Friday, August 19, 2005

Who's Tolerant of Whom?

Last night, the Philadelphia Phillies held its third annual "Gay Community Night" at the ballpark. Each year, Michael Marcavage of Repent America has attended the event to protest. His protest last night amounted to holding a sign that said, "Homosexuality Is a Sin, Christ Can Save You" at the top of a section in right field.

Phil Sheridan of The Philadelphia Inquirer writes in his column today (free registration required): . . .

At one point, other fans stood in front of the banner, obscuring it. Eventually, officers from the Philadelphia Police Civil Affairs division flanked Marcavage and his unidentified companion.

"This is totally offensive to me," said James Duggan, a fan from Merchantville who stood several rows in front of the sign and engaged Marcavage in debate. "These people are false Christians. I was told the Phillies' lawyers arranged this with Repent America's lawyers, and I find that totally offensive, too."

Mike Stiles, the Phillies' vice-president of operations and administration, said the team's attorneys had met with attorneys for Repent America after the group protested the first gay-pride event at Veterans Stadium in 2003.

"It's pretty clear under the Constitution," Stiles said, "that if you're going to have a gay community night, people have the right to express another opinion. We understand it's distressing for some people to have to look at that sign. We believe the leaders of the gay community who arrange this night like any other group know what they're going to have to put up with."

. . . Marcavage and the second man rolled up their sign at the end of the sixth inning, prompting cheers from the fans around Section 303. As the police officers and Phillies officials escorted them out of the grandstand and to an employees' elevator, fans booed and chanted obscenities.

Duggan left the section a few minutes later and headed over to buy a beer.

"I moved here from New York," Duggan said, "and I've traveled a lot. I've found Philadelphia to be the most tolerant place I've ever been. I think that says something. I'm a gay man, I confronted this guy, and I'm not the one who got booed. He is."

So is Marcavage within his First Amendment rights to hold up such a sign in this environment? And if Philadelphia is such a "tolerant" place, as Duggan says it is, are he and the fans who booed and shouted obscenities at Marcavage showing tolerance toward him and what he believes?


At Friday, August 19, 2005 2:46:00 PM, Blogger Roch101 said...

"Who's Tolerant of Whom?"

That's funny. Mickey wants tolerance for messages of intolerance.

At Friday, August 19, 2005 2:55:00 PM, Blogger Laurie said...

You're right, it would have been better to ignore him totally. That was very bad manners to scream and boo him. A little hard to take, though, when you're being insulted. Marcavage was certainly within his rights, but his manners could use some work.

I wouldn't hold up a sign condemning Christians at a Christian community event, but that's just the way I was raised.

At Friday, August 19, 2005 6:31:00 PM, Blogger Tim said...

G.K. Chesterton pointed out that "Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions."

Was this man within his First Amendment rights? Certainly. As much as any flag burner or war protestor. Would it be seen as unChristian to hold up a protest sign at a pro-war rally? Not by most on the left. Why is this different? Homosexuality is clearly a dangerous activity. It is physically, mentally and emotionally destructive. Far more so than heterosexuality (which, due to the sin nature, is not without its' problems, granted). If I try to stop a drug addict I'm compassionate. If I try to warn a homosexual I'm intolerant.

The left is -by far - the most intolerant political group going. Don't believe me? Try simply praying in a public place. Try expressing a belief that the war on terror is legitimate and that Bush is right. Try standing up for Creation. When the "liberal" bigots disagree with you, they will use every vile epithet at their disposal - and call you intolerant for disagreeing with them. Message to the liberals - many of us are unfazed by your slanderous attacks. Next time you start reacting to a conservative, and/or Christian, try listening to the words you are using. Seems to me that this fella at the ballgame was trying to spread true love. It was the tolerant folks that did the booing!

PS to Roch101 - Still prayin' for ya, man!

At Friday, August 19, 2005 6:48:00 PM, Anonymous Alex said...

I think that Michael Marcavage cared enough about the souls of gays that he was willing to go to the ballpark with just one friend to help hold a sign. He was also willing to be verbally abused by a large group of people who he must have known would not be very receptive of him or the message on his sign. What I appreciate about this man was that he did not gather hundreds of people who agree with him and march into the stadium to begin a shouting match or disrupt the game. He acted according to his constitutional rights. He also acted according to the Great Commission: “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matthew 28:18-20).’”

