« Next time, Pat, try reading the bill | Main | A Country Divided: Election Maps by County »

"Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue. It is suicide."

Seraphic Secret on the mosque near Ground Zero:

The Ground Zero Mosque is designed as a monument to the supremacy of Islam.

It is designed as a sign to Muslims everywhere that Islam will triumph over the Judeo-Christian West.

Islam is and has always been an imperialistic doctrine. Wherever it takes root, mosques are built higher than Synagogues and Churches. In fact, one of the most vile practices of Islam is to take sacred Jewish or Christian ground and colonize it for Islam.

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem is a perfect example.

It is Har-Habayit, the location of the Jewish Temples. But the Islamic armies conquered Jerusalem and immediately set about building a Mosque. Now, Jews are forbidden entrance.

That is the plan for the Mosque at Ground Zero.

The Imam and his wife--stealth jihadists with strong ties to The Muslim Brotherhood--use the language of tolerance to hide their true intentions. They will build the Mosque--with terrorist money--and then, before you know it, the area will gradually be transformed into a forbidden zone for non-Muslims. Like those streets of fire in France or Holland where even the police dare not enter.

Women who are not draped in shmattes will be spat upon and beaten.

Jews and Christians will take their lives in their hand in this new neighborhood.

Mayor Bloomberg and the other quislings who invoke freedom of religion are a bunch of useful idiots.

Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue.

It is suicide.

Do read the entire piece.  And allow the following picture stolen from the post to be your launching point:

Mosque-erdogan
 


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39776.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue. It is suicide.":

Comments (38)

Ah yes, the truth we are no... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Ah yes, the truth we are not suppose to speak.

Disagree?

Take a look at the UK.

The heading...says it all.<... (Below threshold)
mag:

The heading...says it all.

I'm curious how you would p... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

I'm curious how you would propose we prevent the Mosque from being built. Do you support a law being passed to prevent the Mosque from being bult? What would the legal ground be for such a law? What kind of precedent would it set? Could the law be applied to other religous groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church who protest at military funerals? Who would determine which religous sects the law would be applied to? This is a dangerous slop to go down.

I wonder if Barry will be s... (Below threshold)
914:

I wonder if Barry will be summoned to bow and then cut the blue ribbon? Or will it be Bloomingidiotbberg..?


I agree Tina. This is inde... (Below threshold)
914:

I agree Tina. This is indeed a dangerous slop to go down.

Indeed, the jihadists have ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Indeed, the jihadists have won another round, using our own laws and the cowardice, naivete and arrogance of our elected officials against us. Brings to mind the quote attributed to Karl Marx- "When we hang the last capitalist, the fool will sell us the rope."

Mayor Bloomberg an... (Below threshold)
Mayor Bloomberg and the other quislings who invoke freedom of religion are a bunch of useful idiots.

If you really agree with this, I had no idea you hate the founding fathers this much.

"This is a dangerous slo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"This is a dangerous slop(e) to go down."

Tina S - I've got a question for you, and I hope you won't take it the wrong way.

If, after being in place a few years, the people running this mosque started demanding that non-Islamic business in the buildings around them be pushed out, because such businesses were not acceptable to them (like a church, a BBQ restaraunt in the next building, for example, or a corner meat market that sold pork and hams) would you support their push to eliminate businesses and organizations they don't like?

Do they have a right to demand from people around them tolerance that they would not show others?

The concept of 'tolerance' is a rather problematic one at times - but that tolerance HAS to be a two-way street. There is no other way it can possibly work for the long term, or at all for that matter.

People in Europe are already finding that out - now they're stuck with being forced to be 'tolerant' of people who are not tolerant at all of them, and would gladly strip down their legal systems and impose Shari'a law if they could.

Isn't it better to set, beforehand, the conditions by which a religion will be tolerated, rather than to attempt to define it afterward when there's significant hate and discontent already built up?

The real sad thing is this ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

The real sad thing is this mosque will be built and complete while the holes in the ground where the twin towers stood still smolder over a decade later.

