What the Bible says about Intolerance
(From Forerunner Commentary)
Liberals, says James Hitchcock in "The Enemies of Religious Liberty" (First Things, February 2004, pp. 26-30), especially those infesting America's universities, have come to detest religion—any religion, anywhere. To these secularists, faith in the unseen God is incomprehensible and irrational. They view it as divisive to the coherence of society, as well as destructive. Stanford University professor and philosopher Richard Rorty believes that "the 'highest achievements of humanity' are incompatible with religion" (Truth and Progress, 1991). It may be instructive to see what Rorty's peers in liberal academia have to say about our religious freedoms.
Since they see religion as at odds with freedom, academic liberals are increasingly coming to believe that the state has the right—indeed the obligation—to "damage-control" religion. So, New York University Law Professor David A.J. Richards claims that it is necessary for the state to foster its own religion, "a religion and an ethics that validate the highest order moral powers of rationality and reasonableness of a free people" (Toleration and the Constitution, 1986). Chicago University Professor of Jurisprudence Cass Sunstein advocates using "the liberal state to force the intolerant to be tolerant" (The Partial Constitution, 1999). Intolerant here means espousing strong religious beliefs, beliefs by which one lives. European University Institute Professor of Legal Theory and Legal Philosophy Wojciech Sadurski argues that no state can permit religious groups that have not transformed themselves into bodies both "rational" and self-critical" (Moral Pluralism, 1990).
The state, therefore, becomes mentor, teacher, and priest. Princeton University's Steven Macedo in his book, The New Right Versus the Constitution, sees the state as "a permanently educative order," allowing the legitimate authority to use its coercive powers (read, police powers) against "illiberal churches" in order to promote greater freedom. He has no problem at all with excluding religious people from public office, such as judgeships.
The government's new "educative" power sets it in opposition to parents' rights to raise their children in their own religion. Politics professors Amy Gutmann of Princeton and Dennis Thompson of Harvard "explicitly hold that the state need not be concerned that its educational system might violate the rights of religious believers" (Democracy and Disagreement, 1996). William and Mary School of Law professor James Dwyer holds that "religious education inculcates 'reactionary and repressive' values in children, and for the good of the child, the state is not only obligated to prohibit such schools completely or monitor them closely but also to monitor closely how parents educate their children at home" (Religious Schools vs. Children's Rights, 1998). He goes on to state that "parental choice in education might be 'inconsistent with the state's aims.'" Under the banner of children's rights, parental rights are wiped away!
Not unpredictably, Dwyer demands that "all education inculcate feminism and permissive attitudes toward sexual behavior, and that religions which fail to do so be made subject to state regulation." He believes that the government does not violate the First Amendment restriction against the establishment of religion "so long as its actions are intended to inhibit religion rather than to favor it." Kathleen M. Sullivan of Stanford University Law School claims that "religion must be treated 'asymmetrically' from other freedoms, with 'entanglement' between government and religion a good thing for the purpose of restraining religion."
These haters of God would commit mayhem against the United States Constitution (and against Americans) in order to build their utopian society of sterile rationality and unfettered choice. While we are unable to stop them, we can be thankful that we side with the One who can—and will. In the utopia He builds, religion will have a paramount place.
Charles Whitaker (1944-2021)
Liberal Haters of God
It is almost axiomatic that the one with the least reservoir of experience will appear as the most cocky and unyielding, while the one with a vast reservoir of experience - who has concluded that there are even vaster funds of knowledge yet to be learned - will appear as the more provisional and tolerant. In Speech 101, my professor referred to this process as "small pot soon hot." A reason why peer-group instruction sometimes fizzles is the cocky attitude displayed by the person who first "catches on" to some elementary step, lording it over the later bloomers. In the beginning stages of learning, knowledge has the tendency to "puff up", but as one continues to grow in it, a quality of meekness replaces intolerant rigidity.
