Last Monday, NAC held its figurative nose and offered this story from Dayton, Tennessee:
Tennessee congressional hopeful goes nutzoid; credits Jesus, Davy Crockett for inspiring her loathsome bigotry.
Helen forwards this "ugly" update: Griffin’s arrest attracts protesters: for and against.
Dunlap residents Jerry Layne and Billy Joe Stockwell drove to the Rhea County Courthouse on Monday to show their support for local Christian activist June Griffin and to express their disdain for illegal Mexican immigrants.
Griffin was arrested last week and arraigned on charges of civil rights intimidation, telephone harassment, theft and vandalism at a downtown Hispanic grocery store.
Of course, it’s not just Dayton, Tennessee. The “street evangelist” holding the sign in the photo could reside anywhere in the United States … and regardless of locale, be just as entirely mistaken.
Apparently Bible-based bigotry is something that never goes out of fashion. Thanks to Helen for sharing. The discussion thus engendered is valuable, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
NAC,
We can both agree these people are bigots, but your labeling them “bible based bigotry” is inaccurate and unwarranted unless you can show us where in the bible this is shown.
Many people from all realms tout “tolerance” and want to believe that tolerance consists of neutrality. This assumption is incorrect.
A truly tolerant person will have complete impartiality and offer no judgments, no personal viewpoints, and maintain neutrality towards other’s convictions.
True tolerance requires 3 things:
First, there has to be a viewpoint that is disagreed upon.
Second, there has to be an active permitting or allowing of something.
Thirdly, there has to be respect towards the person during the process.
Tolerance doesn’t even come into existence until there is a disagreement. This is a very critical point for all those claiming to be “passivists”, “relativists”, “progressives” or any other politically correct term. Tolerance is only an issue for those things we believe to be wrong.
Many people today use the word incorrectly. Just because a person disagrees, does not automatically make them intolerant. We need to hold people accountable for this improper use of the term.
As soon as we accuse someone of being wrong, acting inappropriately, or labeling them, we then could also be called intolerant. It is a “catch 22” situation that cannot be rectified.
Complete tolerance would require absolute silence and zero actions being taken in all situations. This would be anarchy.
So in this situation, I think we all agree the behavior is extremely poor and speaking out against it is appropriate. But by doing so, we are also showing our intolerance to their behaviors.
But please don’t allow their misuse of the term Christianity to bias you on what it truly means to be Christian. I don’t think you do this with radical terrorists claiming Islam or radical republicans and democrats. They speak for themselves and possibly a minor faction of the whole. It is not their religion or party’s beliefs, but it is their own ideology.
These people be spout Scripture, but spoutind Scripture does not make one Bible based.
I won't even engage these people in any sort of dialogue or try to explain what it is they are doing, other than this.
They are bigots.
They are blaming their bigotry on God. (They won't see it that way, but that's what they are doing.)
Finally, they are morons. And frankly, I have a character flaw. I don't suffer fools gladly.
"And frankly, I have a character flaw. I don't suffer fools gladly."
Lemme tell you, I can relate ...
Thanks for your comments.
John Manzo says,
"These people be spout Scripture, but spoutind Scripture does not make one Bible based. I won't even engage these people in any sort of dialogue or try to explain what it is they are doing, other than this.
They are bigots.
They are blaming their bigotry on God. (They won't see it that way, but that's what they are doing.)
Finally, they are morons. And frankly, I have a character flaw. I don't suffer fools gladly."
God is God. Man is man. I agree confusion in roles and goals is an ongoing problem. The problem of the confusion of roles and goals is, as you express, "in-house" as much as it is from outsiders that look into the Christian community and easily recognize the bigotry and hypocrisy.
Your denying to engage them (Christian bigots) in any sort of dialogue is not helpful. If they state they base their ideas (of bigotry) on the Bible, then hold them accountable to Scripture's principles, which doesn't include disrespect and calling them names.
For example...
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
Matthew 18:14-16
"If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."
Luke 17:3-5
I respectfully disagree. Engaging these people empowers them. Christians will often try to reach out with a sense of compassion and attempting to understand; and these people just want to hate. I think that the best thing most of us can do is to distance ourselves as much as we can. These are the people who defame all of Christianity when given the chance.
Frankly, I agree with Jesus, when he spoke in Luke, "5If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them."
HB,
I like your post, especially the the 3 points on true tolerance. Where we disagree most of the time is on your 2nd point.
You seem to have no problem finding a disagreement, the same as me.(smile). You seem to have respect for your adversaries--with one or two exceptions. Hey, we are all human. It is that 2nd point, an active permitting or allowing of something, that I many times find lacking in your words and actions.
John Manzo says,
"Frankly, I agree with Jesus, when he spoke in Luke, "5If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them."
Respectfully, the verse you chose is directed towards evangelism and in energy towards those outside the Christian faith that are hostile to the degree they exasperate the messenger.
This verse does not support what I describe as an "in-house" cleaning issue. You are a Christian and the woman claims to be a Christian. The woman politician who associates her political method with Bible-based truth, may, perhaps, have a "need to hate" as you would claim. Bigotry is sin and is driven by fear expressed as hate.
But, perhaps she is confused and needs discipleship? Perhaps she could grow in her understanding and be a better witness for the Christian message? (In her next--?non-political?--career, perhaps.)
Please understand, I have not said that I would vote for her.
I disagree with your suggesting the initial response of "shaking the dust off" as the answer. Too many in-house Christian problems aren't being taken care of within the Christian community--the flock.
Even though she is a matured human (old), she may need discipleship and growth in her understanding of the Christian faith, Biblical principles and how to better live it out.
Saul/Paul did not begin his official ministry for 13 years after his conversion. He needed a very long de-briefing period to put his ideas in the proper order after years of vigorous training to be a --Pharisee.
A balance of truth and grace is hard to achieve and maintain. We shouldn't disown unbalanced fellow Christians--as a first response.
Post a Comment