The fact that we do not have two even higher towers standing and filled to capacity now speaks volumes about our vacillating cowardice in government leadership.

Rick,Your title, "... (Below threshold)
Michael K.:

Rick,

Your title, "Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue. It is suicide," is similar to a saying in the Talmud from thousands of years ago that goes, "Those who are compassionate to evil will be evil to the compassionate."

These words always ring through my head whenever I read about most things in the news cycle these days, especially with abortion.

JLawson,You didn't... (Below threshold)
Rance:

JLawson,

You didn't answer Tina S's most difficult question:

Who would determine which religious sects the law would be applied to?

To answer you Rance, ala H... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

To answer you Rance, ala Henry Ford, "any religion so long as it is not Islam".

As Mark Kleiman says, there is "no consistency here". Even what used to be the Anti-Defamation League is joining in the defamation.

Crickmore,There ar... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Crickmore,

There are a number of Christian sects that are totally intolerant of others beliefs. Are you going to ban them, too?

We cannot ignore that the f... (Below threshold)
Frankly B:

We cannot ignore that the far right Christian extremist have been "intolerant" on this issue, going so far as to ignore the Constitutional rights of New Yorkers to practice their freedom of religion.

We cannot tolerate the intolerant far right (Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich) for to do so is suicide for our great nation.

Frankly B -Yes, bu... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Frankly B -

Yes, but the 'intolerant far right' won't behead you for daring not to believe as they do, or issue massive numbers of death threats because you dared draw a funny picture of Jesus and God.

Rance -

See above message to Frankly B, substitute 'intolerant Christian sects' for 'intolerant far right'. They're pretty willing to let you go to hell in your own handbasket, and won't try to convert you by anything more than shoving a tract in your hand. And they'll take "no" for an answer.

Unless you've got some specific sect in mind - which one were you thinking of?

Honestly, the "it's not Christianity so it's got to be better/more tolerant/less smelly/lower calorie with reduced snake handling and fewer beheadings" meme's a pretty stupid one. I don't know of a single sect which is institutionally going around threatening people with beheading if they dare laugh, or be teh gay, commit adultery or dance or wear clothing that (gasp!) shows camel-toes. They might shake their heads, tsk-tisk at you, but it's pretty rare for the knives to come out any more.

Maybe you figure on using a binary qualification for them - if anyone of religion "x" has ever done anything bad, then every member of that religion is equally as bad - but if you go that route, Islam trips that trigger also, so you've got to be intolerant of that, too.

BTW, Rance ---"Who... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

BTW, Rance ---

"Who would determine which religious sects the law would be applied to?"

I know I didn't answer it - that was on purpose. I was asking HER the questions. I'm trying to get her to THINK, instead of emote about how intolerant everyone is and parrot talking points.

The Law of Unexpected Consequences always applies - but ignoring what can clearly be problematic usually makes the consequences worse.

If you insist on tolerance for people who are quite honestly and openly intolerant, who make no secret of the fact of their intolerance and will continually demand you make concession after concession to avoid offending them - how long will it be until you've run out of room for your own rights?

As far as your question goes - when the issue is seriously discussed, the answer will become apparent. Until then - I haven't a clue.

What the intolerant Christi... (Below threshold)
Frankly B:

What the intolerant Christian extremists tried to do was far worse than just build a place of religious worship. Palin and Gingrich tried to take away the Constitutional rights of Americans to freely practice their religion.

They tried to finish the job of bringing down our nation that terrorists started on 9/11.

They tried to circumvent our Constitutional rights. OUR rights. They made no discrimination. If they can stop a mosque from being built they can stop a synagogue or Episcopal church or any other place of worship merely because they don't like the people who practice that religion.

They did it openly and honestly - they made no bones of the fact that they knew there were Constitutional protections against what they were trying to do - and they did it anyway. Let's give them credit for being honest about their efforts to trash the Constitution.

Stop the intolerant right, they are bringing down our great nation to the level of desert heathen terrorists. They need to be stopped.

I'm sorry Frank, but when d... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

I'm sorry Frank, but when did Palin say that the government should stop the mosque from being built?

