[also cross-posted on AmericanGrace blog]

American Grace co-author David Campbell has an Op-Ed in today’s USA Today (with John C. Green and J. Quin Monson) entitled “Tolerance? We have a ways to go”.

The Op-Ed sizes up the chances of Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney in 2012 by examining public opinion regarding religious tolerance and America’s de facto “stained glass ceiling”.  Interestingly, those  most knowledgeable about Mormonism (Latter-Day Saints) were least likely to be intolerant, regardless of whether they were LDS themselves.

Read Op-Ed here.

AMERICAN GRACE: How Religion Is Reshaping Our Civic and Political Lives By David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam, will be published in 2010.

GENEVA � Over 57 percent of Swiss voters on Sunday approved a blanket ban on the construction of Muslim minarets, according to official results posted by Swiss news agency ATS.

A final tally of 26 cantons indicates that 57.5 percent of the population have voted in favour of the ban on minarets — the turrets or towers attached on mosques from where Muslims are called to prayer.

Only four cantons rejected the proposal brought by Switzerland’s biggest party — the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which claims that minarets symbolise a “political-religious claim to power.”

Honestly, I think that this should be the policy of the west until Muslim countries change their policies toward Churches and other religions/beliefs within their own countries.

They’ll complain, but, they haven’t a foot to stand on.  Especially the most vocal of the complainants such as Saudi Arabia.  The unholy House of Sa’ud rails against intolerance of Islam in other countries, yet, they are intolerant of any other religion or belief within Saudi Arabia–even forcing non-Muslim women to wear the hijab–and are the primary exporters of Wahhabism and Islamic Fundamentalism throughout the globe.

All religions are bi-polar.  At once espousing peace and war, intolerance and inclusiveness.  Islam is no worse a religion than any other in my opinion.  It’s leadership, though, leaves much to be desired.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee called the posters discriminatory and said Switzerland would violate international law if it bans minarets.

If this is the case, then why is Saudi Arabia not in violation of International law.  There are several Muslim countries with these restrictions against building religious structures.  Seems a bit of a double standard to me.  The UN should clean up the primary violators of international law before they go looking for villains in a country like Switzerland.

If a backlash against Islam is in the offing, much of the blame can and should be placed squarely on the shoulders of leadership of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine and Syria.

It’s amusing how we Christians are often accused of being intolerant.  We keep insisting that there is right and wrong, that there is one way,  and one way only, to “come to the Father”, and that Jesus is that way.  Many people who are not Christian want us to accept their belief that many paths lead to salvation, and label us as intolerant that we don’t believe that.

But who’s really the intolerant one?  Those who insist that some things are mutually exclusive, or those who insist that all things can coexist, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that is intolerant?

The term “mutually exclusive”, of course, means that if one thing is true the other must be false, and that’s true regardless of whether A or B is the one that is true.  So we believe that Jesus actually said that He was (is) the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6).  We believe He believed that to be true.  And we believe He was speaking not as a man, but as God Himself.  Scripture testifies to that.  (Luke 24:25-27 says “He said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! ²⁶Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.’”).   So if He said it, and if He was who He claimed to be (I and the Father are one – John 10:10), then it would be folly not to take Him at His Word.  So, yes, that’s intolerant.  We do not tolerate the idea that we should accept a lie as the truth.

Ironically, those who call us intolerant don’t see themselves as being intolerant.  Yet they are.  They say ‘Hey, we should all just get along, and anyone who tells me I am wrong about such an important idea is doing me wrong by being intolerant of me’.  And they’re right in a sense.  But importantly, there is a distinction.  We tolerate the person, but we don’t accept as true something we believe to be untrue.  So they misinterpret our intolerance of their belief as intolerance of them.  They take it personally.

But here’s the thing.  If you were driving along at 60 miles an hour, and I was right behind you and you made a turn onto a road that I knew led to a collapsed bridge, what would you have me do?  Should I be tolerant, and let you continue on as if nothing was wrong, or should I do whatever I could to get you to pull over so I could explain the situation?  You might say, sure, keep me from going over the cliff.  But what if I told you that I wasn’t really sure the bridge was down?  What if I only believed it was down, because I read it on a blog earlier in the day?  I might believe the source to be completely reliable, and believing that, would feel that my failure to act would send you to your death.

So I honk my horn, wave and yell from behind, but you pay no attention.  Then I get up real close and yell and wave.  Then I pull alongside and yell and wave.  You go ‘What is this, a crazy person?’  So I try to cut you off, but fail to do so.  Now road rage kicks in and you start trying to cut me off.

