The Mysterious Paradox of Liberal Tolerance

For many years, every time I saw a “Coexist” bumper sticker, I would get perturbed in my spirit, and I didn’t really know why. It wasn’t that I felt criticized. Particularly speaking, I’m an open and forgiving sort. I love discourse and conversation, and the command to “coexist” with people who disagreed with me didn’t seem to have any teeth. I was already doing that.

It wasn’t until recently that I realized exactly why this bumper sticker is so patently false in concept and sentiment. To tell others to “coexist” indicates, for one, that you do not think they are coexisting. But, also, it is in itself an imperative, even a religious imperative. Apparently, the people who display these bumper stickers on their cars have not thought this out.

This might make a good bumper sticker in response (if it weren’t so wordy of course): “Coexist is a moral imperative. Perhaps you should learn to get along with people without telling them what to do.” Which amounts to, “Why don’t you coexist?” Ironically, the inclusion of all these current religious symbols indicates that various religions already are coexisting, at least in the strictest sense of the word. It is the very “tolerant” person driving around with a one word sermon pasted to his bumper that feels most compelled to tell everyone else how they should think and what they should believe.

The very foundation of liberal tolerance is therefore a paradox, to put it graciously. It might, perhaps more accurately, be called a “self-contradiction.” Moral philosophers have been talking about it for quite some time. Even as far back as the nascent years of the American Republic in 1783, Ezra Stiles, then president of Yale, preached a sermon to the Connecticut General Assembly (But what about separation of church and state?!), in which he criticized the so-called open-mindedness of the “Coexist” faction of his own day—the Deists. His words are worth repeating:

I pity from my heart . . . those who are caught in the vortex, and are captivated with the wily satirical delusory and deficient reasonings of deism. Elevated with the pride of mental enlargement, of a supposed untrammeled understanding, they ascend aloft above the clouds of prejudices into the Pisgah heights, from whence they fancy that they see all religions the same, that is, equally nothing but priestcraft and artificial error. Whereupon they complement themselves as endowed with a superiority of discernment in morals, with high sensibility, sentimental and liberal ideas, and charm themselves with other fine self-applied diction, which in truth only clothes the tedium of weariness of half-discussed unfinished inquiries; or perhaps the hope that at worst the want of certain knowledge may pass with God, if there is any, as a sufficient excuse for some of the doubtful levities of life.

I’m afraid many modern skeptics may not be educated enough to realize just how insulting that was. Let me put it in plainer terms: Moral skeptics and irreligious people are not freed from morality or religion by their skepticism and supposed “open-mindedness.” They are in fact most to be pitied because they are freed from the virtues of religion while still retaining its vices—self-righteousness and hypocrisy. The modern “tolerant” liberal is only tolerant in broad terms. When it comes to specifics, he still holds his own version of ethics and morality to be higher and better than any other. That is the paradox and irony of both the “coexist” bumper sticker and the immutable modern doctrine of tolerance. In a sense, what it is saying is, “My irreligious stance is better and more reasonable than all religions. All religious people should therefore follow my moral and religious code. They should all become active members in the church of me.”

Liberal tolerance is not just broad ideologically; it is also broad practically. Though it apparently extends to all humankind universally, it dissolves in the presence of even one particular dissenter. C. S. Lewis pegged it when he described the demonic doctrine of general good will toward men. The following is, of course, from the perspective of a fictional demon, though its effects are clearly seen in reality:

[Humans] are creatures of that miserable sort who loudly proclaim that torture is too good for their enemies and then give tea and cigarettes to the first wounded German pilot who turns up at the back door. Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient’s soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbors whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy. You can hardly hope, at once, to exclude from all the circles everything that smells of the Enemy: but you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable qualities inward into the Will. It is only in so far as they reach the will and are there embodied in habits that the virtues are really fatal to us. (I don’t, of course, mean what the patient mistakes for his will, the conscious fume and fret of resolutions and clenched teeth, but the real centre, what the Enemy calls the Heart.) All sorts of virtues painted in the fantasy or approved by the intellect or even, in some measure, loved and admired, will not keep a man from our Father’s house: indeed they may make him more amusing when he gets there. [Emphasis added]

That is an apt description of liberal tolerance: it positively raves about general love for humankind, the celebration of diversity, and the acceptance of all differences. But when it comes to specifics, it is even more close-minded and malicious toward diverse opinions and practices than any rabid religious fundamentalism. Aside from making a person feel better about themselves, general tolerance is ultimately and practically useless. I would much rather be tolerant specifically than seem tolerant generally. General tolerance purports to serve all of mankind. In the end, it serves only the “tolerant” person’s own ego.

