Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science.” –Al Gore

William Dembski
May 21, 2007
Intelligent Design, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here is a quote from Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason (I took it from the excerpt from his book in the current Time Magazine):

In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

In writing this, Gore no doubt is thinking about protecting his views on global warming and the environment from criticism. But I expect his intolerance of any attacks on reason, as he understands reason, will apply as well against intelligent design. From the Time Magazine excerpt, Gore comes across as an Enlightenment rationalist who, in the best Jacobin style, won’t tolerate any challenge to his conception of reason.

Gore seems to miss the irony in all this. He bemoans Bush’s intolerance of terrorism and Bush’s willingness to use torture to bring terrorists to heel, and yet is ready to be intolerant of anyone who violates his “rule of reason.” Question: Which would you rather live under: intolerance of terrorism or intolerance of the rule of reason?

Comments
Jared. I see that like your ideological cohorts here, you've taken moral relativism to a high art form. Nothing is for certain except that which you happen not to like at any given moment. Are cops then evil--due to the fact they have to use guns once in a while? Are they the moral equal of those who throw bricks through shop windows and burn things down in Seattle every time a group of bankers comes to town? This kind of passion will not save us. Remember that Paul was a subject to Rome, which later went on to vanquish the barbarians and turn Europe from a group of hooting half-naked warriors into a place where men actually thought things through. This was later called Pax Romana. Regardless of their faults--and there were many--Rome more than any nation-state in history was the best example of how to both succeed, and later, FAIL, at defending a civilization from encroachments that allowed for the flourishing of law and art and the beginnings of science. Law and order are not incurred out of retreating from the primitives of the planet so as not to hurt their feelings. Theologian Francis Shaefer was once pestered on live TV years ago by Phil Donahue, about this same kind of "contradiction" in Christian love--that isn't one. Donahue waddled over toying with the microphone as he is want to do and asked if since Christ forgave the woman at the well, would he stand back and let some assailant clunk someone on the head if he had the ability to do something about it--or would he simply declare "be well, my son, and go in God's love." Shaefer chuckled and said of course he'd find the nearest shovel and pop the guy, if he could. Forgiveness is not the same as letting wild beasts run the streets and by extension run the world. Context is everything. We are not immune from paying our debts to society for ill behavior, after all. What about the international front? “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” – Hamas Charter “The Jews are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment. There is no solution to the conflict except with the disappearance of Israel. Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute. Death to America. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don’t be shy about it.” – Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah Is there....some other writing on the wall that will help us take the hint any better....? And is the world really under the laughable impression that the Palestine Peace Brigades and their allies have given up certain goals? And since we're their allies, of course this comes to us, so should we just "leave them alone" to their "own affairs" getting busy with the fun of wiping Jews off the earth. Whatever happened to....."Men will stop committing atrocities when men stop believing in absurdities."? --Voltaire You must also know that one definition of hell is the absence of such clear reasoning. This is not a game. And I see no reason to homage to primitives offering their members getting serviced by 72 hot teenage chicks in return for turning Jews into chop suey with yet another bus bomb. If that makes me a sinner, then I hereby confess my sin and my weakness at wanting to stay alive on a planet free from such nuttiness. Do you even wonder, Jared, why despite sharp differences in culture and beliefs, the US never has reason to launch invasions of Sweden and France or Canada or Brazil? Could it be that certain convictions from 10th century clerics promising jihad, and telling the world that Jews are monkeys and pigs and promising blood for all who disagree has more than a passing moment of causation in all this? I think the religion of Peace has showered us with quite enough favors for one century. Oh by the way, you might use a handy measuring stick to "take the temperature" of the current climate here on this side of the pond. Since you think links have the answers, you might gander at some rather disturbing news from that one. But let me guess--it's not THEIR fault. It's ours. Right? "We" made them "have" this attitude? I wonder why it is fruit flies are said to have free will but the Muslim community reacts like a sock puppet only to the preachments of George W. Bush or Al Jazeera? I agree of course with