Recently Fox Personality Bill O’Reilly made an appearance on ABC’s day time talk show The View where discussion turned to the New York Mosque’s proposed location. I will not delve into the merits of the Mosque’s location, my purpose is to examine the hidden conflict in Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg’s frustrated argument.
Behar and Goldberg were essentially suggesting that because O’Reilly and anyone else opposed to the Mosque were failing to make the distinction between the “extremists” who attacked the World Trade Center and those who did not; that the terrorist’s religious affiliation was irrelevant to the issue (1). At one point early in the interview, referring to O’Reilly’s remarks that the right to the location of the Mosque is not in question, but rather the appropriateness of the location is, Goldberg says: “While it is part of our constitution to say freedom of religion and freedom to worship…” and goes on to say that there were 70 Muslim families who also suffered in the attacks. Behar at the same time can be heard saying “That’s so un-American”. The two were mistakenly equating the legality of an issue with the appropriateness of an issue.
Without actually using the words, Behar and Goldberg, I suspect, are accusing O’Reilly and those who hold the opinion the Mosque ought not be built on its proposed site, of being intolerant of Muslims in general and Islam specifically. The trouble with the implication, is that as they are furious with O’Reilly for failing to exercise tolerance towards the Muslim’s (and their own) view of the appropriateness of the Mosque location, they are at the same time showing an acerbic intolerance for O’Reilly’s view.
This is the end result of the new idea of tolerance. It is not a true tolerance. Both sides think their view is correct, otherwise there is no need for debate. But only one side is deemed intolerant, even thought they are both championing a point of view. How is it when O’Reilly thinks he is correct he is intolerant, but when Behar and Goldberg think they are right, they are just right? How do they escape the cut of their own sword?
In this interaction, Behar and Goldberg were so blinded by rage that their point of view was being opposed (made worse by their already infused hatred towards O’Reilly and political conservatism in general), that they walked off the set mid-interview, no doubt saying to themselves ‘how could he be so intolerant?’
The truth of the matter is, real tolerance is respectfully disagreeing with views which are opposite your own. It is showing respect for the individual who holds opposing view points without necessarily adopting their view. Tolerance does not mean embracing all views, or agreeing with opposing points of view. Attempting to persuade opposition to your own view is not intolerant. After all, we all think we are right, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Where Behar and Goldberg failed is that they do not recognize the true definition of tolerance.
____________________________
(1) See the related article: Religion Is Peace?, for why I believe the religious affiliation of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center is relevant to both the WTC event and the location of the Mosque
Sifting Reality 
I wonder if we could mix up politics with religion or religion with politics, but that was what happened since the birth of our only savior Jesus Christ (correct me if I am wrong because I am not a priest). It happens since King Herods looked for a baby (Jesus) to be killed in order to maintain his power. Today some people bring religion into politics even create war instead of peace. However I agree 100% with what you are saying John Barron, that:”Tolerance does not mean embracing all views, or agreeing with opposing points of view. Attempting to persuade opposition to your own view is also not intolerant”
Well, I am not sure if Herod knew of the religious implications of his intended actions. From the accounts it seems he had the Jewish understanding of how the Messiah would come the first time; as a conqueror. He was, it seems, protecting his crown so to speak, but acting on a religious prophesy. In that sense he was acting on a double edged sword, one with immediate political consequences if the Messiah was to conquer, at the same time possibly preventing the Savior from accomplishing His purpose.
I assume when you say “people bring religion into politics even to create war instead of peace” you are referring to religious wars? The wars fought between Muslims and whoever they sought to conquer, for example? In those cases, we need to examine what the religion teaches in respect to those actions. If individuals are acting in opposition to the teaching of the religion they are claiming the war in the name of, then we cannot blame the religion for the misdeeds of its followers. If on the other hand, the adherants are in accord of the teachings of the religion, then we are justified in condemning the religion itself.
Also, I believe ones religious worldview guides their political outlook. It shapes how you assign value, to people for example. Is every person of equal value regardless of certain attributes possessed or not possessed-is a question answered by your religious worldview and carried out by your political outlook.
Thank you for your input, I hope you continue to check in to my blog and offer more of your thoughts.