Like Ezekiel, Christians are called to speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his ways (Ezekiel 33:7-11). We are called to teach people to obey the Word of God. Michael Marcavage was simply obeying his calling. The real test, for we who say we are Christians, may not be to do the same as Marcavage. Our test may come on some evening when it is Faith Night at the ballpark. There may be two gay men holding a sign which says, “All Christians Are Bigots.” Will we boo, curse, and shout at gays for exercising their constitutional rights? I hope not. I hope we will pray for them and enjoy the ballgame.

At Friday, August 19, 2005 7:05:00 PM, Blogger Tim said...

AMEN, Brother!

At Friday, August 19, 2005 11:15:00 PM, Blogger Laurie said...

I highly doubt that gays would hold up a sign saying that all Christians are bigots. Most people (except you, apparently) know that all Christians are not homophobic, and that there are many gay Christians. There are many straight Christians who are not homophobic. And there are many who are homophobic but are reasonable enough to realize that there are much bigger priorities to deal with in this world than persecuting gay people.

It was bad manners, plain and simple. He certainly had a right to display his banner, but he should have known that you can't insult a crowd of people and expect them all not to react negatively. He was provoking them, not spreading love.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:21:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mickey and Alex - Is there any chance at all that you could each give a short answer to whether you support what Marcavage did? Do you think it was a good idea and would you recommend others do it? If your answer is a bible verse or something about following your sould, never mind. If it's at all possible that Mickey in particular could ever clearly state a position, that would be helpful on this blog.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:57:00 AM, Anonymous Alexander Samuels said...


There is no such person as an “unrepentant, actively gay Christian.” You are very quick to call Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin – “homophobes.” You use this word to demean and imply that anyone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle hates all people who are gay. Christians are called to hate sin in whatever form it takes. But a true Christian is also called to love the sinner enough to attempt to show him/her the error of his/her sinfulness.

Many, who claim to be Christians, have embraced the philosophy of political correctness as a part of their religious faith which teaches, “I’m OK and you’re OK.” In other words, they have conformed their faith to tolerate everything including sin. The Bible does not teach that any of us are “OK” until we have repented of our sins and accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. If Jesus is truly Lord of your life, you will actively turn from your sins and try to live a life that conforms to the teaching of the Scriptures. The Christianity you talk about which supports the gay lifestyle is a form of “Cultural Christianity” which is not Biblical Christianity at all. Cultural Christianity, which approves of the gay lifestyle and tolerates other sins, is really a heretical cult rising up from the midst of our theologically liberal seminaries and churches.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 9:12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alexander -- I missed the part where you have the courage of your convictions to state recommend doing what Marcavage did and defend that position. It got cut off after the higher level lecturing. Mickey's too.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 9:57:00 AM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Laurie, I have encountered pro-homosexual protesters holding signs at a Christian event, on private property no less. They were peaceful and respectful, just as Michael Marcavage was the other night. However, by your definition, the messages on their signs, which countered what I and others there believed, should've been interpreted by us to be "insulting." However, they didn’t insult me, and I don't think anyone else there felt insulted. No one shouted them down or booed them. In fact, they even participated in the Q&A session following the speech.

And anonymous (I do wish you guys would use some sort of a name), I do like to post items without initially stating a position to encourage open discussion on a topic. If someone comes back and asks me a question about what I believe, I try to answer them as honestly as I can.

To answer your question, I believe Michael Marcavage was fully within his rights to do what he did. I support what he did. And I admire his courage for doing what he did. (And Alex pretty much said the same thing in his first comment.) As to whether other Christians should do what he did, it is totally up to them and how they feel God is leading them. What he did is not how I choose to witness to others. I prefer other methods, such as this blog.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:02:00 PM, Anonymous Alex said...


