Does everyone know what a yinyang is? At this point, I would be surprised if you did not, especially among my usual body of readers, who tend to be well-educated. Let me lay out out, just to be sure. A yinyang is that funny symbol with a white swirl and a black swirl meeting each other, in identical sizes and shapes, making up a circle when placed together. The white swirl has a black dot in its largest area, and the black has a white dot in its largest area.
The yinyang is a Traditional Chinese symbol. European mythology has generally contrasted light and dark with good and evil, or with purity and sin. Buddhists don't do this. The yinyang represents, not enemies matching each other with equal power, but two differing and unopposing powers of equal strength, who need each other to survive. The white brings out the black; the black brings out the white. Remove one, and they both suffer. In the excellently-written "Avatar: The Last Airbender" series, the Moon and Ocean spirits are depicted as a black and white fish swimming around each other. The Moon and the Ocean, as mythical creatures as well as scientific entities, act upon each other, but are not considered adversaries.
The element "yin" is female, and the element "yang" is male.
So let's pretend for a moment that you are an old practitioner of Chinese Traditional beliefs. You have a little shop in town, where you sell yinyang pendants, other pendants like the multicolored, five-pointed star, herbs and spices, and about eight different flavors of Pocky. The adults like the spices, the teens like the pendants, which they wear carelessly (but that doesn't bother you), the kids love the Pocky.
One day, a young woman enters your shop, wearing a pendant that depicts a big black spot. Trying to make conversation, you admire her black spot pendant. To your surprise, she screams and curses at you and tells you that it is a yinyang. Puzzled and confused, trying to pull yourself together under her onslaught, you try to explain the concept of the yinyang and why it is not a black spot... why the yang is as important as the yin and the yin as important as the yang. She tells you that you're a racist bigot and an idiot, threatens to burn down your house, and storms out of the shop, leaving you shaken.
Over the next few months, you start seeing this more and more. People enter the shop with black pendants or white pendants and insist that they are yinyangs. You don't really care if they want to wear black or white pendants. You are a bit concerned that they think these are yinyangs, but any attempts to explain otherwise are met with open hostility and, at times, threats. You keep up your shop, you are happy to explain your traditions to those who ask, and you delight in explaining how yinyang equivalents can be found in almost any other culture out there, including their own... but you have learned to tense up and shut up when you see someone wearing a black pendant or a white pendant.
Then the government, one day, declares that since you sell yinyang pendants (to anybody who wants them, as always), you are required to manufacture and sell white dots and black dots to anybody who wants them (which you honestly wouldn't mind doing and have already done a few times), and you are specifically required to label them as "yinyang pendants" (which is the part that bothers you). On that very same day, people come into your shop, screaming insults at you when they realize you haven't decided whether to lie about Traditional Chinese symbols for the sake of your income or close your shop entirely. "Your rights aren't being affected," they insist, "because you are allowed to say that the black and white symbol is a yinyang as long as you do it very quietly in your house while you're engaging in acts of meditation." Then they start mocking you. "The government hasn't redefined yinyang at all, and I bet you can't prove otherwise!" they say, and when you try to explain the history of your people and the yinyang equivalents of other cultures, they tell you that you are stupid and uneducated, and, therefore, nothing you say matters.
But most of all, since you have never objected when they simply wore the black or white dots, and, though you may have been perturbed when they said it was yinyang, you would not have forbidden them through the government from making their claims, you are saddened and perplexed by their insistence that you not only follow their terminology, but sell those black and white dots specifically as yinyangs in your own shop.
And now, in the aftermath of the government's decision, what seems strangest to you is that the people who won, the people who decided to "redefine" your symbol and shut you up with threats of government punishment should you disagree, seem to be the angriest of all the parties once involved in the now-stifled debate of whether a yinyang can exist without the yin or without the yang.
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
It's 'okay' to be X-Men
"Have you tried not being a mutant?"
One of my long-standing beefs with the newer X-Men live-action movie franchises can be summed up in that line from X2. For generations, X-Men has been a story about outcasts, weirdos, and freaks struggling to find a place in society and just be themselves. It calls out to virtually every teenager alive, who feels as if he or she is the only person in the world going through this bizarre body-morphing process while struggling to figure out whether he or she is a child or an adult.
Originally, mutants were sometimes seen as a rough analog to racism. (In one extremely cute moment in the Larger Universe of the franchise, a mutant sent back in time is almost 'charmed' to be denied a seat in a restaurant, not because she is a mutant, but because she is black.) The more recent trilogy, though, especially the second movie, leaned heavily on a connection with homosexuality instead. Of course, they probably immediately alienated everyone who wanted to make that connection in X3, when a mutant 'cure' was found and at least one pitiable case decided to take it...
The more I began to think about this connection, the more I realized that it was actually pretty useful in untangling the modern 'gay rights' movement, much more useful than it could have been in understanding racism. The standard factions of the X-Men franchise actually correlate fairly well to the factions in this particular struggle. Of course, it isn't a perfect correlation, as a significant group of people (myself included) do not believe that homosexual behavior is inborn, unavoidable, and morally neutral. (Granted, arguments could be made about the morality of a mutant ability that can only be used to make other people deathly ill.) Still, for what it's worth, here are the correlations:
Charles Xavier and the Rank-And-File: On the good side, you have Xavier's school for mutants and his undying efforts to tweak society gently into one in which a blue-skinned girl can walk down the street alongside her 'normal' friend without fear. He simply wants mutants and regular humans to live in peace. To that end, he encourages mutants to show a sense of propriety in public. Being blue-skinned isn't an invitation to walk around naked. There is no harm in using your ice power to cool your tea, but don't go flinging shards at the neighborhood bully. Live in peace inasmuch as you can. On the other side, he opposes the Mutant Registration Act, which tends to lead to big stomping robots going about genetically identifying mutants and putting them in prison.
In the realm of 'gay rights', these would be the people who are quite willing to work with a gay person, or have one in the apartment complex, as long as he and his partner aren't tongue-kissing out in front of the children or doing drugs... things that are utterly avoidable no matter your sexual preference.
"Friends of Humanity" and the genuinely afraid: Everyone can agree that these people are basically either bad or misguided, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on them. They are analogous to the people in the gay 'rights' debate who want to throw all homosexuals in jail, the ones who see these people not as sinners with the rest of us, but as being in some way subhuman. In an irony that carries over to the real world, some of the angriest anti-mutant folk have mutants in their family, and the hatred spills over from fear.)
Now here comes the interesting part of the discussion.
