The tolerance canard

[Big Don]

The tolerance canard


By David Harsanyi
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/22/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
EXCERPT:




No question. We're surrendering to religious intolerance. Just not the imaginary religious intolerance many would have us believe.
After 9/11, we stressed the distinction between Muslims and extremist Muslims who were driven by an ideological strain of orthodoxy that prioritizes atomizing the infidel. But we all conceded that those terrorists were Muslims, nonetheless. It's a fact.
Today, even broaching the topic of religious affiliation can send (almost all) the dolts on "The View" scattering for cover. To some folks, any whiff of critical discussion on the religious angle is tantamount to narrow-mindedness. And now, apparently, religious bigotry includes the dissemination of truth.
Surely by now you've heard the tale of liberal commentator Juan Williams, fired by National Public Radio after conceding to Bill O'Reilly that Muslims dressed in traditional garb on a airplane make him kind of "nervous" and "worried."
"Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week," as Williams went on to assert during a broader conversation about more tolerance. "He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."
Of course there is. Ask some of the "tolerance"-pimping left-wing groups like Think Progress for their instruction manual. Just throw around the word bigotry. Chill conversation. Watch NPR capitulate and then watch journalists who value their careers become increasingly uneasy about covering or discussing Islamic radicalism, peaceful Islam — any Islam.
This isn't exactly new. There are many books — a genre actually — that expound on the profound stupidity of religion and its followers.

<<SNIP>>

If you can ever find the Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris ask her about religion tolerance. Norris has reportedly gone "ghost" after finding herself on an Islamic terror hit list for her insulting cartoon. (Let me know when a journalist makes an atheist, Mormon or papal hit list.)
Free speech didn't exactly work out that well for Molly.

<<SNIP>>
Perhaps NPR can even take a few moments to explain to American Muslims why they're thought of as children who can't handle the slightest perceived politically incorrect comment.
END EXCERPT
Tolerance doesn't mean kowtowing to groups that scare you, at least it shouldn't...

 

[WC_lun]

Okay, you want to keep posting crap like this, lets break it down...

Juan Williams said on national TV that he gets nervous when on an airplane with men dressed like Muslims because of 911. First, the terrorist that hijacked those planes were not dressed in Muslim or any other ethnic garb. Like most criminals, they wanted to blend in until they struck, so they were dressed like everyone else. So his fear is based upon an ignorant assumption. He would be better served by being fearful of anyone who DIDN'T stand out. Second, contrary to his claim before he made the comment, having a preconcieved judgement about a person because of how they dress or look is indeed bigotry. Third, he was already in hot water with NPR because of while on Fox, he and Fox intimidated that he represented NPR while making his comments. He didn't and Fox no longer used NPR as a reference to Mr Williams when he was on thier network. So Mr Williams was already not in good standing with his employer, then on national TV admitted to being an ignorant bigot. Yeah, its a huge leap to think he might have been fired. Or are you saying that no right wing organization would have fired an admitted ignorant bigot?

On another thread, Big Don, you were pretty passionate in your stance that the left should not judge the Tea Party as a whole on the racist signs and actions of a small minority of people at its rallies. I actually agree with that. You even say the left is hypocritical for its attitude. However, now you make a post judging 1.8 billion Muslims for the actions of even a smaller minority of people sharing that faith. That seems to fit the definition of hypocrit very well.

Yes, it is sad that people such a Molly Norris must live in fear because of the hatred of some ignorant Muslims. Most Muslims probably don't even know her name, much less want to harm her. Though I'm sure you didn't post that snippet in order to pass judgement on 1.8 billion people from the action of a small minority of those people did you? Naw, you wouldn't do that, because that would be acting like the left you so clearly despise, right?

I'm sure your mom probably told you at some point that if a friend jumped of a bridge that doesn't mean you have to also. Now you are willing to justify your hatred because someone you view as an enemy (extremist Muslims) is full of hate. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not saying you have to love people different that yourself, but perhaps use the same standards you seem to want to hold others to make your own judgements.

