The long hoped for end of Tolerance

[_bcspace]

At least the Dutch have learned their lesson.....

From the left, a call to end the current Dutch notion of tolerance

Two weeks ago, the country's biggest left-wing political grouping, the Labor Party, which has responsibility for integration as a member of the coalition government led by the Christian Democrats, issued a position paper calling for the end of the failed model of Dutch "tolerance."

It came at the same time Nicolas Sarkozy was making a case in France for greater opportunities for minorities that also contained an admission that the French notion of equality "doesn't work anymore."

But there was a difference. If judged on the standard scale of caution in dealing with cultural clashes and Muslims' obligations to their new homes in Europe, the language of the Dutch position paper and Lilianne Ploumen, Labor's chairperson, was exceptional.

The paper said: "The mistake we can never repeat is stifling criticism of cultures and religions for reasons of tolerance."

The liberals were defeated in the last century. Why do we have to do this all over again? Liberals know nothing of history, it's implications, or lessons. Conservatives are too often found in a deep sleep, too late to defend this hard earned knowledge.

[_Bond James Bond]

The liberals were defeated in the last century. Why do we have to do this all over again? Liberals know nothing of history, it's implications, or lessons. Conservatives are too often found in a deep sleep, too late to defend this hard earned knowledge.

Are you kidding me? I think your definitions of liberal and conservative are skewed, considering the 20th century should be most noted for the defeat of conservative forms of government [first Monarchial Empires in WWI and Totalitarian forms of government both on the left [cold war] and right [WWII]] by liberal forms of government.

The whole story of modernity [whenever you want to mark the beginning of the Modern Era] has been that of a march towards more and more liberal forms of government and more and more liberal ideas within society as a whole.

[_bcspace]

Are you kidding me? I think your definitions of liberal and conservative are skewed, considering the 20th century should be most noted for the defeat of conservative forms of government [first Monarchial Empires in WWI and Totalitarian forms of government both on the left [cold war] and right [WWII]] by liberal forms of government.

You prove my point. Regan, Thatcher, Bush II, the defeat of Socialism in Russia, Latin America, India, etc.

The whole story of modernity [whenever you want to mark the beginning of the Modern Era] has been that of a march towards more and more liberal forms of government and more and more liberal ideas within society as a whole.

The definition of liberal changed in the 20th century where Republicans were the liberals early on. Go back to the early part of that century and today's conservatives would be called liberals.

[_Bond James Bond]

Are you kidding me? I think your definitions of liberal and conservative are skewed, considering the 20th century should be most noted for the defeat of conservative forms of government [first Monarchial Empires in WWI and Totalitarian forms of government both on the left [cold war] and right [WWII]] by liberal forms of government.

You prove my point. Regan, Thatcher, Bush II, the defeat of Socialism in Russia, Latin America, India, etc.

Yeah those are conservatives, but they're conservatives on the tiny part of the spectrum where mainstream Western parties fall. On the whole scale they're all liberals compared to the far extremes of Fascism and Leninism/Maoism on both sides of the spectrum where freedom is lessened in favor of control.

The whole story of modernity [whenever you want to mark the beginning of the Modern Era] has been that of a march towards more and more liberal forms of government and more and more liberal ideas within society as a whole.

The definition of liberal changed in the 20th century where Republicans were the liberals early on. Go back to the early part of that century and today's conservatives would be called liberals.

You're thinking of liberal in terms of American liberalism. Liberalism on the grand scale covers most forms of Constitutional democracies where freedom is favored over order. The triumph of Liberal Democracy over Control govt types such as Fascism/Stalinism shows that liberalism triumphed in the 20th century.

[_asbestosman]

At least the Dutch have learned their lesson.....

The Dutch have long been uneasy with Muslims and especially Turks. They used to tell Turkish ethnic jokes when I was there a decade ago. They also complained frequently about having so many refugees move in but fail to integrate into the Dutch culture--refusing to learn Dutch, etc. I almost could have sworn I was listening to white Americans complain about Latin-Americans, except that they condemned Americans for guns and for gas-guzzling automobiles.

[_Droopy]

You're thinking of liberal in terms of American liberalism. Liberalism on the grand scale covers most forms of Constitutional democracies where freedom is favored over order. The triumph of Liberal Democracy over Control govt types such as Fascism/Stalinism shows that liberalism triumphed in the 20th century.

Unfortunately, the triumph had been somewhat Pyhrric.

Real liberalism began unraveling in the 1920s under Wilson, and that unravel ling metastasized in the 1930s. The Great Society and the Nixon years continued the trend in another great wave, and the present election results could end in the United States moving to the left of western Europe in some fundamental areas.

The bad ideas never die. Socialism, collectivism, anti-capitalism, class envy, the desire to level individuality, have never been defeated, only held, in a relative manner, in abeyance.

[_JohnStuartMill]

At least the Dutch have learned their lesson.....

From the left, a call to end the current Dutch notion of tolerance

Two weeks ago, the country's biggest left-wing political grouping, the Labor Party, which has responsibility for integration as a member of the coalition government led by the Christian Democrats, issued a position paper calling for the end of the failed model of Dutch "tolerance."

It came at the same time Nicolas Sarkozy was making a case in France for greater opportunities for minorities that also contained an admission that the French notion of equality "doesn't work anymore."

But there was a difference. If judged on the standard scale of caution in dealing with cultural clashes and Muslims' obligations to their new homes in Europe, the language of the Dutch position paper and Lilianne Ploumen, Labor's chairperson, was exceptional.

The paper said: "The mistake we can never repeat is stifling criticism of cultures and religions for reasons of tolerance."

The liberals were defeated in the last century. Why do we have to do this all over again? Liberals know nothing of history, it's implications, or lessons. Conservatives are too often found in a deep sleep, too late to defend this hard earned knowledge.

This isn't the end of tolerance in the Netherlands, it's the end of cultural relativism, which is a very different idea. I agree that cultural relativism should go. Interestingly, this cultural relativism you rail against was picked up by the Mormons in their opposition to Proposition 8: they felt that their religious beliefs gave them a right to suspend their American civic duty to tolerate different beliefs. The most important analogy between Mormon political life and these Dutch happenings is unflattering to you, BCSpace: Mormons are like radical Muslims, because neither group wants to assimilate into a tolerant, pluralistic society.

[_moksha]

Conservatives are too often found in a deep sleep, too late to defend this hard earned knowledge.

No doubt dreaming of those Days of Yore, or perhaps just have too much oxycontin in their systems like Rush.

Is it really intolerance to keep a religious minority, that does not share your country's belief in Western Democratic ideals, from subverting centuries of your progress?

[_bcspace]

Is it really intolerance to keep a religious minority, that does not share your country's belief in Western Democratic ideals, from subverting centuries of your progress?

Yes. For example, their subversion is no longer tolerated. It was in the name of tolerance that these people were coddled in the first place.

"Tolerance" and "Discrimination" are words oft misused by the left because of the erroneous notion that all cultures/systems/philosophies have moral equivalence. There are many things which should not be tolerated and should be discriminated against.