There are some contradictions going on within the movement toward tolerance and pluralism.
Take the issue of religion, for instance.
I am a conservative Christian. I believe belief in Jesus is the only way to get into Heaven. I believe all who accept him as their savior will receive eternal life, and those who deny him are spiritually dead and will be separated from him forever.
I will share this with anybody, and they can choose whether to believe as well or to walk the other way. I am not one to criticize or treat anyone differently if they are not Christians.
However, there is a place where I draw the line concerning religious tolerance.
As a result of globalism, many other ideas and world views are beginning to exist within the same spaces.
College professors and cultural experts and many other people promote tolerance and pluralism in order to help these conflicting worldviews coexist in peace. The tolerance they promote is not merely putting up with and respecting people with different views; it is a tolerance that requires us to value other people’s beliefs as viable and true along with our own.
Pluralism and tolerance require compromise.
Compromise means each party must give up something for the greater good of whatever cause is involved.
I am concerned about who is giving up something and what are they giving up to make a compromise for religious and philosophical tolerance.
Those whose beliefs are monotheistic and exclusive have something to give up. They must give up their convictions of faith and belief in an all-powerful God. They must accept that there is more than one path to God and deny the exclusivity of God.
The end result is that the Christian in particular must give up the truth of the gospel that once brought them to salvation.
If they don’t give up these convictions in the name of tolerance, they are maliciously taunted and laughed at. They are called fundamentalists and right-wing conservatives. When they don’t budge, they are then harassed into tolerance.
This is where the contradiction exists. The pursuit of tolerance is intolerant toward Christians.
If religious tolerance can only be obtained by me denying who I am in Christ, then I will not participate in the movement.
Why am I so adamant about this? Let’s take the philosophy of atheism. It flies in the face of monotheism and says there is no God. It is one of the views I am asked to accept as viable.
What are the atheists giving up in the name of tolerance?
Are they willing to accept the fact that the truth they believe about God not existing may be false? Are they willing to accept the fact that there may indeed be a God? Are they willing to value the fact that I believe in God?
No, they’re not.
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are leaders of a movement called New Atheism. Atheism is nothing new, but the approach these men take to the philosophy certainly is new.
They are evangelistic in their cause to create more atheists, and their main argument is that religion, Christianity in particular, is dangerous and should be completely eradicated.
In their minds, the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment is wrong in allowing religion to exist.
The New Atheists say religion should be completely removed from society and that no form of it, monotheistic or polytheistic, should be tolerated.
It doesn’t sound like these atheists are going to budge and start tolerating Christians.
And I’m not going to budge either.
It is time to wake up to the fact that there is a point when tolerance goes too far.
We are at that point.
Richard Dawkins is coming to OU in the spring. If you’ve spent time heckling Christians for being “intolerant” of those who have different beliefs, make sure you heckle him as well for being intolerant of religion in general.
If you support Dawkins’ cause, your tolerance is just a guise for your desire to strip America of religion and get people with strong biblical convictions to shut up.
There is nothing tolerant about that.
Jelani Sims is a journalism sophomore. His column appears every other Friday.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
deidra 3 years, 7 months ago
I find this article to be written in a hostile and condescending tone. Wht do yout hink it is ok to make sweeping generalizations about atheists? I never make those about Christians or anyone else for that matter. Please takea good long look at yourself in the mirror and realize that there is no need for such hatred. You are not making religious people, or people in general, look that great.
mustafa 3 years, 7 months ago
A good piece, for a change! What I don't understand is why would anyone want to spread atheism? If religion was just a device to keep the masses in order, why remove it? So there can be dis-order? Atheists have no grounds to say what is right or wrong. They cannot condemn Hitler. Why would anyone want to live in a world where few feared punishment for "wrong-doing" in an after life. Everywhere one looked there would be Klebold-and-Harris types? The more sincere an atheist's belief that there is no God, the more he should want everyone else to believe. A true atheist is not a god-hater.
dragon42 3 years, 7 months ago
I have to in general agree. Tolerance SHOULD be practiced in the intended form and not twisted into the acceptances of others believes. You see things (religion in particular) differently than I do. That is okay as long as your beliefs do not infringe on my rights. However, anyone who infringes on another's rights to believe something is being intolerant. The right to believe should be protected. Where there is disagreement in the real world that has to do with the morality of actions, the law mediates.