Since you choose to insult me concerning the courage of my convictions, let me state this plainly: If you could read, you would already have understood my support and defense of Marcavage and what I said to other Christians concerning it. I will not go over ground Mickey has already explained very well. If you really don’t have the courage to state and defend what you believe about this incident, instead of playing the part of the condescending critic, please drop out of the conversation. I would rather that you call me a fool and give all the reasons why you disagree with me than play this game. Yes and please make up a pen name to use in these discussions. I hope this “higher level lecturing” response is not too much for you. If you pray, pray for my patience. It is much too short today.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:32:00 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Laurie - you, unfortunately, prove my statement about people using intolernant rhetoric to prove how tolerant THEY are. Please look back at your second posting and note the use of the word "homophobic". Now, please think about what this word means. "Homophobic" (apart from the left-leaning PC definition it has been given) means "afraid of man" or "afraid of humans". Apart from that, Christians are not afraid of homosexuals. We are concerned about the destructiveness of their lifestyle - their sin. "Homophobic is the buzzword, to be used in connection with "intolerant", in a literary "terrorist tactic". Yes, I intend that phrase to be as strong as it is. It is a terror tactic in that it is used to bully and intimidate people into complying with your wishes.

Along with this, your post implies that anyone who does not hold their "homophobia" in check is unreasonable - apparently, incapable of reason. Additionally, Marcavage is "persecuting" gays by holding up a sign. If, as you imply, you are a Christian, you should realize that persecution involves pain, death and torture for one's faith. Holding up a sign classifies (at most!) as an inconvenience or an irritant.

We, as Christians, should be provoking others. Constantly. We are commanded by Jesus to be salt and light in the world. Salt adds zest. It also causes pain in a wound, even as it sterilizes. Light exposes the things hidden in darkness. That, certainly will not be pleasant for those who want to keep things hidden.

I hope, Laurie and anonymous, that you will take a moment to examine your words. Perhaps you will see where Alex and Mickey are coming from when you realize that we cannot reconcile the teachings of Christ and the New Testament authors with a "don't hurt anyone's feelings" brand of Christianity. The point is not to hurt their feelings, but to provoke each other into considering how far from God we are and take steps to come back to Him.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:39:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Sun said...

I don't get the post title. Did you mean that the boos were intolerant? If so, that's nuts. Fine, let Marcavage shout "sinner," but let him also hear the boos in return. It's like CNN's Crossfire, only with $5.00 beers and hot dogs. Are you seriously singling out those who booed as intolerant?

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:07:00 PM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Yes, Mr. Sun, I found it ironic that those who were accusing Michael Marcavage of being intolerant, especially James Duggan, were themselves being intolerant of him and his beliefs. It may be "nuts" to you, but I don't consider cursing and booing a respectful way to conduct a civilized argument or debate. However, I doubt that the curses and boos surprised Marcavage; in fact, I bet he expected them. That still doesn't make it the right thing for them to do. Of course, I fully understand that in our politically correct society, nearly everything and everybody is to be tolerated except Christians and their Biblically based beliefs. Therefore, I understand why you and others like you are unable to see this type of behavior as being intolerant. It is my hope that you will seriously think about it and see it for what it truly is.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:17:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Sun said...

Mickey -- It was wrong to shout obscenities. The boos were a non-obscene expression of opposition to a provocative message directed explicitly to them by Marcavage. How can you condone, even support Marcavage's unprovoked message of opposition to the gay crowd, and then condemn their in-kind response? As for your assumptions about me, they are wrong. As I said plainly in the original post, I find Marcavage completely within his rights. To me, he and the booers are both equal: rude, but acceptable. Did you just even bother to read before you launhed into your talking points on political correctness?

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:23:00 PM, Blogger Roch101 said...

Mickey wrote: "I fully understand that in our politically correct society, nearly everything and everybody is to be tolerated except Christians and their Biblically based beliefs.

No Mickey, what irritates people is the attitude of people like Tim who believe: "We, as Christians, should be provoking others. Constantly.

It is sanctimonious provocation, not beliefs, that people find hard to tolerate.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:56:00 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Roch - Your response to my comment about provoking people is a bit disingenuous, in that it implies simply a desire to cause anger or cause unnecessary emotional turmoil. In context, to provoke is to stir up action or feeling for the purpose of eliciting thought or discussion. I would think that the whole idea behind blogging would be in line with this idea. As I said before, "salt and light". My experience is that "what really irritates people" is having their dearly held beliefs challenged. Some of us invite that, some just attack the one bringing the challenge. Were the people in the stadium angry because they felt that Marcavage was a threat, or because he challenged them?

