"Tolerating" in today's climate can mean anything from "-expressing-", =
"-having-", or even "-permitting no one else to express- objections to" =
near one end of the spectrum (call this "the totalitarian left", which =
is a crude but useful approximation), to near the other end meaning =
merely "not legally prohibiting" or "not criminalizing" or =
"criminalizing but not universally enforcing" (call this the "very hard =
right").
Unless we clarify what we mean by our use of these terms, I see no =
benefit in the discussion that's developing. I'm not being pedantic =
here -- the term is too broad to use without qualification in a serious =
discussion of Christian attitudes toward secularism.
I know this not only by training (philosophy), but also by experience. =
To put my cards on the table, I've been involved for a number of years =
with conservative Republican politics in Minnesota, trying to keep three =
broad groups on speaking terms (moderates [typically, social liberals =
and fiscal conservatives], conservatives [people who agree with me :^>], =
and ultra-conservatives [John Birchers/conspiracy theorists, "Clinton is =
Hitler"ites, -extreme- pro-life activists {many of whom believe that =
civil war is near}]), and the lack of precision in thought and speech, =
when combined with the lack of Christian or other charity (which lack is =
so commonplace in politics, not least amongst ultra-conservative =
Christians who un-self-consciously see their opponents as simply God's =
enemies [let's show them -love-, that they may be saved; but if that =
doesn't work, let's wipe them out!]), leads continually to -easily =
avoidable- conflict and conflagration.
(The sad grammatical complexity can act as a rite of passage for =
continuing involvement in this thread :^>. Sorry.)
I'm not at all amongst those who see ultra-conservative Christians as a =
serious threat to the Republic -- there are far, far too few of them. =
But I can understand, as ultra-conservatives seemingly just can't, why =
many liberals and moderates really fear them (and many intellectual =
conservatives despair them), given their strident, hostile, and often =
extremely intellectually crude rhetoric. (They often lack a distinction =
between principle and policy, e.g. And they tend to take any criticism =
of this as just proof of liberal bias or something, which is real, but =
hardly, -hardly- the whole story, unfortunately for ultra-conservatism. =
To sophisticated liberals' delight, of course, this genuine but =
insubstantial ferocity also perpetually marginalizes them, which is why =
their ideal candidates often win tiny-scale elections [e.g., caucuses, =
conventions], but almost always lose larger scale elections. [To =
clarify: I'm referring to ultra-conservative candidates, not =
conservative candidates.])
Before we start inadvertently replicating this scenario here in our =
discussions of tolerating evolution in the public schools (and related =
politics-of-evolution issues), may I suggest that from now on in this =
thread, people make clear:
(1) just what they mean by "tolerate" (see the spectrum above), between =
"permit no dissent to" and "not actually kill people for";
(2) just what they mean by "evolution" (e.g., are they building =
metaphysical naturalism, purposelessness, etc. into the definition or =
not -- just make it clear);
(3) what it is about evolution that they're suggesting we tolerate or =
not (e.g., tax money for the teaching of, mandating the teaching of in =
public [or private, or home] schools, allowing the teaching of, =
permitting books on, etc.)
and (4) whether they're talking about what should ideally be done in an =
-ideal- situation (e.g., one in which most Americans are serious =
Christians) or what ideally should be done in the -actual- situation =
(e.g., a democratic America, with an established Supreme court track =
record, with most people not being serious Christians), or something in =
between (if America were different in this way [say, if revival comes], =
then we would ideally do -this- ....).
If we do this, perhaps we can disagree as -reasonable- -and- -loving- =
Christians, rather than just as battling tops, which will be the =
default, I can assure you, and we can already see.
For example, to say the least I -seriously doubt- that Glenn is =
suggesting that because Christians should tolerate the teaching of =
evolution, that we should also tolerate Hitler. This is not an =
intellectually responsible analogy or extrapolation, Randy. (And Jim, =
I'm a bit disappointed to see you use the terms "I'm basically with you, =
Randy" in your reply to him, even though you certainly qualify your =
response. You have some clout with some people in these discussions -- =
use it carefully! And you're as smart as anyone here, I'd wager, and =
precision is needed rather desperately, precision that you can work with =
much, much better than most, when you see a need to.)
Last word from me: speak the truth in love, count to 100 before reply to =
messages in this thread, and ask yourself "what's the most charitable =
and plausible way to read this persons words, and how can I precisely =
reply to exactly that?"
In His love,
--John
P. S. If anyone wants to broaden the discussion to "(conservative) =
Christianity and politics generally", let's do so in private e-mail, not =
in this conference, -please-. I brought up my points strictly for their =
applicability to the issue of toleration of evolutionary theory, not for =
a general political theoretical discussion.
P. P. S. I've tried to be -pre-cise here, but I just don't have the =
time to go back over this a few times and make it a lot more -con-cise, =
and for this I apologize.
----------
From: Jim Bell[SMTP:70672.1241@CompuServe.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 11:50 am
To: Randy Landrum; INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: Re: Glenn's history
Randy, you wrote:
<<On 13 Jan 1997, Jim Bell wrote:
>=20
> <<In other words, if Christians had been a little more tolerant, the =
whole=20
> thing might not have blown up in their face.>>
Just to keep it all clear, that is what Glenn wrote, not I. I was merely =
quoting him in my post.
<<TOLERANT!!!! TOLERANT!! Ok you guys hit my hot spot! Tolerance allows =
the
Hitlers of the world to succeed! As christians are we supposed to keep
silent as the world to goes to hell? Maybe if Christ was a little
more tolerant he would not have had to die on the cross. Yea that is =
what
the world needs for christians to be a little more tolerant! Ever hear =
of
the great commission? Go ye therefore and be tolerant!>>
I'm basically with you, Randy. Christians are called to be salt and =
light in=20
the world. Christians are commanded, in fact, to HATE what is evil. No=20
tolerance there. No compromise.
Glenn's point, however, needs to be heeded somewhat. The MEANS by which=20
Christians confront evil and untruth must ever be guided by wisdom. When =
Paul=20
spoke on Mars Hill, he did not begin by calling these pagans a bunch of =
evil=20
doing, hell-bent hedonists (which is what they were). Rather, he found =
common=20
ground with them--"I see by your idols you are very religious"--and =
proceeded=20
to reason with them.
There is a time for a "no prisoners" approach, however. Part of being =
wise is=20
knowing when to use the one instead of the other.=20
Jim