your link that the Left--both religious and secular--thinks inanimate objects and actions in response to things done is the primary source of trouble in the world. Ban guns and ban responses, let the terrorists have their playground and they'll be satiated. This is nothing new. Women have even been accused by their attackers for merely being on the wrong street of looking provocative. So the fact that we get nailed for causing all the proximate ills of others is no surprise. In international affairs both apostate and some mainline churches certainly have this flavor opinion, as yet another link you provided seems to indicate. Everything is America's fault for not showing Simon purity and solving someone's else's hunger or war issues. Mockery is nothing new, but mockery of the president for his religious convictions (by other religious types) that spurs action IS interesting from this crowd, since social activism in other areas is something they have little issue with. Does political philosophy have no bearing on the world at large? Thus for example poor Mr. Cho, who railed against rich people "dissing" him and decadent culture (say.....sounds like a secular leftist, eh?) found some reason besides himself for killing others at VT. Of course, we--and the "gun culture"--and nothing else, are to blame. And yet, he did his killing in a "gun free" zone, as so many are. I told you, Jared, the world can be a very counter-intuitive place. It's not about "blood lust" any more than if you have some uninvited bozo holding a gas can and threatening your home. Would you not call the cops? And if so--are they not allowed to bring guns if he doesn't stand down and agree to meet with the local loony ward? And you need not call me "sir". That's my father's title. Just call me "Wake" for short. That's what friends call me, after all. Best Wishes, -WakeS Wakefield Tolbert
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
My dear achilles heel, what do I have to do to have you and Jared read the posts? You said: He patently does not. Mr. Tolbert, in trying to defend these statements, you cite failures of both the Bush and Clinton administrations in combating terrorism, and as for Carter and Gore, you cite different approaches in combating terrorism, whether we agree with them or not. Of course you cannot cite anywhere where Gore suggests we should tolerate terrorism, because he has never suggested that and doesn’t feel that way. I’m afraid I’m beginning to suspect that this entire post is simply an attempt to stir up Gore-hating reactionaries, who somehow seem to be a large part of the base support for intelligent design, for some reason. You are free to suspect anything you like, including the conspiracy that like Chris Mooney said, there is a conservative "war on science". But back to the point at hand, I said, (and not needing to make citations for things never said): "I would not say that Gore has framed this as saying that terrorism is not a concern or that he suggests we should “tolerate” it, but actions and obsessions DO speak to one’s priorities. And in fact many of Gore’s ideology do in point of fact think that negotiation, the UN’s brilliance, and a touchy-feely way of seeing the other side of things (see Jimmy Carter) are the key to quenching terror." Re-read, rehash, and re-asses your statements. I said that Gore has other priorities, and in point of fact thinks that global warming is a more proximate danger to humanity than terrorism. Since when does the phrase "Actions speak louder than words" suddenly fall into direpute? Gore is staking the whole ranch on cutey pie polar bears and ice formations as trumping the real dangers of hopping on a plane these days. As to Carter's "approach", it was in the plupart one of defining the issue as first, our fault, and second, an issue of growing pains for the third world we just have to tolerate unti economic development satiates other needs, or until Israel, which is already almost bisected in half, gives up more concessions and rights to the Palestinians, which as you know does no solving of anything. No other nation on earth can (or would be asked to) tolerate that Israel has had to put up with for some larger putative goal of peace... Having said THAT, the Chinese do claim that taking no action IS an action, and in INaction we have the Team Clinton's (and before him, the legal morass and embarrassments of Carter that lead to Afghanistan et al) "response." That might be where Dr. Dembski was going. It is a comparitive; Gore does indeed claim, as do many of his ideological cohorts, that Bush is "obsessed" with terror. So am I. I am tired of their hooded visages on TV and reports of yet more schoolgirls being blown to dime sized chunks at the local fruit market in Baghdad or on a bus in Tel Aviv. Unlike Gore's tenure, under Bush the terrorists have been utterly decimated. Comparisons are always incomplete, but were they an actual army, their numbers would suffer more than in the last days of Tojo. http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2006/02/reality-vs.htmlS Wakefield Tolbert
