Tolerance in Action

A few days ago I saw an interview with the recently fired Miss California. Despite what the pageant office said about her missing appearances in lieu of other “unsanctioned” events, she made a case for the obvious. Her stand against gay marriage cost her the crown.

It’s always nice to see tolerance in action.

Don’t get me wrong. My heart goes out to the homosexual community. I understand that a rejection of the sin is often misconstrued as a slap in the face of the sinner. I understand that most people can’t separate who they are from what they do. I understand that it’s only because of Jesus that I’m able to see this distinction in myself and in others.

I understand that most people who read this won’t understand, and that’s all right.

What isn’t all right is the hypocrisy in the doctrine of tolerance. This problem isn’t the fault of people, but a flaw in the doctrine itself. It’s elementary. For tolerance to work, everyone must follow it. Therefore, tolerance must be intolerant of any doctrine other than itself. Ergo, hypocrisy.

So when the rubber meets the road, people like Carrie Prejean are told to be tolerant, even though it isn’t her doctrine. Of course, when she expresses her beliefs, which are contrary to the popular ideology, is tolerance extended to this differing world view? How could it be? Tolerance insists that there are no moral absolutes, while the Christian faith insists that there are. The two stand directly opposed. The church says to tolerance, “Love one another, yes, but love God first.” Tolerance, on the other hand, says to the church, “Why don’t you hypocrites just roll over and play dead?”

The funny thing is, we’re the ones accused of hate speech.

To be fair, many Christians do preach out of a self-righteous hatred. They’re the ones who often get the publicity, unfortunately.

But people like myself and Carrie Prejean are motivated by our love for people. Some would ask, of course, “How can you slam a group of people in love?” First, and once again, we see the sin and the person as being separate. Homosexual behavior is the issue. Homosexuals are not.

Second, if the Bible—which we believe to be the ultimate truth—says that sin is harmful, and that homosexual behavior is a sin, then how could we tolerate something that so threatens someone we’re called to love? That would be like asking me to tolerate a rattlesnake in my child’s playpen. That would be like asking me to tolerate a serial rapist in my sister’s neighborhood. I could no sooner tolerate a carbon monoxide leak in the home of my best friends, than I could tolerate a seemingly harmless sin that promises to destroy people in the end. No! Love itself forbids it, and I am happy to comply.

“But isn’t it wrong to force your beliefs on other people?”

Isn’t it funny that such questions are often posed by those who advocate the absence of moral absolutes?

Isn’t it funnier still that those who preach tolerance—believing that forcing one’s belief on another is wrong—show no hesitation to apply consequences to those of us who won’t see the world from their point of view; consequences being the vital element in forcing a belief?

Carrie Prejean lost her crown because she wouldn’t adopt a belief. Consequence.

I shared my faith at a temp job once, and that evening the agency told me my assignment had ended. Consequence.

Preach tolerance like the rest of the world, or you’ll end up like the I.D. scientists in Ben Stein’s excellent movie, “Expelled.”

Here’s a question: Why should I tolerate a doctrine that seeks to destroy what I believe? Advocates of gay marriage don’t tolerate Carrie Prejean for her Biblical world view. Why should I tolerate their intolerant tolerance?

Let’s be fair. Hypocrisy isn’t a problem in the church, it’s a problem in the human race. The shortcomings of the church just get better publicity. Of course, such relentless ridicule against any other religious group would be considered a hate crime. But, we don’t follow the mainstream view of tolerance, so we must be punished, lest we force our beliefs on others, which we don’t.

Some would argue that we do. They would say that we threaten people with hell if they don’t fall on their faces before Jesus then and there. But that’s like forcing chastity on someone by saying, “If you sleep with your girlfriend tonight, Jason Voorhees will jump out of the closet and hack you both to pieces.” The couple might joke about Jason being a climactic ending to their moment of bliss, but they don’t really believe it will happen.

In the same way, hell is only a consequence if people believe. And if they believe, then the beliefs I’m forcing on them are not mine, but their own. Offering to send an unrepentant sinner to hell personally? That’s a different issue, and last I checked, not common practice, even in the gay-bashing congregation of Pastor Fred Phelps.

Christians, on the other hand, can lose their jobs for being Christians who practice what they preach. I know of nurses who’ve been told to keep their religious mouth’s shut. Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Any one?

Skeptics, of course, are welcome to walk a mile in my shoes. Stand up in a room of tolerant coworkers and tell them that Jesus saves. Then sit back and watch tolerance in action.