Posted on 01/16/2007 3:21:14 PM PST by Wallace T.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." (Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies)
This quotation from Karl Popper, a British philosopher and professor of Austrian origin, and a mentor of leftist billionaire George Soros, was used as an introduction to a book by Chris Hedges, a New York Times correspondent, in his book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America, (2007, Simon and Shuster). The first chapter of the book is posted at the Simon and Shuster Web site, http://www.simonsays.com
Employing a left wing version of "McCarthyite" tactics, Hedges creates a myth of a dominionist cabal taking over the institutions of government much as, say, Robert Welch saw a massive Communist conspiracy doing so 40-50 years ago. Dominion theology or Reconstructionism is very much a minority opinion among conservative Calvinists, who in turn are a minority among evangelicals. Most leaders of the Christian Right, such as Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell, are not even Calvinists, much less advocates of dominion theology.
With proposals by Speaker Pelosi to restrict advocacy groups and by Congressman Kucinich to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, the direction the liberals want to take this country is evident.
They love confusion and chaos.
As you say. The one religion that offers real problems for constitutional democracy is Islam.
Classical Calvinism would seem to be problematic, too, since it leaves no place for free will. But in the first place it has no tradition of jihad. It leaves the reprobate to their fate, unlike Islam's attitude toward infidels, who must be converted, subdued, or destroyed. The closest Calvinism has come to being really oppressive was in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but that really only lasted for about a generation.
My experience among Evangelicals confirms what you say. The majority do not seem to be strict Calvinists, and those who are, such as some of my friends at Calvin College, still appear to be tolerant of the beliefs of others.
What you can be pretty sure of, however, is that the one religion these bigots won't venture to criticize is Islam.
Now hold on, I'm lactose Intolerant, and no amount of legislation will make me tolerate lactoses. I can't stand lactoses. I don't like what they stand for, how they act, or the way they try to push their loose life style on me.
I'm calling on Speaker Pelosi to immediately put a ban on Lactose immigration.
What is at issue is not the relationship of Calvinism to representative government and personal freedom but the false image liberals are attempting to portray of the Christian Right for the purpose of restricting first political, and then religious, speech. They seek to eviscerate the First Amendment to make such freedom subject to government censorship in matters deemed "hate speech" (e.g. Canada, Britain, Austria, and Sweden) in order to facilitate their agenda.
Your argument is really cheesy. :)
That is not the WHEY to sway my thinking, YOUGURT me?
This guy Hedges hasn't a clue as to who I am, nor why I'll never give any of his ilk more than a passing glance. (This is his.)
My conservatism doen't stem from weekly attendance at services of any sort. My love of country isn't seated in having served in our armed forces.
My belief is that unless enough of my fellow citizens are not willing to stand and defend the Constitution. his family, and his neighbors when they are threatened, we have lost the Freedoms that Mr. Hedges proclaims are being usurped by my fellow citizens who are simply exercising the rights guaranteed by that Constitution.
There's no more FASCISTIC or INTOLERANT group than the far left in this country. They and Hedges don't even have a clue what the definition of fascism is anyway.
Well said, hotshu.
Ok guys, stop milking the bad puns.
My COWorkers are all lactoses. The place is an UTTER disaster.
dairy ban punnin' goin' on here
I agree. These jokes are not GOUDAt all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.