The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Note on Toleration -- Religious and Political
A brief reflection in light of yesterday's assassination and the political moment.
At times like this it is worth considering and reflecting upon the history and principles of religious toleration. We often lost sight of just how demanding and challenging calls for religious toleration were in prior times.
Religious toleration was not about being nice to people with different customs or holidays, let alone approving or affirming them, but something far more profound. At heart, religious toleration was about sharing civic space with those who disagreed profoundly about the most fundamental questions of human nature and morality, who rejected divinity and truth, who spread heresy and threatened the eternal damnation of immortal souls. For a religious people, the stakes could not have been higher, and yet toleration was called for.
It may be hard to fully comprehend what principles of religious toleration demanded, but it matters. If a religious adherent could be asked to tolerate those of another faith--those who are, by definition, profoundly wrong--we should be able to tolerate those who disagree about mere matters of politics or policy. Indeed, even if--or especially if--politics has supplanted religion for many people, toleration is essential for a free, diverse, and democratic republic to survive.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
We made the mistake of tolerating people who do not tolerate us. They've buttressed themselves with cognitive tricks like "The Paradox of Tolerance" and their incessant protestations of being "On the Right Side of History", "Saving Democracy", or "Saving the Planet", "Speech is Violence", so they have no moral guardrails that would enable them to live a society that's made up of opinions and beliefs that are counter to their own. "By Any Means Necessary" they chant.
Calls for unity are no longer appropriate. Demands for government action against the menace of Democrat Supremacy and the safety of lives are what's appropriate.
Deplatforming for political reasons applies to you too.
Change my mind.
Why would I do that? When Democrat Supremacists were in charge they did everything they could to deplatform and debank people like me.
They are doing that now in the UK.
The time for principles that only bind your side is over. Power matters. Right now it's in my favor, tomorrow it may not be. You standing on your principles today aren't going to save you tomorrow.
The smart play is to leverage your power today so you can be safe tomorrow.
The point SGT is trying to make (and that you're avoiding) is that if you allow government the power to deplatform your political opponents, then no matter how vile they are (or were), you've set a precedent that will be used against you, too.
Policy choices that pay no attention to future consequences are every bit as stupid as choices that ignore the present.
It already was and already has.
Democrat Supremacists not facing any consequences of their actions due to your principled restraint is a suicide compact I refuse to participate in.
Your principles today will not save you tomorrow. We have two recent decades of proof of this. My principles include justice, righteous anger, and self preservation.
Yours seem to primarily center around being seen as a "nice guy" by people who hate you and will cheer your death just as loudly as they are Charlie's.
You seem to think murdering Charlie Kirk was a travesty, yet you argue here against everything he stood for -- change my mind, persuasion instead of coercion.
Change my mind.
(you won't even try)
I don't care to change your mind. I've already expanded and explained my reasoning to you several times, even before you said "(you won't even try)".
You are an adult and you are capable of assessing your environment and squaring what you see with your own morals and values.
You are free to burn the coal, if you're willing to pay the toll.
Your outrage at Charlie Kirk's death is contrary to everything he stood for.
Why are you so afraid to address what Charlie Kirk stood for?
You seem to think you can somehow "win" by persecuting Democrats. You can't.
Democrats overreached while we were in power and it cost us. Trump is going 100x beyond what Democrats ever dreamed. This won't end well politically for you.
Your only hope is that Democrats are more forgiving than you are (despite your hypocritical peans to Christianity). Fortunately we are. The left isn't nearly as driven by ideology as the right. We'll find a way to move on.
The next Democrat presidency is going to be a reign of terror regardless of what Trump does. It started with Obama and accelerated under Biden.
The next one is going be an American Mao, or Lenin or some other Democrat Supremacist ruler and millions will be slaughtered.
>Your only hope is that Democrats are more forgiving than you are (despite your hypocritical peans to Christianity).
Why would I hope for something that they aren't biologically capable of? I don't have any hope for any Democrat Supremacist. I expect the Democrats to be worse then they were under Biden and enough is enough and Democrat Supremacists need to be held accountable.
Accountability will stop these demons. You want unity. And for that you forsake accountability and justice. But what do demons do when they aren't held accountable?
That's exactly what Democrats said about Trump. You're failing to grasp that you are what you hate, only worse.
I thought Biden should've pardoned Trump at the time. We won't make the same mistake again, especially after watching you fall even harder into the same trap.
You're failing to consider any context.
Before there was TDS, there was BDS. Could you imagine that now? As milquetoast as Bush was, the Democrat Supremacists were just as deranged. Think of the news before Dan Rather's "Fake but Accurate" fall from grace and the news since.
Being principled while the other side isn't, has got us to where we are today. They aren't going to stop no matter how we behave. Your approach doesn't work. We are living in the evidence of it's failure.
It's time for a new approach. One that has a non-zero chance of succeeding.
Oh give me a break on TDS / BDS. You guys were even worse with your BDS and ODS.
You have BDS and ODS just a few comments up!
Being principled...
When have you ever tried being principled? Are you going back to 2008 here?
