"Let's face it--Christianity is an extremely intolerant religion . . ."

A Facebook friend recently posted about the folks trying to lead a Bible study in San Juan Capistrano, CA, saying:

Now I know my good "far right" friends would fully support this fine if it were a Muslim group meeting right!? Come on--we can't have it both ways. We either have freedom of religion or we don't. I think this story shows we don't have as much as we think.

I put a comment to say I was insulted as someone who is on the Right side, a Tea Party member, and a Conservative, saying that I did not see this story as a religion being discriminated against, so much as it is another cash-poor California municipality looking for any place they can make a buck.  That prompted the following response:

Steph, I guess I have to say I am glad you were offended by my comment--as that means you personally do have a spirit of tolerance. I see a lot of comments on FB and in the media by the "far right" contingencies (mind you I have a HUGE group of far right friends as that is my upbringing) that seem to have no tolerance for any religious and political beliefs but their own. Let's face it--Christianity is an extrememly intolerant religion. And after hearing all the bashing of Muslims, democrats, Obama it gets to a point where I have come to expect that if the story I posted would have said, "A neighborhood family hosting a Muslim Koran study group in their home has been fined by the city "; There would have been comments of support of stopping them from meeting. But since it was a Christian Bible study there would be an uproar of unfairness. But alas you were the only one that commented and you happened to agree with me that this was about the freedom of assembly and yes, the freedom of religion--both gauranteed by our First Amendment. So no need to be offended--we are both on the same page. [sic]

Well . . . no, I don't think we are.  Not until we understand some definitions.

I will use Merriam-Webster's definition:

1 : to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort : exhibit physiological tolerance for

2 a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction

2 b: to put up with

Note that the definition of toleration here does not include "to accept" or "to embrace."  I think that is where a liberal mindset redefines "to tolerate," to wit, I am the soul of tolerance if, and only if, I place equal values on all religions.  And so off I go, with my "Coexist" bumper sticker on, not realizing that by doing so, I am make them all meaningless.

Now, I happen to know this person was the only child of Baptist (if not, some sort of evangelical Christian denomination) missionaries, which is perhaps why she can make the statement, " Let's face it--Christianity is an extrememly intolerant religion," and not expect Christians to be insulted.  If you are raised with being told "Only [fill in the religion of your choice] are going to make it to Heaven," that is not intolerance.  It is dogma, or creed, or tenet of faith, but it is not intolerance - unless that particular group was acting to dispatch others to Hell as soon as possible by killing them.

Because if you define tolerance to equal acceptance . . . then all religions are intolerant.  Because, after all, isn't the religion to which you adhere the "one true faith?"  It isn't?  Then why are you a member?  In this same exchange of comments on Facebook, I know one woman was a Christian but rejected the faith of her family when she married, converting to Judaism.  I would hope she converted because she felt Judaism had better answers to life, the universe, and everything and would lead her to Heaven, nirvana, whatever than the Christian denomination in which she was raised - in short, having more value than Christianity.  Does that make her intolerant of Christianity?  Of course not; however, if she converted just for the sake of her marriage, it does make her a hypocrite to Judaism.

I am a Roman Catholic.  I do believe that I am a member of the one true faith.  We Catholics believe we will not be the only folks in Heaven, since the desire to lead a life of Christ may well be enacted by those not of the Catholic Church - indeed, not of the Catholic faith - and thus earn them salvation.  But in being a Catholic, I do not accept other religions.  I have looked at other faiths.  I tend to be wary of those that proselytize - thus, I ask Jehovah Witnesses to leave after asking them to convert to Catholicism for the sake of their souls because I think their beliefs are silly, especially placing a finite number of souls that will achieve salvation and yet recruiting more than that number to their faith (because the more recruited, the more the recruiter is convinced they are one of the elect, which actually makes for a very mean-spirited faith, leading the innocent to damnation).  I don't like Mormons targeting the youth of other faiths, figuring they will do a end run around the adults; and yes, while I believe miracles do happen, the whole story of Moroni giving Joseph Smith gold tablets with the Book of Mormon written in some obscure language, and then giving him magic "peep stones" to translate it, and then asking for the tablets back such that there is no corroborating documents or tradition against which to weigh the veracity and accuracy of what Smith transcribed is suspect and suggests chicanery.  Does that make me intolerant?  Look at our definition - I am not advocating for the closure of Mormon temples and meeting houses - although any homosexuals did with Prop 8, which seems to indicate they are being intolerant - nor do I wish to remove Witnesses from a public sidewalk outside a courthouse, as the ACLU would like to see.  I just do not accept their creed.  And nor do I expect them to accept mine, unless they choose to do so.

As for Muslims meeting to study the Koran, I have no issue with that.  In fact, I would not want to deny them that because, frankly I want them out in the open where I can see them.  I have no issue with Koran study; I have great issue if they adhere to a program according to scriptural interpretation by some imam who advocates the establishment of Islam worldwide, by the point of a sword.  Me, I want to see everyone become Catholic - again,  if I didn't, why should I adhere to that faith?  And I understand that a Muslim would like the same, that we all become Muslim and adhere to their religious law of shar'ia.  I am fine with that - so long as that Muslim is not intent upon forcing conversion.  Would anyone be for that for any religion?  I don't think so - and so far the empirical data suggests that rather than proselytize, Muslims recruit.  So, I tend to distrust the adherents of that faith.  But am I calling for the outlaw of their existence?  No.  And that makes me tolerant.

The moment any person of a religion acts in such a way to intrude and compromise my rights - whether it is  as benign as trespassing on my private property after I ask them to leave, or enforcing a tax on me for not being of their faith (jizya) - I am no longer tolerant.  I want that person restrained from doing what he is doing and if that were to mean restraining all members of his faith from like conduct, so be it.

Just as with freedom of speech, freedom of religion is a right that is not absolute.  We do not tolerate practices such as allowing Native American convicts to use peyote in prison, nor do we tolerate the honor killings of females, regardless of how essential such conduct is to a particular faith.  But to say a Christian is intolerant because they refuse to accept as valid another faith - because the converse would have to be true, that, say, Islam is intolerant because it does not accept Judaism to have any value - makes all religions worthless, even atheism (which is, after all, still a belief system).

Words have meaning.  We need to stop redefining them to meet our own biases.

Updated:  It occurs to me that someone will start yelling, "But what about those evil Christians who are trying to make abortion illegal and prevent gay marriage?!"  What about them?  They are trying to do so by supporting and electing officials that will sponsor, and hopefully pass, such legislation.  And if they succeed, perhaps such laws upon challenge will be found to be unconstitutional, if a sitting President doesn't veto them.  That's how it works in a democracy - sometimes, people lose their battles.