To Robert Spencer and Donald Trump, Toleration is Good for All, or is Good for No One

Robert Spencer
Robert Spencer

Galatians 5:13-15

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

In reading this morning Robert Spencer’s op-ed on free speech during this campaign cycle, the acts of Tarzan and political indignation arose with the repugnant stenches of first intolerance, then complicity in aligning with one side over the other and finally, misapplying the First Amendment so as to favor one’s own agenda under populism by stifling the rest.

I am reminded of one highly profound, thematic quote by Edmund Burke asserting that “Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.” Total, unabated, coercive liberty by one body against others will result in the chaos, confusion and uncertainty that define what it is that the layperson associates when defining anarchy.

“There is, however,” wrote Burke, “a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.” Toleration, or tolerance, is a necessary good and evil in any civil society. It is folly to assume, however, that toleration at bayonet point or through the scourge of political correctness and legal coercion will yield the desired result the consensus for change may bring.

Thus, “It is a general popular error,” asserted Burke, “to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare.” If Christianity teaches tolerance in the Bible, it is not necessary in Christian America that we should sacrifice it in order to maintain societal civility. However, “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Rather, to err by forcing the separation between liberty and justice will result in neither being safe. One can never coerce entire populations, let alone the individual, in legally being free. Such oxymoronic juxtaposition of those words by Jean Jacques Rousseau contradict their equally separate natures by permitting the violation of one in order that the aggressor may thrive.

It was none other than the British ex-patriot Thomas Paine whose advocacy for anarchy in his oft disregarded treatise supporting the French Revolution The Rights of Man (1791) was the prescription of mob rule through violence. And because the “tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny,” Burke taught conservatives for all time that “A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words.” It is thus to be expected that those who are undermined and marginalized in civil society will soon find it difficult to still their tongues and temper their passions before they prepare to cut out the tongues of the worms persecuting them.

Apparently the anti Sharia law activist Robert Spencer has no qualm with the forced removal of Rose Hamid — a Muslim activist with ties to pro-Palestinian organizations — and her atheist friend, a known communist Jew at her side as they peacefully protested before thousands of hostile Trump supporters during a campaign rally in January, nor does Mr. Spencer hold in any demonstrable contempt regarding Mr. Trump’s frequent instructions to his supporters to assault and intimidate anyone who protests or opposes him publicly, of how he cursed a man who criticized the poor example he sets for children due to his behavior and vulgarity.

And what of Mr. Trump’s tacit support for the Ku Klux Klan, White GeNOcide Project, American Renaissance and its leader Jared Taylor recording robocalls on his behalf in Iowa? How Trump’s campaign has a history of representatives from the KKK arriving at polling stations such as in Nevada to intimidate voters into either leaving the facility or voting for Trump, or simply shredding ballots cast in favor of an opponent as his own supporters vote like any good Democrat: early and often? Or how the anti-jihad activist condones Mr. Trump for two months openly instructing supporters to pledge to him to attack his foes, even promising to bail them out of jail as a token of his appreciation for their sacrifice on his behalf?

Yes, violent militant left-wing mobs are accelerating their practice to disrupt Mr. Trump’s right to freely speak. It is also true that these militant left-wing mobs picket outside each facility. What is inconvenient to both Mr. Trump and Mr. Spencer, however, is that each organization had planned these activities for in some cases, weeks; the rally in Chicago had been announced days in advance, with the facility empty well before the time Trump was scheduled to speak. As one Trump supporter residing in the Chicagoland area named Debi Patrick told CNN, more security should have been planned for the event. But too, Ms. Patrick admirably asserted that people are ultimately responsible for their own behavior.

Yet is it better or worse for Mr. Trump to violently toss out Ms. Hamid and her Marxist-Jew friend who did not violently protest? Was it just that a black woman at a Trump rally in Louisville, Kentucky was forcefully removed just for being black, while being laced with vicious racial epithets? And what of the black man in Fayetteville, NC, brutally beaten by a 78 year old white man as he and his entourage were being forced to exit, who later said after the incident caught on film that “We might have to kill him next time”?

And what of Mr. Trump inciting his people to riot should he not earn the nomination? What if Mr. Trump is elected, then immediately expands libel laws that would not merely end Robert Spencer’s career, but result in massive lawsuits, possible prison time, draconian confiscatory wage garnishments by the IRS and perhaps his own property being seized via eminent domain laws? Will Mr. Spencer then object to he and his family being slain by a Trump administration declaring him to be a “domestic terrorist” as with rancher LaVoy Finchum, executed as one by President Obama’s own federal law enforcement?

It is disingenuous for Mr. Spencer to refuse addressing the dearth of self-accountability that includes associating anyone and his policies by the company he keeps. The manner in which Mr. Trump long ago rejected civil political discourse in favor of directly promoting and ordering acts of violence while siding historically with Marxist elements of the Democratic Party who exploit these hostilities through class warfare is hypocritical. A just man will condemn both or none, not simply the one candidate, Ted Cruz, who he blames for every setback.

After all, George Soros is not the lone billionaire funding these militant extremists to protest outside Trump rallies. The other is Donald Trump himself, doing so at no cost to him but the money to book facilities as he instructs his followers to assault Bernie Sanders violently in retaliation.

This is now our winter of discontent, grounded in “tit-for-tat” class warfare by the far left and Donald Trump’s nationalist quest for racial and ethnic purification. No matter which side wins, we each lose to our detriment. We have forgotten as patriots we were once ladies and gentlemen of principle who rebelled against a king and his bad laws. We are now ruined, a people fallen prey to our “natural propensities” reflected by the men and women of ill-virtue we elect.

Advertisements

Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s