Tolerance--he said it better than me.

[catsittingstill]

There is a great essay about freedom and tolerance here.  I wish I had written it.  But I enjoyed reading it, so I forgive the author for making me jealous.

And a stray thought.  19 terrorists who were also Muslims (out of a group of about 10,000 al Quaeda members) destroyed the World Trade Center nine years and a smidge ago.  There's a diagram here.  There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.  1,500,000,000 minus 10,000 is 1,499,990,000.  If rounding to three significant figures is a reasonable first approximation, then to a reasonable first approximation, NONE of them were involved.   The terrorists disappear in the rounding error.  They stay in the rounding error until you get to the seventh significant figure.  It's weird to think like this--but it also makes me wonder why I haven't thought this way all along.

The diagram also makes clear why we would rather not be at war with Islam if we can avoid it.  Not to mention that a sizable chunk of us* are Muslim, which would make it all even harsher.

*Where I'm using "we" and "us" to mean Americans, and beg the indulgence of anyone I discomfit thereby.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes, he did come across as saying that. I don't understand why that makes him a complete ass, myself; many people have subjects on which they're not entirely reasonable.

But his point was (I thought) "Look, here's something I think is stupid and hurts the people who choose to do it, but I'm not advocating banning it because people should be as free as possible, even when that means making asses of themselves."

The fact that you don't think tattoos are stupid, in my opinion makes it a better example.

The problem with making the burqua illegal is that then those women who are forced to wear it will be confined to their houses. Better they should have the freedom of the world outside their door, even with a burqua, than be imprisoned completely, I think.

[kittyguitar.livejournal.com]

On this I entirely agree with you. I want those women in the mall shopping for nice comfy shoes, in the library picking up books to read, and on the city bus taking their little daughters to school. I want them turning out with their families to watch fireworks and parades. I want them strolling in the Public Gardens and going down to the waterfront to watch boats go by. I want them out there enjoying life the way I enjoy life, beacause they are my sister humans.

In addition, though, I also think a right is only meaningful when the opposite right exists.face and body under metres and metres of cloth--but telling me I can't even if I want to isn't defending or protecting my right to choose my mode of dress, it's saying, "You can only have this right as long as you don't use it in ways we don't like." This demotes it from an actual RIGHT to a removable privilege, which can then be removed from other people too. (Something I don't have a problem with in the case of gun ownership, but that's a different matter.)


Besides, I am reserving my own right to wear a full-face covering just in case I'm ever in a horrible disfiguring accident.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

I also think a right is only meaningful when the opposite right exists.

Yes! I knew somebody else out there would understand this without needing it to be explained.