The Truth about Tolerance
NCfan
Posts: 945
February 9, 2007
The Truth about Tolerance
How our therapeutic thinkers threaten Western values.
by Bruce Thornton
Private Papers
Acceptance of a double standard has always been a sign of inferiority. To let someone behave according to one set of principles or values while demanding that you be subjected to others is to validate a claim of superiority that justifies the inconsistent and unfair behavior. A double standard can also reflect incoherent thinking, a failure to apply consistently a principle that presumably has universal validity. In the West’s struggle with Islamic jihad, doubts about the superiority of Western values have coupled with a breakdown in ethical reasoning. The result is the appeasement of jihadist aggression and the confirmation of the jihadist estimation of the West’s corruption.
That’s why many Muslims demand from Westerners a hypersensitivity to Islam, all the while that Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to harassment, assault, and the looniest kinds of slander and insult. In the West, respect for Muslim ways such as the veil for women is supposed to be granted as a self-evident right beyond argument or debate. Yet Western ideals and values, such as the equality of the sexes, are derided, disrespected, and rejected as self-evident evils. The worst inconsistencies, however, involve the violation of core Western ideals, most importantly free speech. Many Muslims demand the right to deny the Holocaust, recycle Nazi-era anti-Semitic drivel, characterize Christianity as polytheistic idolatry, and excoriate a decadent, corrupt Western civilization. But no such criticism of Mohammed or Islam is tolerated, but it is, in fact, met with violence and threats.
The past few years have seen numerous examples, from the riots over the extremely mild political cartoons featuring Mohammed, to the uproar over the Pope’s quotation of a Byzantine emperor. The exercise of free speech in all these cases is met with rage, violence, and hysterical demands of “respect” for Islam, but there is no reciprocal respect for Western values. And for the most part, we in the West go along with this double standard, and thus accept the logic of the jihadist position: we are weak and unsure of our beliefs. Our craven behavior is a sign of our inferior status and our justified subjection to those who passionately believe in the rightness of their faith.
Let’s be clear on the roots of this cowardly response — the West has lost its faith. We have created John Lennon’s juvenile utopia in which there is “nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.” Shorn of transcendent validation, now all our beliefs are contingent and negotiable, easily traded away for security or comfort. At the same time, the therapeutic mentality bestows on the non-Western “other” a finely calibrated sensitivity to his culture, no matter how dysfunctional, all the while the West refuses to extend such consideration to its own. Why would it? Haven’t generations of Western intellectuals and artists told the world how corrupt and evil the West is? Having culturally internalized this self-loathing, we are vulnerable to those who are filled with passionate intensity about the rightness of their beliefs and the payback due to us for our various historical sins such as colonialism or imperialism or globalization. And then we wonder why the jihadist considers us ripe for conquest, and destined to be subjected to the superior values of Islam.
Consider the following cautionary tale, from San Francisco State. Last October the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism rally during which posters painted to look like the flags of the terrorist gangs Hamas and Hezbollah were walked on. Since those flags have the name of Allah in Arabic, a complaint was filed in which the College Republicans were accused of “incitement,” “creation of a hostile environment,” and “incivility.” The complaint is now headed for trial before one of those campus star chambers created to monitor and police student behavior.
You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to see that this investigation is a gross violation of the students’ First Amendment right to free speech. This sort of institutional intervention creates what the ACLU** — which never seems to make a peep about this sort of “progressive” censorship — likes to call a “chilling effect.” The Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Robert Shilbey, has pointed out the obvious: “At a public university, stepping on a flag — even burning an American flag — is without question a constitutionally protected act of political protest. The right to protest is at the very heart of the First Amendment, and means nothing if only inoffensive expression is permitted.”
Here’s where the double standards and incoherence of much politically correct behavior comes in. On any college campus in this country, every day, inside of class and out, you can encounter speech that is “insensitive,” “uncivil,” or “hostile.” But of course, this speech is directed towards Christians, or “conservatives,” or Israel, or Republicans, or “straight white males.” Nobody attempts to censor this speech or haul people before tribunals to answer vague charges such as “incivility,” which will be defined according to the subjective standards of the complainants. And if someone does complain, the faculty and administration will immediately go into high dudgeon mode and start preaching the glories of unfettered free speech no matter how offensive. In other words, free speech for me but not for thee.