There are many historical examples of liberal tolerance faltering in particulars, but one that is presently fresh in my mind comes from Gone With the Wind. In it, Scarlett O’Hara muses about the relationship of the Northern abolitionists to the Southern slaves. This is a classic example of Screwtape humanitarianism, and this particular brand is still alive and well actually:

What damnably queer people Yankees are! Those women [Yankee women who had just told Scarlett they wouldn’t trust a “negro” to be a nurse to their children, and who had insulted Scarlett’s black chauffeur, Uncle Peter, to his face] seemed to think that because Uncle Peter was black, he had no ears to hear with and no feelings, as tender as their own, to be hurt. . . . They didn’t understand negroes or the relations between the negroes and their former masters. Yet they fought a war to free them. And having freed them, they didn’t want to have anything to do with them, except to use them to terrorize Southerners. They didn’t like them, didn’t trust them, didn’t understand them, and yet their constant cry was that Southerners didn’t know how to get along with them.

In other words, the myth of liberal tolerance, open-mindedness, and good will has been going on for years, and many people have been taken in by it. It is likely that, in fact, the most deceived people of all about liberal tolerance are liberals themselves.

So, next time someone tells you that you’re close-minded and intolerant, and that you need to learn to “coexist,” I hope you have the forbearance and grace to show that person real love by attempting, as futile as the attempt may be, to disabuse them of their self-delusions.

90 responses

  1. Michael, I’m pleased the bumper sticker “Coexist” has finally “got your goat.” However, I suggest there’s a much more basic and serious reason for condemning it, one that should be written on the heart of anyone who claims to be a Christian: All but one of its symbols representing religions openly proliferating gods other than Yahweh is hostile to the First Commandment.

    It should be the official bumper sticker of the polytheistic First Amendment, which provided for those religions and their gods to thrive in America. For more, see blog article “Swallowing Camels… Pt. 8: Article 6’s Christian Test Ban and Its Polytheistic Repercussions,” followed by “Swallowing Camels… Pt. 9: Amendment 1’s Government-Sanctioned Polytheism.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and scroll down to titles.

    • As my article explains, I don’t think it is actually polytheistic. I think it is at its root actually against all religion. It says all religions are the same—equally false. The condescending bearer of the bumper sticker is willing to put up with all of these different brands of what he thinks are religious fantasies only as long as all the little children agree to get along about their particular imaginary friends.

        • I think government reflects the people. Whatever is wrong with an institution could be fixed by a revival of true religion and faithfulness among the people. God’s Laws can’t change the heart. I doubt man’s laws will have greater success. That’s not a knock against good laws. The fault isn’t with the laws of course. The fault is with the people, so it’s the people that need changing.

          • Michael, thank you for responding. But, I think you avoided my question.

            Also, you say the “fault isn’t with the laws of course.” Ultimately, the problem is with the people–with our wicked hearts. However, how can you say there’s no fault with the laws? Laws are always the reflection of ethics-either Yahweh’s or the people’s. When not a reflection of God’s, do you think He would say there’s no fault with the laws?

            Again, what say ye about the polytheistic enabling First Amendment?

          • Even God’s perfect Laws can’t change hearts. What I’m saying is that the fault with the laws is symptomatic. You’re not treating the disease by changing the laws, you’re just treating the symptoms. I did avoid your question. Because I don’t think changing the laws is a good use of our time. We need to be more involved in the charitable, practical, and cultural outworking of the Gospel, and less concerned with transforming our system of government—which changes will not ultimately achieve social transformation for the better. I don’t think the First Amendment is clear enough about what it means by “religion” for one, but I can understand arguments both in its favor and against it. I frankly don’t care much as long as our culture remains in its current state. There are bigger fish to fry.

          • You wrote: “Even God’s perfect Laws can’t change hearts.”

            Are you so sure: “The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul….” (Psalm 19:7)

            You wrote: “I did avoid your question. Because I don’t think changing the laws is a good use of our time. We need to be more involved in the charitable, practical, and cultural outworking of the Gospel, and less concerned with transforming our system of government—which changes will not ultimately achieve social transformation for the better.”

            So we’re better off with finite man’s fickle traditions (Matthew 15:6-9) than Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11) as the foundation for government and society?