You might find out it works pretty well if you actually tried it. Imagine that, the American constitution could actually be worthwhile for you to take seriously!
And let's not forget HDS! Pizzagate, anyone? Now that's a Derangement Syndrome.
Let's say you and both agree in our heart of hearts that playing chess is the absolutely most moral way to solve problems between the two of us.
The better chess player wins the argument.
You and I sit down to play chess and after a few moves, I make a move and then punch you in the face. Another move passes, another punch in the face. A third, now your nose is bloodied and your eye is swollen.
Are you going to continue to sit there and abide by the rules of chess and make your next move on the chess board? Or do you accept both sides aren't playing by the same rule set and change your strategy?
"I know you are but what am I?" was not a clever retort when Pee Wee Herman said it, and it hasn't gotten any more so in the meantime, LexAquila.
Stop beclowning yourself.
Are you going to continue to sit there and abide by the rules of chess and make your next move on the chess board?
Yes, if it means I win the chess game. Which it does.
Obvious troll is obvious.
"Change my mind."
Paging Dr. Frankenstein, brain transplant in OR 6.
As a practical matter, I believe religious toleration came about because it was the only way to buy civic peace. Afterwards other rationales took over, but I think that's how it got started.
Civic peace is a pretty valuable good. I suspect it only stops looking valuable when people start to think that they can outright prevail, and so don't HAVE to peacefully co-exist with their foes.
I've long suspected that some of the current pathologies of our culture are due to self-sorting on the internet leading people to think their own views are actually much more dominant than they genuinely are, because almost everybody they're exposed to agrees with them. You can see how thinking your own views are really dominant could lead to thinking they could move from dominant to triumphant...
Huh. This is quite weird.
On the one hand, I actually 100% agree with what your wrote (I'd go further, noting that while certain seeds were planted in the '90s, you can almost see the concomitant rise of division, anger, and a lack of self-awareness by charting both the growth of the internet and more specifically the growth of social media platforms; I left Facebook in 2009, and that was the best decision I ever made).
On the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that while I agree with what you wrote, you probably have a completely different conception of what it means than I do.
Why not tell us what it was that you agreed with ? And then using the Sarcastroian mind meld, what was in Brett's mind when he wrote it ?
FWIW I agree with Brett's comment, except to the extent that I don't. ie people respond to incentives, and if they miscalculate the situation their responses will sometimes be contrary to their interests.
But where I disagree is that people may lash out at their foes when they fear that they're losing, not just when they think they're winning.
Violence can be bred from lack of confidence as well as overconfidence.
I am indeed curious what different conception of what it means you think I might have.
I think that people, quite naturally, behave differently depending on where they perceive themselves to be on the spectrum from "Everybody agrees with me about this except for a few nutcases" to "Hardly anybody agrees with me about this." And depending on where they perceive the person they're disagreeing with to be sitting on that spectrum.
At the "I'm in the dominant majority" end of the spectrum, people don't self-censor, they expect to get their way about things, and they expect their foes to at least be circumspect about it.
At the "I'm in a tiny minority" end of the spectrum, people tend to self-censor, do not expect to get their way, and are thankful just to be tolerated.
Now, prior to the internet, we had a lot of preference falsification going on in the US, there were some quite common viewpoints that the media managed to make look like outlier viewpoints, there were minorities who were under the impression they were much smaller minorities than they really were, and there were minorities who thought they were majorities.
But, at least if people were mistaken about these things, they agreed on being mistaken, lived in a consensus reality, so the behavior of the people who mistakenly thought they were the majority and the behavior of the people who mistakenly thought they were the minority didn't much clash.
So, along comes the internet, and a lot of that preference falsification gets blown away, and it radically changed our politics. Great!
But then came the platformization of the internet, and the people running the platforms found it profitable to algorithmically sort their customers so that they'd better like what they were exposed to.
And, as a result, you got a weird sort of falsification where EVERYBODY thinks their viewpoint is the majority viewpoint. And everybody thinks their opponents are the minority viewpoint. Yeah, there have been some efforts to reimpose preference falsification, like skewed search results, but the internet is too heterogeneous for them to work well.
And it's clashes up the wazoo, because both sides of arguments think they're the dominant side, and act like it, and get pissed that the other side doesn't act like they're the minority side.
And I think that's what is driving the rising tide of rage.
I think we could lower the tide by getting people talking to people on the other side, and popping the bubbles, but people LIKE being in these sorts of bubbles, and generating them is pretty profitable, so that's hard to do.
Kirk was working on it, we really needed him. Even if popping bubbles makes people angry, it was and is the only way out of this dynamic.
Sure- look at how you framed things! I'll explain my different take very simply... do you know how I usually can tell a nutter? "I did my own research."
Yeah. Here's the thing. The vast majority of us are really bad at a bunch of things. We are bad at critical thinking. We are bad at self-assessment (self-awareness). And we are bad at estimating our own ability to understand things and recognize our own biases.
I think that a fair number of people actually realize this. They can point to someone else and say, "That person ... clearly that person fits in those categories!" But they can't recognize it in themselves.