But the ill effects of this hypocrisy are nothing compared to the damage done when the institution caters to the unreasonable demands of those Muslims who, convinced of their spiritual superiority and righteousness, are active enemies of the West and think they are justified in imposing their standards on everybody else, even if those standards violate a core political value such as free speech. And when the appeasement comes from the university, which supposedly exists in order to foster what Matthew Arnold called “the free play of the mind on all subjects,” the message is quite clear: we don’t really believe in all these goods we profess and benefit from, but we will abandon them at the first threat. And if we don’t believe in them, why should the jihadist?
©2007 Bruce Thornton
The Truth about Tolerance
How our therapeutic thinkers threaten Western values.
by Bruce Thornton
Private Papers
Acceptance of a double standard has always been a sign of inferiority. To let someone behave according to one set of principles or values while demanding that you be subjected to others is to validate a claim of superiority that justifies the inconsistent and unfair behavior. A double standard can also reflect incoherent thinking, a failure to apply consistently a principle that presumably has universal validity. In the West’s struggle with Islamic jihad, doubts about the superiority of Western values have coupled with a breakdown in ethical reasoning. The result is the appeasement of jihadist aggression and the confirmation of the jihadist estimation of the West’s corruption.
That’s why many Muslims demand from Westerners a hypersensitivity to Islam, all the while that Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to harassment, assault, and the looniest kinds of slander and insult. In the West, respect for Muslim ways such as the veil for women is supposed to be granted as a self-evident right beyond argument or debate. Yet Western ideals and values, such as the equality of the sexes, are derided, disrespected, and rejected as self-evident evils. The worst inconsistencies, however, involve the violation of core Western ideals, most importantly free speech. Many Muslims demand the right to deny the Holocaust, recycle Nazi-era anti-Semitic drivel, characterize Christianity as polytheistic idolatry, and excoriate a decadent, corrupt Western civilization. But no such criticism of Mohammed or Islam is tolerated, but it is, in fact, met with violence and threats.
The past few years have seen numerous examples, from the riots over the extremely mild political cartoons featuring Mohammed, to the uproar over the Pope’s quotation of a Byzantine emperor. The exercise of free speech in all these cases is met with rage, violence, and hysterical demands of “respect” for Islam, but there is no reciprocal respect for Western values. And for the most part, we in the West go along with this double standard, and thus accept the logic of the jihadist position: we are weak and unsure of our beliefs. Our craven behavior is a sign of our inferior status and our justified subjection to those who passionately believe in the rightness of their faith.
Let’s be clear on the roots of this cowardly response — the West has lost its faith. We have created John Lennon’s juvenile utopia in which there is “nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.” Shorn of transcendent validation, now all our beliefs are contingent and negotiable, easily traded away for security or comfort. At the same time, the therapeutic mentality bestows on the non-Western “other” a finely calibrated sensitivity to his culture, no matter how dysfunctional, all the while the West refuses to extend such consideration to its own. Why would it? Haven’t generations of Western intellectuals and artists told the world how corrupt and evil the West is? Having culturally internalized this self-loathing, we are vulnerable to those who are filled with passionate intensity about the rightness of their beliefs and the payback due to us for our various historical sins such as colonialism or imperialism or globalization. And then we wonder why the jihadist considers us ripe for conquest, and destined to be subjected to the superior values of Islam.
Consider the following cautionary tale, from San Francisco State. Last October the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism rally during which posters painted to look like the flags of the terrorist gangs Hamas and Hezbollah were walked on. Since those flags have the name of Allah in Arabic, a complaint was filed in which the College Republicans were accused of “incitement,” “creation of a hostile environment,” and “incivility.” The complaint is now headed for trial before one of those campus star chambers created to monitor and police student behavior.
You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to see that this investigation is a gross violation of the students’ First Amendment right to free speech. This sort of institutional intervention creates what the ACLU** — which never seems to make a peep about this sort of “progressive” censorship — likes to call a “chilling effect.” The Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Robert Shilbey, has pointed out the obvious: “At a public university, stepping on a flag — even burning an American flag — is without question a constitutionally protected act of political protest. The right to protest is at the very heart of the First Amendment, and means nothing if only inoffensive expression is permitted.”
