web analytics

WHY I’M AGAINST TOLERANCE….

By ATWadmin On December 8th, 2006

I’m against tolerance for the sake of tolerance and I profoundly differ with UK PM Tony Blair when he claims that tolerance is "what makes Britain" and that "we must be ready to defend this attitude"  Blair was cautiously suggesting that there is….

"…… new and virulent form of ideology associated with a minority of our Muslim community. It is not a problem with Britons of Hindu, Afro-Caribbean, Chinese or Polish origin. Nor is it a problem with the majority of the Muslim community."

He doesn’t specify what sort of size this "minority" might be because he daren’t. You can all guess why. It’s a BIG minority and Blair and the rest of the establishment are running scared of that statistic.

Blair waffles on about how multiculturalism isn’t dead – yet. Fine. It can survive – but Britain can’t unless we utterly reject the multiculti article of faith that liberals desperately still espouse! Islam is incompatible with democracy, but Blair avoids this harsh truth. Better to pretend it’s all about being nice to each other and being oh-so-tolerant. Well, I have no tolerance for Jihadists, for their evil gospel of terrorism and for those fools who deny this exists. Neither should you.

37 Responses to “WHY I’M AGAINST TOLERANCE….”

  1. Why I am for it – Tolerance does not mean acceptance or condoning a particular practice or view. It has its breaking point when a society is asked to tolerate an intolerance that is a clear wrong, which a society sets the standard for itself. That is the measure of its level of tolerance. As an absolute, it is ridiculous. As a reasonable goal it is beneficial.

  2. It’s what we become tolerant of that is at issue. Blair still hankers for multiculti mush, won’t work.

  3. Unless it’s a two-way street then it is simply weakness and should be called by its name.

    It wasn’t tolerance that prevented most of the western media from publishing the Danish cartoons. They were afraid.

    Leaving Islam aside the case for tolerance was won years ago.

    It means that you accept your gay son or show up to your sisters wedding to a Protestant. Or invite the black couple down the road to a dinner party.

    For the vast majority of people it’s a no-brainer. But staying silent through fear is a different thing.

  4. I agree that it is what we become tolerant of is an issue. It is a matter of degree.

  5. Is it fair to say that Islam is incompatible with democracy ?

    Fiji just had a military coup – Christian country
    Greece – Christian country – history of problems with democracy
    Spain and Portugal – Christian countries – history of problems with democracy

    Turkey is a Muslim country and as the Christian Science Monitor points out, Indonesia is making progress.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0728/p08s03-cojh.html

    Myself I’d say that religious extremism of any sort is incompatible with democracy. Render unto Caesar is a good lesson.

  6. >>it means that you accept your gay son or show up to your sisters wedding to a Protestant. Or invite the black couple down the road to a dinner party.<<

    Or accepting your straight son or showing up to your sisters wedding to a Catholic, or inviting the white couple down the road to a dinner party.

    You see, I’m gay, Protestant and black.

  7. Cunningham

    Exactly. A two-way street.

  8. Cunningham,

    I didn’t know you were Protestant.

  9. Alan: Will you now be withdrawing your dinner invitation?

  10. Mahons,

    Nah, I’ll just drop the fish!

  11. Well if Cunningham is to be believed, don’t bend over to pick it up.

  12. LOL!

    >>I’ll just drop the fish!> Heh??

    >>I didn’t know you were Protestant<<

    Hardly. As the man said, I may have lost my faith, but not my self-respect!

  13. Cunningham: "As if they’d have you!" to quote from The Quiet Man.

  14. Cunningham,

    Ever since Aileen asked me about a particular phrase I used, I’ve been thinking about (and writing in support of) the following quote:

    England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
    –George Bernard Shaw

  15. Right, Alan.

    And nothing sustains ethnic loathing as well as a common language. It’s like a bad marriage; each side fully appreciates every nuance of insult aimed at it. see Bosnia, Iraq, but surely no better example than Northern Ireland.

  16. Bosnia, Iraq and Northern Ireland: Things best viewed from afar.

  17. As with some bad marriages.

  18. Actually I am not being fair. I’ve been to NI and enjoyed it very much. Too many people avoid going there because of the hype, but it had so many beautiful spots and the people I encountered were all very friendly.

  19. Was k=just reading about GBS:

    <Q>Shaw once wrote a friendly letter to Mabel McConnell, then his secretary, rebuking her for instilling anti-Protestant and anti-British sentiments in her son.
    "You must be," he said, "a wicked devil to load a child’s innocent soul with a burden of old hatreds and rancors that Ireland is sick of." Mabel’s married name was FitzGerald, her husband became a Government Minister and she had a son called Garret … </Q>

    From a review in Irish independent buy Brian Lynch of
    Bernard Shaw: A Life By A.M. Gibbs,University Press of Florida.