David F. Maas
Servant Leadership: Practical MeeknessRelated Topics: Humility | Intolerance | Knowing | Knowledge | Knowledge, Puffing up | Meekness | Servant Attitude | Servant Leadership | Tolerance
For years, I read these scriptures, and I always thought, "I'm not starting forest fires with my words. I'm not viciously devouring people like a roaring beast. I can take this in stride and not worry so much about examining this. After all, these examples are for the extremes: the Adolf Hitlers, the serial criminal minds, the hardened and bitter sinners who retreat from humanity. This isn't me!"
God sometimes focuses our minds on the things we are guilty of by allowing us to experience the same behaviors from others. David did not see himself as he was behaving and affecting others until Nathan described to him another man's behavior (II Samuel 12:1-4). David was so outraged by the man's gross actions and attitude that he, as king, declared the death penalty on him (verses 5-6). Had this been an actual individual, chances are David would have pursued the matter to see the man brought to justice! However, the man he judged as worthy of death was none other than himself (verse 7).
We experience similar lessons. We are at times brought into the company of people who are offensive to us, whose behavior hurts us, and whose words can cut us and wound us, because something in the experience will teach us what we need to learn. God is allowing us to experience ourselves.
We chuckle at times, observing how someone known for gossiping will howl in dismay when he is gossiped about, or how a person often critical of others is intolerant of criticism directed toward himself. We say about teasing, "Don't give it unless you can take it!" Similarly, we enjoy people who are warm and friendly, and we feel warm and friendly when we are around them. Happy people tend to attract other happy people, while bitter or angry people often find another unhappy person with whom they can share their complaints.
A deeper principle can be employed here: If we look at others' behaviors, we can learn to see ourselves. Job's friends had this opportunity. They saw Job going through his calamities, how miserable he was, and in their care for him, they did their best to find his fault and help him solve his dilemma. In the end, God simply dismissed these three friends and all their long-winded speeches because they failed to recognize the very thing God gave them opportunity to see: They failed to see themselves in Job.
Job was not singled out for this experience because he was Job. He represents mankind, blinded by himself and unable to see the reality of God. Even today, many centuries later, we examine the life and thoughts of Job in an effort to see ourselves in his shoes; we try to learn from his experience by exposing the same faults within us. This aids us by allowing us both to see what we might miss and to change what is incompatible with our Creator.
How often do these opportunities emerge for us to see ourselves in the actions of others? In the past decade, we have had many opportunities to witness the effects of deceitful men upon trusting and unsuspecting people. We have seen people shift allegiances and loyalties but deny doing so by their words. We have seen couples speak words of lifelong devotion only to cast them aside for a new attraction. We have seen friends and family who expressed the deepest of commitments to one another both deny those relationships and turn against one another. We have seen hearts broken by sarcasm and neglect. We have seen the crushing effects of criticism upon those needing reassurance and encouragement.
Most of us do not escape life without being deeply touched by such actions from others. But how incredibly sobering it is to see ourselves in these actions of others, to realize that we are guilty of the very things that may have hurt us deeply! We, too, are responsible for spreading the flames of a fire that devours and destroys all in its path. The evil of our tongues is as limitless as the evil James describes.
A sharp tongue is a weapon, no less as effective as a pointed spear or a sword honed to a razor's edge. A sharp tongue has no place among the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). It does not express love, spread joy or promote peace. It shows no patience, kindness or goodness in its words. It betrays faithfulness and gentleness, and most of all, it shows no measure of self-control.
My sharp tongue has been a contradiction to the convictions I have expressed nearly all my life. I never saw it until I had to come face to face with the jabs, slices, and pricks of other sharp tongues, and to feel the fires they started within me. I would beg the Father for understanding, of why such communication should exist and why I should receive it with such bitterness—until I finally saw, as David did, that I am the guilty one.
Staff
Are You Sharp-Tongued? (Part One)Related Topics: David | Forest Fire as Metaphor | Gossip | Intolerance | Job | Job's Friends | Judging | Judging Others | Judging Ourselves | Judging Self | Nathan | Offense | Sarcasm | Sharp Tongue | Spiritual Blindness | Spiritual Blindspots | Tongue as Fire | Tongue, Control of