Here’s where the double standards and incoherence of much politically correct behavior comes in. On any college campus in this country, every day, inside of class and out, you can encounter speech that is “insensitive,” “uncivil,” or “hostile.” But of course, this speech is directed towards Christians, or “conservatives,” or Israel, or Republicans, or “straight white males.” Nobody attempts to censor this speech or haul people before tribunals to answer vague charges such as “incivility,” which will be defined according to the subjective standards of the complainants. And if someone does complain, the faculty and administration will immediately go into high dudgeon mode and start preaching the glories of unfettered free speech no matter how offensive. In other words, free speech for me but not for thee.
But the ill effects of this hypocrisy are nothing compared to the damage done when the institution caters to the unreasonable demands of those Muslims who, convinced of their spiritual superiority and righteousness, are active enemies of the West and think they are justified in imposing their standards on everybody else, even if those standards violate a core political value such as free speech. And when the appeasement comes from the university, which supposedly exists in order to foster what Matthew Arnold called “the free play of the mind on all subjects,” the message is quite clear: we don’t really believe in all these goods we profess and benefit from, but we will abandon them at the first threat. And if we don’t believe in them, why should the jihadist?
©2007 Bruce Thornton
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Nice piece of trash, i hope you don't share that guy view, the last paragraph is in fact nice to read, it makes you learn about how people really believe in those stereotype. But yes free speech is good, and this man can say what he want, hehe.
"unreasonable demands of those Muslims who, convinced of their spiritual superiority and righteousness, are active enemies of the West and think they are justified in imposing their standards on everybody else"
wow!
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yeah, when 24 can have a Muslim terrorist on the show and not be blasted by the media and special interest groups, then I'll agree with you. You didn't hear any Russians complain during last year's 24 season.
yes, it need to be adress by government, so the debate don't slide into xenophobic ideology. Quebec has launched one major governmental study, France did it, England. I think it's the way to go to make everything clear, in Canada we have this charter that is kind of making things all blurry.
But what we see in these debates, is a tendency to isolate the stereotypes on the muslims community, and that's where i don't buy it. (not only in this article)
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
sure, a crappy tv show reaction can be a good source to forge an opinion on a group of people, i get your point.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Absolutly, immigration departments must step in, and all these talks MUST involved those minorities. I'm also happy that the debate is going on, even if medias like to give air time to peoples with extreme solutions, way better for the news ratings... but in the end it's great to see some talking about it, better than behind the curtains discrimination.
Quebec minority rights record is not different than what is happening or what happened in the Rest of Canada, exactly the same.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
tell that to the minority of french speaking in the Roc, or to some natives community in this country, it's the same Surferdude.
English speakers in Quebec have A LOT more rights (english school system, health system, universities) and possibilities to live in their mother tongue in this province than any french outside Quebec (exception might be Moncton), There's more bilingual peoples % in Quebec than in the ROC, so i don't know what's your point, the constitution about this country being bilingual is just a document that is not applied, while even with the bill 101, Quebec is still closer to the "Trudeau's canadian ideology" than the ROC, sorry to say this.
In the end, there's no ideologic difference, just different problems. So no, Canada is not better than Quebec on those issues, and it's getting old to always view Quebec as worse or as bad without seeing the same problems in the ROC, but these are the "unconsequential issues" that we have to get use to. Don't you think that the Canadian army not respecting the bilingual law is something bad for french minority rights in Canada? Probably not, and as i said, i don't think the bill 101 is perfect and should stay put indefinitly, it does need corrections, we all have our problems...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
A military can only work in one language for a myriad of reasons. It would not bother me if the Canada military changed to french. But let's not fight this battle again. We will always have to agree to disagree. I think laws that discriminate are wrong, period. You think that some laws that discriminate can be valid in certain circumstances, especially when used to achieve certain social goals.