At that point, I’d probably give up, not being willing to die trying to protect your life.  And as I fade into your rear view mirror, you mutter something like ‘What a jerk!’, and continue in your anger toward me and your intolerance of me right up to the point when you crash through the barricades and plummet to your death.

Sometimes it pays to be tolerant of intolerance.

As the dreaded ICT is round the corner, I am  getting a bit demoralised at work from today. I only have seven days of freedom left before 2 full weeks of intense training activities which I will most probably spent out in the fields for most periods. Two weeks of my freedom gone… Work was pretty hectic as the calls came in fast and I was at 45 calls at the end of the day for the first time in almost a month plus. Felt a bit guilty for calling people names at work today as I understand how they feel. I was the subject of much of my peer’s jokes back in my secondary school days… Back to work again tomorrow and I have yet to pack my belongings for the ICT…

Yesterday, about 57 % of the Swiss voted in favour of a ban on building more minarets in their country. In my view, the result of the referendum will send a negative signal to everyone working for freedom of religion, inter-religious dialougue and integration. Freedom of religion is just like freedom of expression and freedom of thought a central part of every open society.

As a part of the European Convention of Human Rights and as participating state in the OSSE, Switzerland is part of the most far-reaching system of Human Rights commitment that exists. I assume that the Swiss government will take this into consideration.

There is a obvious risk that the result of the referendum will foment the religious and ethnical antagonism that exists globally, especially the prejudices on Islam and Muslims. That would be deplorable, as Europe should be a voice for tolerance and reconciliation.

Now I am one who does not let hate be a part of my life.  I have chosen not to let hate color my view of the world.  Of course I can’t say that for others who have reminded me time and time again that intolerance and ignorance still exist in this day and age.  Of course I wish that would change and hopefully it will.  Soon.

There is too much hate toward people and some of that I imagine comes from being lazy and not wanting to put any effort toward getting to know someone.  I have in my past shared a story of having to work with someone who chose to be intolerant and ignorant toward myself and two others who were of Native descent.  I think I will share it here and hopefully it will show that things can change for the better, that it is possible.

Now this person that I want to talk about brought to the table so to speak his experiences, his knowledge of what he knows Natives to be.  I will just get to the comment that I am sure was meant to antagonize.  We were in a classroom and the instructors were about to start in a few minutes so the normal chit chat ensued.

This guy made it a point to loudly state that in his business he will not hire Natives simply because they expect so much time off work when one of their family passes on.  Now here is where I know his ignorance or his lack of understanding was showing.  I imagine that most policies will have allowances for employees that have lost a loved on and for the most part this is for the immediate family.  Natives have responsibilities that are beyond the nuclear family and in my own culture, it is Family of the Father that looks after us in our time of need.

To be clear, my late Father was laid to rest by the family of his Father.  Hmm, I can see how this might be difficult to explain.  I guess I can see where the easy path of Ignorance can come into play here.  When someone dies in a city (the easiest way to show a non-native society) it is the immediate family who make arrangements and deal with everything that is involved with the burial and the funeral.

We don’t do that.  We mourn and it is our extended family that do most of the work on our behalf.  It is a basic tenet of our culture.  We look after our extended family and in turn our extended family looks after us.  I guess herein lies another point of contention between Natives and Non-Natives alike; it is difficult to explain the collective to someone who is individualistic in nature.

So there we were, in the classroom waiting for things to get started when he makes his comment about not hiring Natives followed by several more comments on why Natives were not good to hire.  Of course this was his way of antagonizing and seeing how much he can get away with.  That is something else that I see in the intolerant, the need to push the envelope and see how much they can get away with.  Needless to say, he raised the hackles of myself and the other two native guys in the class by saying that we were not good employees and by showing his lack of respect for our deceased family members.

He was trying to push buttons, that was obvious.  You can recognize that sort of behaviour in the school yard bully, the challenge the bouncer bar patron and worst of all, the online voice chat sniper who stabs you with hate trying to get you off of your game.  I feel bad for them and their lack of interconnectivity but I digress.

It was obvious from the beginning that this guy was going to push buttons as much as he can.  He was short and stocky like a pit bull and it was easily noticeable that he had been in a fight for the better part of his life.  This continued throughout our course and for a couple of weeks, he tried to push my buttons having succeeded with one of the other native guys already.  You eventually do get tired of it and it finally boiled over when I found myself in his group for the day.  He was the sub foreman and reveled in the fact that he was the boss, my boss for that day.

He would not bend on my assertion that we were going to have to cut new wires for the transformer that we were hanging.  Perhaps it was his business sense to conserve and recycle but he would relent on using the old wire.  I am sure that he wanted to be the first group to finish, that he wanted to show how great he is as a sub foreman but all it really did was emphasize his lack of tolerance for others and their ideas.

