This is tolerance?
I hate writing these letters to the editor because this page is dominated by such marginal people but something must be said. The atheists and the local PRIDE group utilized every adjective they could find in the thesaurus in their blistering response to Mike Azinger in last Sunday’s News and Sentinel: “glaring bigotry,” “divisiveness,” “ignorance,” “shameful,” “divider,” a Bible “cherry picker,” “hatred,” “white knight in shining armor,” “demonizing,” “hypocrisy,” “backward,” “extremist ideology,” and a few other choice words. While tearing Mr. Azinger apart one of the criticizers actually said that the aim of his group is to be “charitable and helpful in the MOV” and then in the next paragraph paints everyone who believes in God as ignorant. That’s being helpful? That’s being charitable? Can they not even see their own glaring hypocrisy?
Why is it a sin for Mr. Azinger to be “intolerant” but not a sin for the other side who show the same intolerance? Why is it okay to say Mr. Azinger has “extremist ideology” but the other side’s ideology cannot be touched, challenged or even questioned? Why is it not okay for Mr. Azinger to judge but it is okay to judge him? Why is it okay to label Mr. Azinger as a “bigot” and a hater and yet hating him back and mocking his views is somehow not bigotry? That is the very definition of a double standard. These groups hate his morally superior tone and then act morally superior in shaming him.
It shows once more that anyone who will not join the moral revolution will not be tolerated and, will in fact, need to be punished, preferably publicly. A favorite phrase of the revolutionaries is that to stand with them is to stand on “the right side of history.” A greater goal would be to stand on the right side of eternity.