I know she said that muslims shouldn't build the mosque there, but I'm afraid I missed the part about government action. Do you have a link?

And the above highlights the problem with the left: they see NO DIFFERENCE, whatsoever, between people expressing their disapproval and the government banning something.

Hence, if you were to have an all-you-can-eat bacon buffet outside the mosque, or blare the gayest dance tunes you can find at the time of calls to prayer, you are magically infringing on their constitutional rights as surely as if you sent the police in there to beat them and burn the building down.

No, government has no role here. The people, however, do. But, the left has been on a crusade to eliminate society's ability to regulate itself, and they sure as hell won't take any attempt by the people to say "this is enough" lying down.

By the way, the proper role for government to deal with Islam, as well as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Wiccan, etc., is to forget that they're religions. You don't stop them from doing anything because they're religious, you don't force them to do anything because they're religious, and, most importantly, you do not EXEMPT THEM FROM THE LAW because they are religious. All that sharia crap would stop, instantly, if we didn't give a damn that their otherwise illegal activities were sanctioned by their moon djinn.

By the way, the First Amendment states as much. If you pass a law giving a religious exemption, (heck, if the law so much as mentions religion) that law respects religion, and is therefore unconstitutional.

I hear you, JSchuler. The g... (Below threshold)
Frankly B:

I hear you, JSchuler. The government should just ignore Constitutional protections to freedom of religion and keep their nose out of it. Heh.

MY government has a role, to protect the freedom of religion of Americans. You don't think the government should do that. Not surprising. You're joined by a large mob of angry Christian extremists who also think that way - about certain religions of course, not all of them.

What I said.

I dont know any "angry chri... (Below threshold)
914:

I dont know any "angry christian extremist's' but there are stealth muslim jihadist's behind the 'community center' AKA Mosque.

Frankly B -"Pal... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Frankly B -

"Palin and Gingrich tried to take away the Constitutional rights of Americans to freely practice their religion."

I'm sorry, I must have missed where they advocated wholesale government-implemented mosque destruction. Disagreement and speaking your mind is NOT attempting to take away anyone's rights - but perhaps you'd prefer THEY lose their First Amendment freedom to express their opinion? Remember how last administration 'dissent was the highest form of patriotism'?

As JSchuler points out - they're expressing their opinions. My own opinion on the subject is that it's a local matter - but the folks looking to put the mosque up are being pretty damn intolerant of the feelings of the people of New York, and that they're behaving as Muslims have historically behaved when they were taking over a country - plant a mosque at the site of a great victory. A symbolic victory may not mean anything to you or I, but to them it's a vastly different thing.

If they were at all tolerant, they'd find somewhere else - like somewhere there's an actual population of Muslims who need a community center instead of placing it in a business district, where the people around them are against their moving in because of certain events a while back.

Anyway, you can only push people so far on certain issues, and there's a LOT of ways the unions in NY know to push back. It will, as others point out, be very interesting to see if the building actually gets completed. There's just so many ways the build could go wrong, if you know what I mean...

Yes, but the 'into... (Below threshold)
Yes, but the 'intolerant far right' won't behead you for daring not to believe as they do, or issue massive numbers of death threats because you dared draw a funny picture of Jesus and God.

And?

Which part of that means that, in the United States of America, which was founded on the principle of religious freedom of all - people of one religion should be able to tell people of another religion who *aren't* breaking the law that they can't build a church.

I hear you, JSchul... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:
I hear you, JSchuler. The government should just ignore Constitutional protections to freedom of religion and keep their nose out of it. Heh.
I'm sorry Frank. Please cite these Constitutional protections you speak of. The only ones I'm aware of are prohibitions against Congress (and with the 14th Amendment, the states) making laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I can't find the one that says the government has a role to make people not ridicule you for your belief in the flying spaghetti monster, or be nice to you even though your religion's founder was a pedophile, or bend over backwards to accommodate your aversion to pork.

Please, give me an Article & Section or Amendment.

