...continued from above.
You are unlikely to find a more "live and let live" person than me.
Yes, this is true. I believe that all people have the right to their beliefs, to do what pleases them without infringing on the rights of others and to live their lives as they choose. I draw the line at the point at which they will try to impose their beliefs or morality on me (or others) in a coercive law at the end of a policeman's gun. But even as I let live, I will not be subjugated, repressed, conquered nor silenced without a fight. Just as I expect others have the right to their beliefs and the right to express them, I expect that I have the right to the same. If I offend somebody or somebody offends me, so be it. It is not a rights violation.
When you say, "I preach tolerance. I am intolerant of intolerance. You bring a whole new meaning to "tolerance"", you are certainly implying that I am intolerant. I don't know how you come to that conclusion.
I am suggesting that we need open and honest discussion and lamenting that that cannot take place in an environment of veiled threats of demonstrated violence. Is that intolerant?
I have provided examples of known behavior. Is that intolerant?
I have differentiated between muslims and fundamentalists, the lack of which you claim is intolerance. So am I still intolerant in that regard,or will you withdraw that one?
I have not suggested that the editor be forced to include the comic, nor the Muslims be denied their right to be offended, nor their right to protest, nor suggested that any laws need to be passed to limit anybody's rights or freedoms, nor attempted to prevent anybody from defending their position nor violated anybody's rights in the process. Is that intolerant?
I will confirm, however, that I believe that coercing an individual or the media into self-censorship with the implied or real threat of violence is, in fact, a basic infringement of inherent rights. Is that intolerant?
Like it or not, the world is divided up into people that believe in the us vs. them mentality and get hyper-sensitive or offended when the "us" part is subject to critical examination. Forgive me for pointing that out.
I hope you don't think that it is I that is dividing the world up into differentiated groups and applying criticism based upon my own categorization. Surely, the world's population has done the job of self identifying particular groups. Surely you don't take offense that I think we should examine the motives and deeds of these groups.
Actually, yes. Truth is discovered in critical examination and open discussion. Corruption, depravity, despotism and repression thrive in their absence.
Prove me wrong.
The Catholic Church dominated western culture for centuries by controlling the political, intellectual and spiritual traditions of the culture, murdering heretics, disbelievers and dissenters and stifling free thought and open expression.
I consider this an historical truth. Perhaps you cannot bear to deal with the history of the Catholic church, but let me offer some examples. The inquisitions (yes, plural, imagine that), the Crusades (plural again), the forced conversion or murder of North and Central American natives (the Jesuits had quite a run on the conversion front and quite a compelling argument - convert or die), the burning of witches, pagans and heretics (Joan of Arc was a, umm. let's see, a Catholic that was burned alive at the stake (gruesome death) by the Catholic Church for, yes that's it - heresy), not to mention the Thirty Years War and the Hundred Years War and the outlawing of Judaism, ransack of Jewish houses of worship and dispossession of Jews in France and Spain right up to the end of the 19th century. As for stifling free thought, Gallileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition [Wikipedia]. As we know now, Gallileo was right. Now I don't blame the Catholic Church for all the ills of the Western world, but I would like them to own up to their responsibility for the above.
It has only been since the late 19th century that free thought, free speech, critical examination and open discussion have flourished. The result has been civilization.
Surely you can see the result of our free thought, free speech, critical examination and open discussion. I repeat, the result has been civilization. Shall we revert to a closed society where one cannot speak, where issues right or wrong are unexamined or taboo, where authority and belief are unquestioned, where opinion is forbidden and thought illegal.
Should we cease to examine, question or discuss the issues of our times, surely we are heading back to another dark age.
See above. The light of civilization is easily extinguished and it begins with the repression of the mind, body and the tongue.
Islam should be no more free of such critical examination than any other movement of our time.
I argue that not only Islam, but all movements should be examined. It is knowledge that must be understood and shared for the truth to come out. Is that intolerant?
Perhaps it is more deserving of of such scrutiny, since the prevailing trend of Islam where it has been realized to its fullest extent is the return of such repression, lack of freedom and civil liberties and prohibition of free thought and expression that it mirrors the Dark Ages.
Yet Islam is unique in that it does impose a threat to all the things discussed above. I have read the Q'uran, by the way, and by it's very nature, it seeks to impose impose Islam and Sharia Law (the religious code) upon all citizens of any nation that adopts or harbors Muslims. Even the Government of Ontario publicly considered allowing Sharia Law to settle civil issues within the Muslim communities of Ontario. (Yes, this is true.) This was soundly defeated in committee by Muslim women's right groups who valued their right to free speech (as apparently you do not), their right to free expression and, well, the right to their very lives. Oh, I forgot to differentiate, these were not fundamentalist, extremist Muslim women's rights groups. (By default, those groups could not exist given the abrogation of the rights of women in Islamic fundamentalist theology.)
As you read "the prevailing trend of Islam where it has been realized to its fullest extent", read fundamentalist extremism. I'm sorry if that was not explicit enough for you.
If a cartoon can open the discussion, so be it but there's no reason that 100 people must die in the process.
You've never lamented that so many people must die over a cartoon. On one hand is a scrap of paper with a picture. On the other hand is a stack of 100 coffins. The "peaceful religion" certainly bares it's fangs when it takes offense.
It is this implicit (and demonstrated) threat of violence and murder that I am reacting against.
This is my central point. You've managed to dance around it with talk of my intolerance, my defense of free speech, my exercise of my right to question and criticize the world as I find it and you have invented arguments that you subsequently attribute to me. I couldn't care why the editor decided not to run the cartoon. It is his right to print or not print the cartoon. But you have not addressed the situation that the threat of offense against Islam is an implicit and demonstrated threat of violence and/or murder.
Stratman,
Johnd was right about one thing. I've got this one under control.