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:36:00 PM, Blogger Roch101 said...

Tim, I take your point. Still, however, I see a distinction between the kind of provocative discussion I find appealing on blogs and the sanctimonious provocation of those who are sure that they know the mind of God.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:05:00 PM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Let's examine the message contained on Michael Marcavage's sign:

"Homosexuality Is a Sin, Christ Can Save You."

According to the Bible, and to those who believe in what the Bible says, homosexuality is a sin. And if you want to rid yourself of that sin, then you can do so by turning away from it and accepting the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Is that message really "intolerant," "insulting," "rude,""homophobic"? It didn't advocate violence. It didn't use vulgar names. It didn't misrepresent Biblically based Christian belief. It is a statement of fact, at least from a Christian perspective. And whether you want to believe it or not, Marcavage was doing this because he cared about the people at that game, not because he hated them. If he truly hated them, don't you think his message would've been a harsh direct attack on them rather than an appeal for them to turn to God? His sign could've said "Go to Hell You Unrepentant Sinners," but it didn't -- instead it was a message offering hope through Christ.

And, Mr. Sun, I apologize if I misrepresented your position. I guess I was lumping booing and cursing in together from your first comment. And I was probably being a bit defensive because you said my choice of headline was "nuts." (I try to write most of my headlines to draw people in from the blog aggregators and get people talking; it seems to have worked in this case!)

As for the booing, I wasn't condemning them for doing it; people are free to boo all they want. (And they have quite a history of that in Philadelphia! They even booed Santa Claus once.) I was only trying to point out that I found it ironic that they said that they expected Marcavage to tolerate them but they weren't willing to have tolerance for him and his beliefs.

I want to thank all of you for visiting my blog and caring enough to comment on this post. Even though we may not all agree, I do want you to know that I appreciate your passion and your perspective.

At Saturday, August 20, 2005 9:04:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Sun said...

Mickey -- Hey, no problem and sorry for "nuts" -- I always choose the colorful. Allow me this, however. There's a lot of flowery talk here, but here's what I think. You said you wouldn't have chosen to do what Marcavage did. I think I know why: because he and the people booing were being jerks. Sometimes, a cigar is a cigar and sometimes both sides of a religious tolerance debate is really jst people being jerks. To me, both sides here were just plain nasty and while I understand your talk about motivation I believe the reason you wouldn't do it isn't all that flowery -- you wouldn't act like a jerk and provoke a bunch of other Philly jerks to boo and curse.

At Sunday, August 21, 2005 8:36:00 AM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Mr. Sun, I don't consider Michael Marcavage a jerk. The reason I wouldn't do what he did is probably because I'm too chicken to stick my neck out like that. Sure, there are subtler methods, but I wish I had the courage to be as bold as he is in trying to reach people. As Christians, we need to go where the people are, whether it be the ballpark, the supermarket or the neighborhood. If we all just sat around and waited for people to show up at church on Sunday morning, we wouldn't be doing what Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 28:18-20.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 1:25:00 PM, Anonymous Frank said...

"Of course, I fully understand that in our politically correct society, nearly everything and everybody is to be tolerated except Christians and their Biblically based beliefs."

Your opinion, perhaps, but how about some proof? And no anecdotes, please. All those establish is that if Christians want to be out in the wider culture, which is where we need to be, our beliefs are subject to the same criticisms, ridicule, or demonstrations of support as those of anyone else.

Objectively, there's no evidence that Christians - from any point on the theological spectrum - are uniquely persecuted. Which makes the Christians-as-victims rap very tired.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 2:47:00 PM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

No one is saying, Frank, that Christians should be immune to criticism or ridicule. In fact, we should expect it. All I'm pointing out is that there is a double standard out there. Tolerance is frequently demanded of Christians, but I find it interesting that many of those demanding it are not willing to offer it in return. But what I find most interesting is that many of these tolerant-minded people honestly do not believe they are being intolerant toward Christians and their beliefs. But they are.

