QUICK LINKS
People of Faith are Tolerant and Generous
It is not uncommon to hear gay activists and secularists refer to people of faith as “bigots” or “intolerant” and unwilling to accept those who have different views.
This is not true.
While people of faith have deeply held beliefs, based on scripture, and a Biblical world-view, which accepts God as Creator, the Bible as inspired, and moral and social absolutes based on Biblical teaching; they are not intolerant or bigoted or self-centered.
In fact, America is the most inclusive, generous nation in the history of the human race.
America was founded by men who were predominately Christian in the context of a “Christian consensus” which is well-documented in U.S. history.
Most of early American schools were founded by Christian clergy, Harvard is an example. When Reverend John Harvard contributed his library and his land for the founding of our first college, he said it was to be used to “train a literate clergy.” (1636). Princeton (1748) and Yale (1701) share the same roots.
In fact, it wasn’t until 72 years later (1861) that M.I.T. was chartered by atheists and even later when John Dewey and his disciples produced what they called “progressive education” which began moving public education away from Noah Webster’s Biblically based curriculum.
And look at the hospitals in most cities across America. I doubt that activists and secularists would name hospitals, Providence, Emmanuel, St. Vincent, St. Elizabeth, St. Jude, Presbyterian, Baptist, Adventist, etc.
From our Founding Fathers to our present day, the tenets of the Christian faith have had a profound positive effect on our culture, our freedoms, and our prosperity.
James Russell Lowell was once asked by the French historian Francios Guizof, “How long will the American republic endure?” To which Lowell replied, “As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue to dominate.”
“Bigot,” “intolerant,” “closed mindedness” hardly describe our Founding Fathers. Nor does it describe their spiritual descendants who seek to advance the Biblical values they believed in and founded this country upon.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add this blog to your email inbox.
24 Comments:
“Bigot,” “intolerant,” “closed mindedness” hardly describe our Founding Fathers. Nor does it describe their spiritual descendants who seek to advance the Biblical values they believed in and founded this country upon.
Its hard to decide what homily fits this situation more "You're looking at history with rose-colored glasses" or "The lady doth protest too much".
Our founding fathers were tolerant people who believed above all else that everyone has a right to live their life as they see fit. Quakers, Unitarians, Deists, and yes even atheists founded this nation, one that was not supposed to follow any religious rule book or tenets.
And there are some Biblical values we can do without - you remember slavery? The inequality of women to men? Knee jerk homophobia is another one that can be dropped by the way side.
Our founding fathers would respect the facts that:
• sexual orientation is not chosen in any realistic usage of the word and not changeable in most individuals.
• it is not a seductive vice that needs to be battled to keep it curtailed (no change in the relative % of the population that is gay since modern statistical studies have been kept)
• love is a necessary part of a healthy adult's psyche
• adults are happier healthier and more productive when they build a life with someone else.
You can wrap yourself in the flag all you like but the founding fathers were liberals with a capital "L" and if they were here they won't be on your side.
LOL, Now Vishanti the communist is lecturing us on the founding fathers and how they were flaming liberals. LOL. Vishanti your revisionist history won't fly here. No one believes you. Can anyone imagine George Washington wrapping himself in a rainbow coalition flag or placing an equal bumper sticker on his carriage?
No, because people had more dignity and class in those days. People didn't discuss sexual matters in the public square, regardless of their orientation. They kept it in the bedroom. Vishanti you could learn a lesson from our founding fathers keep your sexual politics in the bedroom and out of the public square. Now I am sure you are going to dig up some freak story about sexuality in the public square in the 1700's but save it.
These labels are part of the activist playbook to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle upon our nation. It is the marketing strategy called "exaction pricing," by which people holding opposing viewpoints are demonized and marginalized, and made to pay a social price for defying the thought police. It is also a violation of our constitutional right to freedom of religious expression, and demonstrates the intolerance of those who claim that all they seek is tolerance. The word for that is "hypocrisy".
The fact is, this nation was, indeed, founded upon Christian moral principles and has thrived because of them. We are now at a crossroads as to our very survival as a nation, and this issue will be pivotal in that regard.
One of the reasons to respond to blog entries like the above is it draws out the true natures. We get a liar and a victim responding showing their true colors.
