"Once upon a time, there was a religion whose
adherents thought it to be the only true one," writes author Thomas Cahill.
"Because their God wished everyone (or so they thought) to believe as they did, they
felt justified in imposing their religion on others.... The religion is not Islam but
Christianity, whose dark history of crusades, inquisitions and pogroms lies not as far in
the past as one might prefer to think."
Cahill's New York Times article, "The One
True Faith: Is it Tolerance?" (1/3/02) shows little love for the beliefs and values that inspired
America's founding fathers. Instead, it fits the conclusions of another skeptical Thomas
who also used the NY Times to point an accusing finger at the followers of Christ.
Perhaps you remember the outrageous accusations in the article, "The Real War" (11-27-01) by Thomas
Friedman. Ponder his words:
"We're fighting to defeat an
ideology: religious totalitarianism. World War II and the cold war were fought to defeat
secular totalitarianism... and World War III is a battle against religious
totalitarianism, a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be
affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated...."
Did you catch
that? He equates today's war on terrorism as "a battle against religious
totalitarianism." If you take your Christian faith seriously, you are the enemy.
He identifies this deadly totalitarianism as "all faiths that come out of the
Biblical tradition -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- [which] have the tendency to
believe that they have the exclusive truth."
It's tragic that
respected spokesmen like Thomas C. and Thomas F. so freely twist our history and dismiss
our constitutional rights. Are they so blinded by their vision of oneness that they cannot
see the worth of freedom?
If so, they are not
alone. A malignant consensus is spreading across our nation. It views our Biblical
foundations -- the compassionate wisdom that made America a refuge for the world's
oppressed -- as a deadly obstacle to an imagined peace. So a new religion must be
established, and the UN management system is more than happy to help. Cahill
identifies this new religion as "tolerance." Friedman calls it
"pluralism." The two fit together as long as the definition of tolerance
matches politically correct ideals. Ponder these excerpts from UNESCO's Declaration of Principles on
Tolerance:
Tolerance is
respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's
cultures.... [Including unhealthy lifestyles and occult ideology?] It
is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement.
Tolerance ...
upholds human rights, pluralism..... It involves the rejection of dogmatism and
absolutism....
...tolerance does
not mean toleration of social injustice... It also means that one's views are not to be
imposed on others.
In order to achieve
a more tolerant society, States should ratify existing international human rights
conventions, and draft new legislation where necessary.... [See Trading U.S. Rights for UN
Rules]
...intolerance ...
is a global threat.
Tolerance
promotion and the shaping of attitudes of openness, mutual listening and solidarity should take
place in schools and universities and through non-formal education, at home and
in the workplace. The communication media are in a position to play a
constructive role ... and highlighting the dangers of indifference towards the rise
in intolerant groups and ideologies.
...scientific
studies and networking should be undertaken to co-ordinate the international
community's response to this global challenge, including analysis by the social
sciences of root causes and effective countermeasures, as well as research and
monitoring in support of policy-making and standard-setting action by Member States.
...promote
systematic and rational tolerance teaching methods that will address the cultural, social,
economic, political and religious sources of intolerance - major roots of violence
and exclusion....
We pledge to support
and implement programmes of social science research and education for tolerance ... improving
teacher training, curricula... including new educational technologies.
As Friedman
points out, "the opposite of religious totalitarianism is an ideology of pluralism --
an ideology that embraces religious diversity and the idea that my faith can be nurtured
without claiming exclusive truth."
Cahill suggests that Christianity has already
conformed to these new ideals. "What changed Christianity?" he asks. "How
did Christians learn the virtue of tolerance?
Actually, he has a ready answer -- a politically correct
view based on the popular revisions of history that has vilified Christianity in the minds
of students from coast to coast. He said,
"Centuries of bloody religious wars and persecutions
finally convinced most Christians that there must be a better way to organize society, a
way that did not involve quite so many burning bodies, human charnel houses and
corpse-strewn battlefields."
By judging Christian fundamentalism by the atrocities
committed in the name of "Christianity," Cahill (who also authored The Hinges
of History), distorts the truth about God as well as the historical record. Biblical
Christianity has little to do with organizing society. It has everything to do with
individual believers demonstrating His love and following His way.
In contrast, those infamous wars, persecutions, and
cruelties were caused, not by true Christians, but by those who claimed His name while
rejecting His Word. Like warring nations and murderous tribes around the world, they
followed their own inclinations rather than God's wise guidelines. They expressed their
capricious human nature, not the love of our God. The diverse forms of this "cultural Christianity"
would match social trends, not Biblical truth. But they shared a common element: people
would adapt their understanding of God to their self-focused wants.
The true Church demonstrates a different kind of life.
Those who belong to Christ set their hearts on God, their minds on His truth and their
goal on eternity. History tells their testimony: They cared for the needy but were often
hated by religious establishments. They served the poor but often suffered persecution.
They brought hope and healing to distant places but faced hardship and hatred. Yet, they
didn't lose hope. In the midst of painful struggles, they knew God would meet their needs
and fulfill all His promises. 2 Cor 12:9-10
Media leaders like Friedman and Cahill may blame human
evils on a "straw-man" or a convenient cultural distortion of Christianity, but
we need to remember the truth. Biblical Christianity means uncompromising faith in what Christ
accomplished for us through the cross. It points
to the fellowship of those who live by His Spirit and stand by His Word -- who prove His
victory in the world so that others might share their hope for eternity.
