I ran across a blog post titled, "Why Are Christians So Intolerant?" Excerpts are below:
"...many [Christians] are allowing the very core of their beliefs to be compromised, allowing sin to slowly gain supremacy in their lives to avoid being called intolerant. Rather than live in accordance with their beliefs, Christians are willing to compromise and even abandon their beliefs to appease their fellow man, so that society will offer a nod of approval."
"...We can have respect, and love for the people who abide by the system, indeed we can even accept the system as part of our society, yet critique it to death. There is a fundamental difference between a critique and intolerance, and this should be thoroughly noted."
"...It seems to me that we are so concerned with being politically correct and what is tolerant, and tip-toeing around everybody as to not offend that we have tragically forgotten to be concerned with what is actually true and what is moral.
For just think: should all beliefs, and all behaviors be tolerated? What if the belief is untrue, and the behavior is immoral? There are the most crucial questions, and yet they are not asked, because somebody might be offended.
What if I believe in intolerance, and behave in intolerance? Why is that belief and that behavior less valid?"
My lengthy response, currently in the moderation queue, below:
Firstly, I wanted to say this is a very interesting read and it is from a perspective I don't often hear from. There are three points I would like to address:
1) Criticism vs intolerance. In your essay, you distinguish between the two and suggest that you and other Christians are critical rather than intolerant, yet in the latter half of the article, you continue to use the word "intolerant" and you seem to suggest that Christians SHOULD in fact practice intolerance. I'm assuming your true intention is to argue that Christians should not be afraid to voice criticism, though I feel this distinction is important and should not be neglected. I believe the most notable difference between criticism and intolerance is differing levels of hostility, the latter being considerably more hostile than the former. Feelings of hostility are typically borne from fear, anger, and the feeling that one is being threatened. (Specifically, that the status quo is being threatened.) Which leads me to my next point...
2) Morality: People view moral arguments with suspicion. Despite endless philosophical debate, there is a lack of consensus on a way to objectively measure morality. And people do have reason to be suspicious, as many figures throughout history have made "moral arguments" which in reality were arguments of self-interest merely disguised as morality. One of the best examples of this was slavery and the common slaveholder rhetoric that black people were "born inferior" and thus it was morally reprehensible to consider them equal to whites. Of course, the discrimination of black people had little to do with morality and much more to do with protecting the social and economic privileges of slaveholders. Yet slavery was an issue that was often discussed on "moral" grounds.
3) My last point: the unequal playing field. I agree with [the previous commenter] that people should be allowed to freely (and intelligently) criticize other institutions. However, marginalized groups in society are given fewer means to voice their criticisms, and even if they have the opportunity to, are much more likely to be met with open hostility. For instance, the mere fact that Christians can publicly claim their beliefs as truths is in fact a societal privilege; if a Scientologist were to publicly claim their beliefs as truths, such comments would be immediately met with skepticism, mockery, and hostility--really, fear of being "politically incorrect" would be the least of their concerns.
--------------------------------------------
Really, the thought underlying my reply was the distinct feeling that the author of the original article is essentially complaining that a privileged group in society (in this case, Christians) are being "victimized" by an increasingly progressive society and are being "forced" to practice tolerance. The author even states that Christians are "victim" to politically correct jargon and other such "attacks."
One of my favorite quotes on this topic (made by a video game developer, no less): "...[Such] attitudes are rooted in a sense of privilege, and that [the privileged] are so used to getting things their own way, when everything is fair, they perceive it as imbalance." And that was what was EXACTLY on my mind when reading this article.
Especially when the author made sweeping remarks such as: "It is therefore particularly vital that my fellow Christians never concede that they are being intolerant." (Emphasis NOT mine.) Because of course, no privileged group in society would ever even think to be intolerant of marginalized groups!
Every other religious group is forced to "tolerate" Christianity, ESPECIALLY around Christmas time. Homosexuals are forced to "tolerate" Christianity literally every day. Is it so hard to expect the same in return?