We need to start there. Now, let's add the internet generally and social media specifically. Why social media? As you note, the internet (and social media) silos people. It creates a bunch of different effects-
1. If makes people believe that fringe beliefs are more mainstream than they are (if you are the only person in your town that believes X, it used to be that social norms and pressure would let you know that this was a fringe belief ... but now you have a worldwide community that connects you to all the people that believe x, reinforcing that belief).
2. BigTech monetizes the internet through engagement. And as we all know, one of the best drivers of engagement is anger.
3. In addition, through the use of algorithms and engagement models, people are often forced into "wormholes" that further escalate and radicalize them.
4. But then you combine all of this with what I first stated- even when you explain this to people, they will still insist that they aren't being affected!
So you have people in their bubbles, driven by anger and silo'd in their own worlds, believing that they are getting the "truth," while "the others" are the ones that are actually silo'd and getting angry and radicalized ... often because they are being the same BS.
Next, add the accountability factor. Not to put you on the spot, Brett, but there have been several times I have specifically told you, after you've posted some piece of BS that you found, that you really need to change up your sources and how you discover them- and the best way to do that is by keeping track, for a short while, of the accuracy of what you're being told and then checking a little while later. To make sure that you're being given accurate information, and not just what you want to hear. You never took me up on that.
But that's a huge thing. The sources you are reading get money from engagement (often, from anger) ... not from accuracy. And there is almost no accountability in terms of accuracy (and in the larger world, we are seeing over and over that there is no accountability for "the truth" in any manner ... I hope you know what I'm talking about).
I saw a lot of this happen on the right early - and to be honest, I didn't even think it was a thing. QAnon? Pizza pedophile parties? All of it was so ... weird. Bizarre. Clearly untrue. I honestly thought it was so transparently a joke that it couldn't be believed, except for people that fell down the internet wormhole. In fact, it wasn't until the release of certain emails from Ginni Thomas that I realized ... oh. It's not just performative. People in power actually believe this? And I'm seeing the same scenario repeated on the left now - there isn't a single QAnon, but I'm seeing the same spread of conspiracy theories and radicalization that I saw before. It's scary AF.
Anyway, I don't know if there is a solution. I do my best for myself. I don't participate in social media. I view youtube sparingly and only through a VPN (used for all things) randomly selected to different countries and without a google account- and only for specific creators on topics that they are experts in that I trust. I use BBC News on occasion to know what is going on generally around the world, and have a few trusted news sources that I depend on.
When I want to know something specific about an event, I'll do a deep dive and identify source documents and specific experts that I know I can rely on and use those to inform myself.
And if I later learn that the people or news sources I used weren't accurate or sensationalized ... do you know what I do? I cut them out.
That kind of thing. Oh, and regular meditation and very little screen time on my phone.
That, plus mangoes is what works for me. Hope you find something that works for you. Because you can't control what the rest of the world does, but you can control what you do.
So, it's not so much that you disagree with my diagnosis, that you disagree with something you think is going on alongside it?
I try not to be taken in too much by this, I know damned well that I actually AM an outlier in a lot of my views. Not many people think drugs should be relegalized, or that machine gun ownership should be unregulated.
I'm less of an outlier on other views, such as that illegal aliens should be deported, or that women's sports should be limited to biological women.
Am I doing a perfect job of identifying which of my views are majority, and which aren't? Eh, probably not.
I wish there were enough info sources out there that I could just dump any source that ever got anything wrong. But just as bad are sources that will systematically refuse to cover certain topics.
So, IMO anyway, you have to tolerate a bit of noise, so that parts of the signal aren't cut off.
It's not that. Look, Brett, while we clash more than on occasion, I give credit where it is due. I agreed with what you said.
I do question (perhaps unfairly) if you are applying that full thought process to yourself, and if so, what you do about it to ensure that you're not falling victim to the same process that you believe is acting on others.
But as I wrote, you can only control what you do, not what others do.
Well, what I do about it is expose myself to a wide range of information sources which, frankly, are not terribly friendly to my own viewpoints. I regularly read Balkinization and Election Law Blog. I was a regular at Crooked Timber until they banned me for not criticizing some dude who I wasn't familiar with before looking him up, and I still read the site.
Honestly, I probably read more left-wing blogs than right wing.
Yeah, but it's not about exposing yourself to more partisan takes on the same issues. Don't get me wrong- it's good that you do that, better than not doing it.
But that's part of the problem. Viewing everything as a Manichean conflict- that all issues are either "your side," or what "the other side" is arguing about. But ... there's a whole world out there.
Let me give you an example. Say that there's an issue involving the Middle East. Well, there will be a "GOP" position. And then there will be (most likely the opposed) "Democratic" position.
But here's the thing- both positions will reflexively just be arguing with each other. Instead of looking at what they are constrained to argue by looking at those political arguments, why not look to information about the issue in question? What do sources ... in the area itself ... have to say? What do credible scholars of the area have to say? What are the actual issues there, and what are the people like (and what groups are they)? What is the history of the area, and of our involvement? What are the strategic interests of the US (not the partisan interests of the parties), and how are they best served long- and short-term.
That's what I'm talking about.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are argued about to score political points.
