Ground Zero Mosque - Tolerance, Racism or Comedy?

It's the perfect storm! Either way, I didn't hear no bell. Fights still on as far as I'm concerned. Its all for F,un A,nd G,ames anyway. - Oni

If Richard Dawkins tried to open a sex shop next to a prominent Baptist church in Atlanta, GA do you think christians would just laugh it off as Dawkins trying to promote religious tolerance?Just look at the christian film coming out in the near future. They demonize a fictional atheist for making people take down religious signage at City Hall. Personally, I believe all humor should contain a large dose of self-deprecation. A good roast allows insults to flow both ways. I really don't see that here.

Christians:Acceptable group to be intolerant to from liberals.Muslims:Acceptable group to be intolerant to by Christians.Hmmmm.....

I am unaware of zoning restrictions in Atlanta, nor do i see how a sex shop promotes religious tolerance.As someone who prefesses that they are Roman Catholic repeatedly here, why would I have a clue what baptists may think?

Those seem to be rather sweeping generalizations.

Sometimes generalizations are true.Such as when many liberals react to white conservative Christians (Sarah Palin for example), and the Christians opposing Park 51 and other Community Centers across the nation.

I suspect that most liberals are not intolerant of Christians - in fact, most US liberals probably are Christians.Similarly, I suspect that most Christians are not intolerant of Muslims. Indeed, tolerance of others is usually considered a Christian attribute. As far as I know, the reaction of liberals to Sarah Palin has very little to do with her being a white conservative Christian, and has a great deal to do with her being profoundly ignorant.

Intolerant of conservative Christians is rampant among liberals. Of course they'll never admit to it. Oh no? Then why are they protesting new community centers built in different parts of the nation? Protesting means they don't want that built there. That's intolerance period.

That's not my experience. As far as I know, most of the people I work with are liberals, and they are very tolerant folk.I'll grant that they are intolerant of in-your-face conservative Christians. But that's a very small proportion of conservative Christians. Most of them are not protesting.

That would be intolerance of jerks. The fact that Palin and many of the protesters are white and Christian has nothing to do with it. You might s well complain that liberals are intolerant of women called Sarah and people with placards. No, just jerks. Some of whom are called Sarah and/or have placards.

Then show me how they're intolerant of other kinds of jerks that don't happen to be like Sarah Palin and are indeed members of their own party. Show me they don't use generalizations as well. Of course, they'll never admit to it.When Hillary was using the race card against Obama during the President elect campaign, at least to my knowledge, they didn't go en masse to her and tell her she was being a Jerk.I see a lot of generalizations of the Tea Party because there was one or two racists among them who were vocal. Now they're all racists. not just a select few of them being jerks.Some people didn't like Park 51 and felt it was too close to home and was about manners and common courtesy they just wanted some time and didn't want to be reminded of 911. They were willing to compromise with a two block location. Each and every single one of these people were called Islamaphobes by liberals. Where were the liberals to call these people who were calling those opposed to the community center Islamaphobes calling them Jerks?I don't see it. I never see it. I always see the claim of "they're just calling out the jerks" but that's simply not true.And no liberal will ever admit to their own bigotries and prejudices. Ever. Nobody with these kinds of prejudices and bigotries ever see themselves as a bigot or prejudiced. Ever. And nothing will ever convince them otherwise, and will always use rationales like "oh we just don't like jerks". But they never use the term "I wish these particular people would stop being jerks". It's always "OMFG, all of these people are racists and [x]ophobes". And never just a few select members of the group unless it is a high profile person like Sarah Palin.Morality must be applied evenly and across the board or it ceases to become morality and instead becomes double standards and special privileges, or even selective morality.If one form of bigotry and racism and prejudice is wrong, then they should all be wrong, and one shouldn't be selective.Here are just a few examples from videos:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsmOP1Gh1V8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMPS8CATQzshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bky2SGrmC8gRemember, these videos all show a lot of generalizations as well. Where are the people telling them to not be so general and stop it with the name calling and stop it with the bigotry?All Republicans are racists! Sarah Palin is a racist!For me there is only one true way to take the moral high ground. If you find a certain behavior deplorable, don't do it. Because I can't see any difference between two different people doing the same kinds of behavior even though they use a different rationalization to justify their behavior.And yes, I know, this will seem hypocritical to some as well, but I don't much care what people think of me.

Come on now.I try to speak out against all the jerks I find across the spectrum

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Many liberals are pretty pissed off at the Democrats right now. As they see it, the last election gave the Dems an excellent opportunity to make the kind of change that Obama had campaigned for. But, instead, they squandered their election win and got bogged down in intra-party squabbling and kowtowing to lobbyists. What you are reading in your tea leaves is very different from what I am reading in my tea leaves (or maybe it is coffee grounds or beer dregs).As I see it, Hillary had the nomination pretty much sown up. In particular, she would have received a large proportion of the black vote. Bill Clinton has been called "the first black president" because of what he did in his presidency. Black voters tend to be pretty loyal, and many would have voted for Hillary in a sense of gratitude. But when her campaign started using the race card, she lost that loyalty support. That sure seems as if it would count as a way to "go en masse to her and tell her she was being a Jerk."

Do you mean it will seem hypocritical because you are using ridiculous absolutes and overly broad generalizations to condemn ridiculous absolutes and overly broad generalizations?Hmm...All I can say is, for me there is only one true way to take the moral high ground. If you find a certain behavior deplorable, don't do it.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Thank you for your petulant and inaccurate generalizations. The amusing impudence of your hypocrisy has brightened my day.Here's a thought for you: You, by that token, appear to be standing in what can be best described as a moral pit. And you're digging. How very fortunate for you. And for anyone with a sense of humor who happens to encounter you.