The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

I especially like the last paragraph:

"Something approaching 10 percent of the e-mailers used Dobson’s generator to send notes of thanks for exposing “Focus On The Family” for the knee-jerk reactionaries they are. One wrote in genuine fear that these people were wielding influence in the country. I wrote back, thinking of the mangled language, that a much more immediate concern was that these people are out there, driving on our highways."

What I'm saying is tolerance doesn't seem to be a Christian value, at least among some types who call themselves Christians. There's a difference.--OT

I guess I don't understand your point. I probably don't give a damn about what Christians like James Dobson and his ilk think about anything except for two things: there seem to be a lot of idiots like him out there; and they vote. Personally, I believe anyone who thinks that the world was created in six days shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less vote.

Whoa! Oliver, do my eyes deceive me, or did you write: "Personally, I believe anyone who thinks that the world was created in six days shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less vote."

Now, I don't know if that's supposed to be funny or not, but under any definition of tolerance and civility, that's truly out of line.

Or put it this way, what if Bill O'Reilly went on the air tonight and said one of the following:

"Personally, I believe anyone who thinks that Muhammad is the prophet of God shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less vote."

OR

"Personally, I believe anyone who thinks God is composed of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less vote."

OR

"Personally, I believe anyone who thinks that the Torah is from Heaven shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less vote."

In the morning, Oliver, you'd be blogging about how Bill O'Reilly is an intolerant bigot and FOX should pull him off the air.

Oliver, your intolerant words about evangelicals are completely unacceptable and a shame upon your publication. Before you point the finger at others, it's worth taking a look at your own biases.

I think referring to the Bible as "that damned book" probably suggests that you're not real open to a meaningful - much less, respectful - discussion of the relationship between faith and belief (given, dissertations have been written on the subject). It also suggests that you have a profound lack of respect for people who actually see that "damned book" as the basis for their faith - whether or not they take it literally.

But whatever. You refer to the "Jews that I know" (presumably, some of your best friends), none of whom believe in the Biblical story of creation. Though I'm sure you are a man of great acquaintance (I mean, you blog for The Rake), I humbly suggest that your experience of Judaism is slight. For argument's sake, let me refer you to Chabad Lubavitch, the largest Jewish community in Minnesota (they have a large presence in St. Paul and St. Louis Park, as well as Duluth). As an orthodox community, they believe in the literal truth of the Torah (and the fact of its transmission by God), including its 6 day creation story.

Now, if I go by what you've posted today, as a result of their orthodox belief, that community of Jews:

1. does not understand a metaphor;

2. should not be allowed to read anything more complicated than Reader's Digest;

3. should not be allowed to drive;

4. should not be allowed to vote.

Well, don't argue it with me. Argue it with their leader, the great Talmudic scholar Rabbi Moshe Feller. In fact, do me a favor and call Feller up and tell him that he and his community of thousands of Jews are ignorant - willfully so - because of their beliefs. While you're at it, tell him he doesn't understand metaphors and he shouldn't be able to read anything other than Reader's Digest.

Here, his number is listed in the White Pages. Call him up.

Then come back and tell the world what he has to say. And, if you have room, explain why your posts are bigoted.

Shame on you and The Rake.

The word “tolerance” has been thrown around quite a few times in this discussion, but I think it’s being misused. Social debate inevitably leads to a redefining of terms, but an overboard American desire to be politically correct has caused words’ definitions to change entirely. For example, people use “multicultural” when referring to minorities, even though one need not be a minority to have multiple cultural roots. Americans also fail to recognize the distinction between “tolerance” and “acceptance”.

Tolerance is an American (and a Christian) virtue. Acceptance is not. No one has to accept ideas or behaviors they don’t approve of, but we do, in many cases, have to tolerate them in order to maintain a peaceful society. While the First Amendment guarantees the liberties of free speech and worship, it does not promise freedom from being offended by others. In fact, it practically guarantees that everyone will be offended by something that someone else is doing, no matter how open they are.

When Oliver says that a lot of Christians are intolerant, he’s using “intolerant” correctly. The so called “Christian right”, which for the last two years has completely owned political control in this country, is legislating away personal liberties in the name of their own moral values and beliefs (e.g. the Federal Marriage Amendment, the teaching of evolution, and the pledge of allegiance.)

When KMarkD says tolerance, what he means to say is acceptance. The difference is subtle, but important. Oliver isn’t doing anything to prevent people from believing what they want to believe or behaving the way they want to behave. He’s not intolerant because he thinks far-right Christians are a bunch of nut jobs; he’s just not accepting their ideas. Nor can Andrew_J call Oliver an “anti-Christian bigot” because he doesn’t accept some Christian teachings. Bigots are people who seek to persecute others. I don’t see Oliver forcing any of his lefty ideas on anybody.

If you don’t like what he has to say, you can stop reading his column. You have the right to do that. You should feel lucky, though. The gay, atheist students in Texas who are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance right before being force fed the Christian version of creation don’t have the same luxury you do.

First, this is the last post on this thread. What we have here is a cleassic case of some people agreeing to disagree.

However, before I go, I'm going to comment on a few things. First, even if a majority of Americans do believe the six day story, that doesn't make it right. A majority of Americans used to believe it was ok to have slaves, too. A majority of the world's population probably used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. It doesn't.

You tell me that some Jewish shepherd heard a voice 4000 years ago, and wrote down what it said, and that's your evidence? What about the evidence of Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Galileo, and yes Darwin? Did you ever think dropping that apple on Newton's head might have been God's way of communicating with him?

In my mind, the six day story is a huge underestimation of God's power. Imagine you were God and you could do anything. Do you choose to pile up some dirt and call it man, or do you choose to create a universe with infinite size, infinite diversity, infinite complexity and infinite subtlety--a universe both so large, and yet run by a system of particles that are so small, man can never hope to understand it? That's a universe worthy of the God that I worship.