Magneto and his followers: Unlike Xavier, who wants peaceful coexistence, Magneto sees himself and other mutants as superior to humans and believe that mutants should rule. He takes it as a no-brainer that mutants should not only appear in their natural shapes in public, but should have free and unfettered exercise of their mutant powers. He believes that they are the next step in human evolution and that the regular humans should submit to them.
This is a clear and not often-explored goal among the gay 'rights' activists. Many homosexuals are just as willing as many non-homosexuals to simply live in peace, respecting each other's rights. Gays don't claim religious significance for acts that religions ban; straights don't confront them in alleyways telling them to 'repent' or take a beating. That would be the Charles Xavier way. Gay activists, however, insist that homosexual behavior will "strengthen" marriage... how? By redefining adultery and removing 'old-fashioned' notions of longevity. The gay relationship is, to them, the next step in human evolution, and they will ensure that everyone be forced to submit.
Mystique/Raven, being a blue-skinned shapeshifter with golden eyes, is drawn alternately in the most recent movies to Charles Xavier, who says that she should be able to go to school with the other children in the proper school uniform and not ostracized for her skin color, and Magneto, who says that she should be able to go to school utterly naked (the actress wears a latex suit) and the other people should have no right to object. I can't help but be reminded by the school officials who are willing to extend to a single-stalled bathroom to a physically male student who thinks he ought to be female, and the activists who insist that he should be allowed to enter a bathroom full of girls and neither the girls nor their parents have the right to object.
I have consistently taken Charles Xavier's side in the gay 'rights' fight, affirming the right of any peaceful citizen to live and travel peacefully. I wonder what would happen if I started referring to the gay activists as "Magneto". Perhaps that simple act would be enough to get the homosexual lobby to leave X-Men alone... and for the next generation of geeks and freaks who are not homosexual to feel comfortable, as has been for generations before us, identifying with the mutants.
One of my long-standing beefs with the newer X-Men live-action movie franchises can be summed up in that line from X2. For generations, X-Men has been a story about outcasts, weirdos, and freaks struggling to find a place in society and just be themselves. It calls out to virtually every teenager alive, who feels as if he or she is the only person in the world going through this bizarre body-morphing process while struggling to figure out whether he or she is a child or an adult.
Originally, mutants were sometimes seen as a rough analog to racism. (In one extremely cute moment in the Larger Universe of the franchise, a mutant sent back in time is almost 'charmed' to be denied a seat in a restaurant, not because she is a mutant, but because she is black.) The more recent trilogy, though, especially the second movie, leaned heavily on a connection with homosexuality instead. Of course, they probably immediately alienated everyone who wanted to make that connection in X3, when a mutant 'cure' was found and at least one pitiable case decided to take it...
The more I began to think about this connection, the more I realized that it was actually pretty useful in untangling the modern 'gay rights' movement, much more useful than it could have been in understanding racism. The standard factions of the X-Men franchise actually correlate fairly well to the factions in this particular struggle. Of course, it isn't a perfect correlation, as a significant group of people (myself included) do not believe that homosexual behavior is inborn, unavoidable, and morally neutral. (Granted, arguments could be made about the morality of a mutant ability that can only be used to make other people deathly ill.) Still, for what it's worth, here are the correlations:
Charles Xavier and the Rank-And-File: On the good side, you have Xavier's school for mutants and his undying efforts to tweak society gently into one in which a blue-skinned girl can walk down the street alongside her 'normal' friend without fear. He simply wants mutants and regular humans to live in peace. To that end, he encourages mutants to show a sense of propriety in public. Being blue-skinned isn't an invitation to walk around naked. There is no harm in using your ice power to cool your tea, but don't go flinging shards at the neighborhood bully. Live in peace inasmuch as you can. On the other side, he opposes the Mutant Registration Act, which tends to lead to big stomping robots going about genetically identifying mutants and putting them in prison.
In the realm of 'gay rights', these would be the people who are quite willing to work with a gay person, or have one in the apartment complex, as long as he and his partner aren't tongue-kissing out in front of the children or doing drugs... things that are utterly avoidable no matter your sexual preference.
"Friends of Humanity" and the genuinely afraid: Everyone can agree that these people are basically either bad or misguided, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on them. They are analogous to the people in the gay 'rights' debate who want to throw all homosexuals in jail, the ones who see these people not as sinners with the rest of us, but as being in some way subhuman. In an irony that carries over to the real world, some of the angriest anti-mutant folk have mutants in their family, and the hatred spills over from fear.)
Now here comes the interesting part of the discussion.
Magneto and his followers: Unlike Xavier, who wants peaceful coexistence, Magneto sees himself and other mutants as superior to humans and believe that mutants should rule. He takes it as a no-brainer that mutants should not only appear in their natural shapes in public, but should have free and unfettered exercise of their mutant powers. He believes that they are the next step in human evolution and that the regular humans should submit to them.
This is a clear and not often-explored goal among the gay 'rights' activists. Many homosexuals are just as willing as many non-homosexuals to simply live in peace, respecting each other's rights. Gays don't claim religious significance for acts that religions ban; straights don't confront them in alleyways telling them to 'repent' or take a beating. That would be the Charles Xavier way. Gay activists, however, insist that homosexual behavior will "strengthen" marriage... how? By redefining adultery and removing 'old-fashioned' notions of longevity. The gay relationship is, to them, the next step in human evolution, and they will ensure that everyone be forced to submit.
Mystique/Raven, being a blue-skinned shapeshifter with golden eyes, is drawn alternately in the most recent movies to Charles Xavier, who says that she should be able to go to school with the other children in the proper school uniform and not ostracized for her skin color, and Magneto, who says that she should be able to go to school utterly naked (the actress wears a latex suit) and the other people should have no right to object. I can't help but be reminded by the school officials who are willing to extend to a single-stalled bathroom to a physically male student who thinks he ought to be female, and the activists who insist that he should be allowed to enter a bathroom full of girls and neither the girls nor their parents have the right to object.
I have consistently taken Charles Xavier's side in the gay 'rights' fight, affirming the right of any peaceful citizen to live and travel peacefully. I wonder what would happen if I started referring to the gay activists as "Magneto". Perhaps that simple act would be enough to get the homosexual lobby to leave X-Men alone... and for the next generation of geeks and freaks who are not homosexual to feel comfortable, as has been for generations before us, identifying with the mutants.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Being Bold
I watched The Dark Knight on our new Blu-Ray player tonight. The player was a Christmas gift to the entire household, and it is gorgeous. I loved the visuals and the sound. I do believe that it is an excellent movie, though not for children... it is rated PG-13, but it really should have been rated PG-15.