So I am up on the pole and the transformer is already hanging, the wires connecting it to the electricity grid were all that were left to finish our task.  Now these connection wires have to be done a certain way if you wanted to pass (there had to be slack).  His reluctance to my assertion that the wires were too short and that there would not be any slack didn’t matter.  He was the sub foreman and it was going to be done his way.  I had no choice but to do as the sub foreman wanted and proceeded to use the shorter pieces of wire.

Of course this all stopped suddenly as our Instructor started yelling at me and asking me what the hell I was doing.  =)  I “explained” to our Instructor that I had mentioned the short wires to our sub foreman but he wanted them put up so there I was, putting up those short pieces.  I wanted him to see that they were shorter and that he was going to have to cut and prepare new pieces that had to be brought up to me.  I didn’t get that far before our Instructor came over and started giving us shit.

Of course I was pissed off for having to take the brunt of our Instructors wrath but that changed once I explained that it was the subby who wanted them put in and would not relent.  This of course pointed to how much of a piss poor sub foreman he was and he was given the business by our Instructor.  I am smiling at this point by the way.  Prick deserved that.

He of course didn’t deserve any of that near the end of our program though.  Up until now, I have been describing him at the early part of our program.  After several weeks of working together and a couple of BBQ’s where we drank together, I could see that throughout all his intolerance, he was a Father.  It was where we had common ground, it was were the mutual respect began.

He may have had hate in life life for me and for all Native People at the beginning of our program but by the end of it, he was a good guy.  I got a long with him and that is remarkable given his intolerance and given the fact that he was the other driver in an accident that took the life of a guy that I knew and to this day still miss.  It was remarkable because I had found out about the accident in the first week, couple that with his intolerance to Natives and yeah, his reassertions that he was culpable, that he was not at fault, that he beared no responsibility whatsoever for that tragic accident really bothered me.  It was like he saying that it was okay for him be an asshole and that he did not have to bear any responsibility for being an asshole.

If I allowed hate to govern my life, this guy would certainly be the guy for me to hate but it is not me to do so.  It is not who I was raised to be.  He is a good guy just trying to make the life of his daughter a good one.  I hope he and his daughter are doing well.

Hate is something I want to do away with.  It should not be used on and toward people, ever.  That may be an ideal but after this, can you still say that it is unattainable (like an ideal)?

If hate is to be a part of my life, I choose to direct it toward something inanimate.  Like my fucking car.  Fucking thing.  The passenger window dropped down again and I can’t raise it.  The motor is not working and it seems to be off its track again.  Fucking thing sucks mostly because it has been raining and yeah, I hate my car.  Damn thing is costing me more money than it is worth.  The thing is, I need the car and the timing just sucks.

Fucking car.  =)

Pour ceux qui me lisent, il y a bien sûr une minorité qui me soupçonne de tous les maux. Pour ceux qui me lisent aussi, il y a bien sûr une majorité qui sait très bien que je ne me prostitue pas et ne me prostituerai jamais pour détourner la vérité, le fond de ma pensée. Je crois être honnête et, il est aussi possible que je me trompe.

la votation suisse sur le refus de construire de nouveaux minarets m’a tout de suite fait penser que les Suisses, du moins, le parti raciste UDC qui faisait campagne pour cette interdiction, allait perdre. Hélas, on apprend que ce référendum vient d’être plébiscité par les Suisses à hauteur de 57,5%. Un score sans appel. Sur ce plan, rien à dire, la démocratie a parlé.

Pour ma part, je trouve qu’un débat comme celui-là est intolérant. De même qu’une fille voilée ne me choque aucunement, pour un minaret , c’est pareil. Les extrémistes Suisses accusent donc ceux qu’ils nomment …extrémistes, de polluer la Suisse. Des slogans aussi racistes que ridicules ont pullulé. Il fallait pour eux,”contrer les tendances extrémistes“, refuser “l‘islamisation de la Suisse“. Comme si, de voir cette architecture donnait forcément envie de se convertir à l’Islam.

Et si la France, au lieu de légiférer sur la burqa qui ne me gêne pas, procédait par un référendum, ce serait mieux, non ? Je crois que si, puisque cela permettra d’arrêter de débattre sur des conneries et d’entendre tout le “n’importequoitisme” politique hypocrite et indécent. Le référendum suisse est déjà récupéré par le premier couteau de l’UMP, Xavier Bertrand qui vient de déclarer ne pas être certain que la France ait besoin de minarets. Qui l’a branché ? Voici sa déclaration au Grand jury RTL-Le Figaro-LCI : “Est-ce qu’on a forcément besoin de minarets pour le faire? Ça, je n’en suis pas certain”.

