1. My brethren and I should be the first to preach against the use of unfair methods in opposing those who are thought to be in error. We have suffered more at the hands of such intolerance than we have ever caused others to suffer. In a certain town the members of a denomination threatened to boycott one of their own group if he sold a building lot to members of the church of Christ who were establishing a congregation there, and thus caused him to back out on a trade he had already made. Such prejudiced and unfair opposition was both undemocratic and sinful. To have exercised freedom of speech in a public discussion of religious differences would have been honorable and democratic, but this the denominationalists would not do. They were too “broadminded” and “tolerant.” It is strange that in politics people understand freedom of speech to mean that one may publicly criticize his opponent, while in religion they pretend that it means something entirely different. 2. Sometimes our young people are treated with sinful intolerance at school because they refuse to engage in dances. Sometimes they are treated with intolerance when they fail to take part in the gambling games, games of chance, which are played in some of the schools. Very often when they refuse to go to picture shows they are laughed at and made fun of. It is not a question of somebody’s attempting with love and sincerity to persuade them to change their convictions; too often it is simply a matter of ridicule. I could give some instances and call names of Christian young people who have been persecuted in public schools because they had a standard of morality and conduct which was different from that of the majority in the school. That is intolerance of a sinful sort. It is the wrong sort of opposition. Endeavoring to teach in love and kindness what one believes, even mistakingly, to be the truth is legitimate; but opposing contrary beliefs and ideals with ridicule and fun-making is wrong. 3. We saw an example of this at the panel discussion last Tuesday night. The chairman of the meeting was inclined to poke fun at some in the audience who arose to ask questions, apparently asking the questions in all sincerity. He would encourage the audience to give them the “horse laugh.” The meeting which was called to promote tolerance manifested intolerance of an ugly sort. It was said that this meeting was being called to advocate the doctrine that we should discriminate against no one because of his color, his creed, or his race. These three words don’t belong together. Color, creed, and race do not come in the same category. A man is not responsible for his color. He had no choice in it. A man is not responsible for the race to which he belongs. He had no choice in it. He was born that way. But a man does have a choice in reference to his creed. He chooses his creed. He can believe what he wants to believe.