            You wrote: “I don’t think the First Amendment is clear enough about what it means by “religion” for one, but I can understand arguments both in its favor and against it.”

            You need to read the framers then who unequivocally knew that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion provision opened the door to non-Christian religions serving gods other than Yahweh in violation of the First Commandment. In fact (and most people are completely oblivious to this), the framers were influenced in the provision by Jews so that they could be included not only as citizens, but, electors, and public officials. See “Swallowing Camels… Pt. 8: Article 6’s Christian Test Ban and Its Polytheistic Repercussions,” followed by “Swallowing Camels… Pt. 9: Amendment 1’s Government-Sanctioned Polytheism.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and scroll down to titles.”

            You wrote, “I frankly don’t care much as long as our culture remains in its current state. There are bigger fish to fry.”

            The culture is in the state it is for a large part BECAUSE the framers rejected Yahweh’s immutable morality for their own finite traditions. If you want a VERY BIG that needs frying, join me in exposing our national idol and promoting Yahweh’s perfect law in its stead.

          • I figured you would bring up Psalm 19:7, but I don’t think it means what you think it means. Whatever it means, it cannot contradict other passages like Hebrews 8:1–13 for instance, that make it clear that the law on stone tablets (the law institutionalized) was insufficient to save (regenerate, convert) unrighteous men. The Law needed to be internalized. It can transform the soul only if it is written on hearts through the power of Christ’s righteousness. God conforms our hearts to His Law (writes His Law on our hearts) through the better covenant made in Jesus’ blood. That does not mean that the naked Law (even of God) is sufficient to save people or change unregenerate hearts into regenerate ones. If it had been sufficient, why would God have needed a “better” covenant? The power of the Holy Spirit in God’s plan of salvation is necessary before the Law is effectual for transformation.
            I do not prefer man’s fickle traditions. I think God’s Laws are perfect and wish to see them the ruling law of all nations. But I think human institutions of government reflect the state of the people. It is largely fruitless to change a people’s politics if the people’s hearts remain unchanged. By all means, work to change people’s view of politics. I think it a better use of time to change their view of the world. Worldviews are a matter of the heart. If you are satisfied with a culture whose heart (though not its face) is turned away from God, then by all means keep emphasizing the establishment of law over the propagation of the Gospel. But I don’t think you should be satisfied with a culture in only outward conformity to God’s standards. God certainly wasn’t satisfied with this. I understand the Framers weren’t Christian, and I don’t believe the Constitution is specifically Christian. But the Constitution is not the major problem with this country. The culture is not a reflection of the government. Government is a reflection of the culture. I think you have your theory exactly backwards there. Changing the government will not change the culture but outwardly. Changing the culture through the transforming power of “heart Law” will also transform the government.
            I’ll let you have the last word on this, though. I understand you, and I think you understand me.

          • You might be correct, Psalm 19:7 may not mean what I think it does. So, let me make it clear what I think it means. However, first, let me make it clear that I accept Hebrews 8:1-13 and its implications as it concerns the insufficiency of the law as it pertains to justification and salvation. In fact, I would wager I accept all of those verse more than you do (for example, I wonder if you truly believe in Verses 8 & 9 or do you like so many reinterpret them to mean a multi-ethnic spiritual Israel when Verse 9 clearly identifies the New Covenant recipients in Verse 8 as physical Israelites? But, that’s for another time.) As for the law internalized (written on our hearts and minds), if you go back and read again my original post, you’ll see that I was talking about the law (the First Commandment), Lord willing, written on YOUR heart.

            What I believe about Psalm 19:7 is that when society is being governed by Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments and see the benefits (blessings-Deuteronomy 28) of doing so, that they are more responsive to Yahweh for conversion (as per Deuteronomy 4:5-8) and as was fulfilled here in 1600 Colonial America, according to Alexis de Tocqueville:

            “They exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found.

            “Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated
            by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ. “Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord,” says the preamble of the Code, “shall surely be put to death.” This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape were punished with death….” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37.)

            You tell me: Which do you think men are more likely to be converted under (have their hearts reached): When society is functioning by finite man’s fickle antipodal traditions or Yahweh’s perfect law?

            You wrote, “I think it a better use of time to change their view of the world.” Most patriots and alleged conservative Christians Biblically seditious view of the world includes the antipodal U.S. Constitution as the Supreme law of the land. Idolatry is at the crux of heart issues. This idol (pitifully promoted by most Christians) stands in the way of reaching the hearts of non-Christians and alleged Christians alike. Until, like Gideon of old, we tear down our fathers’ idol, there will be little progress in reaching the hearts of many of our people.