Allez, que l’UMP aille au fond de sa logique très FN et accuse le PS de faire monter le parti frontiste.

]]> http://bbwebb.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/through-a-woods/ Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:27:37 +0000 BB Webb http://bbwebb.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/through-a-woods/

These times are trying indeed….one pellet, then two, the third sneaks up on you…not full shots, just little annoying hits, trying to take one off course. But my course is clear, it always has been….though the road I travel keeps changing.

And it is this time of year I think of Robert Frost. His words transport me in a lovely and needed way. There is always help. We need just look around and more importantly, within.

I have always preferred the woods.

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

BY ROBERT FROST

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sounds the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

BB Webb

One happy night on the Naviglio Grande in Milan. We stepped into a tiny osetria with 4 dishes to chosose from and a story-telling owner. He told the story of every piece of delicious goat cheese we had and told us of this film.

“I do not like the word tolerance. If you need to tolerate someone – there is no sense of equality.”

It is a day that I do not really know what had I done. I was up only at around 1 plus in the afternoon and was in a daze for long periods till about 4 plus when I left to meet the comic-production team at City Hall station. We were suppose to start work immediately and we were hindered by two of Ainsley’s supposed friends from some MLM promoting a soap bar that is not a sopa bar…. Totally wasted like over an hour of our time listening to their presentation. In the end, we only had half an hour to work on things… I still believe that someday, somehow, something will happen to… someone… Back to work tomorrow…

A snit-bit of Mark Driscolls sermon “Anger and Action.”

Cha D

Atheists can try converting people into their school of thought.This is nothing new.This has been happening since 5000 years, as Indian Philosophy states.There is no harm in in it. It makes life interesting and a chance to note the fact that with out knowing that they are limited, human beings are arrogant enough to unravel the Universe which , as far as knowledge goes,is one a billion years old and Nature is yet to give up all Her secrets.
If religious belief makes the world drab and dull by its attempt by imposing its doctrines, what exactly are the Atheists trying to do by converting Theists into Atheists?
It is old wine under new label.
Yes, what is said about Christianity id true,in terms of trying to convert and imposing nonsensical religious edicts that do not agree with our basic moral sense, especially the sanctions of Papacy and intolerance.Also the concept that you are not responsible for your actions ;it is Satan that makes you to do so;that your salvation is through one individual and others are doomed to Hell.
Christianity is not the only Religion.
Hinduism calls for introspection and analysis of oneself and self inquiry.
It has included theism as school of Philosophical thought.
By systematic logic it proves that the world and the senses we have are illusory and goes on to guide one to realize oneself.
Religion ,according to Hinduism, is intensely personal and no dogma is allowed.
What is Reality/Too big a topic.Please refer to some of my blogs under Religion/philosophy/Indian Philosophy)

Story:
Do atheists hate diversity?

Is the very act of atheist activism (trying to persuade people that atheism is correct and working to change the world into one without religion) an act of attempted conformity? Are atheists trying to create a drab, gray, uniform world, where everyone else is just like them?

It’s probably pretty obvious that I think the answer is a big fat “No!” (Probably said in the Ted Stevens voice.) But it certainly is the case that many atheist activists, myself among them, are working very hard to persuade religious believers out of their beliefs. Not all atheists do this, of course; many have the more modest goals of separation of church and state and religious tolerance, including tolerance of atheists and recognition of us as equal citizens. But a good number of atheists are, in fact, trying to convince religious believers to become atheists. I’m one of them.

And since many believers see this as an intolerant attempt to enforce conformity — particularly believers of the progressive, ecumenical, “all religions perceive God in their own way and we have to respect them all” stripe — I want to take a moment to address it.
http://www.alternet.org/story/144199/atheism_and_diversity:_is_it_wrong_for_atheists_to_convert_believers?page=entire

Theological Declaration of Barmen

Written by Karl Barth and the confessing church in Nazi Germany in response to Hitler’s national church.

I. An Appeal to the Evangelical Congregations and Christians in Germany

8.01 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, May 29-31, 1934. Here representatives from all the German Confessional Churches met with one accord in a confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, apostolic Church. In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day. With gratitude to God they are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union. For nothing was farther from their minds than the abolition of the confessional status of our Churches. Their intention was, rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed.

8.02 Therefore the Confessional Synod calls upon the congregations to range themselves behind it in prayer, and steadfastly to gather around those pastors and teachers who are loyal to the Confessions.

