Tolerance For Traitors?

Submitted by Bryan Taplits (United States), Aug 15, 2007 at 16:20

The litigation/media-hungry society we have descended into insists on portraying both sides of an argument as equally worthy of discussion-no matter how ludicrous the other side is.

It almost appears that politico-survival discussions have become a contest-with the media-lauded winner generally shouting the loudest that Constitutional Values have been violated.

Or when the media is involved-buying the best lunch.

It doesn't matter if the opposing argument has any merit: It is only important that the person who opposes the status quo seems sincere or outraged.

In effect, ostensibly moderate Islamo-fascists have gamed the system to achieve what Jeanne Kirkpatrick once called "moral equivalency". She used this phrase in the 80's to describe the USSR actions vis a vis. the actions of the US.

Soviet -Communist rhetoricians equated our values with theirs-because we both used the same words (eg "rule under law" or "free speech"). So, they concluded, we must be the same; the only difference being that they followed their own political-economic interests while we followed ours.

However, this was like arguing that ambulance chasers and district attorneys make equally valid and justifiable points. Thus, like defense attorneys defending clients who they know are guilty, hypocrisy dripped from Soviet lips like venom from the fangs of a snake.

In the context of Dr. Pipes column, Dr. Pipes reveals how our free-speech culture will not only help build the scaffold upon which the Islamo-fascists expect to hang Western Civilization; but also-if we don't wake up and identify the enemies who by their actions have already declared violent war against us-will use our tax moneys (and our tolerant culture) to fund schools that will teach our enemies how to knot the rope by which they hope to hang us!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".