[Editor’s note: The headline on this article, like all headlines on opinion essays, was crafted by Monitor editors, not the writer. Please click on the “Comments” section below to read a note by Stefan Simanowitz outlining his objections to the headline, which he feels does not reflect the tone or content or his article.]
He doesn’t mention that Islam is the biggest threat to the freedom of religion he so strongly advocates.
How about immigration along the lines of a free trade agreement? Immigrants are allowed only from countries that have similar acceptance of our culture and values? Loosely translated, for every mosque in the West, a church in the ME.
John Locke- “toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to … the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it.” Over 300 years on, this most basic tenet of European Enlightenment thought – the freedom of religious belief and practice – is increasingly under attack.
~Christian Science Monitor
Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92)
in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, John Locke formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance.
Three arguments are central:
(1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints;
(2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence;
(3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.
…………………………
All of the 3 points of intolerance are core to Islam(which means submission) in practice.
Tolerating the intolerant death cult of Islam was not on Locke’s mind when he wrote ‘Letters Concerning Toleration’ and CSM basing this article on Locke’s views ignores Locke’s true position.
I wonder if the people who tried to point out what could or would go wrong if Hitler got into power were called Nazis for their trouble.
$ FKA
Wonder no more.
“Paul Ausborn, a “man who heard voices”, who had fled Germany for Manitoba when they told him that Hitler would lead the world to war”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002435.html
The article lost my eyeballs the minute the author used ‘far-right’ I don’t read liberal ass-holes writing, and don’t care what they ‘feel’, as they sure as hell don’y think.
If a new Hitler were to rise up, would they still say we can’t fight back because it would remind people of the gas chambers that the new Hitler is going to use against us?
Ah, what does HE know? He only wrote it.
‘Crafted’??? I suppose there is a special BA course, Crafting Headlines 101.
The headline, incidentally, makes as much sense as ‘Liberation of Auschwitz prisoners make Allies complicit in genocide’.
go here for details- http://bankoran.com/?p=96
I suppose without the right ventilation, a burqa could be a sort of a gas chamber.
Seems a bit over the top, the burqa ban might more aptly be compared to “papers, please.”
But I think it makes sense in public areas where security is a legitimate concern. Since the terrorists have made it clear that includes almost everywhere, we have to respond in a rational way and take away this potential threat.
In our case, more selective immigration criteria might prevent the problem from developing, because so far we seem to have attracted very few burqa-wearing types. OTOH, perhaps the burqa should be required for all CBC news readers.
And how much of that religious freedom , freedom period did the muslims fight for in WWII or any other war for that matter?
Paul,
Muslims served on the Nazi side in WWII, in the SS.
The article’s author is a yellow-bellied lying crapweasel who can’t stand being called out on his own beliefs.
The author *himself* raises the specter of the Nazi gas chambers. He thinks he only *implies* that the French burqa ban is the first step toward that, even though it jumps right off the page at you. So when it’s called *out loud* in the headline for all to see, he squirms around saying “Oh no I didn’t really say that….”. He’s “enlightened”, you know, singing kumbaya around the campfire with the Muslims and probably still whispering (the man doesn’t have the courage to yell) “it’s all Bush’s fault” and all those Euro-socialist-weenie things.
Pathetic. You probably couldn’t rub two functioning brain cells together in that loser’s brain.
Anybody who uses the term “scapegoat” in an article like this is a leftist idiot. In one breath this genius warns of dire consequence from banning the burka (which is an offense against his very own views of women’s rights), in the next breath if asked he will surely support a 100% ban on firearms.
Therefore one may assume he thinks its is bad for government to ban things, except those things he doesn’t approve of.
Me, I think its a bad idea for government to ban the burka too. It gives them ideas.
I propose it would be sufficient to RETURN the right of shop keepers and private property owners to refuse access to burka wearers, a la “no shirt, no shoes, no service”. Serve them if they loose the tent, otherwise no.
We don’t need Big Brother to protect us from the scary dangerous tent-ladies, unless we have already lost all our rights to determine our own culture and control who enters our own property.
People who want to wear the tent can wear it at home. Maybe they can start tent colonies, the way weirdos have had nudist colonies all these years.
Governments don’t decide what Canadians will or won’t tolerate. WE DO.
Excellent post, Phantom.
I agree – awesome, Phantom.
‘Excellent post, Phantom.’ RSP – I will second that – you have ‘hit the nail on the head’, Phantom! Your post should be sent far and wide; you have articulated what many of us wish we had had the perception to say/write.
To paraphrase the great Kathy Shaidle: Moslems aren’t the ‘new Jews’, they’re the ‘new Nazis’.
Yup. Read the article. All the points I wanted to make have already been made by the SDA troop.
Oh, one thing I could add, notice the author relies on a piece of Hollywood film fluff to make his point. Gawd, these people are so out of touch with reality.
Phantom, you should put that up on your blog, on the masthead or whatever – you know, the “tagline” thingee. Like “Pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends” or Cjunk’s bit about the ruminants. It deserves immortality.
Ungulates.
“I suppose without the right ventilation, a burqa could be a sort of a gas chamber.”
Or perhaps some sort of “Dutch Oven”.
Thank y’all. ~:) I do go off once in a while, eh? I’ll take your advice and put that one up at The Soapbox.
The article is a piece of crap …. the human face of “Muslims as normal people…” may be a soothing image to embrace but it is no different than the efforts of 1930s Nazi appoligists to paint ordinary Germans as harmless … or pretty much all of the 20th century’s communist supporters and appologist efforts to portray the denizens of the USSR or China or Norht Korea as happy and willing and harmless participants in a great humanitarian movement.
It’s a fine line from ordinary member of a group that embraces totalitarian ideology to victim of the same… and a natural consequence. The main thing that needs to be understood is … those “ordinary” people within these societies span every aspect of those societies. From the hapless to the malicious. Indeed … those most malicous might also be accurately presented as “ordinary’ in some snapshot of day to day life.
They are all enabling a fundamentally evil ethos.
The other assertions about European openness and egalitarianism are just as much a load of crap.
Europe has simply been preoccupied with pretense of having a relevant culture for the last 60 years while embracing socialism and striving to bolster their egos against the reality of their ever deepening decline an corruption. Europe … in short is a shithole that attracts and sustains the very worst of humanity.