During one part of the movie, Joker has threatened to kill people each night until Batman gives up his identity and turns himself in. At a press conference, Harvey Dent tries to convince the people of Gotham that they don't really want to insist on this. He tells them that Batman will have to answer to his vigilante behavior, but he must answer to the people of Gotham, not to a madman. He must answer in their own timeline, not under threat by a terrorist.
After the movie, I settled down to check my emails and forum posts, and found myself typing a comprehensive response to the question of whether a certain political figure was a Christian. As I explained how Christianity was more than just attending church, how a Christian over time sees humility replace pride and self-sacrifice replace selfishness, I was already catching myself cringing over my own words. "I am not fit to sit on the judgment throne, but we were given this power on Earth, judgment and excommunication, in order to prevent the insincere from making God's power seem meaningless." (Those were not my exact words, but it was the gist of what I was saying.) Even as I typed, though, I caught myself cringing. My debate opponent was definitely going to accuse me of pride, I thought, and thereby argue that I am not a real Christian if this political figure is not.
Then I remembered the movie, and from that I have this message to give to Christians at the close of the year.
Those who are working against Christianity have been steadily redefining words and changing labels. This is not only a Christian-Humanist thing, but a liberal-conservative one as well. You redefine compassion and accuse your opponent of having none, so that he supports socialist programs in order to appear to the people to have compassion. You redefine pride, so that you can keep your opponent from speaking out boldly for fear that people think he is prideful and thus a hypocrite. If you can accuse him of hypocrisy, you have won the debate, even if the facts are on his side.
Now, I am not the kind of 'bold' Christian who says anything on my mind without softening, without thought. Some people are eager, for instance, to walk up to anyone on the street who appears to adopt a homosexual identity and declare that this person is going straight to Hell. I do not. However, others try very hard to act accepting, to hold their tongue when they should speak honestly and carefully, because they do not want to be seen as intolerant. They fear that society can no longer tell the difference between integrity and pride, between humility and hypocrisy. They fear being seen as prideful and hypocritical if they act in simple, honest, genuine boldness.
Speak and be bold. Let God alone tie your hand or still your speech. Be plain and honest in your dealings. Speak the truth, not with anger or harshness, but with love. When you do keep silent, when you do cushion your words, when you do choose your battles and decide that a certain time is not the time to fight, do it for love and concern for the other person. Do not do it out of fear for your own reputation.
Show true humility. It is pride that makes you want to appear to fit the new definition of humble. Avoid hypocrisy. Do not fear being labeled as a hypocrite. This generation is inundated by definitions and ideas which are as shallow and weak as artificial flavoring in an artificial meal. You can satisfy yourself with it unless you are exposed to the real thing. People will know, deep inside, when they see the real thing. The charges of hypocrisy, or pride, or ruthlessness, will not stick if you hold to the truth of humility, strength, and honesty. You do not need to meet their definitions out of fear.
Even someone who has heard only their side for an entire lifetime will know what's real when they see it. Christians must be bold in God, humble in God, honest in God, and compassionate in God... and properly represent the truth.
During one part of the movie, Joker has threatened to kill people each night until Batman gives up his identity and turns himself in. At a press conference, Harvey Dent tries to convince the people of Gotham that they don't really want to insist on this. He tells them that Batman will have to answer to his vigilante behavior, but he must answer to the people of Gotham, not to a madman. He must answer in their own timeline, not under threat by a terrorist.
After the movie, I settled down to check my emails and forum posts, and found myself typing a comprehensive response to the question of whether a certain political figure was a Christian. As I explained how Christianity was more than just attending church, how a Christian over time sees humility replace pride and self-sacrifice replace selfishness, I was already catching myself cringing over my own words. "I am not fit to sit on the judgment throne, but we were given this power on Earth, judgment and excommunication, in order to prevent the insincere from making God's power seem meaningless." (Those were not my exact words, but it was the gist of what I was saying.) Even as I typed, though, I caught myself cringing. My debate opponent was definitely going to accuse me of pride, I thought, and thereby argue that I am not a real Christian if this political figure is not.
Then I remembered the movie, and from that I have this message to give to Christians at the close of the year.
Those who are working against Christianity have been steadily redefining words and changing labels. This is not only a Christian-Humanist thing, but a liberal-conservative one as well. You redefine compassion and accuse your opponent of having none, so that he supports socialist programs in order to appear to the people to have compassion. You redefine pride, so that you can keep your opponent from speaking out boldly for fear that people think he is prideful and thus a hypocrite. If you can accuse him of hypocrisy, you have won the debate, even if the facts are on his side.
Now, I am not the kind of 'bold' Christian who says anything on my mind without softening, without thought. Some people are eager, for instance, to walk up to anyone on the street who appears to adopt a homosexual identity and declare that this person is going straight to Hell. I do not. However, others try very hard to act accepting, to hold their tongue when they should speak honestly and carefully, because they do not want to be seen as intolerant. They fear that society can no longer tell the difference between integrity and pride, between humility and hypocrisy. They fear being seen as prideful and hypocritical if they act in simple, honest, genuine boldness.
Speak and be bold. Let God alone tie your hand or still your speech. Be plain and honest in your dealings. Speak the truth, not with anger or harshness, but with love. When you do keep silent, when you do cushion your words, when you do choose your battles and decide that a certain time is not the time to fight, do it for love and concern for the other person. Do not do it out of fear for your own reputation.
Show true humility. It is pride that makes you want to appear to fit the new definition of humble. Avoid hypocrisy. Do not fear being labeled as a hypocrite. This generation is inundated by definitions and ideas which are as shallow and weak as artificial flavoring in an artificial meal. You can satisfy yourself with it unless you are exposed to the real thing. People will know, deep inside, when they see the real thing. The charges of hypocrisy, or pride, or ruthlessness, will not stick if you hold to the truth of humility, strength, and honesty. You do not need to meet their definitions out of fear.
Even someone who has heard only their side for an entire lifetime will know what's real when they see it. Christians must be bold in God, humble in God, honest in God, and compassionate in God... and properly represent the truth.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
How dare you question my wisdom?
It looks as if town hall meetings are no longer meant to give us a forum in which to express our concerns and hear lawmakers try to support their decisions. It is now a forum in which the lawmakers tell us what we are going to roll over and allow them to do. It is no longer a place of persuasion and debate, but a place of demands and coercion. What happened?
Well, apparently Obama got tired of hearing people object to his plan, and so he rustled up his union buddies to go attend these town hall meetings. The result: Thursday night featured the first bouts of actual violence in the entire government-run healthcare debate.
A note about the protestors and town hall participants: They raised their voices. They held signs. They chanted sometimes. That's it. They are not violent people. They are not terrorists. They're people like you and me. The initial town hall meetings reminded me a bit of heavy metal fans. Now that probably sounds like an odd correlation to make. Let me explain it.
