I am becoming annoyed by a self-righteous segment of American society that is demanding I become tolerant to actions of people I dislike. They are arrogant enough to believe that they should decide who I should tolerate and who I shouldn't. I should tolerate illegal immigrants draining our economy and Muslims that hate America, but be intolerant to anyone patriotic to God and country who defends America culture. And if I object, they label me a bigot, say I am ignorant, and try to force me to remain silent using hate laws. You will know if you are among this insipid annoying group if you are thinking at this moment that I am talking hate speech. The rest of you will think I am talking the truth.
Those that feel like me, probably the majority of Americans, understand the frustration of having to listen to sanctimonious dribble about loving everyone and embracing everyone's culture and religion as you do one's own. They understand that to dislike someone because of their lifestyle is not bigotry. They understand that if it is labeled bigotry by the self-righteous it does not automatically make it bad, or a bad thing. Disliking someone because of their religious practices is not bigotry or intolerance, it's exercising free choice. Likes and dislikes are what makes us individuals. Communist China bred a population of conformist, being told what to support and what to reject. Do we want to be like them?
Most people are afraid to be labeled a bigot, that is why these obnoxious people use the word "bigot" like a weapon. Using the word "hero" in a politically correct manner to describe everyone who works in public safety, like policemen and firefighters, devalues courageous actions of the truly heroic. Using the word "bigot" to describe anyone who is not politically correct, devalues the acts of the true bigot. Of course, the self-righteous don't see it that way but most of us do, even if we are personally horrified at being labeled one.
Take the proposal to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center within two blocks of the World Trade Center Memorial. Using the tolerance card does not work with me or the majority of Americans. The self-righteous, politically correct sections of our society were quick to accuse dissenters of bigotry. Much press was given to "educating" the population on tolerance. Even President Obama showed his true colors. But the American people have more sense than to accept the tolerance card - or the bigotry label. Americans know that saying no to something they dislike is not bigotry, even if it involves a religion or cultural group. And Americans know it is perfectly okay to hate a group of people that are trying to antagonize you, as in the case of those intent on building a mosque so close to the site of the Muslim atrocity. It is a Muslim group rubbing salt into an American wound. If they cared about America they would not do it. It is disrespectful and provoking hatred against them.
The self-righteous Americans that promote tolerance for those that antagonize us are stretching their credibility, and they have realized it with the mosque fiasco. Have you noticed the backpedaling? The tolerance crowd first used accusations of bigotry and racism to quell the debate. It was all over the liberal media. Now they are using the U.S. Constitution and the words of the Founding Fathers to reason for tolerance. Still trying to educate us to their way, when they are the one's needing to see the light.
There are some things a man should not be expected to tolerate and being forced to tolerate what he knows is wrong, is one of them.
If the self-righteous want to promote tolerance, they should rally behind efforts to stop the Muslim antagonism towards America.
That's what I think. What do you think?
*In addition, please take the time to read the following e-mail The People News received. By all research accounts, this e-mail is found to be true in nature. What you are about to read was one college professor's response to a Muslim group protesting the way a cartoon expressed Muhammad.
"The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.' Enter Professor Wichman.
In his e-mail on February 28, 2006, he said the following:
'Dear Moslem Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris, France. This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.' If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering'
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen. Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks."
Now... What do you think?