Have you ever heard someone from the pro-homosexual camp say to a Bible-believing Christian: "I truly understand and appreciate that you sincerely believe in the Bible and what it says concerning homosexual behavior, and I respect that"? I haven't.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 3:23:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Sun said...

Mickey -- Okay, you are recommending the behavior by Marcavage. I get that now. What about the booing? What are you calling that?

At Monday, August 22, 2005 3:46:00 PM, Anonymous Frank said...

You're generalizing, Mickey, in order to assert that this double standard is a cultural norm. Proof, please. Not your gut feeling.

And to answer your question, yes. Difficult as that may be for you to believe.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 4:21:00 PM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Mr. Sun, to me the booing was an indication of those people's disapproval, or "intolerance," of Michael Marcavage's message. And they certainly have the right to boo if they want to. Again, I find it ironic that they react to perceived intolerance with intolerance of their own.

Frank, as for proof, see above. That's what this post and the previous comments have been all about. I've seen countless other examples in newspaper letters to the editor, comments on this and other blogs, etc. Many people believe that Christians are intolerant bigots because we sincerely believe in what the Bible has to say about homosexual behavior and other hot-button social issues and dare to express those beliefs in public.

If you have run across people out there who disagree with but respect the Christian position on these issues, that's certainly encouraging news to hear. So thank you for sharing that with us. But can you give us proof? ;-)

At Monday, August 22, 2005 4:39:00 PM, Anonymous Frank said...

I see....

"I've seen countless other examples" = Cultural phenomenon

Thanks for clearing that up.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 4:47:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Sun said...

Mickey -- you wish you "had the courage to be as bold as" Michael Marcavage. Let' s meet the bold Mr. Marcavage, shall we? A classy Temple Univeisity student. The man behind Bush Revealed, be sure to browse the whole bold, courageous site Mickey! He's also extremely active in local politics. Marvin Olasky, who you quote numerous times here, has thoughts about Mr. Marcavage. It's illuminating to know who you choose as your heroes.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 5:37:00 PM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Thank you for your research, Mr. Sun. You are absolutely right; Michael Marcavage has had a history of taking things way too far in his efforts to reach people for Christ. His past actions have definitely put Christianity in a bad light. I'm especially concerned with the fact that he no longer considers himself a sinner.

I wouldn't call him my "hero." Although I do admire his willingness to be bold in his faith, I don't endorse the tactics your links reveal. My first exposure to him was the article I ran across on Friday. From all indications, he wasn't all that obnoxious at the Phillies game. But he apparently has been in the past.

I really do appreciate you bringing Michael Marcavage's past activities to light, Mr. Sun (no pun intended). Otherwise I would've kept on wrongly defending him.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 5:55:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Sun said...

Happy to help; I agree with Olasky.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 6:02:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marcavage is a poser. If you want a shining example of one who is bold in his faith, look no further than that paragon of Bible-based belief, Fred Phelps.

At Monday, August 22, 2005 10:10:00 PM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

I don't endorse Fred Phelps' tactics, either.

At Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:24:00 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Frank -
Please provide an e-mail addresss (or you can contact me at mine - listed in my profile). I will send you numerous specific instances of intolerance aimed at Christians. I will list a couple here, however, so you will get the gist.

#1 - The case began in October 2004, when Donna Busch accepted an invitation to visit her son Wesley’s kindergarten classroom at Culbertson Elementary School in Newtown Square, Penn., and read an excerpt of Wesley’s favorite book to his classmates. Wesley’s teacher had invited Mrs. Busch because Wesley was the featured student of “Me Week,” a school program intended to feature a particular student during the week and emphasize that student’s personal characteristics, preferences and personality in classroom activities. One activity made available to all featured students during “Me Week” is the opportunity to have the child’s parent read aloud from his or her favorite book. Wesley, a Christian, had chosen the Bible as his favorite book, feeling that a reading from the Bible would express to the class an important aspect of his life and personality. Mrs. Busch chose to read an excerpt from Psalm 118 of the Bible. However, on the day of the reading, Wesley’s teacher directed Mrs. Busch not to read the passage until the principal had determined if it could be read to the class. When Principal Thomas Cook was summoned to the classroom, he informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the “separation of church and state.” Mrs. Busch was then offered the opportunity to read from a book about witches, witchcraft and Halloween, which she declined to do. One day after the incident, Wesley saw his Mother reading the Bible and informed her that it was bad to read the Bible. When asked why he thought this, Wesley said that his teacher had told him so. In their complaint, Institute attorneys note that the “Me Week” reading incident was just one example of the school’s efforts to suppress the right of Christians to freely express their religious beliefs. For example, although Mrs. Busch was not permitted to read from the Bible, other students were allowed to teach the class the dreidel game and participate in making decorations to remember the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah, although students were prohibited from making Christmas decorations.