8.03 Be not deceived by loose talk, as if we meant to oppose the unity of the German nation! Do not listen to the seducers who pervert our intentions, as if we wanted to break up the unity of the German Evangelical Church or to forsake the Confessions of the Fathers!

8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God’s people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: “I will never leave you, nor forsake you.” Therefore, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

——————————————————————————–

II. Theological Declaration Concerning the Present Situation of the German Evangelical Church

8.05 According to the opening words of its constitution of July 11, 1933, the German Evangelical Church is a federation of Confessional Churches that grew our of the Reformation and that enjoy equal rights. The theological basis for the unification of these Churches is laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of the constitution of the German Evangelical Church that was recognized by the Reich Government on July 14, 1933:

Article 1. The inviolable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is attested for us in Holy Scripture and brought to light again in the Confessions of the Reformation. The full powers that the Church needs for its mission are hereby determined and limited.

Article 2 (1). The German Evangelical Church is divided into member Churches Landeskirchen).

8.06 We, the representatives of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, of free synods, Church assemblies, and parish organizations united in the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church, declare that we stand together on the ground of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of German Confessional Churches. We are bound together by the confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

8.07 We publicly declare before all evangelical Churches in Germany that what they hold in common in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling Church party of the “German Christians” and of the Church administration carried on by them. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis, in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the “German Christians” as well as on the part of the Church administration. When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force among us, the Church ceases to be the Church and the German Evangelical Church, as a federation of Confessional Churches, becomes intrinsically impossible.

8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the intrrelations of the Confessional Churches.

8.09 In view of the errors of the “German Christians” of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:

8.10 – 1. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14.6). “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9.)

8.11 Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.

8.12 We reiect the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.

8.13 – 2. “Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (1 Cor. 1:30.)

8.14 As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.

8.15 We reiect the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords–areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

8.16 – 3. “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together.” (Eph. 4:15,16.)

8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.

8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

8.19 – 4. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men excercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your srvant.” (Matt. 20:25,26.)

8.20 The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the excercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

8.22 – 5. “Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:17.)
Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commision, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.

8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

8.25 – 6. “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt. 28:20.) “The word of God is not fettered.” (2 Tim. 2:9.)

8.26 The Church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament.

8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

8.28 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of Confessional Churches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these theological principles in their decisions in Church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.

Four things the Declaration made clear:

1. It was a distinctly Reformed document.

2. It opposed the encroachment of the State into church affairs.

3. By fiat of that opposition, and its adherence to the Reformation principles and confessions, it stood in direct opposition to the Roman Catholic Church whose structure and aims, though particular to itself, were not essentially different from the State and therefore excluded it and others like it, exclusively inviting all who accepted the Confessions of the Reformation to join in the purposes of the Barmen Declaration.

4. It did not tolerate any new perspectives of any group which would deny Sola Scriptura. In today’s parlance that would include many Emergent churches. Under the rubric of the Barmen, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and spurious religious sects we not included, rather they were implicitly excluded.

David Dockery of the SBC at Souther Baptist Theological Seminary has said that the Manhattan Declaration is like the Barmen:

Dockery said, “Not unlike the 1934 Barmen Declaration [the statement of the confessing church in Nazi Germany], the Manhattan Declaration is a clarion call for Christians of every tradition to stand together in biblical faithfulness for foundational matters of society and culture like commitments to life, marriage and family…. I pray that God will use this declaration among leaders and laity in churches, the academy and parachurch organizations to join hands together for the sake of the kingdom of God.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The two documents address two fundamentally different concerns. The Barmen addresses the need to stand against the statists and their attempt to overthrow the authority of the church within its own realm while maintaining fealty to the Confessions and the right practice of matters pertaining to life. The Manhattan Declaration unavoidably separates the reason for living righteously from the foundation for doing so. In doing that The Mahattan Declaration is more like the formulations that constituted Barmen’s enemies (such as the Church party of the “German Christians”). The only difference between then and now is that the Manhattan declaration is not in concert with the ruling government. The highlighted portions demonstrate the difference between the two declarations and why it is that the Manhattan Declaration denies the sound Biblical principles of Reformation Confessions.