redbull560 3 years, 7 months ago
I came to this board to hopefully read the tongue lashing this article so rightfully deserves only to find the three meager comments nearly as bad as the article itself. Listen jelani sims first of all atheism is NOT a religion, atheists simply search for truth and beauty and the TRUTH is that there is no God, we did not come to this conclusion by some revelation written down thousands of years ago, we simply use evidence and reality to support our claims. Think of it the same way you treat other "non-believers" I view you equally as lost my friend, I am going to try and help those who are lost and confused by their mystical beliefs in some old fairy tales. Who says I want to "tolerate" and "respect" religion I certainly do not respect religious belief nor do I want to co-exist with it, it has no reason to be respected. The terrible fallacy that humans will not be "moral" without a belief in a deity or an afterlife is one of the worst tracks of logic ever, religion has no claim to say they are the founding of morals or the back bone of a moral society that notion is laughable and anyone who has done any reading or thinking could crush that argument in a matter of seconds. I look forward to the arrival of Richard Dawkins to this campus, and not only would I love to see some bible thumpers show up and make fools of themselves trying to argue with Dawkins cause we all know thats what Jesus would do? Right? Oh wait... please dont ever write another piece about religion you only make it look worse and trust me that is no easy feat.
Rebecca_Witthuhn 3 years, 7 months ago
I found your article to be quite irresponsible on your part as a young journalist, simply because I believe you wrote out of emotion and not facts. First, I have an issue with using the word “tolerate” and associating this with accepting human beings for their differences. The word tolerate means, “(1) sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from one’s own, (2) the allowable deviation from the standard” (Webster Dictionary). There is no mention in this definition of someone relinquishing their own beliefs in lieu of another. To tolerate means to listen to another’s opinion and value the fact that because they are human, they have a right to opinions and beliefs that differ from your own. To tolerate means that you do not discriminate (this includes not taking away people’s civil rights), criticize, demean, or devalue another person’s belief system. Your argument lost ground when you stated that Christians have to “give something up” or “compromise” in order to tolerate. By definition, I believe that you are sorely misguided.
Secondly, I would like to address the second definition of tolerate. It seems that as of late politicians and fellow citizens have been throwing around this word a lot. This definition suggests that by deviating from the “standard” one is not normal and therefore requires tolerance. My question to you is this: What is the standard when one talks about religion? You can ask this question with reference to other important issues as well such as morality, spirituality, sexual orientation etc.
One of the great benefits of being an American means that we are fortunate enough to be able to practice freedom of speech and voice our opinions pertaining to our belief systems. Instead of “tolerating” I suggest that as responsible citizens we should respect our fellow human beings and embrace our differences.
moi 3 years, 7 months ago
Hi Jelani Sims, thank you for this article. It illustrates a viewpoint that has been first and foremost in my studies of modern theology throughout high school, and now that I'm in college it seems to be a view that many people have not encountered. Too many people seem to think that just because I disagree with the things they do means that I automatically hate them, but it's simply not true. On the other hand, too many people think that because I don't hate them for their actions means I believe their view is right for them. That is simply not true either. J. Budzisewski put it well in his book "How To Stay Christian In College." On pg 92 he describes two sincerists having lunch.
"The first one says 'I sincerely believe infanticide is right,' and the second replies, 'I sincerely believe infanticide is wrong.' The first returns, 'then "infanticide is wrong" is true for you and "infanticide is right" is true for me.' They smile and eat their salads." This is an oversimplified illustration of one of the common types of tolerance.
You see, there are two kinds of tolerance. There's the new tolerance, that says "in order to be tolerant, you must believe that the other person's beliefs are just as valid as yours" and the traditional kind that says you just have to be nice to them and not criticize them directly for their beliefs. The new tolerance definitely requires some degree of relinquishing one's beliefs. If I say the sky is pink and you say it is blue, we can't both be right.
And by the way, I respectfully disagree when someone says atheism is not a religion. First of all, what defines religion? Is it a set of rituals? If that's the case, I know atheists who "religiously" avoid attending church. Is religion a set of beliefs? If that's the case, the definition of atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no god," because "a" means not, "the" means god, and "ism" means belief in. By that definition, atheism is technically a religion. Remember, some would use the same arguments as I've read here to say that Christianity is not a religion.
But I think the main point of this article is not to debate the existence of God. It is just to address the issue of Christian persecution (whether physical, verbal, explicit or implicit) in the name of tolerance, which definitely exists. Believe me, it's great to be nice to people who are different, but just be careful that you are not intolerant of people you believe to be intolerant, because that leaves the main point of tolerance by the wayside.