  2. Liberal tolerance is a myth, all right. I’d believe in the Easter Bunny before I believe in something that non-existent.

  3. You are correct in trying to understand the paradox of Liberal tolerance from a spiritual point of view, as this is the only accurate way comprehend it. I know I’m going to make a lot of liberals mad by saying this, but here it is. I used to agree with Dr. Savage that “liberalism is a mental disorder.” I actually came to that conclusion myself before I heard Dr. Savage say it. The problem with most Liberals is that they judge everything emotionally and refuse to actually think. They give themselves away by always prefacing their statements with “I feel” and never with “I think.” The more I have tried to understand the way Liberals think the more I have realized that it is indeed a mental disorder, but the underlying cause is a spiritual sickness. In the battle between the forces of light and darkness, the vast majority of Liberals are on the side of darkness. Now, if they read this and understand it to mean that I’m saying they are not Christians, the reaction will be predictable. They will instantly say, “Who are you to judge me? You are a religious bigot.” Never realizing the hypocrisy of calling me a bigot while insisting that I have no right to judge them. Well, what makes them think they have any right to judge me? It is easy to understand (if you take time to think about it) that the left in this Country is anti-Christian. They make it obvious by insisting on tolerance for a wide variety of sinful behavior from homosexuality, to murdering unborn children, and by their tolerance of every variety of religion (even in the public square) EXCEPT Christianity. When it comes to Christianity they insist on “separation of Church and State” even though this concept is totally foreign to the Constitution. Never do they recognize that their religion is Secular Humanism, and that they are the real “religious bigots.” If you ask them they will claim to be Christian, or sometimes that they have no religion at all, the reality is they are so blinded by religious hypocrisy that they believe that their opinion is the only one that’s valid. And, of course they believe that they are better educated and smarter than everyone else.

      • Your anti Christian little emblem is a perfect validation of the article. Perfect.
        I hope you make a change in your life I’m sure the daily grind is very difficult for you.

      • If what you say was truth, you would not be here, bob-0, spreading your hate, anger, and bigotry every chance you get. Your constant anti-Christian bigoted rants do nothing but show you to be the fool you are in real life. Your ignorance is astounding.

    • secular humanism is NOT a religion it’s a philosophy that embraces human reason, ethics, & social justice while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making

      • It’s a debatable point whether Secular Humanism is a religion or a philosophy, but the way you just described it makes it sound an awful lot like Communism.

  4. A perfect example was the homosexual guy going to schools giving lectures on “tolerance” & “anti bullying” & then going on a psychotic, hate filled RANT about Christians & Christianity & THEIR hatred & intolerance. Funny thing is that I have never heard a preacher get up & rant about hating homosexuals or wishing they would all burn in hell. I also love how leftists despise Christianity for its “intolerance” yet embraces Islam. a religion that preaches hatred & death to anyone who disagrees with it. Hey, that is EXACTLY what leftists do, preach tolerance & love until you disagree with them at which time they hate & want to kill you.
    Liberalism is a mental illness.

    • Their are MANY Christians preaching hatred & intolerance to gays & blaming EVERY natural disaster on them!!! Open your eyes & ears!!!

      • Just as there are atheists that don’t vote liberal or democrat, there are people calling themselves Christians that aren’t Christian in their beliefs, acts, or words. Just like the Westboro Baptist nutcases. So try looking at the individual not the group.

        • If every Christian that other Christians claimed were not “real Christians” were to disappear there wouldn’t be any Christians.

          • That has nothing to do with what I said. I said look at the individual, not the group. Just as there are those that share your “beliefs” of no religion that don’t agree with your political policies. There are differences in leaps and bounds between the individual within groups.

          • Atheism is not a belief. It’s a lack of belief. None of the atheists I know would say absolutely that there is no god. Both the existence and non-existence of god are impossible to prove,so the rational atheist says simply: there is insufficient evidence to support belief in a god, therefore I don’t believe in god. This is not an absolute position, just a logical conclusion & has NOTHING to do with political beliefs.

          • Again, nothing to do with what I said. That’s why I put beliefs in quotation marks, since it’s not really a belief.