One of the ways you're being misled by your bubble, by the way, Brett, is what you think of your perceived enemies. For instance, I assume you picked these examples because you think they're controversial:
I'm less of an outlier on other views, such as that illegal aliens should be deported, or that women's sports should be limited to biological women.
The vast majority of people on the left think that illegal aliens should be deported and that (competitive) women's sports should be limited to biological women. Obama famously deported more people than Bush did or than Trump was on pace to do in his first term, for example.
I assume you don't actually believe we sacrifice babies in the basements of pizza parlors. You shouldn't believe all the other BS you hear about us either.
The left likes to point to racists like Roger and then claim that you're all just white supremacists. I assume you'd dispute that characterization. Well, please try not to do the same thing in reverse.
Under what definition of "vast majority"? A recent Pew poll pegged it at 45% (which was actually an 8% increase from just 3 years ago). Gallup's recent poll put it at 41%.
That survey just asked whether transgender athletes should be able to compete on their preferred team. If you ask specifically whether transgender women should be able to compete on women's teams, Democratic opposition rises to 67%.
https://nypost.com/2025/01/19/us-news/nyt-poll-finds-majority-of-democrats-oppose-transgender-athletes-in-womens-sports/
The exact wording of the Pew poll was: "Require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex at birth."
If Dems can't quite grasp the internal contradiction between opposing that and believing that "transgender women should be able to compete on women's teams" -- well, bless their hearts.
I can explain it to you if you're interested in actually knowing something vs. ignorant trolling.
You might have noticed that there are no sports that women are generally better at than men. Go go gadget testosterone, am I right?
Turns out there are a lot of lefties who recognize that women's sports serve different purposes in different contexts. They keep competitive sports competitive since men have a physical advantage. But in leisurely contexts, women's sports serve more of a socio-cultural role. Many of us recognize that trans women would ruin the competition in competitive sports, but that justification doesn't apply to leisure sports.
If you ask the poll question in terms of trans women playing in women's sports, that suggests the competitive context, since that's the one where women's sports matter but men's don't. No one cares if trans men play with the men, because they have a competitive disadvantage. But people generally agree that trans women shouldn't play with the normal females for fairness reasons.
If you ask the poll question in terms of trans people generally getting to play on their preferred teams, that suggests the leisure context, since that's the one where the concerns are the same in each direction. For sure, way fewer leftists think it makes sense to bar trans people in the leisure context than in the competitive context. The justification for it isn't nearly as reasonable.
Even more of a howler -- Gallup's recent poll showed a whopping 14% of Democrats supporting "deporting all immigrants living in the US illegally."
There's a big difference between "deport all aliens living in the US illegally" and "deport illegal aliens."
84% of Democrats think that at illegal aliens who've been charged with crimes should be deported, for example.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-support-deportation-depends-who-being-targeted
Wow, those original unqualified goalposts suddenly moved into the next county!
Sorry, the goalposts were never "all." You made that up.
The poll question I couldn't find would be like "illegal aliens who've been found removable by an immigration judge." That where I think the general consensus among liberals is at. It captures our main concern: lawfulness. "All illegal aliens in the whole country" sounds pretty lawless.
Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience by Jack Rakove discusses the development of free exercise of religion in this country. It includes a discussion of the growth of religious tolerance, including various methods used to keep the peace between religions.
We should not take these things for granted.
The problem is that government is too large to tolerate political losses. The federal government has grown far too powerful and intrusive to ignore. Letting one's political opponents wield that power is an existential threat.
The answer is to greatly reduce the size and scope of the federal government so that who gets elected becomes less important. So long as the power exists, toleration cannot.
Yes, but the problem below that is that government has no checks on its expansion. Even if it could be pared back now, even by 99%, it would bounce back because it has no external checks.
Yes, the paring back would have to be accompanied by new checking mechanisms, to replace the ones that got disabled to get us here.
So are we supposed to tolerate those who would destroy our ability to live in a tolerant society or not?
Political toleration and religious toleration are not analogous. The problem with Trump and his Regime isn't that they're wrong, but that they have the power to impose their intolerant views on the entire country, and thereby rob them of the opportunity to live in a tolerant (democratic, law-abiding, etc.) society.
And Biden didn't? Harris wouldn't have? Your beloved EU "leaders" are canceling elections and banning politicians who threaten their grip on power?
Biden did not an Harris would not have.
The Paradox of Tolerance guys!
lmao so predictable.
"So are we supposed to tolerate those who would destroy our ability to live in a tolerant society or not?"
Thank God! Those people would totally destroy our ability to live in a tolerant society.
For a second I was worried I was going to have to tolerate those people.
Thank God you found a loophole!
"So are we supposed to tolerate those who would destroy our ability to live in a tolerant society or not?"
I have killed zero progressives in spite of them trying to destroy our ability to live in a tolerant society. Seems the Right is still the tolerant ones.
"The problem with Trump and his Regime isn't that they're wrong, but that they have the power to impose their intolerant views on the entire country, and thereby rob them of the opportunity to live in a tolerant (democratic, law-abiding, etc.) society."
As opposed to his predecessor who labeled half the country domestic terrorists?
But under the US Constution, the paradox of tolerence kicks in under Brandenburg, where you don't have to tolerate advocation of violence that is directed at and likely to lead to imminent lawless action.
Thats seems like a decent line to draw, although we could always just draw it at actual violence.
Religions do not tolerate people other than their own, so why should we tolerate religion?
That's odd ... There's only one major religion I know of right now which makes it one's duty to kill believers of other religions.
That's not what hobe said. He said tolerate.
There are plenty of religions, including Christian sects that say other faiths are wrong and it's your duty to convert as many of them as possible to the Correct Path, lest they go to hell and you be of questionable devotion for your failure.
One of the things I'm quite proud about is how well we've navigated that issue of evangelical/exclusive faith and our secular pluralist government.
But see Judaism, among others.
In what sense does any religion in the US not tolerate people other than their own?
What is "their own"?
Muslims, for instance, tolerated Christians, Jews, and others when they ruled over the Middle East. The "people of the book" were okay with them. Not quite "their own" if somewhat in the same area.
As a general statement, it's false. Many religions promote interfaith harmony. They are least "tolerate" other religions.
"The "people of the book" were okay with them."
Well, that's certainly an anodyne way to describe dhimmitude.
In comparison to the Christian world at the time? Yes, tolerant as all heck.
History isn't a story of virtuous Christian countries and evil Muslim countries.
>In comparison to the Christian world at the time? Yes, tolerant as all heck.
You are gross. and ignorant.
A historian, I think Bernard Lewis, once compared the treatment of Jews under Muslims with that under Christians like this. (I paraphrase)
The situation of Jews under Muslim rule at its worst was never as bad as it was under Christian rule at its worst, nor, under Muslim rule at its best was it ever as good as it was under Christian rule at its best.
I think that captures a lot.
Yeah, that sounds almost right, with the proviso that Christian rule at its best is where Christianity wound up before ceasing to rule, and Muslim rule at it's worst is where Islam ended up before... Oh, wait, still rules.
That is to say, one experienced an upward arc, and eventually gave up on secular rule, the other a downward arc, and never gave up on secular rule.
His actual statement was a lot more nuanced and I'd say accurate:
"It is, of course, an intolerant idea, but it is a lot better than intolerance as such, and the limited but substantial tolerance accorded to Jews and other non-Muslim communities in the Muslim states until early modern times was certainly vastly better than anything that was available in Christendom."
The New Anti-Semitism, by Bernard Lewis
The statement you paraphrased only applied to conditions prior to, approximately, WWII. Since then, the situation of Jews under Muslim rule has gotten much, much worse than the worst under Christian rule. To the point of outright genocide.
Brett- remember the conversation, supra? Okay, try and apply your critical reasoning skills for just a second.
Imagine that a Muslim somewhere in the world tried to "Brettsplain" to you exactly what all Christians, everywhere, throughout all time ... believed. Because that Muslim ... well, he hadn't actually read the Old or New Testament. He didn't have any understanding of the various doctrinal branches of Christianity (Mormons and Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses all believe the same stuff, right?). But he read some stuff on the internet, and so he can tell you.
Would that be weird? It would, right? Now imagine he also confidently explains that Christians not only cannot loan money and charge interest, but also can't loan money and ask for the principal to be returned, 'cuz that's in the text. Which would seem to contradict, you know, reality almost everywhere (now).
Also weird? Kinda like ... what you're doing?
Look- no one is requiring that you actually can explain, know, or care about the differences between a Sunnis and Shia- or even understand what Ibadis are. Or why a Sunni in Indonesia is not the same as a Sunni from Saudi Arabia. Or what Sharia law actually is, and the difference between applying it overall, or the selected application of it in specific areas.
But maybe don't try and hold yourself out as an expert.
OK, imagine that, in the center of Judaism and Christianity, whole countries had few enough Jews or Christians that Guinness wouldn't be interested if they all stuffed themselves into a phone booth.
And imagine not thinking that said something meaningful about the religion that does control that area.
I don't have to imagine anything, Brett.
Serious question- do you travel much? Outside of the US? When was the last time you went to one of these countries you claim to know so much about? Pick one. Qatar. Bahrain. Saudi Arabia. Oman. The UAE. No? Jordan. Egypt. Any of them? Morocco?
But sure. Tell me about the religious persecution going on in Jordan. No? Oman. No?
Please, explain to me like I'm a slightly dumb golden retriever how you became an expert in these matters. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me what the actual religious fault lines are ... maybe Brettsplain to me the conflict in Yemen, and who is fighting who, and why it's a proxy war- between which forces, and why?
By the way, there are people that know more about this than me. But at least I know what I don't know. I am just amazed at how much confidence you have!
"Please, explain to me like I'm a slightly dumb golden retriever how you became an expert in these matters."
Next door neighbor in Michigan was a Christian refugee from Jordan. Nice guy, his wife used to come over once in a while to hit us up for grape leaves, our vine having impressively large leaves well suited for wrapping.
I'm seriously curious why you'd be driven to deny the reality of religious persecution in the Middle East.
Your virtuous center is eating itself.
Adler makes the case for tolerance. And you make the case for purification.
No, I'm making the case for being intolerant to intolerance. If there's one thing we learned from the 1930s, it should be that.
(Well, that and that tariff wars create misery, and that the gold standard is a terrible idea.)
I disagree with almost everything Mr. Kirk said and find a lot of his apparent beliefs abhorrent. But even more abhorrent is someone being killed solely because of his beliefs or the words he spoke.
It's also abhorrent to parcel out blame when we still have no idea who the killer is, or what the motive was.
They found casings with Democrat Supremacist carvings on it.
That does seem to be reported in multiple outlets.
And that makes you think... what exactly? I suppose it (mostly) rules out an angry ex-lover, but I don't think anyone was seriously entertaining that idea anyway.
Please try to avoid confirmation bias. I can't count how many times I've heard "false flag" claims whenever a right-wing atrocity is unfolding.
Makes me think that it's reported in multiple outlets, and that's all. I was confirming that much.
I could see a member of Trantifa doing this. I could see some right-wing nutcase doing it to implicate Trantifa. (Though the latter would be less likely to kill Kirk, nutcases gotta nutcase.)
What on earth are "Democrat Supremacist carvings"?
I have been a partisan Democrat for 51 years now (thanks to Prick Nixon more than any other factor), and I have never felt obliged to carve any message on anything.
Well, I've never been a Democrat, and I'd never carve anything into a rifle cartridge, either. We're talking about somebody who is clearly deranged, and deranged people do all sorts of stupid things.
I think until the guy can be identified, we won't know if it was misdirection or what.
Since I know nothing about the guy, other than that I vaguely recall his name as someone "on the right" - it would be useful if you could list three or four things that he said, or the apparent beliefs they betokened, that you found abhorrent.
There seems to be a bit of a "he was rather moderate" vibe around. Is this in error ?
"Rather moderate" probably depends on where you're standing on the political spectrum. I'd view him as having pretty standard MAGA views, which I don't really consider moderate but also acknowledge that a lot of people would consider his views "common sense".
To get beyond subjective views of "moderate" versus "conservative" versus "MAGA", here's a NYT article about his views on a few topics:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/charlie-kirk-views-guns-gender-climate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lE8.MvBj.FpuQ98VQp2uH&smid=url-share
"which I don't really consider moderate but also acknowledge that a lot of people would consider his views "common sense"."
I think that's a bit of a contradiction there. "Moderate" is defined in terms of the distribution of opinion in a society, and if a lot of people think a view is common sense, it unavoidable IS politically moderate.
Let's stress test that. Medicare for All often polls at above 50% support amongst the population; would you consider that a moderate proposal?
We live in a pretty polarized society. I think there's a lot of positions that might sound reasonable to a large chunk of the population that many others would consider to be extreme. Maybe that's part of the problem with the political dialogue today, but I don't think it's inherently contradictory.
Well, yeah. A lot of bad ideas are politically moderate, a lot of really good ideas are extremist.
I think you HAVE to measure extremism relative to the distribution of opinion in society, or it just devolves into "That guy really disagrees with me!"
Thanks for that, jb.
The NYT article looked, at first glance, rather like a NYT article, ie the NYT's recasting of Charlie Kirk's opinions into what the NYT would like to present them as. So I thought I'd waste 5 minutes checking my hypothesis on the one that looked weirdest - The Great Replacement Theory. And in about 30 seconds I found this :
https://thecharliekirkshow.com/podcasts/the-charlie-kirk-show/great-replacement-the-truth-behind-the-theory
And after a rather tiresome three minutes of ads and puffing of various kinds, we get to his actual views on TGRT, which seem to be that it's a lefty propaganda slogan that no one on the right ever heard of until the lefties made it up, and which is designed to portray anti-illegal immigrationism as racist, which it isn't.
My opinion of Mr Kirk remains inchoate, for want of information. My opinion of the NYT, not so much. But plainly they were / are in the same game - political persuasion.
I didn't listen to much of the 33-minute podcast. I did hear him claim that the GRT is an invention of the left which has nothing to do with the right. Now, that's a bald-faced lie. Has he heard of Charlottesville? He thinks the neo-Nazis carrying torches and yelling "The Jews will not replace us" are leftists? He thinks Robert Bowers was a leftist, or a fictional character?
No. He was just a standard issue RW liar and rabble-rouser.
I also read this on the site:
In light of the mass shooting in Buffalo, you've probably heard the term "Great Replacement Theory" recklessly thrown around by those on the left in a desperate attempt to pin the unthinkable violence of a single person on an entire political movement.
Gee. I'm glad to see he disapproved of trying "to pin the unthinkable violence of a single person on an entire political movement."
Maybe some of his admirers who comment here should take that to heart, and stop doing it.
The real liar is the one trying to lump neo-Nazis with mainstream GOP politics.
You have to be arguing in the worst faith possible. Nobody who considers themselves right of center talks about GRT. You have to proactively seek out neo-Nazis to find it. Neo-Nazis are a political hot potato. Nobody wants to be associated with them and others try to attribute them to their opponents.