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Mr. Dembski, in his initial post, says that Gore "bemoans Bush's intolerance of terrorism," thereby seeming to state that Gore suggests we should tolerate terrorism. He patently does not. Mr. Tolbert, in trying to defend these statements, you cite failures of both the Bush and Clinton administrations in combating terrorism, and as for Carter and Gore, you cite different approaches in combating terrorism, whether we agree with them or not. Of course you cannot cite anywhere where Gore suggests we should tolerate terrorism, because he has never suggested that and doesn't feel that way. I'm afraid I'm beginning to suspect that this entire post is simply an attempt to stir up Gore-hating reactionaries, who somehow seem to be a large part of the base support for intelligent design, for some reason.Achilles25
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
(24) Allowance for the complete annihilation and destruction of Israel it is then, in celebration of two main items: (1) Your very incorrect assumption that I am not familiar with lew and co., and.. (2) ..we will have a better world if only certain entire nations just step out of the way to make way for the wonderous ways of Allah's will. Amazing indeed.S Wakefield Tolbert
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Achilles25 @ 16 wrote: Angryoldfatman, you point me to some republicans in the National Review calling Gore “wonky” for his environmental concern and conclude from that that Gore advocates the toleration of terrorism? That’s quite the logical leap, and I remain unconvinced. Please note the person being quoted using the word "wonkish" in the article. It is George Tenet, and it is from his new book At the Center of the Storm. Tenet was appointed by Clinton and is far from a Republican shill. He went on "60 Minutes" recently to talk about how his books rips on the Bush Administration. Not such a logical leap, but no doubt you will remain unconvinced. That's okay, because global warming is practically a religious issue for some people.angryoldfatman
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
The ad hominem referred to is with regards to your blithe dismissal of the content of the link to Lewrockwell.com without so much as glancing at the content! Amazing!\jaredl
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
And with that breathtaking demonstration of the ever-popular ad hominem, I have really nothing to say to you, dear Sir Tolbert. You think you have the right and obligation to make the world a better place, by force of arms; your enemies think likewise, and have courage sufficient to die exercising that right; and you have made your enemies MY enemies by your lust for vengeance, blood, power, and conquest. I think you're all nuts; I prefer to live in a reality-based community.jaredl
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Interestingly, people generally don’t do what they don’t have any reason to do. Ever hear of a term called "criminal activity"? If the word "need" is indicative of any reason to do something, there would be much more trouble in the world than there actually is.S Wakefield Tolbert
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Maybe, just maybe, if you quit screwing with them in their lands, they might, just might, not have much reason to screw with you in yours. Maybe indeed. And probably not, Jared. What would any of us give that the world is that simple a place? Back to hornets then? You don't bother them and so maybe they won't bother you? Wrong. Remember, Jared, hornets are known to sting on the mere PERCEPTION of danger. Like merely having your kids in the front yard playing. Even when the hornet nest is 50 yards away. The United States cannot simply divest from the entire planet and build a fortress America(we fail to do that due to political cowardice regarding our own southern borders). Perhaps if Israel would be allowed to be destroyed by the Palestinain peace brigades and the Muslim warriors (not satisfied that Islam now circumnavigates the globe). That's the MAIN issue that people mention in the "unscrewing" of the world of Muslim affairs, because that's the prime source of the disagreement. And one heck of a price to pay. Maybe you're right. Shall we do that, then? But terror experts like Ray Cline and Yonah Alexander among many others doubt that even THAT horrific sacrifice would not satiate the Allah Knows Best crowd. Thus for example in this primitive view Daily Kos posts articles with titles like "Imagine a world without Israel"--so this tiny speck of land, 45 minutes driving time across the widest point, is the woe of modernity, to hear the problem from some people. There is no relative moral point. There is simply the moral point. To me the word "relative" is someone for whom you cook Sunday dinner. You divide the swamps critters from the act of swamp-draining.That's how you make meaningful distinctions and advance the living opporutnity of modern civilization rather than pay homage to 10th century clerics. This is not a schoolyard spat where "both sides" are responsible and get sent to the Principal's office. You cleanse the swamps of the crocodiles and mosquitoes. Then, and only then, people can live in peace. I told you already, response to terror is not the moral equivalent of terror itself. If it were equal standing or relative, then we'd have to outlaw all police action, and declare that if someone busts you across the jaw on the street you'd get the blame for not showing brotherly love in response or the very fact that you stood there is YOUR fault. Else we'd all be either the subjects of either Tojo