          • Shall we blame those men who have killed homosexuals– (remember Matthew Sheppard who was killed a couple of years ago, and tied up to a fence post) shall we blame the men who have read Lev. 20:13 “If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.”? Or should we blame the book in which they read it? Should we put the blame on bigotry or homophobia for the hatred that many people nowadays feel toward homosexuals? Or on the book that instilled that hatred in them? Do you think THEY think they are “real” Christians? Do you think they believed just as strongly and deeply as any other Christian? If other Christians IGNORE all these commands that are given all throughout the bible, what makes them “real” Christians?

          • That’s an easy one. Do we blame the gun, or the person pulling the trigger? Do we blame the Beatles for Charles Manson? Or do we just come to terms with the fact he’s a whack job? Look at the individual bob, and their decisions alone. Blame the chooser.

          • I think you missed the point. When the bible says kill, gays, non virgin wives, people that work on sunday, etc, etc, etc should we blame the people that believe that bible & kill these people or the bible itself?

          • As I have, and others I’ve seen do so as well, have pointed out to you that we don’t follow the Old Covenant anymore, no. We don’t go killing gays and such. Go look for a Muslim and ask them that instead.

          • I believe that this new interpretation of the “new covenant” is dubious (to say the least) but if the laws of Moses are no longer valid then why don’t Christians stand alongside of Atheists & get the 10 commandments banned from public since they are now meaningless?

          • I’m just repeating myself, but here it goes. We don’t follow many old jewish law, yet we do still follow the ten commandments.

            B. The Mosaic covenant, the old covenant, was a temporary pact or covenant that
            was entered into by God and the people of Israel at Sinai (Ex. 20:1 – 24:8). The Mosaic law
            that was part of that covenant specified the way in which the faith of God’s people was to be
            expressed until Christ came.

            C. Some of the commands in the law of the Mosaic covenant were not universal
            moral desires of God. They erected civil and ceremonial or ritualistic (“amoral”) distinctions
            between Jews and Gentiles, at least in part to keep the people of God untainted by pagan
            practices in order to help them serve as a witness to their Gentile neighbors of the blessed
            life that exists under God. A distinction between the commandments of the law is evident in
            1 Cor. 7:19 (TNIV): Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s
            commands is what counts.

            D. A new covenant was instituted between God and mankind through the sacrifice
            of Christ, the effect of which was to render the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant, obsolete
            or no longer operative (2 Cor. 3:4-18; Gal. 3:15 — 4:7, 4:21-3 1; Heb. 7:11-22, 8:6-13). And
            with the fulfillment in Christ of the planned obsolescence of the Mosaic covenant, the set of
            commands that were part of that covenant, the Mosaic law, ceased to be binding.

            E. Though the set of commands that constitute the Mosaic law ceased to be binding,
            many of the individual commands that were part of that set have an ongoing or renewed
            applicability, and indeed find their full expression, in the new covenant.

            1.For example, Paul in Eph. 6:2 commands children to “honor your father
            and mother,” quoting from the Ten Commandments in Ex. 20:12 and Deut. 5:16. The Ten
            Commandments also are reflected in N.T. commands and prohibitions against murder,
            adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting. Indeed, there are literally hundreds of commands in
            the N.T. – dos and don’ts – issued by Spirit-inspired writers.

            2. You see, the obsolescence of the Mosaic law does not mean that none of
            the commands that were part of that set of laws has any applicability in the new covenant.
            The concept is something like moving from one state to another. I’m no longer under
            “Florida law,” but the “Arizona law” that I am under includes many of the same

          • It has recently come to light that Mathew Shepard was killed by a couple of drunks who wanted to rob him. It had nothing to do with the fact that he was gay. The whole “hate crime” thing was a trumped up publicity campaign by the media and gay activists.

          • You are confusing atheism with agnosticism. The definition of Atheism is “a refusal to believe in any theology.” The only reason to not believe in any theology is a belief that there is no God. If you say that the existence or non-existence of God is impossible to prove, you are technically an agnostic, not an atheist.

          • The most basic truth about religious belief is its utter failure to learn new things from and by experience; it is fossilized thought.Scientific answers are not final, but progressively improved by investigation. Religious answers are dogmatic and purportedly final, based on a mishmash of tradition, myth,
            prejudice and ignorance – among other things.

          • So, evolution isn’t final. Finally, some admission that it isn’t proven, therefore other options should be explored and taught!

          • There ARE no other options. But, if you come up with one that can prove evolution wrong fame, fortune & a Nobel prize await you!