My sister and I attended a heavy metal concert with a couple of other friends. We found ourselves, country mice on a long journey, in the part of Poughkeepsie where the cops don't go, in line with a bunch of people (mostly men) wearing black leather, chains, spikes, ponytails, and various piercings. To hear the major news media reporting on town hall protests, you'd think these people had attended them. You might not be off the mark.
Why? Because they turned out to be the friendliest, gentlest, most respectable and respectful people you could hope to share an auditorium with. Imagine this: at a standing-room-only concert, I tried to step forward to get a better look at the band. The people in the audience readily parted for me, giving me an excellent view close to the stage. You could get bumped into in a crowd like that, but not without an exchange of "I'm sorry" and "Excuse me" and "That's alright". There were a couple of bouncers on hand, who were not needed. There was no violence, no trampling, no accidental injury, and the fans even left the place clean as it was when they arrived.
From what I have seen and heard of the town meetings, the people were very much like that. They would rail and shout, but nobody was getting trampled, nobody was getting separated from their group, and nobody was getting frightened... except for the Democrats up on stage, who are not used to having their wisdom questioned and did not know how to deal with well-reasoned opposition from the people who are supposed to follow like sheep.
Then Obama spoke up. He sent out emails to his supporters asking them to show up at the town hall meetings to shout down the protesters. This act made apparent that he was not looking for actual discussion. At the absolute best, he was hoping for a photo-op of people not disagreeing with his plan. Oh, he got a photo-op alright. The pictures and video taken of the violence has hit Youtube and, as the phrase goes, "gone viral". (This despite having not hit the major news media in any way except a vague sort of "there was violence between opposing groups" without revealing who was actually throwing people against walls.)
Now I've heard people raise various possibilities of why Thursday night's violence happened. The kindest opinion, however, is just as bad as the least kind. The least kind opinion is pretty obvious. Many people believe that Barry Obama, Chicago politician, purposely rounded up the union people in order to intimidate and attack the town hall attendees. They account the violence, which resulted in torn shirts, bruising, and one man beaten into the hospital, directly to his fault. They view him as a modern-day crime boss telling his minions to go out there and break a few knees.
The kindest opinion is that Obama is so blindingly inept at the only job he has any real experience in, community organizing, that he simply did not know what happens when you ask union officials to get their guys to show up and provide a counter to a protest. Despite my adventures to places like heavy metal concerts, I have grown up in a fairly sheltered community, among Christians and homeschoolers, in a rural neighborhood. Even I knew exactly what was going to happen once union thugs got involved in this wasn't-yet-a-mess. If even a rural Connecticut housewife knows how they behave, how could an urban community organizer and Chicago politician have no clue whatsoever?
Of course, this raises serious questions about our president. Is he utterly inept and astonishingly naive? Or is he purposely intimidating ordinary citizens with the only means of force that will target innocent people? Note that these first clashes were not against police (who were already monitoring the protests long before Thursday) or military (who have not been called in), but union people proudly wearing their union shirts.
In either case, it seems that the one thing the Democrats do not want us to do is to object to their plans. They are not interested in compromise; they are not even interested in our opinion. Now we find out whether they can strong-arm the American People into backing down and giving them their own way. If this issue is decided by force, our way of life just might be over.
Well, apparently Obama got tired of hearing people object to his plan, and so he rustled up his union buddies to go attend these town hall meetings. The result: Thursday night featured the first bouts of actual violence in the entire government-run healthcare debate.
A note about the protestors and town hall participants: They raised their voices. They held signs. They chanted sometimes. That's it. They are not violent people. They are not terrorists. They're people like you and me. The initial town hall meetings reminded me a bit of heavy metal fans. Now that probably sounds like an odd correlation to make. Let me explain it.
My sister and I attended a heavy metal concert with a couple of other friends. We found ourselves, country mice on a long journey, in the part of Poughkeepsie where the cops don't go, in line with a bunch of people (mostly men) wearing black leather, chains, spikes, ponytails, and various piercings. To hear the major news media reporting on town hall protests, you'd think these people had attended them. You might not be off the mark.
Why? Because they turned out to be the friendliest, gentlest, most respectable and respectful people you could hope to share an auditorium with. Imagine this: at a standing-room-only concert, I tried to step forward to get a better look at the band. The people in the audience readily parted for me, giving me an excellent view close to the stage. You could get bumped into in a crowd like that, but not without an exchange of "I'm sorry" and "Excuse me" and "That's alright". There were a couple of bouncers on hand, who were not needed. There was no violence, no trampling, no accidental injury, and the fans even left the place clean as it was when they arrived.
From what I have seen and heard of the town meetings, the people were very much like that. They would rail and shout, but nobody was getting trampled, nobody was getting separated from their group, and nobody was getting frightened... except for the Democrats up on stage, who are not used to having their wisdom questioned and did not know how to deal with well-reasoned opposition from the people who are supposed to follow like sheep.
Then Obama spoke up. He sent out emails to his supporters asking them to show up at the town hall meetings to shout down the protesters. This act made apparent that he was not looking for actual discussion. At the absolute best, he was hoping for a photo-op of people not disagreeing with his plan. Oh, he got a photo-op alright. The pictures and video taken of the violence has hit Youtube and, as the phrase goes, "gone viral". (This despite having not hit the major news media in any way except a vague sort of "there was violence between opposing groups" without revealing who was actually throwing people against walls.)
Now I've heard people raise various possibilities of why Thursday night's violence happened. The kindest opinion, however, is just as bad as the least kind. The least kind opinion is pretty obvious. Many people believe that Barry Obama, Chicago politician, purposely rounded up the union people in order to intimidate and attack the town hall attendees. They account the violence, which resulted in torn shirts, bruising, and one man beaten into the hospital, directly to his fault. They view him as a modern-day crime boss telling his minions to go out there and break a few knees.
The kindest opinion is that Obama is so blindingly inept at the only job he has any real experience in, community organizing, that he simply did not know what happens when you ask union officials to get their guys to show up and provide a counter to a protest. Despite my adventures to places like heavy metal concerts, I have grown up in a fairly sheltered community, among Christians and homeschoolers, in a rural neighborhood. Even I knew exactly what was going to happen once union thugs got involved in this wasn't-yet-a-mess. If even a rural Connecticut housewife knows how they behave, how could an urban community organizer and Chicago politician have no clue whatsoever?
Of course, this raises serious questions about our president. Is he utterly inept and astonishingly naive? Or is he purposely intimidating ordinary citizens with the only means of force that will target innocent people? Note that these first clashes were not against police (who were already monitoring the protests long before Thursday) or military (who have not been called in), but union people proudly wearing their union shirts.
