As my readers can see, I called Hemmingway out on doing the exact thing he says he doesn't do, which was met with quite an agressive response. Ladies and gentlemen, you are looking at the very definition of hypocrisy! See, first of all, Hemmingway claimed he doesn't post anti-Christian stuff, but he quite clearly does. And that's not even true! No one believes two penguins walked from Antarctica to the Middle East, at least not that I know of, so Hemmingway is ignorant as well as a hypocrite.

Second, notice his response to me includes the demand that I get out of his life. Given his response to the original article, do you think Hemmingway would apply the same standard to Christians as he does to himself? Obviously not. He doesn't support a Christian's right to run her business her way, or to defend herself when people try to take away that right from her. He also believes he has the right to jump on my personal Facebook page and demand I stop posting things that he disagrees with. However, when he posted this, I posted just one comment which was met with hostility. So, why does Hemmingway have the right to verbally assault me on my profile, yet I apparantly don't have the right to remind him of the very moral values he personally claimed to have, which he has violated?

Though Hemmingway originally claimed he wants equality, it's quite obvious that what he really wants is superiority! And that's the reason I'm writing this article. As a Christian, I believe in tolerance. The Bible tells me that as far as it depends on me, I have to live in peace with everyone (Romans 12:18). But there's a difference between believing in tolerance and believing in the equality of their views.

The truth is, anyone who believes you should leave your personal views at home needs to lock their doors, close their curtains and unplug their communications devices, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to leave your views at home. Every living human being, whether they admit it or not, must operate according to one view or another. Even those who claim complete tolerance are sticking to their (incredibly inconsistent) view, and are even trying to force that view onto other people.

What I am about to say may (ok, will) offend some people, though it won't surprise anyone. I don't believe all views are equally valid. I believe that my views are superior to views that oppose them. Now, before I get hate mail and threats, I want to clarify a few things.
 

1. No, the fact that I believe my views are superior does NOT mean I believe I am superior. I believe that all men and women, regardless of age, sex, race, disability, religion, practices or favorite football team, were created in the image of the mighty God. That means there is no one person or group that is superior to another. I believe Hemmingway, for example, is equal to me (though the feeling is obviously not mutual).

2. No, I do NOT advocate legal requirements that force people to embrace my views.

3. No, I do NOT believe I am completely inerrant and am 100% right in every area (though to those who preach "tolerance", I couldn't neccessarily be opposed if I did believe these three things).

With that out of the way, what do I mean? Well, on an intellectual level, of course I'm going to believe my views are superior! If I didn't, I wouldn't hold the views in the first place, would I? Complete nuetrality is impossible. Failing to take a position on any issue is automatically support for one side. See, even if you don't openly endorse either side, you are endorsing one side, usually the most amoral or immoral side.

As an example, let's imagine this scenario. A man, we'll call him Bill, is repeatedly tresspassing on a field, claiming land is not a commodity to be bought or sold, and so he has the right to camp there. The field's owner, we'll call him Ben, disagrees. He believes the field is his. He bought it for a price, he has the legal documents that register the land to him, he owns the land. Bill and Ben ask you to settle their dispute. If you support Bill, Ben has agreed to let him stay on the land, but if you support Ben, Bill agrees to pack up and leave.

But you pick option three: Stay neutral. Now what? The dispute doesn't end, you've simply given tacit approval for things to carry on as normal, which means you have supported Bill by refusing to support either.

Being neutral isn't an option. It is a form of superiority. Conceding to opposing views is silly. You might aswell convert. The only consistent option is to openly admit that you believe your views are superior. I support Christians who oppose gay "marriage" not only because they have the right to do so, but because they are right in doing so. Christians cannot afford to stay silent. As the right to free speech grows for opponants of Christianity, it shrinks for Christians. As Christians, we have the full armor of God. Don't take it off for anyone. Stand firm in the truth. God bless you, my readers. Amen.