          • The scientific community is supposed to be comprised of ideas and theories. Not closed minded farts that say, “You are not right unless you thin k like we do.”

          • You simply do not understand science. Scientific debates
            are won on weight of evidence; theological debates, historically, have a tendency to degenerate into arguments, persecutions and warfare. This does not seem to indicate that logic and reason are involved.

          • So allow intelligent design. Doesn’t have to include religion. Could be aliens bringing us here for all I care. Just allow the option for more than just evolution.

          • You simply do not understand science. Could be a giant space bird flew in from another galaxy, laid & egg and hatched our galaxy but should we teach every possible myth without a shred of evidence? there is no theory of intelligent design. ID proposes no testable hypotheses to explain how the alleged design happens. ID does not explain how to determine precisely when design has taken place, or how to distinguish between what has been designed and what has evolved. ID writers have proposed vague philosophical concepts for use in detecting design (“irreducible complexity” and “complex specified information”), but they offer no empirical means for applying these concepts to actual reality. There is no ID research. There are no published scientific papers on ID-based experiments that test any specific aspect of the theory of ID, nor produce any new, usable knowledge. There just isn’t any “theory of ID.” ID is scientifically bankrupt. It is not just bad science; it is non-science. It’s creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

          • That is not a truth it a gross generalization. MANY fields of hard science were actually CREATED by Theists attempting to know their creator by better understanding his creations. Science and Christianity need not be opposed to each other and in fairness truly aren’t except in the minds of some on both sides.
            Some of the Atheist persuasion may wish to discard out of hand ANY consideration of a creator just like many “religious” people may throw out ALL Evolution as bunk…
            BOTH are based on confirmation bias and ignorance.

      • Hey Mr. Bob. God hates sin not the sinner. it is man that changes what God said. Gods word says in Mat. 5: 44 Pray for them that despitefully use you. You MUST not judge all Christians by the actions of some.

      • It would figure a brain-dead Obama worshiping drone such as mr bob-0 would believe the people in that picture are Christians. Apparently you are so on aware of the real world that you have never seen where virtually every Christian organization out there is thoroughly refuted and rebuked these people of the westboro baptist church. By the way bob-0, I’ll bet you didn’t know that the leader of this so-called church and his entire family are all registered fascist democrats! This is by their own admission!

          • So to you, Christians should just act like everyone else, but be allowed there’s a man in the sky. Boy, some tolerance there bob. I don’t give a care that you won’t listen to what we have to say about your “no true Scotsman” deal. But hat’s exactly how we see it, it doesn’t matter how you see it since you aren’t a Christian. We don’t associate with those that don’t follow the things we follow. So, therefore I don’t call the Nazi’s or Westboro’s Christians.

          • Where did you obtain these superpowers? You can look back into history & determine which self proclaimed Christians were “real” Christians? I’m curious, was the great Protestant reformer & vicious Anti-Semite Martin Luther a “real Christian”? What about the Holy inquisitions? Were they led by “real Christians”? I’m curious, when the bible says kill gays what makes you think you’re a “real Christian” because modern Christians invented this “new covenant” out of thin air?

          • Simple. Don’t hate your fellow man, but love. Reject immoral lifestyles and decisions (so you can rule out the westboro’s and nazi’s, since we don’t hate. You can rule out the salem witch trials and spanish inquisition too). Accept Jesus Christ as your lord into your heart through Baptism. Believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit as the Trinity, and live your life as close to as He would (since man cannot be perfect ever). It’s not hard to be a Christian.

          • I guess that’s one simple way to wipe out all the horrors that Christianity has inflicted upon mankind over the last 2,000 years. Of course it’s not hard to be a Christian! You don’t have to use your mind!!! I wonder, if a group of neo-nazi’s were to come into town & use your same logic that the Nazi’s of the 1930’s & 40’s were not “real Nazi’s” should we embrace them?

          • It’s the same thing I say about Christians that don’t follow the Bible ( i.e. thinking homosexuality is ok, or don’t speak up about abortion). I call them “luke-warm” Christians. The basics are there, they just don’t really follow them. Or like how some Muslims don’t kill the infidels and non-believers, I call them cafeteria style Muslims.