But to the topic on hand though. The debate is important. Though from an optics point of view Quebec should be carefully of the steps it takes. The recent comments coming from Quebec are rightly or wrongly seen as Quebec being xenophobic in other parts of Canada. Quebec somehow has a bit of a xenophobe reputation in the rest of Canada. The recent comments do not help this perception. I think the perception is wrong but Quebec sure doesn't try too hard to kill the perception.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
So because the only beliefs that are imposed on YOU are Catholic ones = some Muslims want to impose their lifestylte is false? How does that make sense?
I'm not aware of any muslim imposing their lifestyle or religions on me and it might be happening elsewhere, i'm not denying that, but to make my point clearer, it's not a problem, it's the same as the other religions, in the end YOU'RE free to decide. Muslim religious folks are just trying to do some colonialisation, something christians are not doing at all, right? There's no difference, the problems that are underline and that you see as problems is the same for every major religions, they're trying to recruit new adept of their faith. So yes muslims might be trying to impose their beliefs in some case, but what i see is mostly muslims, hassidims, sikh, jews or whatever, trying to have their religions and their peoples respected.
About accomodations, as i said, it's better to have general rules determined by the elected peoples, so that the debate don't slide into xenophobic or racist debate, isolating the muslims is just doing that.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
You're the one creating sterotypes, not the author. He goes out of his way NOT to lump all Muslims together. He specifically uses examples of Radical Muslims - and never just says words like "the Muslim community".
The author is not an idiot. He knows that not all Muslims follow such strict, intolerable versions of Islam. But some Muslims do, and that is who he is talking about here.
Why do you perpetuate the notion that ANYBODY who criticizes Radical Muslims in ANY manor are automatically sterotyping the entire religion? Please explain you position or show me in the article where the author lives up to your accusations...
This "piece of trash" addresses your point specifically... please read.
"The worst inconsistencies, however, involve the violation of core Western ideals, most importantly free speech. Many Muslims demand the right to deny the Holocaust, recycle Nazi-era anti-Semitic drivel, characterize Christianity as polytheistic idolatry, and excoriate a decadent, corrupt Western civilization. But no such criticism of Mohammed or Islam is tolerated, but it is, in fact, met with violence and threats.
The past few years have seen numerous examples, from the riots over the extremely mild political cartoons featuring Mohammed, to the uproar over the Pope’s quotation of a Byzantine emperor. The exercise of free speech in all these cases is met with rage, violence, and hysterical demands of “respect” for Islam, but there is no reciprocal respect for Western values."
I use the ROC in the general use manner that mean "in Canada outside Quebec", you can see it in many english writtings too, sorry if you feel it's use as a diminutive, it's not the intention. Again the independance BS, if it would be an indepedance thing, i would refer as Canada vs. Quebec, using the ROC means Quebec is IN Canada but on the current topic we're using them as opposite, so ROC is usually the term used. It's bad that i have to explain myself about that.
About the laws they were needed to counter the already well in place discrimination that was going against french canadians peoples, which was of course not better but it's always thrown out by the window and easily forgotten when it comes to the bill 101 easy interpretation. Bill 101 was needed, and that's why it does exist, some peoples (a minority of land owners, business manager and federal govt. lack of protection) were to blame for the french canadians being discriminated, and instead of acknowledging the problems and correcting it, they left the Province saying they were discriminated against and brought a whole lot of their english friends with them helping the propaganda in "the ROC". In other words, the situation was bad enough that a law was needed, but you know that well.
Opinion of Quebec in Canada will always be more negative than it should, in fact i don't give a shit about it, it's just part of the "inconsequetial" series of events that lead to these views, and it's ok i guess, i just don't believe one moment that Quebec have a worst records than Canada on human rights and minority rights, in fact Quebec record is also the Canadian record, that's another fashion to isolate Quebec vs. the ROC (you know what i mean) when it comes to bad stuffs. Suddenly when it comes to these stories, Quebec is not part of Canada.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I did quote a part in my first post. Re-read.
I don't know the author, i don't know if he's an idiot.