I'm a communist? Just about the furthest thing from it - but then your finger pointing has never really had much basis anyway, has it? 'Immoral' 'sinner' 'perverted' 'communist' - these are the vocabulary of the 'generous' and 'tolerant' people that support ref 65.
And as to revisionist - George Washington was a freemason deist so yes, he would be fully in support of individual freedoms and knowing what we know now about sexual orientation would support people living the life that is right for them. Shoot even back then he had a gay german general in the Revolutionary Army! (you do realize while he attended church he never too communion maybe for the same reasons I didn't when my dad said it was ok to do so. I said it would be disrespectful - they think they are engaging in ritual cannibalism, I'd just be eating a cookie.)
As to Pam she surely realizes that her first paragraph is what her side is doing! And a grade school child isn't fooled by the silly notion that 'intolerance of intolerance is hypocrisy' and I doubt anyone reading this blog is either.
Pam, do you know the definition of tolerance?
"the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with"
Explain to me how any supporter of referendum 65 fits that definition? They go beyond free speech - we all have a right to an opinion, religious in origin or otherwise, - but supporters of Ref 65 want to say its all right to discriminate, to be intolerant, of people based on their sexual orientation in the public sectors all citizens need to be able to depend on and function in our society. Pointing out that intolerance isn't demonizing them, that they have done themselves.
As to Christian moral principles that are charity, tolerance, forgiveness, compassion, and caring for the happiness and needs of your neighbor as if they were your own, all things people of any sexual orientation can do and the ones our founding father's exemplified. Ironically you are right that this is a pivotal issue - either people will demonstrate they do have Christian virtues or the Christianists will tear down the final moral underpinnings of Christianity itself holding up intolerance, bigotry, hatred, and pride as the new teachings of Christ.
These guys.....Gary Randall &
Joe Fuiten.....they must be gay. Why else would they obsess so much about something so irrelevant to them?
Vishanti,
There you go again twisting and distorting history and as predicted you bring up some freak story from 1700's about a gay general. That story comes from the same text book that says Abraham Lincoln was gay. Keep proving me right. Thanks LOL
It's relevant because its being pushed down our throats. Keep your sexuality in your bedroom. Have some class and dignity.
There you go again twisting and distorting history and as predicted you bring up some freak story from 1700's about a gay general. That story comes from the same text book that says Abraham Lincoln was gay. Keep proving me right. Thanks LOL
Hey its obvious you can think you are right regardless of the facts. Convenient I'm sure. And your juvenile laughter just proves that you're someone not worth wasting serious discussion on.
Respond again when you've grown up a bit.
"It's relevant because its being pushed down our throats. Keep your sexuality in your bedroom. Have some class and dignity."
Sexuality isn't restricted to the bedroom. Who we love is part of an individual's entire life. Think about all the things you would have to do to keep your sexuality in the bedroom. No wedding rings, no holding hands, no kissing where someone could see, no leaning on someone as they look at a doodad or thingamabob at any retail space, no pictures on your desk, no talking about your spouse, no bringing them to any sort of social function and on and on.
I seriously doubt that 'class and dignity' can be maintained pretending that the most important person in your life isn't, actually it would be quite the opposite.
I laugh at you vishanti because you are a moral relativist. You live in a world of no absolutes. Everything is gray to you. You come in here and lecture us about our deeply held beliefs but you yourself have no guiding light, except for what feels good or sounds good. When you wake up from your dream world and realize you have wasted your life in confusion and deception then come back and talk to me. So until then, I will continue to laugh at you everytime you post your thoughts which are built on nothing real.
"I laugh at you vishanti because you are a moral relativist."
I am? You are the one who is advocating discrimination and intolerance in a nation created for tolerance and equality of its citizens. You are the one being inconsistent.
"You live in a world of no absolutes."
I don't? Surely you aren't thinking you do when you base it on a book of hearsay that gets reinterpreted on every translation? You are the one saying only some citizens have a right to pair bond with another in a nation where all law abiding citizens are supposed to have the same rights. Its pretty obvious you are the one with no moral absolutes.
"When you wake up from your dream world and realize you have wasted your life in confusion and deception then come back and talk to me"
This from someone who bases their world view on a mythology better suited for a comic book. Now there is something laughable.
Vishanti you prove my point every time you chime in. Again you are all over the map on what you believe. You have no absolute truth to live by, everything is relative in your world. You must live in a constant state of spiritual chaos.