In either case, it seems that the one thing the Democrats do not want us to do is to object to their plans. They are not interested in compromise; they are not even interested in our opinion. Now we find out whether they can strong-arm the American People into backing down and giving them their own way. If this issue is decided by force, our way of life just might be over.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A Christian celebrating Christmas
Every year I hear the same debate, an old debate about whether or not Christians should celebrate Christmas. Personally, I know what I do, and I don't mind what others do. I see it as something that each person should be able to approach to their own conscience. The issue is not a limiting issue to me. Those who celebrate Christmas in all it's religious and secular glory, those who stick to the religious only, and those who bypass it altogether as a 'pagan festival' may all be perfectly good Christians, and I don't have a problem with any of those choices. However, I would like to address a certain argument against Christmas (and Easter) and offer my take on it.
Though there are people who have decided calmly in their own mind and conscience to avoid Christmas and Easter, there are others who end up confused by one main argument: the pagan/secular additions. If someone decides to not celebrate Christmas because he does not feel comfortable about honoring Jesus's birthday on a day that likely isn't His birthday, so much the better for him. However, sometimes their zeal in spreading their opinions leave Christians in-between, unwilling to abandon their traditions, but now viewing them with an unnecessary measure of guilt. I do not believe that God intended us to feel terrible about treating each other with charity and love because some elements of Santa Claus's history included a conglomerate of pagan beliefs. For this reason, I would like to give you something to consider as you ask yourself whether it's sinful to put candy canes on your tree or exchange gifts.
Everything that God made is inherently good. Those of you who want to talk of original sin, please hold on for a moment and give me time here. Everything God made is inherently and originally good. Anything that Satan uses has to be twisted to be made evil. Food is not sinful, but gluttony is. Sex is not sinful, but it can be misused to terrible effect.
The key here is 'originally and inherently'. Satan poisoned everything just a little bit, even us. I like the way C.S. Lewis put it in the book Screwtape Letters, in which a demon argued that God claims ownership of all under the claim that He created it, while Satan seeks to claim all under the banner of conquest. We all know that there is a spiritual war between the forces of God and Satan, and we all know the eventual outcome.
Now consider what happens during a war. One side advances, and captures an enemy fort. What do they do? If the fort is rotted, if the food is utterly poisoned, if the place is booby-trapped, they will probably raze it to the ground. However, most of the time this is not the case. The food is just as good, the fort nearly as strong, and they run up their own flag and begin to repair the fortifications.
Jesus has made it clear that we are made of good things, once enemy fortifications, now with God's flag run up and the original usefulness turned once again to good. I would submit that the same is true for Christmas. Sure, there are many people who fall into materialism and spend the holiday buying things they can't afford for people they hate, but God's flag has been run up in Christmas Cantatas. Christmas and Easter are often the only times that the non-devout attend church. That's an opportunity to run up God's flag. There is a lot of love and generosity among good people that peaks around Christmastime. When I hear of over 500 people making a commitment for Christ at the Word of Life Florida Christmas show, I see God's flag fluttering over the fortification that once involved nature goddesses and ancient superstition. I could not call that an evil thing.
So what is my advice, in the end? If the 'pagan elements' trouble you such that you prefer to not partake with a clear conscience and without the burden of guilt, by all means, do as you see best! But if you have heard over and over about the evils of this holiday, but you still love to honor God through your traditions during this time, do so without guilt! You are flying God's flag on an enemy fortification that was originally built by God.
Jesus doesn't mind you giving presents to each other on His birthday, even if you get the date wrong. Candy canes aren't going to send you to hell if they remind you (and you tell your children) of the shepherds who came to see that extraordinary baby. And whether it be turkey, ham, or steak, it's an awfully good meal, isn't it?
Though there are people who have decided calmly in their own mind and conscience to avoid Christmas and Easter, there are others who end up confused by one main argument: the pagan/secular additions. If someone decides to not celebrate Christmas because he does not feel comfortable about honoring Jesus's birthday on a day that likely isn't His birthday, so much the better for him. However, sometimes their zeal in spreading their opinions leave Christians in-between, unwilling to abandon their traditions, but now viewing them with an unnecessary measure of guilt. I do not believe that God intended us to feel terrible about treating each other with charity and love because some elements of Santa Claus's history included a conglomerate of pagan beliefs. For this reason, I would like to give you something to consider as you ask yourself whether it's sinful to put candy canes on your tree or exchange gifts.
Everything that God made is inherently good. Those of you who want to talk of original sin, please hold on for a moment and give me time here. Everything God made is inherently and originally good. Anything that Satan uses has to be twisted to be made evil. Food is not sinful, but gluttony is. Sex is not sinful, but it can be misused to terrible effect.
The key here is 'originally and inherently'. Satan poisoned everything just a little bit, even us. I like the way C.S. Lewis put it in the book Screwtape Letters, in which a demon argued that God claims ownership of all under the claim that He created it, while Satan seeks to claim all under the banner of conquest. We all know that there is a spiritual war between the forces of God and Satan, and we all know the eventual outcome.
Now consider what happens during a war. One side advances, and captures an enemy fort. What do they do? If the fort is rotted, if the food is utterly poisoned, if the place is booby-trapped, they will probably raze it to the ground. However, most of the time this is not the case. The food is just as good, the fort nearly as strong, and they run up their own flag and begin to repair the fortifications.
Jesus has made it clear that we are made of good things, once enemy fortifications, now with God's flag run up and the original usefulness turned once again to good. I would submit that the same is true for Christmas. Sure, there are many people who fall into materialism and spend the holiday buying things they can't afford for people they hate, but God's flag has been run up in Christmas Cantatas. Christmas and Easter are often the only times that the non-devout attend church. That's an opportunity to run up God's flag. There is a lot of love and generosity among good people that peaks around Christmastime. When I hear of over 500 people making a commitment for Christ at the Word of Life Florida Christmas show, I see God's flag fluttering over the fortification that once involved nature goddesses and ancient superstition. I could not call that an evil thing.
So what is my advice, in the end? If the 'pagan elements' trouble you such that you prefer to not partake with a clear conscience and without the burden of guilt, by all means, do as you see best! But if you have heard over and over about the evils of this holiday, but you still love to honor God through your traditions during this time, do so without guilt! You are flying God's flag on an enemy fortification that was originally built by God.
Jesus doesn't mind you giving presents to each other on His birthday, even if you get the date wrong. Candy canes aren't going to send you to hell if they remind you (and you tell your children) of the shepherds who came to see that extraordinary baby. And whether it be turkey, ham, or steak, it's an awfully good meal, isn't it?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Anti-anti-feminism? Or not quite?
