I had a chance to read a bit in the new TCNJ publication, “Perspective.” I’m not sure what I was expecting to read, but I lent it an ear regardless because my friend was interviewed on the basis of his relationship with Jesus and how it plays into his beliefs towards homosexuals. I usually don’t care about articles like this; they are so tired. But I was lured in to assume that the article would have a mature and academic openness to understanding both the religious (specifically Christian) and non-religious/relativist/atheist perspectives on homosexuality: the “hot” topic that never seems to ever die. The statement The Perspective made that “we strive to facilitate an on-campus dialogue that is more open, more honest, and more substantive than what the status quo currently offers,” made me believe just that. This was, sadly, a misleading assessment.
My disappointment isn’t really in one side winning over the other, as much as a lack of substantial content supporting the bias Maddie and the author had against his beliefs. In the article, she allegedly engages philosophy, sociology, and “things of that nature,” but used neither one to reason her views on homosexual equality/personal convictions/things of the like with him. It was interesting jumping from reasonably connected topics of how Christians view homosexuality & purpose on earth to a sloppily developed and random transition into the fact that he didn’t believe in taking medication. It more or less seemed like an emotional, premature, unacademic scream for people to not listen to anything he said just because of his personal choice in medical treatment. Of course, him and I both know that it’s not a common one, which doesn’t make it bad. I don’t have the same belief, however whether I agree with it or not really has nothing to do with a decision to intentionally pursue a life with a God who forgives my iniquities; the fact that the magazine included that fact was irrelevant and unnecessary.
Overall, in the article there was a noticeable – and predictable – pattern.
“I’m not going to try to convince Craig that there is no God. I wouldn’t want him to try to convince me that there is a God. I can’t say that I’m right, because it’s just what I believe – and he can’t say that he’s right.”
First odd thing about this statement is that if this person feels that she’s standing on unstable ground in regards to her beliefs – when she said that “I can’t say that I’m right” – this in no way implies that he (the Christian) doesn’t have the philosophical and historical support to stand firm and assuredly say that he himself is right in his belief. That’s besides the point though; she’s just one person. There are other people who believe without a doubt that there is no God.
The general attitude is “What’s true for me is true for me and what’s true for you is true for you,” to which I reply, “What if what’s true for me says that your “truth” is a lie: is it still true?” This is where you can count on a silent arrogance to indirectly say “No, you don’t have the right to say that I’m wrong. You’re completely intolerant. So therefore, your intolerance makes your belief invalid because I cannot participate in it.” The problem I have with this “Tolerance” religion is the fact that it seems to in most cases just be an escape rope out of ever being wrong or feeling the need to intellectually explore anything. The “Tolerant” believers are only tolerant to other tolerant believers and are intolerant to those who don’t tolerate as much as they do (tongue twister, hope you can follow, hah). The problem I have with this is: how tolerant are you if you can’t tolerate the intolerant (those who don’t agree with you)? How tolerant is that? The whole point of “tolerating” something is that you don’t agree with it, but co-exist with it anyway. Otherwise, if you agreed with it, there’d be nothing to “tolerate.” You’d just agree. I “tolerate” a thief; I disagree with his morals, but I won’t murder him on sight or excommunicate him. Therefore, I “tolerate,” him.
People have seriously raped this word “tolerant” and have made it into this religion where everyone MUST agree with or be completely complacent to every way of life. Somehow this way of living is supposed to spawn an unconditional love within people. The unfortunate reality is that we are totally depraved, flawed beings who will love and hate what we want – almost always for our own prideful benefit – and this religion just rallies people against those who are willing to embrace the fact that they don’t love everyone’s decisions. If that’s the case, what separates this system from any other system that only tolerates its followers? I’m in no way arguing then that the perfect belief system is one where everyone fits in, but if this one in particular is going to parade around the illusion that it does, it’s flawed and it is a total lie.
If your reason for disagreeing with someone’s decision is because it offends an almighty creator who created a natural order that people are rebelling against, then fair enough. Those who care enough to disagree will wholeheartedly investigate. I’m surprised that the girl who was raised Catholic stated that absolute truth could definitely not be found in religious texts, especially considering the fact that The Catholic Church doesn’t believe in holding the Bible in ultimate authority; I doubt that she was asked to teach much out of it, let alone that she was self-encouraged to investigate any other religion’s texts to spew out such a broad comment. If she was raised Catholic and decided that it was all wrong and left for atheism, I don’t blame her. I’m with her. Catholic theology is terrible, inconsistent, confusing, and completely out of line with the historical contexts of the Old and New Testament in a number of arenas. For one, they believe that the more good works you do, the better chance you’ll get into heaven. Nothing is secured and you can, in fact, lose your “salvation.” Alternatively, you can be guaranteed a path to heaven by wearing a stupid bracelet. Silly. Eh, I digress.
The function of the article seemed pretty simple; a burn for the Christian on the hot-seat (what else is new) and a manufactured “+1″ for the same old flimsy relativist worldview our college loves to boast. I have no doubts that he was a good sport nonetheless. I’m disabling comments because this area isn’t my forte and I hate politics.
