Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.







Your Comments

Syndicate (Full Text) XML

Syndicate (Excerpt) XML




WWW Mere Comments





« What to Wish For | Main | Thanks Once Again »

June 27, 2008

Tolerance Means Relativism?

Most of you have seen this story, which has been all over the news, about the religious views of Americans, especially how more and more Christians don't view Jesus as the only Way to heaven.

It's too bad words don't mean what they used to: leave it to the New York Times to label the view that all religions can lead to God as "tolerance," when it's no such thing. I can tolerate Muslims, Jews, Buddhists well enough, and hope they will tolerate Christians, when at the same time I believe Jesus, and no one else, is the only Name whereby a man can be saved. We disagree greatly with the other religions, but we can tolerate them. If they were all the same, there would be nothing we would have to tolerate, nothing to put up with.

Posted by James M. Kushiner at 03:37 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e55391804d8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tolerance Means Relativism?:

Comments

A good friend told me that there is no truth, whence every religion is right because it is right in its own view. I presented simple arguments against this. When I continued to assert them, and when I did not believe his counter-arguments, I heard something like this: "You don't understand me. You never will, and I don't care!" No, I understand him perfectly well. But to him, "understand" meant "agree." Yet it is a view we can neither agree with nor sympathize with.

Posted by: Clifford Simon | Jun 27, 2008 6:04:31 PM

What if I categorically think that religious dogmatism is contrary to God's will?

Is that relative?

Posted by: Seth R. | Jun 27, 2008 8:41:33 PM

What is your definition of "religious dogmatism"?

Of course, if you this this categorically, then by definition your statement is itself a religious dogma, falling into the self-contradictory category of "There are no absolute statements."

Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 28, 2008 6:25:50 AM

"All Cretans are liars", said the Cretan.

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jun 28, 2008 8:40:45 AM

"All Cretans are liars", said the Cretan.

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jun 28, 2008 8:41:19 AM

So, what if I made an exception for that one?

Who says I have to be philosophically consistent?

Posted by: Seth R. | Jun 28, 2008 7:15:30 PM

One tenet of my religious dogma is that God exists. It would be discouraging to hear that He disapproved of my holding such a belief.

Posted by: Steve | Jun 28, 2008 7:49:18 PM

"Do I contradict myself? very well, then, I contradict myself." - Walt Whitman

Aside from the fact that Whitman was a lousy poet and worse metaphysician, if you don't strive for consistency, why should anyone bother to talk to you? Conversation is only worthwhile with a man whose word is his bond, and that (among other things) requires consistency as a hallmark of both faithfulness and honesty. Without consistency you have no credibility, because without it you have no principles.

As a onetime friend of mine with a Ph.D. in logic once observed, "Some people want to play a Dadaist game of 'Nyah, nyah, nyah, I'm being inconsistent and absurd, and you can't do anything about it.' Well, there is something we can do about it. We can ignore them."

So, Seth, the choice is yours. If you want to be part of the conversation, then you had better be consistent. Otherwise, from henceforth we can and will just ignore you.

Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 28, 2008 7:51:45 PM

Tolerance is great.

Rule of thumb: If they are not annoying you, it is not tolerance.

Posted by: Bobby Neal Winters | Jun 28, 2008 8:51:18 PM

Well excuse me Mr. grumpy-gills.

I thought it was pretty clear that the comments I made were not made in an entirely serious manner, and were half joking. I wasn't really fixing for a knockdown, dragout theological throw-down you know.

Sorry to spoil the serious mood you were in.

Posted by: Seth R. | Jun 29, 2008 12:07:47 AM

Well, Seth, one problem with e-mails and bloggings is precisely that such things are *not* clear, because it's only print and doesn't convey facial expressions, tone of voice, etc., and the conversation is between people who don't have personal familiarity. If you mean to be understood as jocular, then you should say "just kidding" or use a standard emoticon such as: :-)

Not to mention that there are plenty of cranks running around on blogs sites -- like you. :-)

Posted by: James A. Altena | Jun 29, 2008 4:08:39 AM

Sigh... I hate emoticons...

I always regarded them as a crutch for bad writing skills.

Which is probably why I need to use them. :(

Posted by: Seth R. | Jun 29, 2008 8:41:49 AM

At the risk of a thread hijack, I express my agreement with James about Whitman.

What I can't figure out, though, is why I like Carl Sandburg so much. He's like Whitman in style, but he's got something that Whitman doesn't. I just can't put my finger on it.

Posted by: Ethan C. | Jun 29, 2008 11:07:20 AM

Ethan,

I think it would be more accurate to credit Whitman with two things not of Sandburg:

1) Being an arrogant, self-centered, self-congratulating twat
2) Having a dedicated fanbase of lazy thinkers who find his ramblings on political discourse and "natural living" to be displays of deep philosophical insight.

When you cut away those two things, you have turned Whitman into Sandburg. And you've made him a lot more tolerable.

Posted by: Michael | Jun 29, 2008 12:18:00 PM

Michael, you may be right. That might explain why Whitman remains popular in the academy while Sandburg's stock has fallen, when both share a style that is equally at odds with the fashions of contemporary poetry. I can't think of too many Sandburg lines that lend themselves to "Dead Poets Society"-style posturing.

Posted by: Ethan C. | Jun 30, 2008 4:42:36 PM

If it's not too late to chime in -- I've been away -- I thought Seth's comment was obviously meant as irony and therefore the comments that took it seriously unintentionally funny.

Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Jul 4, 2008 8:24:02 PM

Post a comment