Since McCain has made his unexpected VP pick, forums and blogs everywhere have been alight. Especially in the media areas where I watch, suddenly everyone wants to talk about this not-unknown-for-long woman, governor of a state most people don't even think about on a semi-regular basis.
I, being a bit of an 'anti-feminist', track sites with similar beliefs, of course, and I've been surprised to see an ultra-conservative backlash against this VP pick. I've been even more surprised to find that I, usually pretty nearly solid in my agreement with them, find myself a bit at odds. There are two main areas in dispute, and I plan to lay out my own thoughts on each one separately.
1. Sarah Palin, being a mother of young children, especially one with Down Syndrome, should be at home taking care of them.
I'm not sure where people who worry over this think the Palin children and husband actually are. I recommend http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml for an answer. In case you don't feel like wading through the pictures, I can tell you myself... her family is with her. For hours and sometimes days between campaign trips, she will have plenty of time to spend with husband and children, feeding her baby and snuggling with him. She may well have more time to spend with her family than any mother who is not homeschooling. Even during events, her family are no further away from backstage, and, increasingly, out in the front alongside her.
Palin is headed for a position that allows her to work in the same building that she and her family will live. The other working women afforded her level of flexibility, mostly schoolteachers, small business owners, or telecommuters, are often in the ranks of the anti-feminist groups and accepted by them. What is the difference here? It may have something to do with the second issue: Authority.
2. What's a woman doing taking authority over men? Indeed, placing herself in the line of succession for the most powerful job in the country?
Well, women in Ancient Israel might have taken issue with this question. As I said before, I agree with anti-feminist groups largely for the most part. In this area, though, I have some concern that they are taking an extremist position against an extremist position rather than looking to restore a proper balance. From wives frequently ruling their husbands, they push for a time when women are more or less ruled by men. I take a different tack, and one that I believe to be Biblically supported.
As I just mentioned, women in Ancient Israel might take issue with this view. During the Golden Ages of Israel, women had a great many rights not allowed to those in 1700's America, which even then was not the time of terrible oppression feminists claim it to be. In Ancient Israel, not only could women own and inherit property, but they had equal access to the courts and equal access with non-Levites to the Temple.
The Bible, when it speaks of submission to men, is clearly laying out the proper roles within a family. The husband is the CO, and the wife is the XO. However, these positions hold only within the family. As an example, when I conduct family business outside the home, I am not subordinate to any man with whom I may deal. My position as XO of the family trumps his position as outside the family, and he will not induce me to do anything against my family's betterment simply for the sake of being male. This position was supported even in America of the 1800's. If the husband died, the widow owned his property and cast votes in the family name.
A lot of people have been quoting the Old Testament case of Deborah as 'proof' that having a woman take a position of power over men outside of the family is a shameful thing. However, there are numerous instances of Old Testament women judging in the gates, owning and profiting from their own land and businesses (even married women), founding cities, and building bridges. In the New Testament, women commonly founded and led early churches, and Paul had plenty of them to greet and bless in each of his letters. There are two sets of verses usually used against this, but I believe one of them actually supports women's authority and the other is taken out of context.
The first involves women praying with their head covered (or with long hair). People claim that these verses establish all women as subserviant to all men as a matter of nature. "For God is the head of man, but man is the head of woman, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." What they seem to be missing is the import of the last verse: "For this reason and for the angels, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." This line of reasoning does not end with "women serving men is a matter of nature." It follows on to say, "Because nature suggests that women do not have the authority of men, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." We are different than men, and we take different roles in marriage, but we are not lesser in God's eyes.
The second is a little trickier. After several occasions of Paul talking about how we are all equal in Christ, man and woman, free and slave, after all the times he's cheered on the women leaders in the church, suddenly he declares that "the women shouldn't teach" because "Adam was formed first, and Eve was the one who sinned first." What's he talking about? Many people have taken it to mean that no woman should teach any man, but if you look at the context, you see a slightly different story.
Paul wrote his famous statement to Timothy, in Ephesus. Ephesus was home to the Diana cult. (Diana is also known as Artemis.) In Acts, we got to read about this cult causing a riot and nearly getting the early Christians in a lot of trouble. It turns out that their troublemaking had not ended there. The cult was very feminist-minded, and members who joined churches began distorting Scripture to suit themselves. "Eve was created first, before Adam," they'd teach loudly. "Eve did not sin, so women are not under the same curse as men."
Now his statement makes much more sense when taken with his previous affirmation of female leaders, doesn't it? "Timothy, your women need to stop preaching. Adam was created first, not Eve, and Eve did sin... she's not excluded from the sin curse."
On the matter of women in authority, by the way, my mother had a very interesting take on it. A housewife and mother for about as long as I've been alive, she pointed out that political leadership involves administrating the will of the people and has since the peasants forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. "Women make excellent administrators," she pointed out.
To conclude, I'd like to point out that the loudest people speaking against Palin's position due to her sex are not the conservative Christians. They are the liberals, particularly the liberal feminists. Why are they on this tack? Why do they care? They don't, to be honest. But they'll do anything they can, including trying to use our own arguments on us, to prevent her from winning this election. I hope to predict that they will fail because they do believe the bad light they cast us in, the distorted view that we believe woman is inherently inferior to man, that holding values mean we must crucify anyone who doesn't live up to our standard, and that "it's important for mothers to raise their children" means "mothers had better not move from the kitchen... ever!"
I, being a bit of an 'anti-feminist', track sites with similar beliefs, of course, and I've been surprised to see an ultra-conservative backlash against this VP pick. I've been even more surprised to find that I, usually pretty nearly solid in my agreement with them, find myself a bit at odds. There are two main areas in dispute, and I plan to lay out my own thoughts on each one separately.
1. Sarah Palin, being a mother of young children, especially one with Down Syndrome, should be at home taking care of them.
I'm not sure where people who worry over this think the Palin children and husband actually are. I recommend http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml for an answer. In case you don't feel like wading through the pictures, I can tell you myself... her family is with her. For hours and sometimes days between campaign trips, she will have plenty of time to spend with husband and children, feeding her baby and snuggling with him. She may well have more time to spend with her family than any mother who is not homeschooling. Even during events, her family are no further away from backstage, and, increasingly, out in the front alongside her.
Palin is headed for a position that allows her to work in the same building that she and her family will live. The other working women afforded her level of flexibility, mostly schoolteachers, small business owners, or telecommuters, are often in the ranks of the anti-feminist groups and accepted by them. What is the difference here? It may have something to do with the second issue: Authority.
