The Art Of Offending

What was this thread about again? I forget.

Anyway, here is an interesting question: is a democracy entitled to extend political and social "toleration" to identity groups who do not themselves respect any notion of tolerance, democracy or civil rights as modern Western Civilization currently understands it? To put it another way, do you encourage people to operate within your borders who, if given half a chance, would like nothing better to overthrow your liberal, tolerant democracy and force everyone to conform to some strict, religious code? In effect, is tolerant democracy committing eventual suicide by allowing the existence of theocratic groups?

And lest someone accuse me of Islam bashing, I'm also wondering how many right-wing Christian groups in America could be lumped as threats to tolerant democracy

Salve, Ursus.

Anyway, here is an interesting question:

Actually, there are many interesting questions.

What was this thread about again? I forget.

It was about how the enforcement of minorities' respect can restrict the freedom of speech in Netherlands.

is a democracy entitled to extend political and social "toleration" to identity groups who do not themselves respect any notion of tolerance, democracy or civil rights as modern Western Civilization currently understands it?

Being a democracy is commendable from and fortunate for every nation, but it doesn't entitle such country any more than any other political regime to intervene in other countries' affairs.

To put it another way, do you encourage people to operate within your borders who, if given half a chance, would like nothing better to overthrow your liberal, tolerant democracy and force everyone to conform to some strict, religious code?

I would certainly not encourage such people, being their strict religious code Islamic, Christian or of any other kind.

However, I'm not sure if "respect" can be considered "encouraging". Holocaust denial is not forbidden in the US; is that "encouraging" such attitudes?

In effect, is tolerant democracy committing eventual suicide by allowing the existence of theocratic groups?

Theocracy is a form of government (ruled by or subject to religious authority). Strictly speaking, I don't think there can be by definition any "theocratic groups" within a democracy (ie, a government within another government).

Semantics aside, if any country (democratic or not) is really tolerant, it ought to tolerate intolerant groups, no matter how paradoxical might it sound. The real eventual suicide would be the end of tolerance. That doesn't mean such (or any) groups or individuals are exempted from keeping the law.

And lest someone accuse me of Islam bashing, I'm also wondering how many right-wing Christian groups in America could be lumped as threats to tolerant democracy.

Intolerance is not limited to any religious or un-religious group

To put it another way, do you encourage people to operate within your borders who, if given half a chance, would like nothing better to overthrow your liberal, tolerant democracy and force everyone to conform to some strict, religious code? In effect, is tolerant democracy committing eventual suicide by allowing the existence of theocratic groups?

 

And lest someone accuse me of Islam bashing, I'm also wondering how many right-wing Christian groups in America could be lumped as threats to tolerant democracy

The answer to this - at least, where Britain is concerned - is yes, we ARE encouraging people to operate in our borders who would like nothing better than to overthrow it. That does not apply to all religious followers of a certain faith - a lot of them would like our democratic system to continue, in the full knowledge that they will be tiptoed around, granted immense privileges and allowed to treat our country and institutions with the utmost contempt, because we are now too scared of them to do the slightest thing which might offend them or their religion.

Despite the fact that I am criticising a system of thought and nothing else, for some reason I have never worked out I am often silenced as a 'Right winger' or a 'Racist' for criticising this state of affairs. At least in America, the extremely unpleasent Christian Fundamentalist groups - and their critics - are multi - racial, therefore the fatuous slur of 'racist' cannot be applied to one group by another, and debate is more even as a result.

The answer to this - at least, where Britain is concerned - is yes, we ARE encouraging people to operate in our borders who would like nothing better than to overthrow it. That does not apply to all religious followers of a certain faith - a lot of them would like our democratic system to continue, in the full knowledge that they will be tiptoed around, granted immense privileges and allowed to treat our country and institutions with the utmost contempt, because we are now too scared of them to do the slightest thing which might offend them or their religion.

 

Despite the fact that I am criticising a system of thought and nothing else, for some reason I have never worked out I am often silenced as a 'Right winger' or a 'Racist' for criticising this state of affairs. At least in America, the extremely unpleasent Christian Fundamentalist groups - and their critics - are multi - racial, therefore the fatuous slur of 'racist' cannot be applied to one group by another, and debate is more even as a result.

Salve, NN.

I don't know if you're a 'Right winger'. Being that the case, that's you right; period.

The way you explain it, you're certainly not a "racist", not even a "religion-basher".

Ideally, what tolerance is all about is a society without minorities; nowadays real-world minorities deserve equality, not a special status.

Any of those who try to restrict our rights based on their own race, religion or any other personal or cultural characteristic are becoming bigots; defending ourselves from bigotry is not hatemongering.

It's just both-ways tolerance.

It's just both-ways tolerance.

In the spirit of the thread: Gerard Baker's Barak Obama: The Child - The Messiah - The Obamessiah

<Click Here>

And going back to humor, does anyone find this funny, compared to the New Yorker cover for instance?

It's just both-ways tolerance.

In the spirit of the thread: Gerard Baker's Barak Obama: The Child - The Messiah - The Obamessiah

<Click Here>

 

And going back to humor, does anyone find this funny, compared to the New Yorker cover for instance?

Gratiam habeo for that link, Faustus.

A nice piece of political humour without unrequired insults and with a quite sensible implicit critic on Sen Obama's campaign:

Yes, he can, but how? How is he going to keep his campaign promises?

It's just both-ways tolerance.

In the spirit of the thread: Gerard Baker's Barak Obama: The Child - The Messiah - The Obamessiah

<Click Here>

 

And going back to humor, does anyone find this funny, compared to the New Yorker cover for instance?

I found it funny in the beginning, but after a while it became repetitive and boring.

It's just both-ways tolerance.

In the spirit of the thread: Gerard Baker's Barak Obama: The Child - The Messiah - The Obamessiah

<Click Here>

 

And going back to humor, does anyone find this funny, compared to the New Yorker cover for instance?

I found it funny in the beginning, but after a while it became repetitive and boring.

Really Kosmo! I found humor in it, all the way to the final scene when Ob enters the plane with his studied grace and half-smile to hosannas of "yes we can!" Reactions may depend a lot on the extremes we have seen here in the media, or have not seen if outside the US.

BTW I also laughed out loud at the scene of "Bush The Ignorant" and the later scene of Bush, with action speeded up, looking a little like a Hitler giving a guided tour to dignitaries. (although I don't agree with it)

It's just both-ways tolerance.

Faustus

What about the Writer's Art? - You Still Can't Write About Muhammad