by Charles Platt
Both sides are claiming tolerance. The Mayor is all in favor of it (actually I assume he is just in favor of saying whatever gets him re-elected). The moslems are in favor of it, seeking merely to “reach out” (actually they are in favor of everyone becoming a moslem, because that’s what their spiritual force tells them).
How about opening a Moslem strip club? Call it “The 72 Virgins,” get a guy named Mohammed to run it, subtitle “The closest you can get to paradise without being killed by a suicide bomber.”
Now we have a measure by which we can assess tolerance as I understand the word. Will the pious Mayor and his First Amendment speech writer defend the right of the strip club to exist? No? Then he’s bogus. Do the Moslems endorse it as a powerful way of reaching out to the locals? No? Then they’re bogus. To the relatives of the dead find it acceptable? No? Then clearly they object to moslems, not strip clubs, and dead relatives are just an excuse for expressing their feelings.
Alas, “The 72 Virgins” would be firebombed within a week, if the cops didn’t close it first. But that, too, would be a statement about tolerance.