And for anyone who wants more information on the Christian perspective of this issue, I highly recommend the book "The New Tolerance" by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler
gibb6579 3 years, 7 months ago
I would like to quote Richard Dawkins from his best seller The God Delusion. In a line he states that his ideas in science are just as malleable as science itself is. In regards to evolution he said that if a bit of scientific evidence came along to disapprove evolution he would in fact drop the theory from his mind. This shows his willingness to change his state of thinking to include that of todays proven theories in the scientific community. Also you must remember that Evolution is simply the method of descent of a species from its common ancestor to a more modern form. As for the origin of life it is still a matter of the biochemists to figure out. Anyway my name is Dustin, I was recently featured on the front page of The Oklahoma Daily in fact this very issue. I am the president of the Free Thinkers Society and I would like to emphasize how inappropriate it is to have a call to arms against a university professor. Yes I am talking about Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford university. Please remember that he is coming here for Darwin at OU in the Spring not to threaten your beliefs.
euknemarchon 3 years, 7 months ago
For claim G that God exists, not affirming G is the same as affirming not G, or claiming that God does not exist, ~G. In other words, either G or ~G, and atheists definitionally hold to ~G. There is no difference between “actively clamining that God does not exist” and “lacking a belief in God”, because both are logically the same in ~G. Agnostics perhaps attempt to affirm neither G nor ~G, but whether that is possible in practice is for another discussion.
Also, in your accusation that Mr. Sims would heckle Dr. Dawkins, your interpretation of Mr. Sims was incorrect. He clearly wrote that “If you have heckled Christians for intolerance, please heckle Richard Dawkins because he is intolerant.” This was directly addressed toward pro-tolerance (the new tolerance in the view of Mr. Sims), pluralistic individuals that criticize Christians for being intolerant. If anything, the call to heckling represents a criticism of the tolerance movement for not applying the same standards to Christians and new atheists.
mindhypnotized 3 years, 7 months ago
Perhaps no one has informed you on what atheism actually is. For this, I cannot blame you. But, I can blame you for writing a public opinion piece which clearly shows your ignorance of a demographic that you clearly have absolutely no real knowledge about. Atheism is NOT a philosophy. Anyone who says different is a misguided fool. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god, that's it. There are absolutely no positive claims made. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God, not someone who actively claims God doesn't exist. And this talk about you not criticizing non-Christians or treating them any different is clearly contradicting your final statement that we should heckle professor Dawkins. Or do you heckle all Christians, too? Cause then you would be consistent. Unless this is the case, it appears that in the course of calling out a "contradiction", you ended up creating your own.
And for the record, there is no requirement to be tolerant of anyone who is not tolerant themselves. Look at the track record for Christianity. Back in the day atheists and homosexuals would be killed after being identified as such. Thankfully, this is no longer the case (I hope, at least). But there is still serious stigma attached to atheism, and homosexuals still aren't allowed to marry in most states. Fundamentalist Christianity REQUIRES that you hate homosexuals (If you follow the Bible literally, you should kill them). In order to be a real Christian, intolerance is a necessity. You have absolutely no right to claim that you are not tolerated or that you are being persecuted. You are the largest portion of this country when it comes to religious demographics. The minority cannot oppress the majority.
And finally, just FYI, Christopher Hitchens claimed that he would not like to see religion obliterated, he just said that it is in general corrupt and irrational. Daniel Dennett simply wanted to study religion scientifically (seriously, did you even open his book??!!), and Harris and Dawkins just said that fundamentalist religions are dangerous to society, which is a fact that cannot be denied if one truly looks at the evidence with an objective eye. NONE of them said they wanted religion to be wiped from the Earth, and they certainly don't think it's plausible either way.
P.S. I seriously wish these guys WERE evangelistic, cause it would be way cooler to have those guys knocking at my door during dinner. Knowing Hitchens, he would likely have some scotch to share with everyone.
euknemarchon 3 years, 7 months ago
Also, taking the Bible literally does not require that Christians kill homosexuals. Christianity argues that the homosexuality or atheism of some individuals grow out of the exceeding sinfulness which inhabits all humans. Because the nation of Israel was taken out of Egypt and made a nation by God to represent his holiness to the other nations of the earth, they were commanded to “be holy, as the Lord their God is holy.” The Law represented this requirement, including laws meant to purify from the midst of the Israelites those who sinned in particular ways including homosexuals. Now Christians are by no means bound to obey commandments to stone homosexuals or otherwise; “the law is becoming obsolete” as the author of Hebrews writes! But for one thing, gentiles were never put under the Israelites' law, even gentile Christians during the first century, at which time a letter was written as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:” after which requirements most certainly not laying out the law of Moses were related. The New Testament has several applications as regards homosexuality and atheism: as for atheists, because they be definition do not believe in God, which is necessary to have faith in him as the author of Hebrews argues, they will not be saved on the day of judgment. As for homosexuals, Paul argues in his letter to the Romans that giving into passions of homosexuality arises from not acknowledging God. Elsewhere he warns that no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of heaven; this means not that anybody now a homosexual cannot cease to be a homosexual and inherit, but that anybody who remains a homosexual and does not change cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Anybody who wants to be a part of the visible church, bearing the name Christian, that does not yet repent even after many appeals from Christians (acknowledge God's holiness and his violation of that holiness followed by action to combat that sin) should be removed from the church and not labeled “Christian”. These individuals have clearly not given up on sin, something Christians have been called to do. These things are what the New Testament says about homosexuals, not that they should be stoned; as for what the Old Testament says about homosexuals, it says these things in the law of Moses, and that law's righteous requirement has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus, as Paul argues, so we are by no means under the law. Please understand that your accusation, then, is completely false.
