. Which aspect of God takes precedence, his love for mankind or his condemnation of sin? A lot of folks seem to resolve this tension by just keeping mum and neither supporting nor denouncing the gay community in their attempt to remove prejudice.
The vocal minority of Christians who actively oppose things like sex ed, teaching evolution, and gay rights, claim that they are acting as agents of God, and they also appear to have the tacit approval of the bulk of the silent Christian community. (I’m not talking about the really extreme elements like Fred Phelps mind you, just the “mainstream fundamentalists”.) This is one of the problems I have with the “hate the sin, love the sinner” argument. Not that it necessarily directly impinges on any of the above issues, but that it allows a Christian who espouses it an illusory escape hatch from the tolerance/condemnation dichotomy. It effectively releases the Christian from the onus of taking a side in the matter, and that silence looks an awful lot like tacit support.
By the way Poly, I know where you stand on these issues, and we’re on the same side with regards to the gay rights issue. But you have shown willingness to defend the “hate the sin; love the sinner” viewpoint before. It interests me to see that there are so many more fundamentalists weighing in on the side of condemnation compared to the liberal Christians willing to speak up in defense of the above issues. Perhaps it is my own selective perception, or perhaps the media simply ignores a large contingent of tolerant Christian activists, perhaps both. In any case, I see a real imbalance in the numbers of those on either side.