          • You didn’t answer my question. I’m curious, was the great Protestant reformer & vicious Anti-Semite Martin Luther a “real Christian”? before you answer, take a look at the dirty little book he wrote “on the jews & their lies”

          • No, he wasn’t. And here is why. Did Jesus say those things? Did the Apostles say those things? Since they did not, and it is they who are our mentors and leaders of example and the original and first founders of the Christian church (and they didn’t go around killing people). They are the ones that we strive to be like. So unless they are like our Lord and his followers in the beginning of Christianity, no, they are not Christian.

          • What’s interesting is that their weren’t ANY “real Christians” until the church LOST power & secular governments to control!! Now, if we could get secular governments in power in muslim countries that horrors of that religion would disappear too

          • It’s true. Our world is becoming more secular. All the more reason Christians should hold onto their faith.

          • Just as I’m sure you will concede that you’re not perfect, there is no such thing as a “perfect” Christian. That being said the Pat Robertsons of today are a far cry from the Westboro group. It is one thing to believe that our country IS or will be facing judgment by God and a removal of protections and blessings for supporting everything God calls evil (abortion, homosexuality, sex outside marriage, drug and alcohol abuse etc) and another to believe that God HATES anyone partaking of these sins. To pretend there is no difference or distinction is just plain dishonest…
            You have your moments where I’m not quite sure if you care about intellectual honesty but a lot of the time you SEEM open to debate too…

  5. Some of the other stickers are also “interesting” in how dumb they are: School’s
    Open, Drive Carefully (so when school isn’t open we should drive recklessly?!);
    Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts (another liar in politics); Believe in Good
    (how self-righteous is this a**hole that they presume they need to tell me
    that?); I voted for Obama (gee, I never would have known if you hadn’t told me –
    multiple times, as there are at least three other stickers that verify his
    vote); Stop the spread of HIV, Clean Needles Save Lives (not doing drugs works
    even better); Honk if you love justice (so if I don’t honk, I don’t love
    justice – and to follow his own advice, shouldn’t he be honking ALL the time?!);
    his COEXIST sticker, with all the religious symbols, contradicts his You don’t
    need God sticker; Democratic Underground (that’s where they all belong); and
    finally, Grab a Mop (yup, and I know right where I’d like to stick it…). The
    best part of this is, all that crap on the back end is going to make that car’s
    value drop like a rock when he goes to trade it in (payback is a b**ch).

    • When I saw the sticker regarding HIV, I thought a more appropriate phrase would be “Stop the spread of HIV, don’t engage in homosexual sex!”

  6. One Sentence. “Liberals are NOT tolerant.” They claim to be and throw around the Fascist name at everyone. But they never look in the mirror and see themselves. In my opinion Hitler was mild compared to a Liberal. I find them more the likes of Stalin…. Cold, Calculating and far more dangerous. Stalin eradicated far more people than Hitler ever did.

      • HA!!!! I bet this is something you didn’t know!!!
        Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can’t see them

    • There you are. Where have you been? It was really boring reading comments from people with some common sense. We needed someone like you to kind of add a little nonsense to the discussion!

    • Actually, there is nothing more dangerous to our Constitutional Republic and planet than extreme left wing fascist party of death democrats shredding our Constitution, destroying Essential Liberty, and disregarding each and every First Principle.

  7. To be patriotic, hate all nations but your own; to be religious, all sects but your own; to be moral, all pretenses but your own & you morons think you’re tolerant??? If you weren’t so stupid to actually believe it, it would be FUNNY!!!

  8. The only “tolerance” the extreme radical fascist left-wing party Democrats has is for those who march in 100% goose-step with their twisted and perverted anti-American, bigoted and racist, hateful and angry political agenda. Independent thought is not allowed on the radical left, groupthink is king.

    As exemplified by mr. bob-0 below, the extreme radical fascist left is never satisfied in believing whatever they want to believe in. No, they take every opportunity to attempt to force their evil and vile, their immoral agenda on the rest of America by every means possible, but especially by legislative and judicial means.

    The extreme radical fascist left is never satisfied to leave those of us who wish to worship in our own manner alone to do so. Indeed, they delight in being as rude and crude as possible when referring to anybody professing a Christian belief, while holding up the most violent so-called religion in the world, that being islamofasism, as an example of what modern-day religion should be. Notice of the extreme radical fascist left never attacks islamofascism!

    • After I felt insulted by the twisting of the truth concerning Obamacare, I am now considered to be a racist because no longer do I believe in the integrity of the man.
      I will not waste my time discussing his failures over the dinner table instead, I will pray that through all the lies and unkept promises, desperately needed sanity may once again return to these United States of America.

Leave a Reply