All Things Controversial

I'd be wasting my time talking to the followers of people like Rush Limbaugh or John Hagee about tolerance, because their whole outlook is based on rejecting anything, and anyone, who doesn't fall in line with their narrow-minded philosophy. But, for the rest of us, tolerance is usually seen as a good thing. After all, no two people are exactly alike and diversity is what makes the world more interesting. As the saying goes: 'Live and let live.'

Ah, that's where the rub comes in. Unfortunately there are those who are such extremists in their intolerance that they feel justified in killing those who are vocal enough in their disagreement. This leads me to a modified viewpoint that, of course, tolerance is a good thing and that the only thing which CANNOT be tolerated is extreme intolerance.

This may seem like an exercise in twisted logic, but it really is quite a practical viewpoint. You might think that murder instigated by a disagreement in outlook is probably exceedingly rare these days. Probably so... unless something that inspires fanaticism-- like religion-- is involved.

Consider Amsterdam, which has been, arguably, the most tolerant place on earth. People from all walks of life and many different viewpoints have been able to get along very well there-- up until a few years ago. What changed? Muslim extremists targeted filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 killing him and driving the Somalian-born female politician/screenwriter Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script for his anti-Islam film Submission, into virtual exile.

Suddenly tolerance (of Muslim radicals) became the thing most threatening to the continued policy of, well-- tolerance-- in Amsterdam. Which, again, shows that 'live and let live' tolerance is a wonderful thing... but it just can't apply to those who are extremely intolerant.

This can be one of those 'where do you draw the line' issues as well. A case like the above-mentioned is pretty clearcut. If a group (such as Muslim extremists) is willing to kill to prevent aspersions being cast on their beliefs then obviously they need to be neutralized somehow. Otherwise their mere presence becomes an inhibiting force. That just leaves finding a practical solution for how.

The only one I can think of would be to throw them out of the country and exercise 'extreme prejudice' if they try to return. This seems pretty intolerant, in the case of someone who has merely expressed radical views of intolerance, and probably would also be a serious violation of human rights as they are now perceived... but it seems justified to me in the case of real fanatics who are likely to take another's life because they express different beliefs.

Let me be clear. I don't dislike Muslims. I dislike extremists of any sort who would seek to harm others of different beliefs because they openly express those beliefs. I also abhor fanatics who would try to forcibly influence the opinions or actions of others even if they stop short of physically harming individuals.

In my opinion Christian extremists and those of the Radical Right pose almost as great a threat to human individuality and freedom because-- even though they don't advocate killing people for thinking differently (at least not openly, yet)-- in the long-term every action they take is designed to shoehorn the human spirit of freethinkers into the cramped and sorry box of their narrow mindedness.

So, tolerance is great: But I have zero tolerance for extreme intolerance.