euknemarchon 3 years, 7 months ago
I feel your attitude toward the criticism by Mr. Sims of new atheism primarily dodges the question. The thrust of new atheism according to any reasonable commentary is that religion (real religion that affirms something is truth) should be removed because it is not beneficial to society to keep it. It is not a leap of logic from “religion is dangerous” to “religion should be abrogated by the state”.
Finally, by calling into question Mr. Sims' use of the word “evangelistic”, I think you reveal that you either do not understand Mr. Sims or you are obfuscating Mr. Sims' clear meaning. “Evangelistic” does not mean door-to-door evangelism. “Evangelistic” means trying to create followers, something that any author who sells pop philosophy books like the fathers of new atheism mentioned are clearly trying to do.
I don't think you really have that much of a problem with Mr. Sims. I think you see in Mr. Sims' writing the idea of God, that Jesus Christ came and died and rose again in order that the sins of many would be paid for so that many would be able to walk in newness of life, no longer dominated by the power of sin. This idea seems like trash because, if it is true, then we are all sinful and foundationally wrong in our thinking apart from this idea of God. I must appeal to you that although your arguments may be toppled, topping your arguments does not defeat your sin. So please consider this good news that in Jesus Christ we have payment for sins and can be freed from the power of sin even if it seems like trash; to those who are being saved it is the power of God for salvation.
mindhypnotized 3 years, 6 months ago
@euknemarchon
Your "logic" doesn't take into account all the possibilities. Most books on atheism (I recommend Micheal Martin's or George H Smith's works)will tell you there are two or three kinds of atheism: 1) Positive (strong) atheism: Asserts that there exists no god 2) Negative (weak) atheism: Without the belief in a god (examples: newborn babies, a hypothetical man who lived in a cave with no human contact and is not aware of the concept of god, people who are not fully convinced one way or the other by the arguments, which includes most agnostics) 3) Indifferent atheism: One who simply doesn't care enough to form any opinion whatsoever (differs from agnostics in that agnostics aren't convinced by arguments or take the epistemological stance that the nature or existence of god is essentially unknowable via human means)
1 Corresponds to your ~G, but 2 and 3 do not. The key difference that you are unable to see is the negation of god and the absence of belief in god. These are not the same thing. Take UFOs for example, I cannot in secure confidence assert that they absolutely do not exist, but I am leaning in that direction. Without denying their existence, I can say that I do not believe they exist, but given sufficient evidence, I could change my mind. And so it goes with god as well.
And in response to the "heckling" point, perhaps I should rephrase in terms that you might understand. Love thy neighbor as thyself; if a man slaps you, turn the other cheek; do not to your neighbor what you find hateful to yourself (and yes, I am aware that these are bad paraphrases, but you know what they mean). So if the Christian enjoys being heckled, then go ahead and heckle your neighbor Dawkins.
mindhypnotized 3 years, 6 months ago
On evangelism, you are right, there is more to it than door-to-door intruding. I didn't think any intellectuals took those guys seriously anymore, so I didn't create a formal argument. But if evangelism is rooted in trying to create "followers", then the new atheism is exactly the opposite. They are trying to free the followers from the binds of religion. Jesus (the SHEPARD) is supposed to come back and collect his super-duper obedient SHEEP. You recognize the metaphor, and you know it applies. The so-called new atheists are trying to turn sheep-drones into individual thinkers. They aren't enforcing dogma, they're liberating people from it.
And finally, "sin" is a cop-out used by people who don't want to take true responsibility for their actions. When I screw up, it was ME, not SIN. Not some snake whispering at me in a garden telling me to eat the bad fruit. And since the New Testament is supposed to have freed Christians from the Mosaic Law of the Hebrew Scriptures, why did you import the concept of sin from this apparently defunct text? This is clearly a case of picking and choosing from the Bible. In my opinion, it was kept to instill guilt in the people, because without the guilt of believing that Christ died agonizingly for something bad that YOU WILL HAVE DONE about 2000 years in the FUTURE, laypeople would have no real reason to believe. Because the philosophical, historical, textual, and scientific arguments concerning biblical history and theology do not stand on their own. But guilt supports them quite nicely.