or Hitler or Chairman Mao's little red brevities--in order to avoid "conflict" and bloodshed. And lewrockwell is a strange bird, a publishing house for libertarian kooks who think Lincoln was a criminal (see Thomas DiLorenzo for this weird and terrible take on history), and the South was a beloved country of happy slaves that would have gotten rid of slavery in a few months time had the ugly men in blue not "disturbed" them with high tariffs and provocations. LR is that brand of libertarianism that is the hippy version of the far right. Leftists think man is directed by "labor input" forces beyond his control, ignore the operation of human thought, and that peace and happiness ensue when class distinctions are eliminated. Libertarians think man should rather become homo economicus and take the Ayn Randian view that man should be guided merely by the Dow Jones, highlight class distinctions, and economics alone is the key to good relations for all. Both extremists miss other human elements, and like FDR said, the extremist is the man whose feet are planted firmly in the air. Cheers, SWTS Wakefield Tolbert
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
I think Gore might be a better president than the whom one I predict will be the next president. Video of The Next President of the USAscordova
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Dear #10: All things being the same, Jared, if you please, I choose a government that actually responds somehow, to men screaming for their lives on some ghoulish download.... I choose such a government too - one that stays out of the internal affairs of other nations. After all, it was meddling with the internal affairs of other nations which led directly to these beheadings. Maybe, just maybe, if you quit screwing with them in their lands, they might, just might, not have much reason to screw with you in yours. Interestingly, people generally don't do what they don't have any reason to do. Ah, but they hate us because of our freedoms, right? Wrong. If you can thirst for bloodshed and vengeance, why can't our enemies - who are also in the image of God, and for whose sins Christ was also slain - do likewise for their perceived wrongs? And on what relevant moral point do I divide the two groups of bloodthirsty avengers? Is there anything which divides them, except their countries of origin?jaredl
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Webwanderer: You are correct in that Gore has staked his entire reputation on Anthropogenic Global Warming as being THE cause celebre. And it IS noteworthy that not quite so much attention was given this issue while HIS particular Commander-in-Chief was in office. Only when Republicans take the Oval Office does this kind of thing suddenly reach "crisis" proportion even against the ugly backdrop of terrorism. And quite SUDDENLY we get ill reports about polar bears and GW being the proximate cause of increased hurricane intensity and frequency (caused by Bush's rejection of Kyoto). Really now. This was shown to be false but the damage is done. We had media lies about human bodies stacked up like winter firewood piles due to global warming and Katrina, never minding this was blarney and N'awlins being lower than sea level had something to do with the damage per se as would be the case in ANY large scale storm. Achilles: You might not think NR alone has the goods, but more than one security expert has questioned the fact that while most of the blame for the more recent unpleasantness of terror operations has fallen at the feet of Team Bush, it can only be that the planning stages of 911 were mostly carried out under Clinton. Gore of course would NEVER say, nor his supporters, that he and Clinton never "did" anything about terrorism even through his and Clinton's lackluster response to earlier provocations from men like Bin Laden. Yet as I agreed with Webwanderer, Gore has said that Global conflagration--which is probably more of a Laodecian hellfire--trumps terror as being the biggest danger to humanity. Wow. Yet no one has been confirmed dead from Global Warming. Hmm. Gore is playing a Vegas double-or-nothing and has put everything on Global Warming to try and resurrect his flagging image. If GW is shown to be hooey, Gore is history, and he knows it. He has nothing else. Nothing. All the cards are now on the table. I would not say that Gore has framed this as saying that terrorism is not a concern or that he suggests we should "tolerate" it, but actions and obsessions DO speak to one's priorities. And in fact many of Gore's ideology do in point of fact think that negotiation, the UN's brilliance, and a touchy-feely way of seeing the other side of things (see Jimmy Carter) are the key to quenching terror. The real "Inconvenient Truth" for Gore is that this will not work against those who make the kinds of demands they do. Like, for example, the utter extinction of Western secular society. If the Mogadishu fits, you must wear it.S Wakefield Tolbert
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Gore seems to miss the irony in all this. He bemoans Bush’s intolerance of terrorism and Bush’s willingness to use torture to bring terrorists to heel, and yet is ready to be intolerant of anyone who violates his “rule of reason.” Question: Which would you rather live under: intolerance of terrorism or intolerance of the rule of reason?
Hmm. I don't see how refusing to torture and disappear people at will involves "tolerating" terrorism; the United States has dealt with plenty of threats in its time, and has managed to make it through without doing a Pinochet. Also, I don't see how torturing and disappearing people (apparently people against whom there's not enough evidence to support a court case) will "bring [them] to heel"; have the disappearance and subsequent gruesome deaths of soldiers captured by terrorists brought the U.S. "to heel"? Finally, if you can't tell the difference between saying, "that's not real science, and should be laughed out of the room", and torturing someone, I urge you to volunteer to switch places with a guest at one of those secret CIA prisons, where I'm pretty sure no one will criticize you on your science or lack thereof.grendelkhan
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Angryoldfatman, you point me to some republicans in the National Review calling Gore "wonky" for his environmental concern and conclude from that that Gore advocates the toleration of terrorism? That's quite the logical leap, and I remain unconvinced.Achilles25
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
"We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth." Was he refering to studies regarding ToE ?...Sladjo
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Achilles25,
Hoekstra and other Republicans worry that Democrats want to return intelligence policy to a time in the 1990s when the Clinton administration established what was known as the DCI Environmental Center within the CIA. The Center used satellite spying resources to track environmental matters. “They took pictures of volcanoes and sea turtle nests and took air samples of air pollution, as opposed to checking for traces of biological or chemical weapons, and it was all done at the behest of Al Gore,” says one Republican knowledgeable about intelligence affairs. Former CIA director George Tenet mentions Gore’s environmental emphasis in his new book, At the Center of the Storm. “True to his interests, [Gore] had a fascination for wonkish issues,” Tenet writes. “He asked lots of questions about the impact on national security of water shortages, disease and environmental concerns.” Tenet reveals that some inside the CIA derided Gore’s priorities as “bugs and bunnies.” “We started allocating precious intelligence resources to environmental issues just as al Qaeda was on the upswing,” says Rep. Hoekstra. “We were becoming politically correct. My fear is that we’re going back to the same place.”
Linkangryoldfatman
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Are you suggesting that Gore thinks we should tolerate terrorism, because somehow I doubt that.Achilles25
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Sounds like the next great debate should be on the "definition" of reason and the rule thereof. I'd buy tickets to such a debate. Al Gore on one side and someone with integrity on the other.Webwanderer
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Gore should be therefore stopped in his own rejecting and distorting science. It's all political agenda to him so that he, and his sci-fi puppets and pushers, can apply their version of the Hegelian dialectic for personal power purposes.Borne
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Jared. Presumably you're talking about the terrorists being hornets? Or did you mean something else? I am bursting with anticipation of yet another anthropomorphic moment in social studies here. Akin to Paul Ehrlich saying that humans breed like rats. And we--and little else--"caused" them to have the notions that we must step out of their way, allow clitoral mutilation and headnipping in the holy name of Allah, allow Israel to be pushed into the sea ? And then as an extra measure of good will and PC tolerance that Al Gore allows as being "more reasonable" than actually responding to 3000 people being crushed and burned alive, we do nothing but defer to Jimmy Carter's sage advice and the UN? Is that where you might be going? And loving your enemies is a prescription for interpersonal relationships. Not strategy for defending the nation. Which the apostle Paul (last I checked, still on the roster of canonical texts and writers) later clarified "render to Caesar what is Caesars". It is NOT all about taxes, which the Religious Left has not gotten a clue yet. It is about honoring the decisions of even secular leaders. That is Paul's commandment to followers under even the Romans. And Christ himself never said "behold, hencefore ye shall not be soldiers." Nations have the right--and the duty, in fact--to defend themselves. Christian charity is not demonstrated by allowing gory snuff films produced in whatever Islmamburg to go unpunished, nor in allowing radical Islam to sprout up everywhere and make demands on secular society. One would think, as Christopher Hitchens has penned, that liberals and secular types would understand this the best but they heed it the least. Osama bin Laden and Co. are not some radical wing of the NEA nor preach the Vagina Monologues for social interaction. You'd think an attack on Manhattan of all places, would bring that point home. There is no contradiction in having to go to war and being peaceful to one's immediate neighbors and acquaintances. In fact it can be said that a world completely the opposite of demonstrating love and charity would be the result of one gone rampant with terror and lawlessness. The latter two of which the Scriptures cannot be said to approve of either. God ordained the military to respond in the same way police do on the domestic front. I have NEVER heard some sarcastic Leftist use "turn the other cheek" to apply to eliminating local police forces and rules for communities, etc. As CS Lewis said, not all killing is murder any more than all sex is rape. In Paul's time there were local magistrates and police types just as we have today. BTW--Andrea Dworkin was not the author of the book of Romans. All things being the same, Jared, if you please, I choose a government that actually responds somehow, to men screaming for their lives on some ghoulish download over one that occasionally missteps on a theoretical melting of Santa's home and cuddly bears not getting enough seal meat.S Wakefield Tolbert
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
It's very much debatable whether George W. Bush is "intolerant of terrorism". Potentially torturing people who are not terrorists could be called terrorism (and by the standard definition of terrorism, it should be). But I agree with the first sentiment presented here. Any attempt towards a real debate on the issues of science Gore is concerned about would be considered to be intolerant towards "real" science as he sees it. That's why he feels it necessary to "stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science". Which means stifling debate on issues where the "true scientists" have already determined what is science and what is "pseudo-science".DanielJ
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Oops. Bad editing. The former comment should read. The French demonstrated that the latter intolerance inevitably dictates the need for the former intolerance. By that time, the ultimate intolerance is necessary.angryoldfatman
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Question: Which would you rather live under: intolerance of terrorism or intolerance of the rule of reason? The French demonstrated that the latter intolerance inevitably the need for the former intolerance. Unfortunately, by that time the ultimate intolerance is necessary.angryoldfatman
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Jaredl: How is it that when Europeans/North Americans commit atrocities in response to alleged political grievances we are outraged. But when third world peoples do so, we blame ourselves? Is it not because we consider them somehow less morally accountable, like children?russ
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Wow! That should be easy. For how shall we live if we’re tolerant of terrorists? And how can we be free if we won’t tolerate descent? No, I’d far rather live under Bush’s intolerance of terrorism than Gore’s intolerance of those intolerant of his “rule of reason”. But wait! Modernism—which wouldn’t let the Deity in the door—has transmogrified into postmodernism which won’t let any kind of reason in the door. Now that reality is a social construct and language is only a propaganda tool—how much longer can we live in liberty?Rude
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Gore seems to miss the irony in all this. He bemoans Bush’s intolerance of terrorism and Bush’s willingness to use torture to bring terrorists to heel, and yet is ready to be intolerant of anyone who violates his “rule of reason.” Question: Which would you rather live under: intolerance of terrorism or intolerance of the rule of reason? I dunno, WmAD, I kinda look amiss at people who throw stones at hornets' nests and acting stupid when they attack you. So much for "lov[ing] your enemies, bless[ing] them that curse you, and do[ing] good to them that hate you." I haven't missed the irony there.jaredl
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Didn't you know? the tolerance mantra really means "tolerate me".Jon Jackson
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason Title would make more sense if you took out the "The". In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. Sounds like he's regretting inventing the internet.tribune7
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
Sounds like the old "there's no absolutes" mantra. "Absolutely there's no absolutes!!!!"vpr
May 21, 2007
May
05
May
21
21
2007
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply