Religious tolerance is a two-way street
Constitutional rights and religious tolerance are the arguments being tossed back at detractors of the Islamic mosque planned near Ground Zero.
In general practice, I certainly don’t have a problem with the various religions out there. If someone wants to be a Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Catholic, or belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, good for them. However, the high volume of instances of violence or threats by particular Muslims make me view Islam slightly differently.
Indeed, you’re going to have a crazy or three in any religion that will attack anyone that mocks or disapproves of their particular religion.
However, take a look at Theo van Gogh. He wrote some not-so-nice stuff about the religion, and what happens? A Muslim murders him.
Kurt Westergaard illustrated the Jyllands-Posten cartoon depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb in his turban. His reward? Nothing but an attempted murder by a Muslim.
Then of course there is Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who were “warned” by Abu al Amerikee that the airing of the episode of South Park depicting Muhammad wearing a bear suit could result in violence leveled against them, in fact referencing the murder of Theo van Gogh.
There are also cases where Islamic groups have filed civil suits or petitioned various governments to press charges under “hate crime” laws — a clear violation of the principals of free speech.
It would be incorrect for me to say that all Muslims are violent; I’ve had interactions with a few and lunch with one that have proven they are not. However, it seems that the ratio of violent vs. non-violent Islamic members is greater than for those of other religions.
Religious tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a religion should be tolerant of others in order to deserve tolerance. That applies for any religion.
