Rethinking Tolerance

I wonder how many would agree with me that it is time to rethink the meaning of tolerance in our world today; or, at the very least, rethink how it is being redefined in today's world.
We all know that the first dictionary entry for the meaning of the word tolerance is: acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, for example, in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.
I think many, if they are honest with themselves, would agree that this is not the case today, especially towards those who believe in the God of the Bible.
The trouble is exacerbated by the media, both cable and network television, college leadership across our nation, and many (too many) members of our Congress and Judiciary.
One of the ways this is done is by promoting a view of Christians as hateful and narrowminded, in addition to the labeling of their protests against those things they disagree with as offensive. Further, the media (and Hollywood) shews forth a blatant bias themselves as they portray people of faith as the ignorant masses.
With the recent election setting voting records in the popular vote, it is clear that people in the nation are sick and tired of representatives that kowtow to the special interests groups that promote a culture of death as well as a perverting of the one thing that is the very glue that holds an enduring society together, i.e. marriage and family.
Here are just a few of the examples taken from a recent article appearing in the AFA Journal of the intolerance towards these people and those who share their views:
From the universities:
Sean Wilentz of Princeton: "religious fanaticism" has "seized control of the federal government."
From newspaper columnists:
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times says President Bush "ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq".
Sheryl McCarthy of Newsday says that President Bush is "pandering to the people's fear, petty interests and prejudices against homosexuals".
My favorite is by a columnist named Thomas Friedman who accuses the values voters who won the day (by a very wide margin I might add), of promoting 'intolerance'.
There is far more than that being said these days, but the bottom line remains that those who are teeth-gnashingly angry at the win wrought for President Bush by the values voters (and their views) seem mighty intolerant of said views.
Furthermore, it was quite obvious that those who supported President Bush (in record numbers), for the most part, ran a get out the vote campaign that did not dishonor anothers views or seek to get votes by deception. I am sure that those exceptions to that statement were a drop in the bucket by comparison to the campaign of the Democrats who, desperate for the votes of large blocks of voters (i.e. minorities) deceived their way all the way to just short of the ballot box. Of course if you seek for the truth in this you will find few willing newsreporters in the mainstream, that is for sure. It is not what they are about, reporting the truth of issues important to the people, anymore.
But tolerance for others views is a staple of the values voters, we just don't happen to agree with your view. Big picture, we also believe such a valueless view as is held by the liberals in Congress today and their supporters who push it every chance they get (right over the American people, who in larger and larger numbers don't agree with it), is not conducive to our way of life enduring in the world today.
More on the intolerant tolerant another time.
http://www.afajournal.org/