The limits of tolerance: Tolerance of the intolerant

We are a tolerant lot, we Americans.  We live and die by the first amendment to our Constitution, our mantra of tolerance:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We cherish tolerance of any speech, tolerance of every religion, tolerance of actions of all kinds.  And as many urge, the more offensive the speech, the religion, the action, the more important that first amendment becomes.  The amendment would not be necessary if we all greed on everything.  It is necessary because we don’t.

We have laws that prohibit, require, or regulate all sorts of things.  But laws with regard to the establishment or prohibition of religion or speech, or the press:  There shall be none.

Are there any exceptions to the prohibition of making laws respecting the establishment of religion, speech, etc.?   Yes, of course.  Some religions, speech, or actions are so extreme, so threatening, dangerous, or destructive that laws are necessary.  Yelling “fire” in a crowded room is one.  How about “free speech” that threatens the life of someone?  How about a religion that believes in child sacrifice?  How about a religion that believes in mutilation of women as punishment?  How about a religion that threatens the lives of a whole group of people such as Jews and Christians?  How about a religion and speech that advocates and actively pursues the abolition of the first amendment?

Another area of exceptions revolves around the question of when a “religion” is no longer a religion and becomes something else, such as a seditious, subversive political system or ideology.  When is that line crossed?  Is it possible to be crossed as long as that “religion” continues to be self-proclaimed as a “religion.”  Can such “religion” be bifurcated into its religious portion and political portion like some attempt with Islam.  Or does the whole package need to be considered either one or the other?

The solution to this problem proclaimed by many is we ought to be able to say and promote almost any vile thing, as long as we don’t actually do it.  Oh, I get it.  Advocating and teaching doctrine that is threatening, dangerous, or destructive is ok (i.e. “protected”) as long as no one actually carries out the teaching.  So, if we have 3,000 mosques across the nation that contain 6,000 Muslim Imams advocating and teaching hundreds of thousands of Muslims threatening, dangerous, or destructive ideas, this is ok as long as, miracle of miracles, none from among these Muslim hoards actually carries out the actions they are taught and their “religion” mandates. 

Islam and its mosques in this nation are pushing the limits of our tolerance – pushing the envelope of our first amendment freedoms.  More and more people who are learning about the Islamic ideology wrapped in a religious cloak are realizing that it teaches, promotes and carries out doctrine that is threatening, dangerous, destructive, seditious, and subversive.  Many are coming to the realization that the first amendment should not protect that ideology.  Many have come to understand that the longer the first amendment is used as cover for the Islamic ideology,  the more certain the destruction of the first amendment, our freedoms, constitution and nation will be as a consequence.

As Lt. Col. Allen West poignantly declared:  

"We must realize that when tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide" 

Tolerance of the intolerant won’t lead to merely cultural suicide.  It will lead to suicide of religious liberties, freedom of expression, and every good thing embodied in our constitution.  Such tolerance demands the suicide of our nation.