#2 -In late January and early February 2002, Boca Raton Community High School, a public high school in Palm Beach County, Florida, was undergoing renovations. In an effort to camouflage unsightly plywood panel barriers that had been placed around construction areas during construction, school administrators invited students to paint murals on these barriers as a beautification project. Students were to provide their own murals, and the only instructions given by school officials were that the murals not be profane or offensive and that the murals include the students’ own expression. Students were not required to present their proposed murals for prior approval and were permitted to express themselves freely in their artwork. Sharah Harris, then a senior at the high school and a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes Club, decided to participate in the project, along with other members of the club. Sharah and other FCA members painted several murals with religious messages: one mural proclaimed, “Because He ♥ed, He Gave” and had a cross in the background; another asked, “Jesus has time for you; do you have time for Him?”; and a third read, “God Loves You. What Part of Thou Shalt Not Didn’t You Understand? God.” Shortly after the murals were painted, school officials pulled Sharah out of class and instructed her to paint over all religious symbols and language, replacing the references to God and Jesus with neutral pronouns such as “He” and “Him.” Institute attorneys are challenging determinations by both the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the mural project was not a public or limited public forum for expression and thus could be subject to the school’s interest in avoiding disruption from religious debate and of disassociating from a religious viewpoint.

#3 - Apr 24, 2003 10:16 am US/Eastern
Glen Campbell, PA (AP) A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb.

Now, as to another comment you made:
"Objectively, there's no evidence that Christians - from any point on the theological spectrum - are uniquely persecuted. Which makes the Christians-as-victims rap very tired."
If by, uniquely, you mean that other religions are persecuted as well, I would have to agree. But the implication seems to be that we are saying that only Christians are persecuted. Not true! There are many instances of religious persecution by secularists going on today. But I will say this: try some of these things against muslims and see how CAIR responds. People give latitude to muslims today that they would not dream of giving to Christians. I will point to the specific instance of Islam being promoted in the California school system at the same time that they are denying the same rights to Christians.
What is "tired" is the attitude "I don't see it, therefore it isn't happening." To see it you must open your eyes and be willing to see. Blinding yourself to this only fosters acceptance of it.

At Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:32:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Sun said...

Tim -- This post began as an attempt to highlight intolerance of Christians and ended with an acknowledgement that it was instead an example of Christian extremism. Mickey's grace in facing this draws me to Carolina Christian conservatism. Your sneering sanctimony flies in the face of the facts, and is precisely the sort of attitude Olasky sees in Marcavage as detrimental toward Christian evangelism. Congratulations, you have met the enemy and he is you.

At Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:55:00 PM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Mr. Sun, Tim was only answering Frank's direct request for specific instances of intolerance directed toward Christians. I don't believe any of his examples come anywhere near the extremism you revealed yesterday in Michael Marcavage's earlier protests.

And, Frank, I apologize for not addressing your request myself. I've been pretty much swamped at work lately - working nights, days and weekends - so I appreciate Tim's willingness to help out.

At Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:27:00 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Mr. Sun - I have reviewed my most recent post, as well as the previous posts. While I admit to being firm, as well as forceful, in my comments, I do not see where I have been "sneering". If that is the way I have come across, I apologize. Though I must say that I am not likely to change my style, I would gladly accept correction by being pointed to where I have been "sneering".

If my style of defending the faith is dangerous or counterproductive in the minds of the likes of Olasky, then he must have difficulty with the likes of Sproul, McDowell and MacArthur. Though I do not claim to be on a par with these men, I try to emulate them in defense of the faith.

Thanks, Mickey, for offering a forum for such a spirited exchange.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home