And by the way real discrimination has nothing to do with who you sleep with. Quit hijacking the civil rights movement! You are an insult to minorities who have fought long and hard for equality based on their race and sex not who they sleeping with.
Vishanti you prove my point every time you chime in. Again you are all over the map on what you believe. You have no absolute truth to live by, everything is relative in your world. You must live in a constant state of spiritual chaos.
This from the guy who says one citizens has a right to build a life together with the person they love and another does not. You can't even see the inconsistencies in your positions, can you? My ethics are rock solid. Now if you are saying do have a little rule book that I can run around and say 'you're in violation of rule 27b' like you do and the Pharisees did, no I don't. Real ethics are interdependent and derive from their beginning postulates - they aren't just rules blindly followed - no thinking person would willing do that.
And by the way real discrimination has nothing to do with who you sleep with. Quit hijacking the civil rights movement! You are an insult to minorities who have fought long and hard for equality based on their race and sex not who they sleeping with.
OF course the obvious thing is I didn't mention anyone sleeping with anyone, that's your fascination. Who you sleep with is your business. This is about sexual orientation, not sexual habits. I know many married gay couples that are celibate by lack of interest in sex just as there are many straight married couples. Building a life with someone often has something to do with sex somewhere along the line but it doesn't have to, that's not what any of this is about.
All married couples should have the same support whether they have sex or not, no matter what their gender combination.
I'm sure you have a predicable ethically inconsistent view on that too?
Sometimes people in their most panicked moments in life, fail to realize what damage they do to so many others. In Washington State, people are blindly signing documents that will allow the dehumanization of so many people and, in the end, if they succeed in their misguided mission, civilization as a whole, takes a step backward.
It's such a sad, sad statement that people think they are creating a safer, more liveable world by not only condoning oppression, but voting to increase and sanction it. Shame on all of us for this. People who believe in "live and let live", people who are in long, loving relationships with people of the same sex, those who have loved ones---family members ---children or parents or siblings who are not "straight", and those filled with hate --- how could we have all not learned by this time? All of the destruction and hate and death and demoralization that happens throughout our world and now, here in our own beautiful state filled with seemingly intelligent, decent people, we move toward revisiting more discrimination. There are no words for the sadness and defeat we should all feel in the success of filling papers with signatures that will, in the end, push our humanity backward.
Shame on all of us for standing by and not educating those who don't understand. For many, they will find out the crime in their action when their son or daughter tells them they are gay, some will know when hear of people they have known for years lose their job because who they are. So many people who WILL be affected if FAITH AND FREEDOM(????) are successful will lose jobs and all they have worked for.
‘Moral relativism’ is so convenient when used in a pejorative sense against those with whom one disagrees; conservatives embrace moral relativism when it suits but where they draw the line on what is absolute keeps changing.
How are conservatives’ moral absolutes demonstrated? By deciding that if their point of view is not accepted universally, it is their right to claim they are being discriminated against but if they don’t like a specific philosophy/group, it’s ok for them to discriminate. Instead of the moral absolute of ‘the rights of all must be respected’, the line moves to ‘the rights of people I approve of will be respected’. Instead of acknowledging the statistics that show the high incidence of divorce among evangelical Christians and seeking to mitigate the real dangers to marriage in the form of inadequate wages, lack of child care, insufficient funding for education and the myriad of anti-family policies that conservatives support that really do undermine families, they chose to point their fingers at a group that merely asks for acknowledgement of a basic human desire: to make a commitment to another person and forge a life with that person.
I would say vishi you are not a communist , but you side with a socialist view point , and you appear to base your friendships and view points on what government will do for you or not do for you . The Founding fathers wanted a government to basically stay out of the way , unless it was to protect us from others who did not want to stay out of our way . Have you ver read the Federalist Papers , its quite amazing literature also , some of our Founders gathered newspaper articles in where they were defending the new Federal Constitution so it could get passed . Your ability to change history to fit your viewpoint is standard for many people , from either side of the aisle . The Founding Fathers were smart folks , quite wealthy for the most part , and willing to give it up for "freedom" for the most part .
