Tolerance, the old definition of tolerance is something we have forgotten, and yet… this is something being used against people, by some, who would claim to know what tolerance is. Tolerance is listening to someone you might disagree with but accept they may have a differing view than yours. It also does not mean you have to accept their beliefs as your own but you tolerate (suffer) listening to them with no animosity or reaction [an action performed or a feeling experienced in response to a situation or event]. This is, unfortunately, a thing of the past. This is not the same understanding of tolerance used today… today tolerance is not accepting an opinion different from yours and to complain about it [if one is opposed to what another is saying]- calling it tolerance all the same. This is more conformed to vagueness inspired moral relativism… and even this view turns on its own understanding when broken down to understand it. So let’s break it down and see what remains… to see just how wrong the current understanding of tolerance is [compared to what was commonly known as being or acting tolerant in our past].
Today, when one looks at religion, the commonly taught notion is,”Though religions may be different… the end result is all the same.” This belief is what is being taught to our children, that there is basically no difference between the religions of mankind; therefore, it matters little which one you follow or believe [an all roads lead to heaven mentality]. Here is where tolerance or the lack of it comes in… since christianity proclaims there is but one way to get to heaven… by the narrow gate. The narrow gate is also known as Jesus Christ, for it is by belief in Him [as the Savior for the whole world] the human race can be set free of the sin nature we all were born with. Here comes the “tolerance thing” again… and those that reject this belief have said,”Christians are intolerant to their own beliefs if they maintain this view to exclusivity.” This is to then make the assumption christians are narrow minded and unwilling to see things the way the rest of the world might see them or respond to them. By claims made from this basis, it is purported to be the christians that are intolerant to others for having such differences. Since when did acceptance of a belief that is all inclusive, one that would accept all people into a family that lives for love and should exemplify love [knowing the God of love]… the world over, be thought of as less than tolerant? I say it is people that refuse to accept the tenets of the christian beliefs and have a reaction to these truths [being absolute] which brings forth their response to it, a repulsion or resistance, and the reaction is one of hate.
When did tolerance become intolerance and why is it when a christian espouses their beliefs the reaction to it [most often for or against], and if against these beliefs is where the basis for hate to begin surfacing? To be vehemently against christianity [when one has an emotional reaction to it] is the antithesis of love… and is called hate- the exact opposite of what love embodies. Doe not love seem more closely akin to tolerance [known as patience], where hate is nothing close to what tolerance truly means, and yet this would be the claim by those whom might reject the teachings of christianity itself? It makes the reaction to this a hate crime [a bias motivated crime] if it involves: bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults and threats… which could lead to violence and acts of a violent nature- even to kill someone for what they believe. Does this sound to you like people fully understand the true meaning of “tolerance?” Even I have been subjected to “bias motivated crimes” for what I believe, and what I have said, but the world view sees me as the one that is wrong- my opinion is,”God help them.” See below a comment logged in by a friend of mine, in response to what happened to me, and find this is ongoing against christians for what they believe… which is ‘harassment’ by all commonly understood definitions- legal or otherwise.
Lately, I and other Christian writers have been attacked for basing our writings on The Word of God~Russell Holder was even removed as host of this site~Vigor, Vivian Gordon has also been attacked for her faith in Jesus Christ~I have received e-mail from Red Bubble that certain people are reporting my work as inappropriate and offensive~
So, please pray with me that our work as Christian writers and artists are not censored~
I also have two other pieces of writing on this same subject, one found here and the other is located here. For the purposes of understanding this in the truest sense, I list the definitions to “Hate Crimes [bias motivated crimes]” below, as known in some parts of the world. First the US…
DEFINITION: as taken from the D.O.J. (U.S. Dept. of Justice)
A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, RELIGION, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
Secondly, as known in Australia… under sentence aggravation model (page 6)…
the offence was motivated by hatred for or prejudice against a group to which the offender believed the victim belonged (such as people of a particular RELIGION, racial or ethnic origin, language, sexual orientation or age, or having a particular disability).
Here is Australia’s (current) view… found below in this segmented abstract on possible “Hate-crimes Law Expansion” there and pending debate.
“Opponents say it will encourage audiences to be unnecessarily thin-skinned and outlets to restrict contentious or complex material. In Australia, anti-discrimination legislation exists both in state and federal jurisdictions, supported by several federal and state anti-discrimination agencies.
The Institute of Public Affairs blasted the bill, calling it an “extremely serious curtailment of freedom of speech”
“The Gillard government’s changes to anti-discrimination laws undermine fundamental legal rights like the presumption of innocence,” IPA Legal Rights Director Simon Brenehy said in a statement. “The entire complaints process has been skewed towards the person making an allegation of discrimination, and fails to respect the rights of defendants. The decision to reverse the onus of proof in this case shows the willingness of this government to ignore basic legal rights.
“The onus of proof should be on the person making the accusation because it is often very difficult to prove innocence,” said Breheny. “Giving complainants an unfair level of power under the legislation raises the threat of dubious claims being made and makes a mockery of Australia’s legal system.”
He said the draft legislation “includes the availability of just one defense, which further skews the processin favor of the person bringing the claim.”
Along with the shifting of the burden of proof to those being sued, discrimination cases will be easier to launch and less costly to run, with the awarding of costs provision for judges and magistrates to be removed. In the past, if a complaint or lawsuit was considered vexatious or frivolous by the ruling judge, he could order the complainant or plaintiff to pay the legal costs of the defense. If the legislation passes unamended, that will no longer be possible.
The legislation, still in draft form, substantially expands the grounds on which individuals can claim discrimination. Forthefirsttime, discrimination on the basis of “political opinions” will be unlawful. In addition, the bill defines discrimination to be any “conduct that offends, insults or intimidates” another person. That means expressing an opinion that offends someone else’s political opinions is now grounds for discrimination if it occurs in certain contexts, such as in the workplace.
The federal opposition has in recent days accused the government of “some sort of ideological crusade to control what people can say.”
”If you make an allegation against someone, it’s for you to demonstrate that they have done the wrong thing, not for them to prove that they have done the right thing,” the opposition’s legal affairs spokesman Sen. George Brandis said.”
This is from the ICC understanding of agreement and what Australia would have to put forth as its own to contribute…
Unlike, the U.S., Australia wants to bring its unique perspective on law and justice and to boost its “international profile” in contributing to the system of international criminal justice, by shaping its norms, establishing its structures and by representing its values.
If by conforming to the world’s view as a means to contribute Australia’s unique perspective… Australia fails before it would do so substantially. Furthermore, if you think in America Shariah Law will not be tolerated… you’d be wrong, it has already been used and judges have circumvented the laws of this land to enable the directives from it. You might want to look here… where tolerance [or the lack of it] has taken us.
Luke 23:34 KJV Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.