Finally, why keep posting these articles by people that clearly are writing thier articles from a preconcieved bias? The articles themselves just seem to be excercises in excuse making for views they know aren't right. These people aren't acting right, so its okay if I do the same thing! They don't strengthen your arguements and make it seem your reaching to find support for those arguements.

 

[Big Don]

YES, WE KNOW IT ISN'T ALL MUSLIMS.
However, cowering and kowtowing to the EXTREME MINORITY OF MUSLIMS THAT ARE RADICAL, is NOT the answer.
Being an adult, being civilized, means being able to give and take honest criticism WITHOUT resorting to intimidation.
Screaming "It isn't all Muslims." and calling everyone who dares criticize the aforementioned TINY MINORITY of Muslims who are terrorists, bigot, doesn't do much good, does it?
From the article:

Perhaps NPR can even take a few moments to explain to American Muslims why they're thought of as children who can't handle the slightest perceived politically incorrect comment.

Perhaps, you can take a few moments and explain...

 

[Big Don]

btw, what intolerant, racist bastard said this:

"There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

You may be surprised.

 

[Marginal]

YES, WE KNOW IT ISN'T ALL MUSLIMS.
However, cowering and kowtowing to the EXTREME MINORITY OF MUSLIMS THAT ARE RADICAL, is NOT the answer.

Well then, why exactly is it suddenly vital to have stuff like cartoons featuring Mohammed? It wasn't exactly on the top of anyone's list before 9-11 but now pissing off moderate Muslims seems to be job 1.

Being an adult, being civilized, means being able to give and take honest criticism WITHOUT resorting to intimidation.

Honest criticism? Really?

Screaming "It isn't all Muslims." and calling everyone who dares criticize the aforementioned TINY MINORITY of Muslims who are terrorists, bigot, doesn't do much good, does it?

Which explains the whole ground zero mosque flap...

 

[Sukerkin]

That link in your post #4 Don was a very interesting read; thank you.

I had no idea that the educational circumstances of the poverty-trapped had improved so much since '70's. It's certainly something that has not been trumpeted in the media (factual or fictional (tho' there have been some splendid 'role models' in the latter)).

The sad reflection that it gives is that the criminal problems that still arise from that portion of the population are now down to something else rather than lack of educational oppportunity (my guess would be the trade in illegal drugs altho that is probably reaching for 'too easy' an answer ).

 

[Big Don]

Well then, why exactly is it suddenly vital to have stuff like cartoons featuring Mohammed? It wasn't exactly on the top of anyone's list before 9-11 but now pissing off moderate Muslims seems to be job 1.

But, Piss Christ is a legitimate artwork that it is wrong to criticize, that you call a Christian woman a terrorist for objecting to a picture of Christ giving a blow job, and yet hail any attempt to draw Mohammed in any form as wrong.

The lady is a terrorist.

Honest criticism? Really?

Yes, really. The lady in Colorado didn't behead anyone, ala Theo Van Gogh...

Which explains the whole ground zero mosque flap...

You do remember 9-11? When 19 self-avowed Muslims hijacked planes and used them as weapons? Don't you?
Why should Christians have to sit still when they are insulted, but, even the slightest hint that some Muslims might strap on vests and go BOOM makes Muslims exempt?
Penn Jillette:
Are there any groups you won’t go after? And we haven’t tacked Islam because we have families.
Meaning, you won’t attack Islam because you’re afraid it’ll attack back … Right, and I think the worst thing you can say about a group in a free society is that you’re afraid to talk about it—I can’t think of anything more horrific.
Is Penn Jillette now some kind of Rightwing Christian bigot? I don't think so...

 

[Sukerkin]

Steadily, gentlemen. If we're resorting to 'shouting' this early in a thread then I don't hold out much hope for it.

 

[elder999]

Is Penn Jillette now some kind of Rightwing Christian bigot? I don't think so...

No. What he is is a 6'5" chicken. :lfao:

Here ya go, a Mohammad cartoon, strait outta South Park:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Tolerance doesn't mean kowtowing to groups that scare you, at least it shouldn't...

It doesn't. But nothing about the firing of Juan Williams (with which I disagree, he should not have been fired for making such an inoffensive statement) had anything to do with intolerance.

What it appears to have had to do with was 'Political Correctness', in which one avoids controversial topics to avoid giving even the appearance of bias or insult. I disagree with most of the tenets of Political Correctness.

By intentionally fudging the definition of 'tolerance' to make it appear to be something it is not, one may therefore attempt to justify one's own outrageous behavior. It's not working.

 

[Big Don]

No. What he is is a 6'5" chicken. :lfao:

Who is truly afraid of Christian terrorists? I'm sure there are a few people who are, but, those who are afraid of Muslim terrorists are more likely to live in the real world.

 

[Big Don]

It doesn't. But nothing about the firing of Juan Williams (with which I disagree, he should not have been fired for making such an inoffensive statement) had anything to do with intolerance.

What it appears to have had to do with was 'Political Correctness', in which one avoids controversial topics to avoid giving even the appearance of bias or insult. I disagree with most of the tenets of Political Correctness.

By intentionally fudging the definition of 'tolerance' to make it appear to be something it is not, one may therefore attempt to justify one's own outrageous behavior. It's not working.

Isn't refusing to discuss one group's problem with violent extremists in their midst in the name of tolerance a bit revolting?

 

[elder999]

Who is truly afraid of Christian terrorists? I'm sure there are a few people who are, but, those who are afraid of Muslim terrorists are more likely to live in the real world.

I'm not afraid of Muslim terrorists.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Isn't refusing to discuss one group's problem with violent extremists in their midst in the name of tolerance a bit revolting?

Yes. I have never advocated not talking about the problems inside any religion, including Islam.

On the other hand when one continually and intentionally conflates terrorists inside Islam with Islam by using terms such as 'they' to describe Islam when one means 'the terrorists within Islam', and one is taken to task for it, hiding behind something altogether different and whining that one is being castigated for not being tolerant is a bit off-putting as well.

You've pitched the argument to go your way, but I don't accept the way you've slanted the board. For example, you can of course criticize "Piss Christ," many did. Very few called it great art, and most who defended it did so on the basis that art is speech, which the artist has a right to produce and display. Even I, who found it disgusting, agree with the artist's right to produce it and the gallery's right to display it. You have as much right to criticize it as the artist had to produce it.

An artist also has the right to draw cartoons of Mohammad and newspapers have a right to print them if they wish. That is likewise protected speech. People are free to criticize it if they wish as well. Issuing death threats? That's illegal, of course, as it should be.

You characterize the argument by stating things that are not true; that you cannot criticize 'Piss Christ'; obviously you can. That you cannot publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously you can. That you must accept death threats if you publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously such threats are criminal and not protected speech.

No definition of 'tolerance' says that you cannot criticize the things you do not like or that you are forced to accept things which are illegal in the name of fear or of not making another group upset or angry.

 

[Cryozombie]

You characterize the argument by stating things that are not true; that you cannot criticize 'Piss Christ'; obviously you can. That you cannot publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously you can. That you must accept death threats if you publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously such threats are criminal and not protected speech.

Bill, your wording is technically correct, so I'm going to correct the MEANING of Don's statement as you have written it to reflect the way *I* took it.

You cannot criticize 'Piss Christ' *Without a bunch of people coming out and decrying you for being a right wing christian moron who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and shut up because white hetero christian males have had it too good for too long and turnabout is fair play*

and

You cannot publish cartoons of Mohammad *Without a bunch of people coming out and decrying you for being a right wing teabagging bigot who hates all of Islam for the actions of a few thousand radicals*

Obviously, you CAN criticize them. What you can't do is make those criticisms, right or wrong, factual or mistakenly, without being demonized for it.

Just look at any thread relating to Catholic Priests and Altar Boys, or Christians who think the Earth is 6000 years old... these are relatively small Minorities of their respective faiths, and yet the entire faith is called to task for it in those threads, with almost no one defending them...

Then look at any thread about Muslim terrorists, and everyone is up in arms because these are relatively small Minorities of their respective faiths, and it is wrong that the entire faith is called to task for it in those threads.

THAT'S what *I* believe Don was saying.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

THAT'S what *I* believe Don was saying.

Works for me.

It comes down to the so-called 'double-standard'. The belief, right or wrong, that I am prohibited from or criticized for behavior that is someone else is allowed to do or not criticized for doing, and that's not fair, and I'm upset about it. I get it.

The world is full of double-standards, and they're unfair.

 

[Sukerkin]

One extra thing to be borne in mind when it comes to this whole sorry issue is the concept of consequences and, maybe also, equivalences.

When it comes to criticising religion, I'll lambast the lot of you (viz all faiths) for believing in something imaginary that is an insult to the intelligence of mankind. But I'll defend your right, in a notionally free society, to believe that thing for, as long as neither of us oppress the other with what we feel and say, we have to accept the consequences of our own actions.

Extending on from that tho, you're not free to do as you wish just because you say you act in the name of an invisible sky-being that created everything or some prophet who claimed that he spoke in the name of the aforesaid mythical being. However, the loony-tunes who are causing all this hoo-haa and bloodshed do not live in a free-society; they grew up in a theocracy governed (as the West's major faith once was) by men who use hypocritcal religious arguments as levers to get people to do their all too non-divine bidding. That is to say, there is not an equivalence between the positions that religious people in 'our' culture choose to take and the positions that those born under a 'less free' star have enforced upon them.

The trick when levelling criticism at anything is to use acurate terms. So, for example, I try not tack a prefix of "Islamic" when I speak of the murdering scum that are carrying out terrorist acts whilst claiming to be of the Islamic faith. Neither do I speak of the IRA as Catholic Terrorists, even tho' they were murdering scum who happened to be Catholic. Their faith was not only irrelevant to me compared to what they did but it would also be insulting or embarassing to those Catholics who actually obey the Ten Commandments to be lumped in with such a group.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The trick when levelling criticism at anything is to use acurate terms. So, for example, I try not tack a prefix of "Islamic" when I speak of the murdering scum that are carrying out terrorist acts whilst claiming to be of the Islamic faith. Neither do I speak of the IRA as Catholic Terrorists, even tho' they were murdering scum who happened to be Catholic. Their faith was not only irrelevant to me compared to what they did but it would also be insulting or embarassing to those Catholics who actually obey the Ten Commandments to be lumped in with such a group.

The problem is with the logical fallacy. If A infers B, then B infers A. The terrorists who attacked the US and the UK were Islamic. Therefore, Islamic people are terrorists.

Don has made it clear that he does NOT believe that all Muslims are terrorists. However, many continually make the point that the terrorists who attacked us ARE Muslims. When others have pointed out that this is a logical fallacy by using examples of Christians who have committed crimes, distinctions are drawn to attempt to demonstrate that no, when Christians commit atrocities, they are NOT representative of all Christians, but when Muslims commit atrocities, they fall into a different class that is both representative and not representative of all Islam. At the same time. That's a really interesting point of view. One can't actually argue it, because it's nonsensical.

It's sad that so many horrible acts are committed in the name of any religion. I believe it is a fair criticism to say that Islam has a serious problem right now with those extreme members of their faith who believe they have a mandate from their God to subjugate, hurt, or kill anyone else. Those extremists threaten the entire modern world.

I think it is vital to understand who those people are and what groups they belong to, what beliefs they cleave to, in order to better defeat them. I also believe it is important to not alienate those Muslims who do NOT cleave to those beliefs, to avoid doing the work of the terrorists for them and making moderates into extremists through hatred towards them.

 

[Archangel M]

Since the terrorists who attack us ARE Muslim is it not "natural" for people to then be looking at Muslims as potential attackers? Is that not what Mr. Williams was implying? It seems like natural human preservationist instinct.

 

[Big Don]

--- In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbutt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
--- In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
--- During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
--- In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
--- In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered in his wheelchair and thrown overboard by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
--- In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:
a. Captain Kid
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
--- In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
--- In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
--- In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
--- On 9/11/2001, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of innocent people were murdered by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd
b. Florida's Governor Jeb Bush
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

There is a reason police departments use profiling, it works more often than not.