I would say they were closer to a liberaterian /conservative viewpoint in comparison with today;s politics and views. I am not talking republican, that is not conservative , that has become a power struggle in my opinion . The Founders were mostly Christians , who were members of churches in their home states . That was no small matter then , membership was much responsibility back then , and still now to many people . They also had signed pledges to God which were requirements in their home legislators in order to serve in almost all their colonies , back then the states had religious requirements to serve , the Federal Government wanted unity and abolished all religious tests . I believe in that , religion should no be a requirement , but obviously the unity plan did not work . After all , you can change anything you want to hate people more. I guess its just the way politics end up making people . Add in your homosexuality , with politics , then religious people condemning you , well your a liberal , always on defense by means of attack , no integrity , and just alot of obvious hurt .
I would say vishi you are not a communist , but you side with a socialist view point
I really can't see where you would get that I advocated a system of government advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
How does either governmental paradigms have anything to do with this discussion and what could I have possibly said that made you think I held either position?
The Founders were mostly Christians , who were members of churches in their home states.
Ah but the key ones were unitarians, deists, quakers, and other non-thumping variations. They were Christians in the sense they thought we should all love your neighbor, and do unto others as they do unto you. They have nothing in common with people who pedantically point to a verse in a book and use it to justify advocating intolerance and discrimination.
well your a liberal , always on defense by means of attack , no integrity , and just alot of obvious hurt.
Wow is there projection there or what? Their side is the one that preemptively calls other law-abiding neighbors 'sinners' 'immoral' 'perverted' 'communist' and now 'socialist', that try and reserve a 'right' to discriminate and be intolerant, that advocate special rights for the kind of neighbors they like, and if I point out that they are doing these things I have no integrity?!
Reality check - people advocating discrimination are the ones with no integrity, they are the ones on the attack, they are the ones who have replaced any goodness in their souls with empty hatred.
Guess you just see what you want to see, eh?
Wow, I'm glad I didn't wear a white shirt today. There's been lots of mud flying around ...
I don't know that I actually agree with Gary's argument. The bible stories can't really be considered universally as unpredujiced. Thinking about the issues with marrying an Edomite comes to mind.
To claim that America's founding fathers weren't prejudiced either is a nice myth too, but many of them were slave owners.
The idea of democracy (or more accurately, representation in a republic) is also not of Christian origin, but from Greek and Roman periods prior to Jesus. The Christian faith has supported a divine monarch crowned by the church (catholic or protestant) for most of its history - (this finally came to end primarily with WW1). Indeed, one view during the revolution was that King George was the King of England through God's will alone, and so to revolt against his leadership could be considered to be heretical.
The quote from James Russell Lowell is nice, but it is taken out of context and thus doesn't provide support for Gary's argument, either. Which ideas? If you read more of de Tocqueville on founding ideologies.
Also, there is no account for the changes in society in the last 200+ years, such as the scientific revolution and enlightenment. While most of the founding fathers were deists (i.e. believing in a God), saying that they were all devoutly christian, err, protestant is a reach.
As Jefferson wrote to Adams near the end of their lives that they had read so much, learned so much about religion and life, and it really just boiled down to being just and good. I would say the idea of being just and good as only applicable to Christianity just doesn't hold water.
Are there great things that have been done by Christians for America based upon their beliefs and ideals. Absolutely. There have been great things by others though too. And there have been not-so great things done by Christians and non-Christians too, unfortunately.
I don't remember hearing anyone claiming though that the founding fathers were "intolerant' or "closed mindedness"? To claim that because they were Christian and weren't intolerant, therefore all christians aren't intolerant doesn't make sense either. (If a murderer is a christian, that doesn't mean all christian's are murderers, obviously. If a group of Jews betrayed Jesus, um, I drop that idea.)
Some (but obviously not the majority) people who identified themselves as Christian have used the Bible to dish out intolerance, for example, Reverand Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. There were also, unfortunately, numerous Protestant Christians that participated in the holocaust too. In fact, it is much too easy to find examples of persecution by people of religious faith (both Christian and non-Christian) and even Christian vs. Christian (see the wars between Protestants and Catholics).
Now, that I've rambled on about this and that(sorry), without rembembering the tough stuff about the past, we risk repeating the horrors of the past. Each of those people believed just as strongly if not more that they were right and everything was black and white. It's only with hindsight that they are seen to be so obviously in error.