2. What's a woman doing taking authority over men? Indeed, placing herself in the line of succession for the most powerful job in the country?
Well, women in Ancient Israel might have taken issue with this question. As I said before, I agree with anti-feminist groups largely for the most part. In this area, though, I have some concern that they are taking an extremist position against an extremist position rather than looking to restore a proper balance. From wives frequently ruling their husbands, they push for a time when women are more or less ruled by men. I take a different tack, and one that I believe to be Biblically supported.
As I just mentioned, women in Ancient Israel might take issue with this view. During the Golden Ages of Israel, women had a great many rights not allowed to those in 1700's America, which even then was not the time of terrible oppression feminists claim it to be. In Ancient Israel, not only could women own and inherit property, but they had equal access to the courts and equal access with non-Levites to the Temple.
The Bible, when it speaks of submission to men, is clearly laying out the proper roles within a family. The husband is the CO, and the wife is the XO. However, these positions hold only within the family. As an example, when I conduct family business outside the home, I am not subordinate to any man with whom I may deal. My position as XO of the family trumps his position as outside the family, and he will not induce me to do anything against my family's betterment simply for the sake of being male. This position was supported even in America of the 1800's. If the husband died, the widow owned his property and cast votes in the family name.
A lot of people have been quoting the Old Testament case of Deborah as 'proof' that having a woman take a position of power over men outside of the family is a shameful thing. However, there are numerous instances of Old Testament women judging in the gates, owning and profiting from their own land and businesses (even married women), founding cities, and building bridges. In the New Testament, women commonly founded and led early churches, and Paul had plenty of them to greet and bless in each of his letters. There are two sets of verses usually used against this, but I believe one of them actually supports women's authority and the other is taken out of context.
The first involves women praying with their head covered (or with long hair). People claim that these verses establish all women as subserviant to all men as a matter of nature. "For God is the head of man, but man is the head of woman, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." What they seem to be missing is the import of the last verse: "For this reason and for the angels, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." This line of reasoning does not end with "women serving men is a matter of nature." It follows on to say, "Because nature suggests that women do not have the authority of men, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." We are different than men, and we take different roles in marriage, but we are not lesser in God's eyes.
The second is a little trickier. After several occasions of Paul talking about how we are all equal in Christ, man and woman, free and slave, after all the times he's cheered on the women leaders in the church, suddenly he declares that "the women shouldn't teach" because "Adam was formed first, and Eve was the one who sinned first." What's he talking about? Many people have taken it to mean that no woman should teach any man, but if you look at the context, you see a slightly different story.
Paul wrote his famous statement to Timothy, in Ephesus. Ephesus was home to the Diana cult. (Diana is also known as Artemis.) In Acts, we got to read about this cult causing a riot and nearly getting the early Christians in a lot of trouble. It turns out that their troublemaking had not ended there. The cult was very feminist-minded, and members who joined churches began distorting Scripture to suit themselves. "Eve was created first, before Adam," they'd teach loudly. "Eve did not sin, so women are not under the same curse as men."
Now his statement makes much more sense when taken with his previous affirmation of female leaders, doesn't it? "Timothy, your women need to stop preaching. Adam was created first, not Eve, and Eve did sin... she's not excluded from the sin curse."
On the matter of women in authority, by the way, my mother had a very interesting take on it. A housewife and mother for about as long as I've been alive, she pointed out that political leadership involves administrating the will of the people and has since the peasants forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. "Women make excellent administrators," she pointed out.
To conclude, I'd like to point out that the loudest people speaking against Palin's position due to her sex are not the conservative Christians. They are the liberals, particularly the liberal feminists. Why are they on this tack? Why do they care? They don't, to be honest. But they'll do anything they can, including trying to use our own arguments on us, to prevent her from winning this election. I hope to predict that they will fail because they do believe the bad light they cast us in, the distorted view that we believe woman is inherently inferior to man, that holding values mean we must crucify anyone who doesn't live up to our standard, and that "it's important for mothers to raise their children" means "mothers had better not move from the kitchen... ever!"
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Some undesired answers to modern society's questions
I find that people rarely repeat simple things that we already know to be true, and yet when someone does repeat it, everyone around them who understands it breathes an internal sigh of relief. I find that at the Sunday service, when my pastor speaks simply and deliberately, laying out a problem in simple terms and giving a solid solution without all of the confusion and double-speak floating around by those who would go another way. I don't know if I'm the kind of person who can say something simple in a simple manner. I can certainly do it in a complicated manner. But maybe someone will read it and sigh in relief.
A lot of people are going to be really offended by this, but hopefully not many of them bother to visit my blog! The first simple thing I could say is that people who are going deliberately against God's plan are going against the very workings of the universe, and it's pretty quiet and desolate out there on a limb. This is why they try so hard to convince, not only themselves, but everyone they meet to approve of them and what they're doing. Those who know they're in God's will don't need anybody else's approval. So if you see someone trying to mandate having only their version told and criminalizing alternate opinions, that's a warning flag.
Everyone has a still small voice inside them, a space made by the Creator for Him to fill. When you rebel against society, friends, and your own family, you are fighting what is outside of you. When you rebel against God, you are fighting something inside yourself. That is why some people are extra touchy about the lifestyles they are trying to glorify.
The idea, you see, is that if everyone on the outside agrees with them, perhaps they can stifle the voice inside. The truth is that it won't work. In fact, if the voice inside agrees with you, you do not need any of the voices outside to approve the way you're choosing to spend your time.
A lot of people are going to be really offended by this, but hopefully not many of them bother to visit my blog! The first simple thing I could say is that people who are going deliberately against God's plan are going against the very workings of the universe, and it's pretty quiet and desolate out there on a limb. This is why they try so hard to convince, not only themselves, but everyone they meet to approve of them and what they're doing. Those who know they're in God's will don't need anybody else's approval. So if you see someone trying to mandate having only their version told and criminalizing alternate opinions, that's a warning flag.
Everyone has a still small voice inside them, a space made by the Creator for Him to fill. When you rebel against society, friends, and your own family, you are fighting what is outside of you. When you rebel against God, you are fighting something inside yourself. That is why some people are extra touchy about the lifestyles they are trying to glorify.
The idea, you see, is that if everyone on the outside agrees with them, perhaps they can stifle the voice inside. The truth is that it won't work. In fact, if the voice inside agrees with you, you do not need any of the voices outside to approve the way you're choosing to spend your time.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Christianity and Tolerance
I'd like to notice something here. With the exception of fearful sheep who claim to follow Christ because they either hold a church membership (all too easy these days) or those who are trying to prove themselves obsessively through a cult mentality, Christians on the whole tend to be more tolerant of other religions than anyone, especially secular humanists. There are a couple of reasons for this, and I'd like to set them out while I'm thinking of them.