No wonder you have such a b... (Below threshold)
Frankly B:

No wonder you have such a bizarre view. You don't even know the Constitution.

It's the First Amendment, JSchuler. It reads

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

New Yorkers are free to exercise whatever religion they choose, even the ones that Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin don't like.

Congress shall make no law,... (Below threshold)
epador:

Congress shall make no law, doesn't say that the NYC or NY State folks can't.

Frank, I'm sorry, but you n... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Frank, I'm sorry, but you need to clarify:

Sarah Palin makes a twitter post that says Muslims are being provocative by building a mosque so close to ground zero.

Now, does Sarah Palin qualify as "Congress"?
Does a twitter post qualify as a "law"?
If not, did Palin at any point call for "Congress" to make a "law" that respected the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

Ok, maybe that's unfair. Let's go to my examples, which are naturally relevant, as this is what I asked you about:

People ridicule you for believing in the flying spaghetti monster

Are these people "Congress?" Well, they could be. Unlikely, but possible.
Is "ridicule" a law? No, it's not.
Ok, so your citation doesn't apply. Please find the appropriate entry in the Constitution for this, please.

Next one

be nice to you even though your religion's founder was a pedophile
Well, we know that these people may, possibly, be Congress, so let's move on.
Is not being nice a "law?" Sadly, no. Once again, please find the appropriate entry in the Constitution for this.

Final instance:
bend over backwards to accommodate your aversion to pork
Ok, so lets say a business sells pork products, and requires that its cashiers touch the things to check them out. Is this a "law?" Nope. It may be a term of employment, but it's not something crafted by the legislature, backed by the force of government. Plus, since it's a buisness doing it in this case, it's not Congress.

Ok, let's say Congress is holding a (privately financed) BBQ right outside a Mosque, with pulled pork and baby back ribs for everyone. Is this a law? Again, no. So, it seems while you are looking for the proper Constitutional citation that applies to the first instances, you will need to find one for this as well.

Take your time.

Tina S - I've got a ques... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Tina S - I've got a question for you, and I hope you won't take it the wrong way.

JLawson, I didn't take it the wrong way. I understand but don't share your concerns; would they be aleviated if the owners of the Mosque are outspoken about the need for Muslims and Non-Muslims to get along and respect one another. Below is the Mission Statement from one of the organizations financing the Mosque and Community Center.

Our Mission: Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.


Solving some of the most intractable conflicts in the world today requires innovative strategies for cross-cultural engagement. Cordoba Initiative tackles this mandate with forethought, expertise and the ability to leverage contacts in influential positions within the Muslim World and the West. Thinking outside the box about international and intercultural conflict resolution also means thinking introspectively about each side's place within its own historical narrative with a view to devising internally oriented solutions.

These two organizations are financing the Mosque and Community Center.

Cordoba Initiative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_Initiative

The American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)

Beaudrillard was right; 9/1... (Below threshold)
BlueNight:

Beaudrillard was right; 9/11 wasn't about the attack, it was a symbolic attack: we, the Islamic underdogs can beat you, the West, as you sit in your edifices of commerce.

The West, as an Enlightenment civilization, does not accept the importance of symbols. However, Western people and cultures still do, as evidenced by our reaction to the planned mosque.

Truth is a virtue in our culture; we are told we are supposed to believe its planners that this is a harmless memorial created to show outrage at the events nine years ago. We are told that we must wait for evidence of wrongdoing, that the mosque is completely legal.

However, we already know we are being told this by a culture that enshrines falsehood in its holy book, that states it is the duty of every Muslim to lie to the unbelievers until sharia law has become the government and civil law of every square foot of this planet.

We must acknowledge the symbol's strength, and fight back with our own: freedom. Freedom is the creed of our secular state, and sharia is opposed to freedom on too many levels to allow it to become our law.

Hi, Tina!"would... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hi, Tina!

"would they be aleviated if the owners of the Mosque are outspoken about the need for Muslims and Non-Muslims to get along and respect one another."

Not really - because words are cheap. All you've got to do is look at Arafat, a 'beloved leader' of the Palestinians who would often say one thing in English, and the opposite in Arabic, to differing audiences who hung on his every word.

