Reply #26: OK, let's see if I can make a coherent argument, here.

[Ferretherder]

This is in response to several of the above posts, and not only to you, H2O Man.

My problem with all of this tolerance/intolerance stuff is this......

....where is that elusive line in the sand?; the point of no return?; that bridge too far?
Where does tolerance MEET intolerance?

If I take a contrary position on an issue, and passionately believe in the inherent 'moral rightness' of my position on said issue, what amount of compromise is 'sufficient' as being acceptable to those who would decry MY proclivity toward intolerance? (Please forgive the obvious 'over-the-top' analogies, but...) Where were the rest of the world's Jews supposed to 'meet' Hitler in there attempt to not appear to be 'intolerant' to 'The Final Solution'? Where were African-Americans supposed to mediate there views on racial equality to appease those who would cry 'reverse-intolerance' during the fight for civil rights legislation? Where......, well, you get the picture.

I know that many would say that the examples I sighted do not make a 'fair' comparison to what we are dealing with now - I say that they are fair in the sense that history has shown us the FOLLY of appeasement of totalitarians. And yes, THAT is what we are dealing with, here - a group of people in this country who, out of fear for their safety, or fear for their future financial security, or who knows what, have abrogated their rights and freedoms under the constitution they claim so vociferously to defend, to empower a MADMAN who claims to guarantee their security in exchange for those intolerable concessions.

I understand the concept of compromise, and attempt to practice it at every necessary occasion. What is eluding me in this case is - WHY should we attempt to 'seem' intolerant when we feel in our hearts that the core values of our principle global view are just,.....and right?