We should not allow miscreants to define us. Neo-Nazis are actually very clear that they do not fit into the American right/left political spectrum. They don't care about being called liberal or conservative. They want to kill Jews and other minorities by any means necessary.
The fact you're even trying to bothsides this is sad. Nobody was celebrating Buffalo. Tons of people in very mainstream spaces are celebrating Kirk's assassination.
Did you read my comment?
I did not say that all Republicans subscribe to GRT.
I said that Kirk was lying when he said the left invented it. As you yourself point out it's held by neo-Nazis (Though, despite your claims, it's held by more people than that - turn on Tucker Carlson, and be aware that he has 3 million viewers.)
The fact you're even trying to bothsides this is sad.
I don't get your point, nor do I know what "this" is.
Tons of people in very mainstream spaces are celebrating Kirk's assassination.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I presume the Times was referring to this:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C3swagnvfbN/
The NYT article that jb posted now conatins a doozy of a correction :
A correction was made on Sept. 11, 2025 :
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.
Kirk is famous for being a "change my mind" guy.
Alcohol will set you back. Change my mind.
Or, "We need more electricians and less sociology majors".
"We need more electricians and less sociology majors".
Why? And who appointed him to decide? I thought conservatives were big fans of the market and free choice. Not when it produces results they don't like, it seems.
Why jump from the idea that we need less of something, to the assumption that you want free choice about it restricted? Doesn't that say more about you than Kirk, that it didn't occur to you he might think the answer was encouraging young people to pursue the trades, rather than mandating that they not major in sociology?
I don't know Kirk specifically, but the right has not been very into encouraging STEM.
They prefer defunding the programs it doesn't like, and sometimes insisting they're racist and punishing schools for having them.
"They prefer defunding the programs it doesn't like, and sometimes insisting they're racist and punishing schools for having them."
1. Why would you fund a program you don't like?
2. The left passed a landmark civil rights law denying funding to schools with racist programs. Why shouldn't it be enforced?
Do you have the context of the quote?
The quote was the context.
Sorry Lee, I hadn't seen your comment until now. I've thought about this, and read all the various comments during the day. I've come to believe that including negative comments about someone right after they've been murdered can be reasonably taken to be an insinuation that the murder was justified, no matter what caveats one amends to the comment. I wish I hadn't included those comments, and that's all I'll say. His family is suffering, and by comparison my opinion about his work is trivial and unimportant. At least for now.
While I appreciate the analogy to religious intolerance and violence of the past, politics has become the new religion (in the US. at least). This is no longer "mere politics or policy" for most people.
Naw. I disagree.
Politics is more akin to sports, or to put it in older terms, tribal identification, today.
In other words, people aren't looking to politics for the traditional reasons- because of their own principles. Because of a desire to fix problems. Because it's seen as a method of accomplishing goals.
Nope. It's purely rooting for one team, and against another. It's the same feeling you get when you look at a sports rivalry.
Or the deeper basis- a tribal identification. People look to politics to identify "their side," and "the other side," and that becomes a means to self-identify. Worse, everything starts to get viewed through those lens (in the same way a sports fan can only see holding committed by the other teams' offensive line, but not their own ... and if they do see their own team commit holding, it's okay because 'the other team got away with it so many times!').
I'd even argue that while religion and spirituality are separate, even they are viewed by many people through this new tribal lens.
I'd counter that for almost all of history religion has been the same tribal filter you're describing here. Spirituality is something else entirely.
...I'd quibble, but for a short response? Fair. I agree with the distinction between religion and spirituality, and I double-agree that religion has traditionally been the same tribal filter.
...that said, I think that the overall thrust of what I said remains correct re: politics.
Facts - is.
Ideology - ought.
Faith - metaphysical belief.
Tribalism can be cause by or influence any and all of these; that does not make them the same.
Prof. Adler,
Good libertarian attempt to re-write history. But, you know that the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses were directed at the state religions which enjoyed symbiotic relationships with European monarchs, feudal lords and the Holy See; not any specific religion other than Christianity; not "toleration" of belief systems other than Judaeo-Christian.
Although, separately, there is more than enough writings from the 18th and 19th centuries (including in the American Register) regarding the acknowledged threat that was then Moslems (a false religion (man-made theocracy) based on Mahomet's initial admiration of Judaism; which is why the co-opting of Jerusalem).
But, let yesterday's victim respond to your first point (<6mns; watch the whole clip, if you believe in "free-speech" and "religious freedom"):
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/09/11/the-incredible-articulation-of-charles-james-kirk/
And, here is a bit more -
https://apologeticspress.org/john-quincy-adams-on-islam-1142/
https://archive.org/details/p1americanannual29blunuoft/page/269/mode/1up?view=theater
The establishment clause was certainly aimed at prohibiting the federal government from messing around with state religions. The free exercise clause, not so much.
Huh, I guess some Democrats have guns too. Interesting.
Lots of democrats have guns, and many have armed guards.
It is only their opposition that needs to be defenseless.
Kirk was a Christian Nationalist, an Anti-Semitic intolerant hater.