Christianity is based on love of all people, regardless of their looks, religions, jobs, and sin. When you truly love as God loves, or rather as much as you are able given your flawed human form, you will not despise members of another religion. You may feel sorry for them, and you will likely wish you could, as Jesus said, gather them under His wings like a mother hen protects and warms her young, but you won't despise them. You won't want to kill them. You won't consider this world a better place without them.
(This doesn't have to make everyone total pacifists. It is terrible but true that in this fallen world one man may have to be killed to protect others. The instructions given to soldiers was not to lay down their arms, but to be content with their salary and not oppress the people they protect.)
There are some people I term 'hyper-Christians' who have their hearts in the right place, but irk those who hate them by focusing so thoroughly on this love that they badger people continuously in hopes of saving any of them, for honestly no other reason than that they would not have anybody fall to destruction. They are different than the 'gotta-catch-them-all' Christians who do so as some kind of sick attempt at a spiritual 500-Saved-Club. God doesn't work with numbers that way, and that leads me to another reason why Christians tend to be tolerant.
Christianity is a matter of devoting your whole self, body, soul, and mind, to God. Nothing less will do, and nothing more is required. Unlike religions where all you have to do is say a phrase and complete the appropriate rituals, or learn your sayings and 'mean it', there is no way to be a lukewarm but genuine Christian. Those who don't care much will fall away, and those who do care will end up in the right direction. Therefore, despite what happens when Christianity (or any religion) meets Power-Hungry, you cannot force conversion and have it stick. Conversion must be not only self-initiated, but anyone pushed into it or led by the nose will invariably end up as rocky or weedy soil. (Those of you who don't know what that means, there's a parable, ask and I'll tell it.)
Christians have a strong base on which to stand when they stand on their faith. Most people who get confused about it are easily confused by shallow tricks (like the old 'how can a loving God disapprove of homosexual acts' etc.) that are easily defeated with an honest understanding of the Bible, rather than an attempt to crowbar it apart. The accuracy of the Bible and support for it's claims surpass the proofs of many historical events that children are taught in school. I could go on, but I don't mean to get into all the proofs here... search them out for yourself. My point is that Christians don't have to shut their ears to any information about any other religion for fear that, as the Nip and Tuck webcomic put it so nicely, their 'worldview will throw a piston rod'. The point of many other groups, particularly gay rights and abortion rights groups, is not only to deliver their message but to silence opposition due to this fear.
These are the three attributes of tolerance from Christians: A sturdy base of faith, a true love for those not of their religion, and an understanding that faith in God must be real and never forced.
From that comes an unprecedented tolerance for those of other beliefs that surpasses the majority of other religions, including Islam, which is beat out for last place in the tolerance game by Secular Humanism because even the most extremist Muslim-led country will allow other religion adherents as second-class citizens.
I continue to study the Quran out of curiosity, unafraid that I may risk eternal damnation by finding something that makes more sense than what I already believe, or that I may find my own religion to be faded and threadbare in comparison. I haven't thrown a piston rod yet, and from what I've read so far, I seriously doubt that I will!
I do plan to do more on that series.. it is not over. For the time being I have been doing spring cleaning, homeschooling, gardening, and basically managing the household, a job that has rather overtaken my free time for a while.
Christianity is based on love of all people, regardless of their looks, religions, jobs, and sin. When you truly love as God loves, or rather as much as you are able given your flawed human form, you will not despise members of another religion. You may feel sorry for them, and you will likely wish you could, as Jesus said, gather them under His wings like a mother hen protects and warms her young, but you won't despise them. You won't want to kill them. You won't consider this world a better place without them.
(This doesn't have to make everyone total pacifists. It is terrible but true that in this fallen world one man may have to be killed to protect others. The instructions given to soldiers was not to lay down their arms, but to be content with their salary and not oppress the people they protect.)
There are some people I term 'hyper-Christians' who have their hearts in the right place, but irk those who hate them by focusing so thoroughly on this love that they badger people continuously in hopes of saving any of them, for honestly no other reason than that they would not have anybody fall to destruction. They are different than the 'gotta-catch-them-all' Christians who do so as some kind of sick attempt at a spiritual 500-Saved-Club. God doesn't work with numbers that way, and that leads me to another reason why Christians tend to be tolerant.
Christianity is a matter of devoting your whole self, body, soul, and mind, to God. Nothing less will do, and nothing more is required. Unlike religions where all you have to do is say a phrase and complete the appropriate rituals, or learn your sayings and 'mean it', there is no way to be a lukewarm but genuine Christian. Those who don't care much will fall away, and those who do care will end up in the right direction. Therefore, despite what happens when Christianity (or any religion) meets Power-Hungry, you cannot force conversion and have it stick. Conversion must be not only self-initiated, but anyone pushed into it or led by the nose will invariably end up as rocky or weedy soil. (Those of you who don't know what that means, there's a parable, ask and I'll tell it.)
Christians have a strong base on which to stand when they stand on their faith. Most people who get confused about it are easily confused by shallow tricks (like the old 'how can a loving God disapprove of homosexual acts' etc.) that are easily defeated with an honest understanding of the Bible, rather than an attempt to crowbar it apart. The accuracy of the Bible and support for it's claims surpass the proofs of many historical events that children are taught in school. I could go on, but I don't mean to get into all the proofs here... search them out for yourself. My point is that Christians don't have to shut their ears to any information about any other religion for fear that, as the Nip and Tuck webcomic put it so nicely, their 'worldview will throw a piston rod'. The point of many other groups, particularly gay rights and abortion rights groups, is not only to deliver their message but to silence opposition due to this fear.
These are the three attributes of tolerance from Christians: A sturdy base of faith, a true love for those not of their religion, and an understanding that faith in God must be real and never forced.
From that comes an unprecedented tolerance for those of other beliefs that surpasses the majority of other religions, including Islam, which is beat out for last place in the tolerance game by Secular Humanism because even the most extremist Muslim-led country will allow other religion adherents as second-class citizens.
I continue to study the Quran out of curiosity, unafraid that I may risk eternal damnation by finding something that makes more sense than what I already believe, or that I may find my own religion to be faded and threadbare in comparison. I haven't thrown a piston rod yet, and from what I've read so far, I seriously doubt that I will!
I do plan to do more on that series.. it is not over. For the time being I have been doing spring cleaning, homeschooling, gardening, and basically managing the household, a job that has rather overtaken my free time for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)