Price of Religious Tolerance

Finally. A few Western public figures are saying what many feel privately but dared not say publicly. Ex-Aussie PM Tony Abbott declared:

“(The West) can't remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam…Cultures are not all equal. We should be ready to proclaim the clear superiority of our culture to one that justifies killing people in the name of God.”

Now compare that with what Donald Trump said and it sounds almost tame! All he said was that the US stop allowing Muslim non-citizens into the US until lawmakers find a solution to this terrorism problem. Oh, in case you forgot, the US Congress already voted to disallow Syrian refugees from entering America!

Scott Adams writes a series of blogs on Trump’s persuasive skills. While Adams doesn’t always agree with Trump, he is quite impressed with the techniques employed. For example, he says that sooner or later another ISIS attack will happen. At that point, Adams says:

“You probably don’t know of any other plan. Your option for doing something (as opposed to nothing) comes down to Trump’s plan. It is the only plan you know, flawed as it is.”

Adams continues by asking the hard questions to those who are outraged by Trump’s proposal:

“I propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious intolerance…In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept (in the name of religious tolerance)?”

And, very correctly, Adams reminds those who might answer that question:

“Keep in mind that you are not offering to die for freedom, since your personal odds of dying in a terror attack are negligible. What you are offering is a higher risk that other people will die so you can live in a country with uncontested religious freedom.”

Did those questions make you squirm? But that is exactly how difficult this whole terrorism topic is: it is all very well to get all worked up about Christian and Hindu reactions nowadays, but as Adams says:

“If you plan to participate in this conversation, and you aren’t willing to put a price tag (in terms of American deaths) on your preference for maintaining religious open-mindedness, I will find it hard to take you seriously.”

So go ahead, come up with a number and try to justify why it is ok to put other people’s lives at risk just because you believe that all religions are the same?