But he has been patient and held his peace. He has been tolerant, not in the sense that liberals define tolerance, but in the way that they have imposed it. His tolerance has been silence and inaction. He has gone on with his life, tending to his work and his family. He has not embraced Islam, but neither has he thrown rocks at the windows of mosques or torched the green Saudi flag, or practiced any of the other behaviors that non-Muslims are often on the receiving end of, in the far less tolerant Muslim world. But that silent tolerance has been tested, again and again by American Islamists and their protectors among the political and cultural elites, who had taken his silence for consent. And in truth his silence had more of Walsh's The Quiet Man to it, than that of the downtrodden Dhimmi slave. He had learned that in a changing country it was best not to take offense, to go your own way and look away from what you did not care to see. This form of tolerance he had been told was American, but as a river has its banks, so too tolerance has its limits. And a moment must come, when the quiet man decides to be quiet no more.
George Washington had understood early on that talk of tolerance was a dangerous thing, because it implies a power relationship. Where legal rights are premised on equality, tolerance contains within it a germ of disdain or fear. That is because tolerance is most often the result of an unequal power relationship. And that brand of tolerance is unsustainable, as the power relationship itself. Only tolerance as a cooperative value can be sustained, but for tolerance to truly be a cooperative value, all parties must be equally committed to tolerating what they dislike about one another.
What is the purpose of such tolerance? It is to serve as a "fence of civility" beyond the limits of the law. It is what prevents people from protesting at funerals or in front of private residences, even when such actions are legal. It maintains certain standards of public behavior, even when such standards may not be defensible under some readings of the Constitution. It does not impose on others, what they would not want imposed on themselves. It respects their values, as we would like our values to be respected. Such mutual tolerance prevents a nation from boiling down into ruthless squabbling and violent chaos. It places limits on political conflict and religious imposition in the name of common decency. And we hold to those limits, even toward those we only tolerate, but do not admire, love or even care for very much.
Such tolerance however only functions when it is mutual. Assorted lunatics and crazies may flout it, but their doing so will exclude them from having any meaningful say. Their lack of tolerance for others alone does not upset the applecart. But when a large group demands tolerance, but is unwilling to show it, then tolerance takes on the form of an unequal power relationship. What used to be a fence between two neighbors, instead becomes a swinging gate that only one neighbor has the power to use any time he pleases. The other neighbor is told that tolerance requires him to look away when that happens and make no protest over it. And if he attempts to use the gate himself, the police are immediately called.
|Homicidal Muslim Spelling Bee Champions|
But in the case of Islam, talk of inequality is a farce. Muslims have never been unequal in America. They have never been taken out of their homes and interned for their race alone, or brought here as slaves, denied a decent education or used as experimental subjects. They have in fact been shown vastly more tolerance than they have ever shown others in their entire history. And that alone is a damning indictment of Muslim civilization as we know it.
When Muslims complain about Islamophobia, they are mainly complaining about law enforcement measures taken in response to Muslim terrorism, and blowback from ordinary Americans in response to the same. This is profoundly different from the experiences of immigrants and slaves who were discriminated against on the basis of their race or religion. Islamist organizations are cynically piggybacking on the legitimate civil rights struggles of American minorities, in order to promote a foreign agenda. That agenda continues to be paid for by oil money and dictated out of Saudi Arabia, a country which does not extend civil rights even to 50 percent of its own Arab Muslim population, let alone to its vast numbers of non-Arab and non-Muslim workers and slaves.
The ugly truth is that for as long as Muslim communities and mosques in America continue to harbor, and give aid and comfort to terrorists, then both law enforcement and ordinary Americans will have good reason to be suspicious of their loyalties. And beyond even the terrorist threat, it is easy enough to look across the ocean to Europe, where Muslims have begun to terrorize non-Muslim minorities, including Jews and Sikhs, and even the nation's Christian European majorities. Above it all hangs the specter of Sharia or Islamic law, a barbaric system of jurisprudence that denies equality to women and non-Muslims.
When Americans look to Muslim leaders for reassurance, they instead receive doubletalk and indignation. They are left to parse ambiguous condemnations of terrorism by Muslim leaders who are employing a definition of terrorism that encompasses the actions of the US Marines, but not those of many Muslim terrorist groups. There are assurances that Sharia is a wonderful thing, and no willingness to disavow the horrors that Sharia has brought to Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia. And the same liberals who treat The Handmaid's Tale as a true warning about the threat of Christian Dominionism, dismiss any talk of the threat of Islamic law as "intolerant".
But intolerant to what and to whom? It is surely not the intolerance of 50 percent of the population who are deprived of legal equality under Islamic law. Or that of all non-Muslim minorities who are faced with legal second-class status under this arrangement. And that raises the larger question, can one truly be intolerant of an intolerant thing? Islamic law is undeniably and unambiguously intolerant. As a theoretical matter, we can look away from it. But to look away from it, once it is being implemented non-consensually is to give in to intolerance.
It does not require some sort of Muslim takeover of the United States to see the legal consequences of the intolerance of Islamic law. When the Grand Mufti of Australia justifies the gang rape of non-Muslim women by calling them "uncovered meat" and claiming that they are responsible for being raped, and not the rapists-- we are seeing the ugly reality of Islamic law in practice, in the same way that women in Pakistan or Dubai are seeing it. Women no longer need to go to a Muslim country to be subject to Islamic law. They can be subject to it right where they live. It may be violent and not strictly legal, but law is ultimately defined by common practice, rather than the other way around. And judges are already beginning to defer to the Muslim view of rape, in America and Europe.
not to bring a bottle of wine from the duty free shop into a Muslim airport cab or eat in front of a Muslim during Ramadan-- Muslims cannot seem to even have the basic decency not to capitalize on a terrorist attack to grab up some real estate on the cheap and then build a giant mosque complex in an area where there are fewer Muslims than in most parts of Tokyo.
Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque because they know it for what it is, an act of intolerance. An ugly activity that exposes the contempt and the unequal power relationship that now exists between Muslims and Americans. If Muslims will not tolerate Americans insofar as to respect Ground Zero, then what exactly will they respect? There is no answer, because the answer is nothing. The constant demands for tolerance represent the same unsustainable and unequal power relationship that is bringing Europe to its knees. If Muslims do not show tolerance to Americans, then they have no right to demand it in turn. If they insist on their legal right to build the mosque, then they might wish to consider what the country would look like if they received only what they are legally entitled to from everyone else. America has done its best to be tolerant of Muslims, and has received murder, lawfare and contempt in return. If more and more Americans are becoming tired of being the ones to show tolerance, while getting none in return, Muslims may discover that they have imposed on the good nature of a good-natured people to its limit.
Good article. I feel we have to start to do something about the spread of Islam in this country. It is very frustrating to have everyone from the president on down telling us we have to lay down and take whatever the muslims want to dish out. It is scary when the power of the government is used to keep a simple crazy pastor from upsetting our muslim population.ReplyDelete
Lets hope that there will be a limit to toleration of all the junk going on.ReplyDelete
"Tolerance" is a much abused word. There is physical tolerance, which suggests how much a body can stand. How much cold, heat, hunger or sickness can a body stand? A healthy and strong body can stand more abuse than a sick and weak one. There is material tolerance too, a bridge can stand only so much weight, a car can stand only so much lack of maintenance and ill handling.ReplyDelete
But the tolerance we talk about here is social tolerance, a very ambiguous concept. The idea that binds physical tolerance together with social tolerance is the notion of stress. How much stress should a community or individual be exposed to socially before rising up to confront the source of stress? That certainly depends on the source of stress, doesn't it? And it also depends on what the individual or community feels as stress.
If we are being confronted deliberately, then social tolerance is not suggested. If we are being confronted deliberately, then confrontation in return is suggested. But if what we hold to be a stress free state is based on some false conviction or passion, then we may be stressed by things around us that no one can or should be held accountable for. The world of Islam finds itself in such a situation. It continues to expand it's population into the west where its low minded and violent beliefs have no legitimacy or cause for respect. It can only be stressed by the rest of the world, trying to live as people should live, free to confront existence guided by their conscience and human experience.
But "tolerance" is supposed to exist as some kind of secret sauce expected to allow Muslim belief to make new places for itself among people it can have no tolerance for. And how "tolerance" came to be respected as some kind of social glue instead of a spirit of confrontation is another story that deserves to be told.
When tolerance requires me to compromise my faith and American lifesytle that's when I call it quits and take a stand against a people/religion that tries to trample on what is precious to all Americans.ReplyDelete
Excellent read, great job. The so called tolerant people need to read the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of. What part of that doesn't the media and liberals get. Mosque building has nothing to do with Church and State. I'm going to cross blog your article, come visit at www.dangersofallah.com I'm J.C.ReplyDelete
Now here is something worth seeing - a continuation of Undercover mosque - Tolerance in action.ReplyDelete
Quote: And while Americans have bent over backward to accommodate the rituals and beliefs of Muslims, there has been absolutely no reciprocity from the other side.ReplyDelete
"But but", says the devout moderate Muslim, "we are obliged by our religion never to adopt any customs of the Infidel, and to treat them and their customs with contempt".
So it is quite unfair to accuse Muslims of having no tolerance - it is not their fault, as it is their religion, and we have to accept it, as we claim that we are a tolerant people.
In effect, the Muslim argues that we abide by our principles of tolerance, while Muslims abides by their principles - which are not tolerant. Thus the Islamic argument is, that each side abides by their principles, and then see who wins.
The paradox of tolerance:ReplyDelete
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. ”
Karl Popper "The Open Society and it’s Enemies"
Excellent -- please permit me to link. One more thing: "Homicidal Muslim Spelling Bee Champions" - Hahahahahaha!!!!!ReplyDelete
An apology to the worlds Muslims on prime time and community service in a mosque should be enough to restore Fenton the koran book burner to his former job.ReplyDelete