Hypocrisy in the left's definition of 'tolerance'

Aaron Gee
Commentators have noted the hypocrisy of those that claim that "sensitivity" has no place in the decision to build a Islamic center 2 blocks from ground zero, for them this is a constitutional issue.  Many of those same pundits also think it is paramount to consider the "sensitivity" of some people if Glenn Beck chooses to exercise his first amendment rights.  When Mr. Beck chooses a date for practical reasons, he is lambasted as being insensitive and told that he should move his event.  His fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren had this to say on her blog;

"Yes he has a First Amendment right to do it...but what about the wisdom of it?  Glenn should move his event. It does not help heal the country on so many fronts if we poke a stick in eyes."

Isn't this the same argument used by those that opposed the building of the ground zero Islamic center?  An argument, not over constitutionality, but of propriety?  This raises an interesting question.  Why do liberal believe that some people's feelings have more merit and carry more weight than others?  If we follow the liberal narrative, Americans that are offended that Beck holds an event on the same date that King spoke count more than the Beck's first amendment rights.  On the other hand Americans offended by an Islamic Center 2 blocks from ground zero are to be ignored. 


The left in America has long held an excruciatingly painful view of tolerance.  Examples that typify the lefts tolerant behavior include
suing a school for a student-led prayer or asking a park to tear down a cross in the dessert.  Another prominent example of liberal tolerance includes going after municipalities over Christmas displays.  This "tolerance by lawsuit" has a chilling effect on other organizations both public and private due to the cost associated with defending such a suit, even if they win.  For the liberal faithful, tolerance means legally attack those with whom you disagree and find deep offense in any action or word uttered by a political opponent.  Contrast that with the words of Martin Luther King;

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

For the practitioners of victimology and grievance politics, King's dream is deadly.  If we hold these truth's to be self-evident, then special privilege should be given to no person.  That strikes at the heart of the leftist coalition, which is held together by common goal of extending special benefits to small groups of "grieved" parties.  It also strikes at the heart of politics as usual.  When American's stop vying to be politically favored over their fellow American, they will start voting for smaller government, as opposed to politicians that "bring home the bacon".  Beck is on the forefront of the smaller government movement, and it is that reality, not the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's famous speech, that offends leftists most.
Commentators have noted the hypocrisy of those that claim that "sensitivity" has no place in the decision to build a Islamic center 2 blocks from ground zero, for them this is a constitutional issue.  Many of those same pundits also think it is paramount to consider the "sensitivity" of some people if Glenn Beck chooses to exercise his first amendment rights.  When Mr. Beck chooses a date for practical reasons, he is lambasted as being insensitive and told that he should move his event.  His fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren had this to say on her blog;

"Yes he has a First Amendment right to do it...but what about the wisdom of it?  Glenn should move his event. It does not help heal the country on so many fronts if we poke a stick in eyes."

Isn't this the same argument used by those that opposed the building of the ground zero Islamic center?  An argument, not over constitutionality, but of propriety?  This raises an interesting question.  Why do liberal believe that some people's feelings have more merit and carry more weight than others?  If we follow the liberal narrative, Americans that are offended that Beck holds an event on the same date that King spoke count more than the Beck's first amendment rights.  On the other hand Americans offended by an Islamic Center 2 blocks from ground zero are to be ignored. 


The left in America has long held an excruciatingly painful view of tolerance.  Examples that typify the lefts tolerant behavior include
suing a school for a student-led prayer or asking a park to tear down a cross in the dessert.  Another prominent example of liberal tolerance includes going after municipalities over Christmas displays.  This "tolerance by lawsuit" has a chilling effect on other organizations both public and private due to the cost associated with defending such a suit, even if they win.  For the liberal faithful, tolerance means legally attack those with whom you disagree and find deep offense in any action or word uttered by a political opponent.  Contrast that with the words of Martin Luther King;

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

For the practitioners of victimology and grievance politics, King's dream is deadly.  If we hold these truth's to be self-evident, then special privilege should be given to no person.  That strikes at the heart of the leftist coalition, which is held together by common goal of extending special benefits to small groups of "grieved" parties.  It also strikes at the heart of politics as usual.  When American's stop vying to be politically favored over their fellow American, they will start voting for smaller government, as opposed to politicians that "bring home the bacon".  Beck is on the forefront of the smaller government movement, and it is that reality, not the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's famous speech, that offends leftists most.