Just admit you misspoke.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Have a blessed day.

_________________

Well the church ignores it for the most part. There aren't radical bishops (or whatever) out there telling people it's ok to bomb subways because the OT. The closest you get to it are the abortion nuts, and they are almost entirely harmless.

Ok I misspoke but are we really going to debate semantics regarding what constitutes freedom and tolerance? If you are going to say they aren't the same thing then you are agreeing that it is ok to be intolerant. Isn't it ironic that the same guy that routinely defends groups such as Nazis is now the guy questioning whether freedom and tolerance are one and the same?

_________________

Just like moderate Muslims ignore the crap often spewed by groups like Isis and Al Queda.

_________________

Technically, having the freedom of and also from religion doesn't really guarantee it must be tolerated by the masses.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

So religious intolerance is sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution?

_________________

Free speech is sanctioned by the constitution. Sometimes that speech can be used to mock or deride religion as a concept, as an institution, or as an operating ideology. In pretty much all of those uses, such speech is protected from interference and sanction by the government, its agents and its actors.

If you wish to define "religious intolerance" as "mocking or deriding religion (or a particular religion) as a concept, as an institution, or as an operating ideology", then yes, the Constitution sanctions religious intolerance.

You need a quick refresher course on what constitutes tolerance. You aren't the only one. The same argument that you use to justify tolerance for Nazis can very easily be transferred over to Muslims.

_________________

I took a crack at defining religious intolerance, if you want to use a different one, then please lay it out explicitly. You asked a specific question on whether the constitution sanctions "religious intolerance" but seem hesitant to tell people what you mean.

Freedom from discrimination based upon one's religious beliefs definitely constitutes tolerance.

_________________

No and neither is intolerance. Depending on your definition of intolerance.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Ok, then, now we've got something. And no, in most cases, our constitution and resultant laws do not promote or sanction that brand of religious intolerance. There are, however, a few situations in which our government can lawfully discriminate along religious lines when making immigration law/policy.

Don't you have to use the same argument some use when trying to clearly define freedom of speech to people? That is many say the freedom is from government stopping your speech not an employer or private person for instance. Therefore, your freedom of and from religion must also be with the government. Therefore, the constitution does not mandate that any person or employer has to tolerate anyone else's religion.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

So then you're saying I don't have to tolerate somebody else's skin color right?

No I don't think I am. Speech and religion are probably different than existing. Unless of course you mean in your home. Then yes, the government cannot make you tolerate Nas in your home.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

It isn't ok to discriminate based upon one's religion. By tolerate I would need more clarity. There are MANY employers that tolerate religion. There are numerous employers that allow people of certain faiths to take off work due to their religion. Obviously in this particular instance they are tolerant of the religion. There isn't really any ambiguity about what constitutes intolerance either. If an employer chooses to not allow someone off because of a religious holiday that doesn't mean that they are intolerant. We know what constitutes intolerance.

_________________

Right.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Tell that to the American Indians. The US government suppressed traditional Indigenous religions, most ceremonial ways were banned for over 80 years by a series of US Federal laws that banned traditional sweat lodge and sun dance ceremonies.

This government persecution and prosecution continued until 1978 with the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA).


This idea of religious tolerance toward Muslims is bullshit, the same way the idea that the Muslims are going to infiltrate the US and execute a super secret, massive plan to eliminate us all and take over the world. It's all media political bullshit and you all keep eating it up like it's a T-Bone steak.

_________________

Some of you guys act like we haven't been living peacefully in the country alongside Muslims for a very long time. I say that to both sides of the spectrum. It is only post 9/11 that this discussion gets so amplified and all over the place.

For those on the left that claim that those against Islamist doing terrorist actions hate all Muslims do you see any people really trying to forcibly deport/evict Dearborn MI? Not really.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Yes but I'm not talking about in my home. Or anybody else's home. Nobody is. But you know that. What if I didn't want to bake Nas a cake or make him pizzas because he's balck.

Discussing active discrimination versus simple tolerance are two different things. My comments are only related to tolerance.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I agree, but I think you're trying to confuse the point. Nobody has or ever will (or shouldn't) contest your right to be a bigot in your own home. We're talking about in the general public.

Correct if you are referring to the historical fact that Nazism was a left wing Socialist party that is now trying to be portrayed as a right wing invention of some sort.

_________________

What?

_________________

_________________

Was able to read a chunk of the BuzzFeed piece, and I couldn't help but notice the times the author was trying desperately make Milo's alt-right guide a Really Big Deal That Will Change Everything.

The line trying to tie a recent Trump speech referencing symphonies (I'll forget for the moment how insane it is that now heralding the writing of symphonies by civilized societies is racist or jingoistic code) is galling in particular. Here we have the thinnest of threads trying to tie Trump directly to the words and rhetoric of the racists from whom Milo sourced his piece, being presented as fact with no corroborating information or caveat. The reader is lead to believe that not only are all these racists The Reason we have Trump in office, but Trump is taking cues from them on speeches...because he referenced symphonies, something that is so emblematic of an advanced and benevolent society that it is a core component of the most popular societal simulation video game of all time.

Stuff like that pisses me off, because there's plenty of materials in these emails to paint Milo as an egomaniac who can't be bothered to write his own drivel, but hatches schemes to make sure he gets the by-line. Expose Breitbart as the SB Nation of white supremacy who won't pay the ghostwriter of their big content a fraction of the revenue it generates, much less give him the credit. Anything other than trying to pretend that Trump has Weev over for fireside chats.

Well, parts of the alt-right like the Proud Boys have certainly tried to champion "Western civilization" and all that that entails, but one problem is that most alt-righters are uncultured rubes who think Aida was a sitcom on UPN. Another is that many classical composers were Jewish and/or gay.

_________________

Your ability to engage in legalese is impressive yet you're often times wrong. Religious intolerance isn't defined by things like mocking or derision. Religious intolerance involves discrimination based upon one's religion.

When the constitution speaks of religious freedom it directly relates to tolerance.

_________________

You also don't see Muslims from Dearborn, Michigan pontificating about "Death to America" and "Infidels" either. If you listen to Jorr and his numerous lies about Muslims you'd think that it is so intrinsic to their being that there's no way that an inverse could be true.

_________________