  20. Hmmmm… something new and interesting! .

    >>anti-Protestant and anti-British sentiments <<

    Doubtful. While Mabel was anti-British to the core, she was, like many good Irish republicans of her day, also a Protestant; of Ulster Protestant Unionist stock in her case..

    Both Mabel and her husband Desmond fought in the GPO in Easter Week.

    Later she "stood be" DeValera, whereas Dessie was a leading Free Stater. The breakfast table in the Fitzgerald household was therefore like the Civil War in miniature.

    When their son became Taoiseach, he thought his lineage – plus the fact that he married the daughter of some British Army brass – meant he was well placed to promote reconciliation between the Civil War traditions as well as the religious and political traditions in Ireland.

  21. mahons wrote:

    "As an absolute, it is ridiculous."

    Jesus didn’t seem to think so. As an absolute it is pacifism. Not something I believe in myself but I do not think it is ridiculous.

  22. Why does being born protestant rule out anti-protestant behaviour ? By marrying Fitzgerald she had cut herself off from her roots. Those who cross the divide usually become very extreme – such as the RC members of the UDA in Larne or Ronnie Bunting.

  23. David

    I think Blair and his party are gradually moving away from multi-culturalism in favour of an integratonist approach. The slaughter of 7/7 has led to a re-think, but it will take time for the old orthodoxy to be replaced – perhaps five years – and of course sharia-junkies like Livingstone will never change their stance.

    Watch out for a huge bust-up on the left when this split becomes obvious.

  24. That report of the Shaw letter doesn’t ring true.
    Maybe he was being flippant. Also it’s hard to imagine how anti-religious sentiment (no-one accused her of anti-protestant behaviour) would upset Shaw, who was an atheist.

    Mabel also kept her religion all her life, as far as I know.

    >>By marrying Fitzgerald she had cut herself off from her roots. <<

    Actually, Ive just checked and she was an Ulster Presbyterian, So by becoming an Irish Republican she was rediscovering her deeper roots.

  25. "Bosnia, Iraq and Northern Ireland: Things best viewed from afar"

    Alan not the most tactful of comments to make on a blog where your host is N Irish and a significant proportion of the contributers are too.

  26. Re the topic. It doesn’t make much sence to me to be opposed to tolerance. Whether it is negative or positive depends on that the issue at hand is.

    My default is to be tolerant of thimgs. Partly because my only desire to control others is the degree to which it stops them controling me, partly laziness as it takes effort and energy not to be tolerant. I suppose that is why I am not that keen on the concept of a Bill of Rights. The default should be that you can do what you like, with specified exceptions. So all that is needed is to sppecifiy what you can;t do. Everything else is fair game.

    Thinking about it there are things that

    people shouldn’t be allowed to do
    people shouldn’t do
    I wish people wouldn’t do
    I don’t care one way are the other
    I wish people would do
    people should do
    people should be compelled to do

    I can’t think of much that goes in the last category that isn’t reall better expressed and refraining from some thing and it therefore in the first category. I wonder if we came up with a list of things. Would the categories that each of us put them into be the crux of defining our politics?

  27. <Q>So by becoming an Irish Republican she was rediscovering her deeper roots.</Q>

    So very wrong. You folks have been fed this lie about Tone ( who was Church of Ireland) and the Presbyterian United Irishmen being ecumenists – they ABHORRED the Catholicism that was the basis of 1916. The Catholicising of nationalism was why presbyerians ( Edit – typo, Presbyterians) moved into the "Unionist " camp.

  28. My apologies for hurting your feelings, Aileen, but people have been leaving NI for decades. We still have the Irish Children’s Program here each summer "to give your wee’uns relief from sectarian strife."

    And, MR, are "presbyerians" those few Presbyterians who drink alcohol?

  29. I don’t know what it’s like in the USA Alan, But I’ve not noticed any difference in temperance levels between Presbyterians and Anglicans here 🙂

  30. Presbyterians tend to hide it more than we do though ;o)

  31. Even though I have a grudge against them, even I’ll admit that Presbyterians are just good, honest normal folks !

  32. Inside every Presbyterian is a muslim trying to get out.

  33. <Q>Inside every Presbyterian is a muslim trying to get out.</Q>

    They’ll eat ANYTHING !

  34. MR,

    LOL!

    By the way…have you seen this?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6218698.stm

    🙂

  35. ROFL Frank – that’s another one into the Plastics debit column!

  36. In the name of tolerance, should the proposed new Sexual Equality regulations go through, designed to make it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods or services? The government has a list of recommended books for secondary schools including "Strange Boy", about a 10-year old boy who has a homosexual relationship with a 14-year old boy – the language is sexually explicit. Schools can currently refuse to use them, but if these new regulations go through, litigious homosexual rights groups will be able to demand that these refusals be stopped so that books like this are promoted in schools. This is the practical outworking of tolerance at the moment – if you don’t want it (or if you do…) tell the government – use writetothem.com.

  37. Frank: Now you are quoting me in the same paragraph as the Son of God? Lofty company.