Matching Tracksuits

While jogging this evening, I listened to a video by Prophet of Zod called “Do We Get Offended Because Christians Believe in Truth?” The entire video is below:

It’s a critique of another video, this one by Impact 360 Institute, a Christian apologetics organization. The original video is here:

It’s a ridiculous caricature of how non-believers view Christians, suggesting that non-Christians feel threatened and offended because Christians believe the things they believe, and these caricature atheists suggest in the name of tolerance that shouldn’t be tolerated. It’s as mind-numbingly stupid as it sounds.

However, there was a link to a set of questions designed to determine if one is tolerant or not. Intrigued, I went ahead and provided my email address (Gmail will sort out any of the spam the organization sends me as a result) and went through the questions.

Question 1: No one has the right to disagree with or criticize another person’s life choices.

The first question is a slow pitch that is based on the premises of the video: atheists are supposedly intolerant in the name of tolerance, and this first question is directed to that assumption. I don’t know of anyone who would agree with this.

Question 2: College students should be protected from hearing ideas they disagree with because that would make them uncomfortable.

There is a fairly robust effort, it seems, to shut out voices that college students seem to disagree with, but it seems to be from the students themselves and not from the institute. The passive construction of the statement (“students should be protected”) only suggests that it’s the college itself that’s doing the protecting. From what I’ve seen, it’s the students who raise a stink. Sometimes, granted, the college caves, but often they don’t.

Question 3: People should have the freedom to believe and publicly promote that two men or two women should be allowed to get married.

Notice the wording: it’s saying that people should be able to promote it. Christians will say they have no issues with people advocating it. When it comes to implementing it, though, they will, as we have seen time and time again, vociferously disagree and fight it in the courts. Which leads to the next statement:

Question 4: A wedding photographer should be forced to use her artistic talents to celebrate and memorialize a same-sex wedding even though it violates her conscience and deeply held religious beliefs.

This is such a loaded, biased question that it’s difficult to know where to start. First, we have the idea that the photographer “should be forced,” which makes it seem like a draconian, totalitarian state that’s behind it without coming out and saying it. It does this through the use of the passive voice. No one is suggesting that a photographer be forced to do this. If the photographer doesn’t want to do it, she doesn’t do it. It does mean, however, that can no longer be a photograph because they are denying their services in a discriminatory fashion. Some will say this is the same as forcing, but people have to do things in their jobs all the time that they don’t really want to do. It’s not, I suspect, that they don’t want to “celebrate and memorialize” a same-sex wedding; they’re homophobic and don’t want to witness this wedding. Fine — don’t. But you can’t withhold services because of that. We can frame this racially and see how bigoted it is: “A wedding photographer should be forced to use her artistic talents to celebrate and memorialize a [mixed-race] wedding even though it violates her conscience and deeply held religious beliefs.” Suddenly, it looks different — except that it doesn’t.

There’s also the word “celebrate.” The wedding photographer is not a guest. She’s not celebrating anything. She’s recording the event. That’s it. By doing so, she’s not approving or disapproving of it — she’s taking pictures. If she’s not willing to provide her services to anyone who wants to pay for them, she needs to find another line of work.

Question 5: No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will.

This is meant to help the individual (most likely a Christian since it is an apologetics site) feel good about their religious views: “We’re not interested in forcing our religion on others!” Except if you’re trying to outlaw (to use the previous example) same-sex marriage, you are attempting to force that particular tenant of your religion on everyone. You’re compelling everyone to follow that particular part of your religion.

Question 6: People should have the freedom to publicly promote their view based on science that unborn babies are genetically distinct, living, and whole human beings and that their human rights should be protected by not aborting them.

Talk about stacking the deck: their view is “based on science.” “We’re just basing our views on science — how can you argue with that?” Unless we bring up all the science they don’t like — evolutionary theory and global warming come to mind.

Question 7: Parents should have the freedom to believe, publicly promote, and teach their children that God designed marriage for a man and woman for a lifetime.

Now we’re back to same-sex marriage — isn’t that what it’s always about? Obviously, parents have the right to teach this, but implicit in this is the notion that they want to be able to support draconian laws to stop same-sex marriage. And that’s fine, I suppose: it wouldn’t be freedom if you couldn’t be free to be a bigot. (Yes, I am aware of the loaded language I just used.)

By the same token, they have to accept that some of us are fine with same-sex marriage and think it might even be — gasp! — a question of equal rights.

Question 8: Muslims should have the freedom to believe and publicly promote that Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is his prophet.

What an out-of-left-field question! I really have nothing to say about it.

Question 9: It’s not OK to respectfully challenge the truth of another person’s sincerely held beliefs.

Christians themselves don’t seem okay with this. “Why are you trying to push your atheism on us?!” they decry when all atheists have been doing is pushing back on centuries of the majority trying to stop them from “respectfully challenge[ing] the truth of another person’s sincerely held beliefs.”

Question 10: People of faith should not be forbidden to worship God according to their conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions.

That depends, doesn’t it? What about snake handers? They claim that three verses in the Bible allow, even call for, the handling of snakes as evidence of faith:

• Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. (Luke 10:19)
• And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)
• And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita. And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold. And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. (Acts 28:1-6)

Yet several states have legislation on the books that forbids this. Isn’t that a restriction of their right “to worship God according to their conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions”?

My Result

I answered as one might expect a left-leaning moderate atheist to answer. The response:

Congratulations, you are a truly tolerant person! In a culture that operates with a confused view of tolerance that thinks “real tolerance means agreeing that everyone’s moral, religious, or social viewpoints are equally valid and true,” you have rightly rejected this false tolerance because it’s unlivable. True tolerance respectfully allows others the right to be wrong because we disagree with them. The good news is you have strong beliefs about the way things should be. Continue to courageously and respectfully make your case and let the best ideas win. Is it messy? Yes. But true tolerance is the only way we will discover the truth about questions that matter.

Yet I’m sure in discussion, the makers of this “quiz” would determine that I am, in fact, not tolerant.