CAMPONTHIS: THE NEW DOWNGRADE…12 dangers of Evangelical Co-Belligerence related to the Manhattan Declaration

Pyromaniacs: Nineteen questions for signers of "The Manhattan Declaration"

You know what? It annoys me, when people whom i’m friends with, or I care about, act like they don’t know me. And day by day, we become like complete strangers, their name never triggers a thought in my mind…….But I refuse to give in, i usually demand a justification, i mean whoever has the guts to ignore his friend, must have the guts to just come up and tell me” You did harm me,You were wrong about..” etc. I think that in the end, it’s about friendship,tolerance,courage, and honesty.True friends wouldn’t ever ignore each other for silly reasons……but still people who just walk by your life do..they enter and leave…

It was supposed to be a long weekend but I am not enjoying it. Not even a  little… It has been somewhat hectic up till now with work and the business commitments. It was all just work and meeting up with the comic production partners to progress in the development. There is progress and we are on course to produce our first draft in the coming week with the characters already decided in this week’s meetings. Another meet-up in the evening tomorrow…

 A young lady was waiting for a flight in the boarding room of a big airport. She knew that she would be waiting many hours so she bought a book to pass the time and a pack of cookies. She sat down in an arm-chair in the VIP room of the airport to rest and read in peace. Beside the armchair,where the pack of cookies lay, a man sat down in the next seat.Eventually the young lady ate her first cookie. The man took one also.The  lady became irritated but said nothing. For every cookie the women took the man took one also. This was infuriating her but she did not want to cause a scene. When only one cookie remained,the man took the last cookie and broke it in half,giving her one half.That was too much! She was very angry now.In a huff,she took her book and other belongings and stormed over to the boarding place.When she sat down in her seat inside the plane,she looked in her purse to take out her glasses.To her surprise her pack of cookies were there,untouched,unopened!She felt ashamed. She realized she was wrong.The man had divided his cookies with her without feeling angered or bitter.While she had been very angry thinking she had shared her cookies with him.Now there was no chance to apologize or explain.

A friend of mine e-mailed this story to me. It reminded me of  some of the bed-time stories I heard when I was little. At the end of this story was written a moral.

There are 4 things you cannot recover…

The stone after the throw,

The word after it’s said,

The occasion after the loss,

The time after it’s gone.

This story really made me think. Sometimes I come into contact with people who really irritate me.Although I know there are a lot of  jerks out there, sometimes maybe someone is just having a bad day or there’s a misunderstanding.Telling myself this allows me to have more tolerance for people. Although this lesson should be common sense.It doesn’t hurt to get a friendly reminder once in a while.

Awareness. Compassion. Tolerance

I am in love with the new International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) print campaign. It has got to be one of the most consciously aware and creative campaigns I have seen in awhile.

Definitely TEXTure worthy.

IFRC is the world’s largest humanitarian organization.  Since it’s founding in 1919, IFRC’s mission has been to create a world of empowered communities, better able to address human suffering and crisis with hope, respect for dignity, and concern for equity.

This new campaign perfectly illustrates IFRC’s mission.

Love it.

Christ told us not to judge—to love our neighbor as ourselves. We try—really, we do, but we’re not always successful. The judgment seed lies buried inside each of us and it has deep roots. Sometimes conscience enables us to suppress it or we remind ourselves to be “politically” correct, but often, especially, when we’re driving or shopping, it sprouts suddenly and we steam inside or explode in anger.

We sang Hymn 596, Sunday and the following line stood out: ”Teach us to care for people, for all, not just for some, to love them as we find them, or as they may become.”

“For all, not just for some.” Couldn’t we have a little leeway here, Lord. I mean,everyone? When I worked in the North Bergen Library, some patrons smelled bad and some were a little off mentally, and a bit scary. Even them?

“As we find them,” huh? Just like that, warts and all: aggravating, annoying, loud, dumb, mean and dishonest? That’s a tall order. But isn’t that what we beg God to do when we ask him to bear with us, forgive us, bless and protect us? We don’t ask Him to hold off until we shape up, we ask for it now.

“As they may become,” opens the door wide for some intriguing thoughts. Our God is know for the stunning changes He brings about in the most unlikely people. Saul the persecutor becomes Paul who brings the good news to the gentiles and writes much of the New Testament. Peter gains courage and follows Christ’s teachings faithfully. Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho show amazing faith and goes against her own people to protect the Jewish spies.

We excuse ourselves for mistakes by saying we’re a work in process. Well, so is everyone else. That kid with the smart mouth might one day go to seminary. The stupid driver who cut you off, might actually save a life one day. The rude clerk could be headed toward sainthood. God’s got plans, you know?

Lord, today I choose not to water the seed of judgment against any person or group. Help me to love all as I find them and, if that’s impossible, remind me to love them as they may become.

