Toleration as an end in itself leads to a society with no shared values, no cohesion and a lot of hate. Toleration should be a means to achieve a fair and peaceful existence for a nations’ diverse peoples. But how should we apply this theory to the intolerant. Should we really tolerate those who, not only don’t share our opinions, but actively wish us harm. Don’t pretend that I am tarring all muslims with this brush. I fully recognise that the majority of muslims don’t feel this way. But what should we do with those who do. Deflecting attention away from the fact that these people actually do exist and instead pretending that, repugnant as they may be, Christian fundamentalists are just as big a danger, is cultural relativism at its worst.

Here is an article from the Times online. It discusses the effects of multiculturalism and its role in creating home-grown Islamo-fascism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article544443.ece

Wobbles

“The most detailed study yet of al- Qaeda supporters shows that the majority are middle-class with good jobs. Most are college-educated, usually in the West. Fewer than one in ten have been to religious school.”

The suggestion that all these men are rigidly puritanical in their adherence to muslim holy law is misleading to say the least.

“The London terrorists — like those in Madrid, Bali and New York before them — issued no warnings, made no demands, left no list of grievances. Four men simply sneaked on to three Tube trains and a bus and without a word created carnage. For them, terror was an end in itself, not a means to an end.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article544443.ece

The French Government clamped down on radical Islam in a way that no other country has. No mosque or Islamic prayer hall is off limits to police. Imams preaching hate are regularly deported. France stopped giving asylum to Islamic extremists wanted in their home country, and was disgusted when many of them were given refuge in Britain. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article548063.ece

We need to revisit integration as our policy for migrants.

Bushbred,

Now I know you are an old bloke but I am not going to let you get away with that one. I did not suggest that the saddamites are still active. What I asked was whether those soft left morons would actually give Iraq back to the saddamites. Surely you can see the difference.

The very idea that we went to Iraq to crush the Sunnis and rescue the Shia shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

>> “.. the Bush regime gets its way through Saddam’s Sunnis being forgiven in Iraq.”

Really do we need to send all Sunni Iraqis to The Hague for membership of Saddams nominal sect? Do we ignore Moqtadr al Sadyr and his Iranian funded Shia mates who want to reorder Iraq in a manner that favours the Iranians. Or should we just evacuate all the Sunnis and let Sadr at the Kurds? Should we ignore the Sunni groups fighting Egyptian, Syrian and Saudi fundamentalist trying to impose Sharia upon the more secular Iraqis.

>> “.. Egypt is not regarded as a terrorist Islamic nation.”

Oh yeah right!! Remember Mohhamed Atta. “According to the BBC, Mubarak has survived six assassination attempts. Mubarak is said to have authorized raids on The Islamic Group which by 1999 saw 20,000 persons placed in detention related to the revolutionary Islamic organizations. “

>>… the grisly style of terrorism that the Islamics are using in what might be called a justifiable fightback, has caused most of us Westerners to regard them as inhuman.

Justifiable fightback? You are insane. What was justifiable about killing 3000 innocent people on 9/11? What was justifiable about blowing up the London tube on 7/7? Were the people they killed responsible for any harm done to anyone?

Your white guilt and self hate make me wonder how you could ever have justified WW1 and WW2. Surely imperialist Britain and the Johnny-come-lately American crusaders started WW2 and inflicted defeat upon poor old Hitler ( who was really no different to all the other white imperialists). And of course Franco and Tojo were just misunderstood.

You have not given a decent answer, Paull, you are that full of yourself, you are another one who let the news last year from the Washington Post about the US gunship attacking the Shias instead of the Sunnis deliberately pass you by.

You only hear what you want to hear, Paull, like your belief that a nuclear Israel is good for the Middle East.

No one with any commonsense believes that, Paull, because it multiplies Islamic hatred against Israel a dozen times.

Thanks for responding, CJ. I agree about vigilance regarding all nuts, not just Muslims (I mean, Muslim nuts).

I agree that the reasonableness of requests for accommodation needs filling out – in terms of real inconvenience etc as you suggest.

I agree in acknowledging “other people’s rights to have points of view and beliefs that differ from our own”. The most dangerous people, I suspect, are those who don’t acknowledge this. People who are essentially undemocratic.

This is where Paul L’s point comes in, I think. Tolerance is good, I’d say, as an expression of respect for human beings. However, comes a time when we have to say “this is intolerable”.

Paul, CJ will speak for himself, but I don’t hear him saying that we should tolerate people who seek to harm us. This could be seen as simply a matter of law and order – which, for all I know, CJ supports.

I also don’t hear him say the Christian fundos are an equal danger. I think he’s saying there are many dangers, and that some forms of Christian fundamentalism need to be on the watch-list.

Faced with an array of dangers, I suppose it makes sense to prioritise them. I’d list them this way:

Global warming
………….
China
……….
Radical Islam
……….
Christian fundos
……….

The dots represent issues I haven’t thought of. Countless, no doubt. I don’t see Christianity as such a threat to peace as Islam, mainly because its doctrines tend away from temporal domination and support a distinction between Church and State. Christianity has to be distorted to become dangerous. By contrast, Islam seems to occur in a dangerous form fairly naturally. There are a few peaceable Koranic verses, but very few. I think this is what B_D has been trying to tell us all this time.

Happy to have my list improved on.

Paul, If it matters, I’m not a relativist. Actually a very dogmatic Christian. Just trying to be neighbourly, as instructed.

Pax,

Tolerance sounds good, but don't be surprised when the line gets crossed.

Are we, the great unwashed, now expected to accept the taking of more than one wife simultaneously, {as occurs within both Muslim and indigenous cultures)? Or the acceptance of marriage between grown men and newly pubescent girls(ditto)? Or institutionalised sexism? or anti homo-sexual beliefs? or FGM?

It's our intolerance of these more extreme(and usually illegal) practices that will see them disappear here in Oz, and not our tolerance of them.

It might seem to be splitting hairs, but I note that some recent posts gloss the quite critical distinction between "toleration" and "tolerance".

My Concise Macquarie Dictionary defines "tolerance" as:

"1. the disposition to be patient and fair towards those whose opinions or practices differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. the disposition to be patient and fair to opinions which are not one's own.

3. the ability to endure disagreeable circumstances."

"Toleration" is defined as:

"1. the tolerating, esp. of what is not actually approved; forbearance.

2. allowance, by a government, of the exercise of religions other than the one which is officially established or recognised; recognition of the right of private judgment in matters of faith and worship."

I was prompted to look at this distinction after reading Paul.L's latest spray and an article from the UK to which he linked. I've never heard the word "toleration" used in public discourse about these subjects in Australia, and it's quite easy to see why - unlike the UK Australia specifically does not have an "officially established or recognised" religion, and as such the notion of toleration doesn't apply.

The article's Muslim author laments the loss of British identity, and asserts that "Britishness has come to be defined simply as a toleration of difference". While I doubt that is the case to many Brits, Australian society and culture has always valued "tolerance" as defined above - notwithstanding a largely repressed racism that bubbles away below the level of polite discourse.

Paul.L asks "Should we really tolerate those who, not only don’t share our opinions, but actively wish us harm?" - to which the answer is, of course, no. That's why we have laws against people harming each other.

Thanks once again to goodthief, for injecting some balance and, indeed, tolerance into the debate. I quite like your prioritisation of the likely 'dangers' our society might face, although I have to say that I'm still somewhat more relaxed about them than you are.