Tolerance Should Be A Two-Way Street
Except that throughout much of the world, it is not. Read Christopher Hitchens’s post, A Test of Tolerance:
Let us by all means make the “Ground Zero” debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.
Which makes this NPR post, Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists, particularly inane. If history has proven anything, it is that “fuel” is the one thing for which “Islamic Extremists” do not want. If not this, something else.
That doesn’t mean we should engage in the same intolerance as they do. But it also doesn’t mean we should deny reality.
Frank Rich: You People Will Cause The Already Failed Afghan Surge To Fail
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Glen Beck said something about putting a gay nightclub next door to see how well the Mosque/civic center will tolerate it.
"The Religion of Perpetual Outrage". Sounds like a very tolerant bunch to me.
its a two-edged sword no matter what the American people do.
protest the building of it and the jihadist used the argument of intolerance to recruit.
let it be built without protest and the jihadist use the argument that the building of it is a sign of Allah's victory.
This is actually an object lesson – on a grand scale – of what is really meant by the word "tolerance" by the leftist progressives and Muslims. Their definition of "tolerance" is strictly one-sided – no give on their end, it's all take. You are the one who must give, forever. It's the bigot/tolerance "card" in the pack of trick cards the leftists play from each and every day.
It's like the race card – racism is defined as whites hating blacks or other minorities; therefore, anti-white sentiment is by definition not racism.
Hypocrisy – served 24/7 by the lib statists. And, with the "pravda media" always shouting their viewpoint, and silencing the opposition, people believe it.
It reminds me of a blog post I read yesterday (I believe on gatewaypundit.com) that discussed the church in FL who is planning on burning Korans on 9/11 this year. Horrible idea, but the blogger's point was that it shows the hate and evil, the vitriolic threatening of violence against others that emerges, rather than the oh-so-sweet tolerant "bridge building" and "civil discourse" yada, yada…..when it is Islam that is getting insulted. Burn Bibles? Be tolerant. Burn the US flag? First amendment right – put up with it! Deface a synagogue with hate-filled graffiti – be tolerant of the silly pranksters! But even suggest burning a Quran – death to any and all in FL – suicide bombings, terrorist threats!!!
Love and tolerance – not in Islam, not from Muslims. Not from the left. That's everyone else's duty.
The mosque controversy didn't fuel the Fort Hood massacre. It did not fuel the near catastrophe over Detroit on Christmas Day.
It did not fuel 9/11. Or Khobar Towers. Or the USS Cole. Or the '93 WTC bombing. Or the marine massacre in Beirut.
I don't think a debate about where a mosque is built will matter one iota to the extremists future plans to kill Americans or find people willing to carry out those plans.
Is America Islamophobic? See how they box in anybody who opposes them?
The nature of the question skews the debate? If there is opposition to the building of the Young Moslems Community Attraction at Groud Zero, does it not do the opposition a grave injustice by pre-empting our civilized airing of viewpoints who oppose the "project"? (I oppose the unrestricted waging of cultural jihad by foreign agents on American soil. I am not opposing a "project". But that is discussion for another time.) The question impugns motives of us opponents to Islamic jihad. As opponents we are not given the same media support where any similar impactive question is asked about Imam Rauf and Miss Daisy: "Do Rauf and Miss Daisy have a hidden agenda?" That question does the same thing as "Is America Islamophobic?"
With Islam, two-way streets mean lots of head-on collisions.
DINORightMarie…I live in Gainesville and twice daily drive by the church in question. As you can imagine it is prime water cooler conversation around the office.
Last week some earnest young Coexist type was angry ANGRY at the proposed Quran burning and was having quite a discussion (full of that nasal whining where every sentence sounds like it ends in a question…so typical of the type) with some other cornered co-worker. I just wanted some water.
So my uninvited reply to her was "Presumably Dove (the church in question) is burning their own Qurans, right? I mean they aren't ransacking the local mosque and stealing them. So it's their own property they're destroying. And lemme ask you…if it were a American flag burner or someone dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine how would you reply to someone as upset about that as you obviously now are?"
I left before she could answer. Such drive-bys are more satisfying to me than trying to engage in a discussion with these types. Like stepping on an anthill…it is better to keep moving.
There are enumerable ways of looking at the same issue, but the conclusion is the same:
One is with a touch of hard-edged humor to try and jolt the other side into finally understanding the inherent weakness of their position.
Meanwhile, Jake Tapper reports that the President will, at least for the moment, eschew the temptation and/or the opportunity to deliver another speech on the topic — or get involved in a solution.
"REPORTER: Can we expect the president to speak out any more on the Islamic community center near Ground Zero? And also will the White House play any role in discussions about moving the facility to a different location?
WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY BILL BURTON: No and no.
— Jake Tapper"
How long can he hold his breath?
My guess is there will be a side bar comment or two in the Iraq speech — the one where he will not be admitting that the surge worked in spite of his vigorous objections.
Given the fact that the left has decisively lost the initiative, in spite of their sustained and utterly bogus effort to call everyone else in sight a bunch of racists, you'd think that they'd also get the idea that calling us all a bunch of Islamo-phobes will not likely work either!
Oh, well, these things take time . . .
Or, putting the issue another way . . .
Oxymoronic Expression of the Year: "I unequivocally demand that you completely tolerate my demonstrable insensitivity to you, period!"
If it's not a two-way street, it's not really tolerance.
To paraphrase Malcom X, it's not islamophobia to be wary of the poisonous snake that is Islam. It's common sense and self preservation.
Actually it was Greg Gutfeld, host of Red Eye on Fox News Channel. He came up with the idea of a Muslim Gay Bar across the street from the Ground Zero Mosque.
A few days later it was reported that Rush Limbaugh suggested a name for said bar:
The Gayza Strip
Amazing, isn't it, that in case after case (the Mohammed cartoons being one example) the Muslim agitators demand, demand, DEMAND "tolerance" because of their "religious sensibilities". (Apparently nobody else's "sensibilities" are of any concern whatever to these guys.)
Y'know, I don't recall EVER seeing the words "Muslim" and "tolerance" together in the same sentence without some variant of the verb "demand" between them…