On November 16 the local partner from Karlovo has oppened a bazar on the Day of Intercultural Understanding and Tolerance among different ethnos and immigrant groups, living in the municipality. Roma traditional celebrations and cuisines has been exhibited and each visitor had the chance to taste it. The representatives of the Roma community from the town has been prepared posters with pictures, showing the Roma celebrations, the symbols of the Roma community and the celebration of the International Roma Day – 8 April.
The Christmas Eve has been presented on the Bulgarian table where volunteers from the local partner arranged bunch of meatless dishes, all of them home made (cake with coins, pumpkin-pastry, gold-lace, boiled corn, fruits, nuts etc.). The volunteers from the association were wear with beautiful Bulgarian traditional costumes to make the hobbit more representative, while a power point presentation with pictures was going on. To raise the spirit 2 singers from the near village were singing.
At the bazaar representatives from Latvia, Greek, Sweden also took a part presenting their countries with presentations, movies and richness tables with traditional foods, drinks, costumes and souvenirs.

Le ministre de l’immigration Eric Besson a lancé un «grand débat» sur l’identité nationale française. Si en Espagne nous nous posions la même question, que penses-tu qu’il se passerait ? Pourrions-nous nous identifier aux réponses données par les français ?  Serions-nous tolérants ?  Nous exclurions-nous les uns  les autres ? Accepterions-nous les immigrants, les non chrétiens… ? Peut-on être à la fois espagnol et catalan et européen et universaliste ? L’identité culturelle se finit elle avec l’identité nationale ?

Recently, I had posted a debate from the Unbelievable radio show, which is broadcast in the UK. The topic of the debate was whether India should pass an anti-conversion law to prevent Christians from trying to convert people to Christianity. Basically, many Hindus in India want Christians to adopt the Hindu notions of polytheism and religious pluralism. They want Christians to accept that Jesus is one incarnation of the divine among many, and they want to outlaw the Christian practice of using speech to convince people to become Christians.

You can listen to the debate here in my original post.

But I wanted to highlight another debate that occurred in the comments of this blog, between me and a Hindu reader, who challenged me for being intolerant because I said that Hinduism was false.

His initial comment is here.

Guys, all religions teach the same things. Its how each religion is interpreted that makes it different. If you follow any religion persistently, it will lead you to a peaceful and happy life.

[...]If one feels happy following Christian rituals, he may follow Christianity; if he feels happy following Hindu rituals, he is good to a Hindu. It all depends on what makes sense to the person. Enforcing or luring someone to another religion is wrong…It should be a personal choice. And no one should oppose a conversion made by personal choice.

[...]To say that someone’s God or method of worship is false or not real is absolute rubbish according to me.

[...]If one says that other’s God or religion is false, he/she is not tolerating the other’s beliefs. And its immoral. Such things lead to religious conflicts.

[...]I believe in Jesus and so in my religion which is Hinduism.

[...]Why convert when a human being’s main aim is to be happy? Every religion has scriptures that tell how to become happy and attain heaven/liberation.

[...]Everyone loves his/her religion. They would not want to hear anything bad about it.

And I replied:

Our view as Christians is that the purpose of religion is not to live a happy life and to be “good”. Our view is that we want to believe what is true and to know God as God really is. We believe that God is a person, with a real personality – likes and dislikes.

What you’re proposing is a Hindu approach to religion, except with Christian symbols and rituals. But Christians don’t care about symbols and rituals much. We are more interested in history, science and propositional logic. We treat religion like… any other area of knowledge. First we discover the truth, then we act on it.

Additionally, you have a Hindu approach to conversion, and you are trying to force that on Christians. You can keep your Hindu approach to yourself, and tolerate the fact that we have a different approach to conversion.

[...]You’re not in a position to know what Christianity teaches, or what Jesus believes, since you haven’t looked into these things at all. You know Hinduism. And you are projecting Hinduism onto other religions. But Hinduism is totally different than Christianity. They conflict in many areas, like cosmology and history. We believe that the universe had a beginning, you think it’s eternal. And science can arbitrate that claim. We are willing to change our beliefs to be in line with what we can test in the external world, using the laws of logic, and the study of science and history.

[...]You write “To say that someone’s God or method of worship is false or not real is absolute rubbish according to me.”, yet you think that Christianity is false, and not real. But I am actually not offended by that at all. You are welcome to think I am wrong. I don’t mind, this is the way that the game plays. Only one of us can be right, and if you were right, I would have to switch over to your view and that would be fine with me.

[...]You write “Everyone loves his/her religion. They would not want to hear anything bad about it.” No that’s your view. You identify Hindusim with India and patriotism and your people and culture. I don’t identify Christianity with anything except truth. I like it because it’s true. And that the only reason I like it.