Heck, all you've got to do is look at our own politicians for that much, and they do it in English! Tell a gullible audience in one place one thing, and in another something else, and trust the media to not accurately report the difference, if you're of a persuasion they approve of.

"Below is the Mission Statement from one of the organizations financing the Mosque and Community Center."

Again, as I said - words are cheap. Mission statements are pretty much worthless. Interfaitih harmony is achieved when all are tolerant of each other - not when one demands the others tolerate concessions which they themselves would not give.

My question is this, why wo... (Below threshold)
Linda Tarricone:

My question is this, why would the believers of Islam not respect the families and survivers of 9/11 with their request to build this mosque in another location considering the strong feelings that have been expressed? No one is saying not to build it. They are just asking that it not be put on that spot. It seems a fair request. If the hope is to build bridges between different faiths, I would think that the first step would be to respect this request and place the mosque in a less controversial area. I have to believe their insistance for having it there must have deeper symbolic meaning, and that is very scary.

Tina S. do you seriously be... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Tina S. do you seriously believe that the Cordoba Initiative is "tackling this mandate with forethought"?! Whether they have the right to build is not the issue as far as I'm concerned. If the Cordoba Initiative was truly interested in "bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect", they wouldn't take this blatant and truly offensive swipe at the American people by choosing the location that they have. Do you think there is NO other location that they can build their mosque?! Their plans to build it on the site of ground zero most certainly had a lot of forethought, just not the forethought that you take them at their word for.

Linda you are SPOT ON, and ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Linda you are SPOT ON, and beat me to the punch!

Lina & D-Hoggs,Acc... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Lina & D-Hoggs,

According to Chris Mathews there were meetings involving the local community prior to going ahead with the Mosque. At that time the local community was overwhelming supportitive of the Mosque.

If there was significant opposition during the planning phase than I would agree that they should consider building the Mosque elsewhere. But now organizations and individuals have already invested millions of dollars into the project its a little to late to tell them all to take a personal loss on it.

If you guys are interested ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

If you guys are interested in keeping this thread active, when I get off work I'll try to find a statement from the Cordoba Initiative as to why they are still planning to go ahead with the Mosque. One of the places I'll look is on there twitter feed.

http://twitter.com/Cordobainit

Tina, also according to chr... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Tina, also according to chris matthews, obama gives him a "thrill up his leg", his words. The guy is a liberal HACK. So once again I will ask you, do you seriously believe that this mosque is being built out of a desire to bring people together? Because if you do you're just as big a hack as matthews. The choice of location for this mosque is a premeditated thumb in the eye.

Tina S -Would you ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Tina S -

Would you take the word of a used car salesman that the car you're thinking of buying was pristine and perfect, and only driven by a little old lady to the doctor and church for two years?

Would you sign mortgage papers without reading them first?

If someone you didn't know came up to you on the street, and asked for a loan of $500 (with a good story) and offered to leave his wallet with you as collateral, would you do it?

You're apparently willing to completely trust this Cordoba group to be what they say they are, and that their purpose is what they say it is.

I'm not quite sure why you're so trusting, but you put me in mind of the folks at the gym who put their clothes in a locker and never lock it. Wallet, credit cards, keys - completely open to whoever wants them.

(I've often been tempted to make up little slips of paper saying "It'd be a lot less hassle to use a lock than replace all your credit cards, your cell phone and your car..." to slip into their pockets...)

I'm sorry - maybe I'm just too suspicious for my own good - but there's stuff about this (name of the group and its historical connotation, location, opacity of funding?) that just doesn't smell right to me.

JLawson,I wouldn't... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

JLawson,

I wouldn't do any of those things, nor do I completely trust Cordoba Initiative as I never heard of them until 2 days ago. There is more I'd like to say on this but have to leave for work. I'll add more comments this evening.

You don't completely trust ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

You don't completely trust the Cordoba group yet you use their stance as a defense against those who are offended by their blatant and calculated move to offend by their choice of location. Makes sense tina.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy