FaithFusion offers blogs and columns on
many topics: storytelling, society and culture, philosophy, religion,
politics, science, and especially “deep doctrine magic” about
all seven.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” These are the words of Martin Luther King Jr., one of my heroes and quite possibly the greatest civil rights activist in American history. When I consider these words I too have this dream: that one day America might be color-blind. Yet in this Presidential election, I fear that this is not the case.
This puts me in mind of Charles Dickens’ words, “It was the best of times; it was the worst of time.” It is a tale of two candidates: one with black skin and one with white skin. One candidate stands for abortion unrestricted by law while the other stands for life at conception, protected by law. One stands for a socialistic redistribution of wealth while the other stands for lower taxes across the board. One stands for biased justice while the other stands for equal justice before the law.
Yes, the first is Barack Obama and the second is John McCain. From every sign that I have seen, the former will win this election due in part, not to his character, but to the color of his skin. This, say King’s children who support Obama, is what their father would have wished for: voting a candidate into office based on the color of his skin.
Maybe this sounds bad coming from a white middle-class student who hasn’t suffered much from racism. Maybe I just don’t understand. Then again, maybe I do. Don’t get me wrong, I would like nothing better than to say that I had voted for the first black president: I, a descendant of slaveholders and Confederates could vote to end the color barrier for the highest office in the land. I would like few things better.
Yet, in good conscience I cannot. Barack Obama will not get my vote based on the color of his skin, but will lose it based on the quality of his character. I realize that my vote will most likely be swallowed up in the left-leaning politics of my home state. Yet if I am to follow my hero in the civil rights movement and his great ideal of judging based on character, I must overlook Senator Obama’s skin color and vote against him. This is the meaning of King’s words and this is why I support Senator McCain for President of the United States.
This is one of those simple-yet-profound, easy-to-read yet substantive and lengthy, Truth-and-Grace balanced columns that I so wish I had somehow written myself. Answers in Genesis author Abby Nye offers not only an overview of true and false “tolerance,” and moral relativism, and steps in opposing it.
Tolerance is a sham. Tolerance is much talked about, but rarely practiced. Tolerance, as defined by the politically correct, means tolerating those who fit snugly within the borders of the politically correct.
[. . .]
The myth of tolerance is fueled by two major lies. You may not recognize these lies when you first encounter them. Initially, they may even sound good and make sense. But when you subject them to the scrutiny of basic reasoning, the lies become apparent.
The first lie is that tolerant people are good people and that intolerant people are bad people. Inherent in this idea is that tolerance is always good. Therefore, the more tolerant a person is, the better a human being that person becomes.
Really? Why don’t we try it out:
Let’s say you are a male at college and your roommate wants his girlfriend to spend the night in your dorm room. You tolerate that with a wink and a nod, and hey, you’re cool. You’re tolerant. Who are you to judge?
Let’s say the next night, he wants to have two girls spend the night. You might be a little more uncomfortable with this scenario, and it’s not really your thing, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be your roommate’s thing. And besides, you’ve already proven yourself tolerant of one girl and earned the accolade of good guy. By extending the logic of tolerance, if you tolerate two girls, you become twice as tolerant and twice as good. You are doubly understanding. Doubly less judgmental and doubly compassionate.
Now, let’s say the roommate is tired of sexual escapades in the dorm room with two girls at a time and wants to try something different. Really different. Maybe bring a sheep in the room. Or a cow. Or a little boy. You now have an incredible opportunity to prove just how open-minded and truly tolerant you really are. You can see how once started down the path of tolerance, you begin veering down a slippery slope. Tolerance is not the equivalent of goodness. Blind tolerance without discretion is anything but good. It’s ignorant. G. K. Chesterton referred to tolerance as the virtue that remains after a man has lost all his principle.
[. . .]
When we fail to deal with the tolerance issue, two things happen. As conservatives, we compromise liberty. As Christians, we compromise truth. Those are the two things at risk when we silently bow to leftist tolerance.
So, how do college students deal with the problem of psuedo-tolerance? Based on my own experiences, including some mistakes, I offer the following ideas [. . .]
One of my favorites in her “tolerance” arguing tips is no. 7: Smile. “Why? Because you’re right,” she quips.
Only sporadically have I posted shorter items here, and I certainly don't mean to detract from Roccondil's excellent essay below, Abortion and the Role of a Leader.
Also, I've never posted a video link on this site. Yet this introduction to a lecture series on “Christless Christianity,” also the subject of a new book, both by Dr. Michael Horton, is a great place to start. Should Christianity really be a list of moral to-dos, whether liberal or conservative? Is the Church really fine with its doctrine — creeds — but bad with its actions — deeds? Or is the problem that with either “creeds” or “deeds,” far too much focus is being placed on humans instead of God and His glory?
Originally written for the opinion column of “The Bagpipe” and expanded for Faithfusion.net.
I am not a single-issue voter and I probably never will be. Yet I come dangerously close to being one when I consider an issue like abortion. I see few issues which are so black-and-white that even those who support “reproductive rights” will not give straight answers when asked about the issue directly. I think that in this November Presidential election, the issue of abortion needs to be at the forefront of our thinking.
There are some who think that abortion is something that will end “in God’s good timing,” This, of course, is the same logic used of slavery in the nineteenth century and is as destructive now as it was during the American Civil War. The reason is that the issue of abortion is inseparably linked to ideas of leadership and character that ought to inform us when choosing any leader, not just a president.
It is certainly true that a president will have little direct influence over the laws governing the procedure of abortion, and yet it is a part of the President’s duty to try to do something or make a clear moral statement about the issue. The President has a unique role as a protector of American citizens. He is commander of our armed forces and of federal law enforcement and therefore if he is not prepared to protect the weakest Americans from harm, he is not doing his job. If he does not speak out for those who have no voice, then he has abandoned his God-given duties as a governing authority. When the government does not prevent moral evil, it has failed in its God-given task.
At this point, I am going to directly address the positions of the two major candidates in this election: John McCain and Barack Obama.