[...]When I say that Hinduism is false, I am not “talking bad about your religion” any more than I am talking bad about the view that 2 + 2 = 5, when I say that 2 + 2 = 4. It’s not talking bad about an idea to say it is false.

And then he replied:

Do you believe that people who worship idols are devilish or all religions except Christianity are false? If yes then explain me with proper scientific reasoning and provide me a proof in the recent decades that logically explains the above two statements. You need to prove me that what you believe is experimented by scientists and proven by technology.

[...]I believe in all Gods no matter what religion because God is One. For me and this generation of educated Indians, we believe in tolerance and respect for all religions. We believe in co-operating with each other and not pointing flaws in others beliefs until its proven scientifically and attested by scientific authority. And we believe that people’s belief be respected!

Then I replied:

The current best theory of the origin of the universe is called the big bang theory. It states that all the matter, energy, as well as time and space and time, came into being from nothing. It is backed by experimental data from red-shift measurements, cosmic microwave background radiation measurements, and light element abundance measurements, etc. The theory states that the universe began 14.7 billion years ago. Additionally, the universe will not recollapse because measurements of mass density from Maxima and Boomerang show that the universe will expand forever.

The big 3 monotheistic religions agree with the universe coming into being from nothing. Unfortunately, other religions think that the universe is eternal, such as Mormonism and Hinduism. On that basis, I reject Hinduism, which requires that the universe be eternal.

“I believe in all Gods no matter what religion because God is One.” That view (pantheism/polytheism) is called Hinduism. You are a Hindu. Christianity (monotheism) is mutually exclusive with Hinduism, because the teachings are in conflict, (as with the example of cosmology). As a Hindu, you therefore think that Christianity is false. On your definition, you don’t “tolerate” Christianity – you think it’s false. You don’t “respect” Christianity, because you want to force your view (Hinduism) and your view of conversion (don’t tell other people their religion is false) on Christians.

[...]Note: I am ok with you saying that I am wrong and that Christianity is false.

And then we sort of wound things down from there.

Anyway, the point of this exchange is most people in most religions think that the point of religion is to be happy, to have a sense of community and to get along with everyone by never talking about whether religious claims about the external world are true or false. But that view of the purpose of religion is not the Christian view. On the Christian view, the goal is to seek the truth. And part of Christian practice is to defend Christianity in public, and trying to convince other people that Christianity is true.

So, I think that Christians need to be a bit tougher, and recognize when someone who is not a Christian is trying to get them to accept that the purpose of religion is not to seek the truth. That’s their view. That’s not our view. It doesn’t make any sense for someone to say that I am evil for thinking they are wrong, when they are thinking that I am wrong. I think a better way forward is to allow other people to disagree with you, but to keep the disagreement focused on arguments and evidence.

And just because you disagree with someone else, it doesn’t mean you have to be mean to them. In my office, I am friends with Hindus, Muslims, atheists and Jews. We try to outdo one another in good deeds to make our religions look good! And when we debate which religion is true, we use arguments and evidence to attack and defend. What I’ve found is that you get a much stronger friendship when you are comfortable being yourself. I keep telling my co-workers – it’s OK to disagree.

Related posts

• the problem of religious pluralism and religious truth claims
• the problem of postmodern skepticism
• the fate of the unevangelized (what about those who never heard of Jesus)
• the hiddenness of God (why isn’t there more evidence for God’s existence?)
• are all religions basically the same?
• what about the blind men and the elephant?
• isn’t faith is opposed to reason and evidence? (a debate between a Christian and a postmodern relativist)
• what makes Christianity different from other religions?

Mentoring

• the importance of being able to argue both sides of a question
• why does talking about religion make people uncomfortable?
• how to talk to your co-workers about your faith

Apologetics advocacy

• does the Bible teach that faith is opposed to logic and evidence?
• the six enemies of apologetic engagement
• why men flee the feminized church
• why won’t Christians defend their faith in public?

Can there be hope that man will find his way when he is confounded by boundless bureaucracies set up by half-men to stifle his betters? Can man cast off his ignorance and insatiable need for conformity so that he might become something better then he thinks he can be? Can man come to see that what he is now is not the pinnacle of his progression?

The answer is clear, NO!
Or at least not as a whole.

It is obvious that man is stratified and that the majority seeks ease above all else and thus they are incapable of forcing man forward. There is a very sparse minority who are capable and their numbers are dwindling and before they perish from the earth they must make an attempt for survival and then force a move beyond.

When man can finally embrace the idea that the incapable must be allowed to fall and that the capable must be encouraged to ascend we will know man has broken free from the waning plateau he has inhabited for so long. We will know man has evolved beyond tolerance of the void.