So perhaps tolerance should be thought of as the ability to say "Maybe I am wrong". Do you want to be remembered as being so fervent in your righteous belief that you don't need to try to understand and appreciate the positions of others? Or remembered that you claimed that all spiritual descendants of our fore political fore fathers who honor bibilical values can't be intolerant or closed-minded? History hasn't been very kind to those who claimed righteous infallibility.
Or another, much shorter way, is it ok to through rocks if you don't see any glass in your house? What if the rock weighs two tons?
sorry for the long post :)
When Jefferson was running for President he had a book circulated through the United States , no small task back then . The book promoted the view of his strong Christian Beliefs and tenets of Faith . Actually Jefferson use to cross out parts of his own bible he disagreed with . Abrigail Adams had been spreading quite a bit of of stuff , she could actually be quite nasty , about Tom and his deist beliefs , back then it was not as populatr as being a Universalist is now , the political fact back then was if you were not a Christian you could not be elected dog catcher . Unfair yes , but not as big as a problem as those who wish to re make history and our heritage now .
Just about every colony had pledge requirements to the Christian Faith to even hold office. These same so called deist who wrote the constitution were members of their state legislatures , meaning they would have had to be liars to be elected to their state positions. I suggest the meaning of "is " is something we are still getting use to and not something the Founders were famous for .
The best part is that none of this matters because you lost today.
"You are the one saying only some citizens have a right to pair bond with another in a nation where all law abiding citizens are supposed to have the same rights."
You said it Vishman! What really upsets me in the land where "all law abiding citizen are supposed to have the same rights" is the way I get consistently discriminated against when I (a male) get turned down for the jobs of "towel provisioning specialist" (you know, the person who hands out towels) in the lady's locker/shower/steam room at the local high-end health club. I mean come on, we're all enlightened now, and I just don't see what the problem is! This is an equal rights issue, if I've ever seen one, just like gay marriage. Can you believe they don't even TRY to hide the fact that they have a position where only women are elligible!!! I'm hoping the ACLU will take up my case because discrimination is just so wrong. I'm in America and we should all have equal rights. It shouldn't matter if some women think that it's "immoral" that I'd enjoy casually observing their dripping wet naked bodies in the shower or while they're getting dressed/undressed (or some other stupid idea like that, I mean who has morals these days. This is the zeros, for crying out loud). Besides, since when is their right to shower supposed to override my right to watch them?!? Free speech! Equal opportunity for all!!!
Cheers, DA
P.S. We should get together for some kinda rally, dude! DA and Vish-o-rama in da houz!
Anonymous - It's obvious that you have NO MORAL STANDARDS. You sound like a Pervert! To cry about a job that you didn't get that would have given you access to the Ladies Shower Room. It showed good sense on the part of the Employer not to hire you as he probably saw right through you. The subject in here is about Ref. 65......not how you get your kicks in the shower room. With that kind of attitude you really don't know why you can't find a good job?
It's not logical to assume that our Fore Fathers would or wouldn't approve of gay marriages! If your gay and your in a relationship that works for you, thats your choice. But your not thinking of the children that get involved in these relationships nor are you thinking about the health aspects of such a relationship either. Like it or not this COUNTRY was built Christainity and that's what has kept this nation strong. However this is far from a perfect world and none of us are perfect. Take a good look around you and look at all the negativity that has taken place over the last 10 years. It has affected all walks of life. Take a look at Africa and the Aids Epidmic there. Aids is killing men, women and children. When does it stop! There comes a time when you have to take and measure SOCIETY as a whole and what best for the Majority! It's been that way for Centuries. Vishanti ~ Your on a roll and it's a shame that you don't use your intelligence in a more productive manner. There are limits to what anyone in Society will tolerate, even you.
Vishi is not a bigot ?
bigot noun expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance
"You people "
The Founders were mostly Christians , who were members of churches in their home states.
Ah but the key ones were unitarians, deists, quakers, and other non-thumping variations. They were Christians in the sense they thought we should all love your neighbor, and do unto others as they do unto you. They have nothing in common with people who pedantically point to a verse in a book and use it to justify advocating intolerance and discrimination.
But continue playing the faux victim, its what Christianists do with great gusto.
And I do realize that some Christians feel 'persecuted' though it is hard for me to understand why
Post a Comment
<< Home