Here is an example of liberal-speak against Christians:
Unfortunately, fundamentalist zealots wish no part of 'coexistence.' They are patently certain that THEIR religion, THEIR God, THEIR theology is the only one.
And they will kill to defend it.
A local Ohio blogger posted this as a comment on his blog, www.Man with the Muck-Rake.blogspot.com. He also referred to religious right Christians/social conservatives as the most dangerous people on the planet.
He deleted my rebuttals, of course --because he really is NOT a champion of co-existance and proves it daily. He is also wrongly certain that people like me think "our religion , God and theology are the "only one."
As for saying we will kill to defend our religion. Well, some of the faithful WILL go to war to defend religious and other freedoms --but will not kill to eliminate dissent and people of other faiths. We don't want any part of hastening their departure into a Christless Eternity.
We know our theology/religion/God is not the only one. The only TRUE one, yes, but there are many false theologies, religions and gods.
As for "co-existence," that is my definition of tolerance --add "peaceful" as an adjective.
For Muck-raker, the former Liberal Democrat, tolerance and co-existence are synonyms with AGREEMENT. If you disagree regarding religion, morality/ homosexuality --and probably politics, you WILL be deleted on his blog. My son and I have been the only voices of dissent who dare enter his arena. I have to conclude his deletions are because our rebuttal comments are too good. Otherwise, why not let others read them? It's people who want to make sure their blog promotes only THEIR view who censor opposing viewpoint. They don't want any light to shine on their muck. That's his right in America --to censor his own blog opposition --but he wouldn't do it if he truly believed in co-existence and tolerance as he claims--and if he had effective rebuttal to make opponents look fallacious in their thinking.
I find deletions troubling for the implications regarding the bloggers' view of free speech. If they will stifle dissent on their blogs, would they vote for the stifling of dissent? Will they pay for the ACLU's efforts to change history, eliminating our national religious heritage, stifling religious expression and free speech on public property, removing the influence of ministers and politically incorrect Biblical preaching from the public airways, the military, the houses of government? How far would he go in his censorship --if he could have such power?
Censoring one's blog (apart from vile and profane language and endless, copied spam) means the blog-host does not believe in free speech and has no tolerance for opinions other than his own. This is not a person to put into a classroom, on a judge's bench, or into government service. Such a person is the epitome of intolerance--while protesting hypocritically that the other side refuses to "co-exist."
This is a classic example of Paul's admonition to "judge not--because you do the very same thing" --in this case, the blogger refuses to "co-exist" while claiming that Christians don't believe in coexistence.
If this weren't so sad --and also dangerous, it would be amusing. And I have tried to have a sense of fun in the disagreements --for which I was labeled as wrongly "sarcastic" --by a master of sarcasm in the blogosphere -- one who admits he himself sprinkles his blogs with a "smidgeon of sarcasicity."
The left wing of American culture seem to be pots calling the kettles black. But what's new?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." --the Bible