Yesterday I wrote about the vital need that exists in this country to establish and practice a strict "no tolerance" policy for all things Christian. Some of you who have not been paying attention probably drew the conclusion that I am tilting at windmills when I assert that we are now a post-Christian society that needs, for logical consistency sake, to eradicate Christianity from the face of this God-hating country. Today I would like to use one of my favorite newspaper columns to make my point once again. Yes, I read "Ask Amy."
Amy had responded to a person in an earlier column who had signed off as "Conflicted in CT" about how best to get along with family members who are Christians. Isn't that an interesting change of events? In the old days, when the Socialist Democracy of Amerika was ostensibly a nation operating under quasi-Christian principles, the problems most people had to deal with were how to get along with the non-Christians in the family. Uncle Joe drinks too much. Aunt Sally is a chain smoker. Grandpa Bill gets a little crazy when he goes on the dance floor and nobody every said anything about crazy Uncle Leo except that you should never leave your children alone with him. My how things have changed. Today Christians are deemed to be the problematic members of the family simply because they do and believe what Christians have done and believed for over two thousand years.
The homosexual issue is seemingly always the flashpoint in these discussions. Someone in the family makes the decision to "come out" and all of a sudden everyone is expected to step up and affirm that person's lifestyle choices. It is not that someone might oppose the decision to be a homosexual that is the issue. That is considered so blatantly wrong that nobody even considers the possibility that someone would say that homosexuality is a sin. The issue is whether to affirm that lifestyle choice or remain silent. This is where a strange hypocrisy raises its ugly head. Those who refuse to affirm the homosexual who is coming out are considered to be filled with hate and intolerance for somebody who is a heroic figure who should be encouraged and adored. I remember when a family member sent out an email to dozens of other family members announcing that he wanted to meet individually with each one of us so he could come out and receive our support. What an amazing jerk, I thought to myself. What would the reaction be, given the fact that most people believe the majority of the citizens of the SDA are homosexual, if I did the same thing to come out as heterosexual? They would, of course, accuse me of mocking him. Which way does tolerance run again?
Amy's column illustrates the hypocrisy of this situation quite well. Not affirming a homosexual is considered to be at least an immoral action, and will probably end up being a criminal action in the near future. On the other hand, refusing to affirm a Christian for his beliefs is not seen as a rude behavior. On the contrary, it is considered to be right and proper. Conflicted in CT had written Amy to complain that he "cringed at the thought of attending his sister's wedding vows because it would be in a church." What a horrible thing! The sister was probably a Christian and she wanted to recite what would no doubt be Christian wedding vows in a Christian church. How dare her think she can do that and not offend the post-Christian members of her family! I do not recall what Amy's response was to this God-hating chump but she most certainly did not accuse him of intolerance and hate speech for his view of Christians. Imagine what her response would have been if the wedding were between two women and it was to be held in front of a liberal female pastor of an apostate Christian church and a true Christian family member was talking about "cringing" when the whole thing went down. She would have blasted him out of the water for his intolerance. Once again we see that tolerance, like water, only runs one direction.
The letter that Amy published was from another God-hater who signed off as "Not Conflicted In FL." Not conflicted offered up this precious bit of wisdom about how to deal with offensive Christians doing historic Christian things in Christian churches when he wrote, "I am also an agnostic and had a similar problem when one of my grandsons became a Pentecostal preacher. I attend his services occasionally, without participating. When others rise, I remain seated. In this way I honor my grandson without compromising my beliefs." Good for him.
I believe that Not Conflicted is actually doing the right thing by not participating when he attends this church service. He should remain seated and keep his mouth shut. Pretending to participate in the worship of a God he hates and despises will only increase the wrath of that God upon him when he spends eternity in the Lake of Fire. My problem with Not Conflicted is not his wise decision to stay silent. My problem with Not Conflicted is the fact that he goes into a place knowing full well what is going to be taking place there only to sit in judgment of the proceedings the entire time he is there. If the grandson really wanted to do the right thing he would throw his grandpa out the door and tell him to never come back. Can you imagine the outrage that would be expressed if a Christian attended a homosexual rally only to be discovered as a mole sent there by his church to mock what they were doing? He would be lucky to escape with his life as he would be in danger of being slapped silly by thousands of flailing limp wrists.
Amy's response to his letter further betrays the truth that Christians are second class citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. She writes, "There is a strong human pull toward witnessing. You have found a way to do that." She obviously approves of and admires the statement this man is making to his grandson. Whether she is mockingly using the word 'witnessing' in an additional attempt to discredit Christians I do not know. She is, however, clearly making the point that she believes it is good, right and proper for a God hating agnostic to attend a Christian service of worship for the purpose of passively declaring his objection to everything that is taking place. Once again I ask, what would happen if the tables were turned and Christians did the same thing to homosexuals? I think we all know the answer to that question.....burn them at the stake comes to mind.
I do not believe it is a stretch to say that the God-hating citizens of the post-Christian society of the SDA believe that the mere presence of Christian worship services is an affront to their moral sensibilities. If they could have their way Christianity and Christian worship would be declared illegal in the land. We might get to that point in the future but right now they are waging the propaganda war and they are winning. The mere fact that the proclamation of Christian truth in a Christian church building is now considered to be offensive proves that point quite well. Bring in the Gestapo and the thought police and close down those churches. It is time to drive Christians underground where they belong.