Where did i say "ANYBODY who criticizes Radical Muslims in ANY manor are automatically sterotyping the entire religion?". Again my point is mostly based on this assumption made in the article:
"unreasonable demands of those Muslims who, convinced of their spiritual superiority and righteousness, are active enemies of the West and think they are justified in imposing their standards on everybody else"
Those who are radicals are such a minority specially those living in our countries, which by the way fled the extremist in their regions, that they're not even worth being thrown in as the same as all the other, this article is isolating one religion as having radicals problems, it's just another reminder of the stereotype that goes with the muslims religions. Why not make an article on radical jews or radical christians, better, radical religious peoples of every origins and religions. Then i will say yes, they're bad, cause that's what i think, but in this context, it's made to make muslims looks bad, muslims only. Radicals are bad yes, but to read about the great stuffs muslims in generals are accomplishing, maybe if that day comes, it will do a great balanace for ALL those articles or point of views that talks negatively about the muslims.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Oh man, sorry i can't discuss about the muslims living on the other side of the planet, some story are sad and bad but only the bad are brought under the lights, which make it easier to build a negative opinions on this subject. But i'd rather make my opinion on muslims religious faith peoples from what i see around me, none, NONE, are about anything you've written there. Sorry. I disagree with anything that has to link religions and state btw, so i don't support any kind of religioius govt. in Iran or Iraq or Syria... or Israel or the USA. Free speech IS important, but prove me that free speech violations is an exclusivity to muslims fate peoples, and i'll agree with you. But it's far from being the case.
I have no interest in living in a country where free speech is not respected, but when they come here, we can't muzzled them, most muslims come here cause they believe in free speech, and they respect it. I'm not even talking about the muslims faith people who are born here, and choose this religion as their own, i don't know where these are categorized when it comes to muslims stereotypes...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
you lost me for the wife thing
As for the "tag" and image problems, they are not the problems of Quebec, but they are the problems of those believing in them, and mostly the problems of those spreading them, once you could include Canadian govt. in this category, i believe Stephen Harper is respecting Quebec (or french canadians overall) a lot more than previous govt. The major problem right now is in canadian medias, mostly (if not entirely) english medias. So Quebec should just keep going, nothing you can do about the sterotypes, hell some idots even find ways to link the Dawson's shootings to the Quebec language laws, anyway that was my point.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
BTW, are you talking about Jacques Parizeau? If yes it not his wife, he did say this. He did resign after his comments, and said on many times it was a mistake, sure you can tag all you want from there.
But most importantly, thanks to make my point, one person's opinion is enough to tag a 7 millions souls provinces as xenophobic. I have nothing to add on this.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The apology is nice but a little too late. Look at all the people willing to label Mel Gibson as anti-semetic even though he apologized. Look at the media people who flat out said they'd never support another Mel Gibson movie.
Might as well condemn all mankind then. Just look around this board and how some Canadians hate Harper based on old things he siad. Or hate the US just because of Bush.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Well you mix things up a bit mind you, Parizeau never killed anyone but the Nazi=Quebec comparison is always a trend to make Quebec and separatist look bad. Plus you said it, this man's opinion is use to stereotype every Quebecers, and you still try to defend that fact which is a non-sense for me. Separatist were the most angry and were the one "suffering" the most for these words.
Mel Gibson did not bring a feeling of stereotypes against the USA populations as being anti-semit, about Harper, he said those things but never said he changed his mind, and still, nobody said that Canadians in general were this and that because of him. I'm not sure where we're trying to get at. My point to all this, is that Canada is not better than Quebec concerning minorities, neither is the opposite.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
My take would be to have tolerance to let evryone do what they like in such issues, "western values" be damned (or isnt this really the western values we hold dear?), and show them how it is to live in a multicultural society. (which the large majority absorbs and lives with) The "purity" of our ideals in this context is at best problematic, as they seem to be ever-changing, allowing for new-comers to adapt it to their wishes, while at the same time making them conform to a large degree. Culture and values always change. There is no "us" and "them" unless you want it to be.
And the pretense of the argument that "we are so good, we'll allow the bastards to take us over" is almost below my dignity to answer. If our culture and values are superior, then they will prevail. If people truly value freedom and liberal ideals, well I guess they will keep on.
But some people like the idea of being persecuted, and needs a simple enemy to hate and fear.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965