Shooting him was terrible, and the killer should be brought to justice and condemned. Kirk should have been allowed to live because everyone is entitled to life. But that entitlement does not change what he was.
We can mourn the crime and not mourn the man.
amen
Charlie Kirk remembered as a bulwark against antisemitism on the right
So, what's the basis for claiming that he was an anti-Semitic intolerant hater? This, I guess.
"1- Jewish philanthropy “subsidising your own demise”
Shortly after Israel began its attack in Gaza in October 2023, Kirk claimed that Jewish philanthropy funding American universities was effectively “subsidising your own demise by supporting institutions that breed anti-Semites and endorse genocidal killers” — a framing that shifted blame onto Jewish donors themselves."
In fact, that's kind of 1-4, isn't it? Just various ways of saying that Jews have been funding their own enemies. I don't see how it's anti-Semitic to tell Jews to stop subsidizing anti-Semitic institutions...
"5- ‘Antisemitism is being misused to justify censorship’
Kirk argued that accusations of anti-Semitism were increasingly being weaponised to restrict debate.
“Once ‘antisemitism’ becomes valid grounds to censor or even imprison somebody, there will be frantic efforts to label all kinds of speech as antisemitic — the same way the left labeled all kinds of statements as ‘racist’ to justify silencing their opposition,” he said. “Not only that, but all of this won’t even work.”"
That's... true. Once you decide that anti-Semites don't get free speech, everybody who somebody wants silenced will be accused of anti-semitism. We DO already see that dynamic for racism.
I don't see how it's anti-Semitic to tell Jews to stop subsidizing anti-Semitic institutions...
Well, it does sort of suggest that we don't know what's good for us.
And there's more than that to Kirk's views.
"he also said that Jewish people control “not just the colleges; it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.”
Kirk defended Elon Musk on his show after the tech mogul responded “you have said the actual truth” to a user who had posted a reference to the “Great Replacement” theory, writing that Jews were “coming to the disturbing realization” that immigrants to the United States “don’t exactly like them too much.”
“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” said Kirk on his show, later adding that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”
He was close to Christian Nationalism. Whatever you want to say about that, the movement to "claim the country for Christ," is not friendly to Jews. Nor is Kirk's claim that the separation of church and state is a fabrication.
"it does sort of suggest that we don't know what's good for us."
~70% voted against Trump in 24. American Jews don't know what is good for us as a supermajority voted for someone who would not guarantee the safety of our relatives in Israel.
"Whatever you want to say about that, the movement to "claim the country for Christ," is not friendly to Jews"
Sure it is. American Evangelicals are the only people on Earth in recorded human history who have voluntarily tolerated, accepted and assisted Jews. It is the predominantly Christian USA that helped us make Israel a reality. It's the atheists, cultural Jews and various other minorities with the Free Palestine stickers.
We need a Christian USA. It's funny when the neo-Nazis invert the dynamics of GRT and suggest Israel has undue influence here. It's quite the opposite. The difference is we finally have a President that supports Israeli self determination.
"Well, it does sort of suggest that we don't know what's good for us."
Is this the sort of suggestion that's somehow barred? Suggesting that some group (that doesn't vote for Democrats) don't know what's good for them seems pretty routine to me.
Suggesting that some group (that doesn't vote for Democrats) don't know what's good for them seems pretty routine to me.
Change "Democrats" to "my party" and I agree. I mean, Trump regularly criticizes Jewish voters for not supporting him, and some Republicans level similar charges at blacks.
And, of course, all that is rightly regarded by those groups as a demeaning, disrespecting attitude.
Sure, I'm amenable to that change. I just included that parenthetical because I was thinking at that moment, "What's the matter with Kansas?".
It's perfectly ordinary that people find it disrespectful to suggest they're wrong about what's in their own interest. It is none the less routine, and perfectly legitimate to opine about.
Why do you say that?
The whole Christian Nation business, and Christian Dominionism, se no role for Jews in public life - only a sort of second class status, at best.
Kirk argued that accusations of anti-Semitism were increasingly being weaponised to restrict debate.
He was right, but it's Trump&Co. doing it.
And your death won't change who you are. So what?
MAGAs did an attempted coup. Trump ran a campaign based on fascism and hate. He runs his administration based on fascism and hate. He is actively dismantling the US as a free country. These are not ideas nor actions that are due any level of tolerance. It was tolerance and the continual framing of this as just another political disagreement that lead to the downfall of the US as a free country.
You are, without any doubt, batshit crazy.
You're also very angry. Like so many leftists are.
Team Anti-Trump tried their absolute damnedest to prosecute and imprison him. And you couldn't. Despite having the vast majority of the legal profession, including the courts, in lockstep with you.
The American people said no. And made him the president. Again.
And you people lost your collective minds.
And now we're all fascist nazis. Because you don't like the fact that all the bullshit you tried ended up failing. And I don't care.
All the pushback that is happening now, against trannies, lgbqabcxyzplus, illegal immigration run amok, USAID, all of it. You can't stand it or the people doing the pushing. Again, don't care.
Stay mad.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
The US largely turned its back on the ideal of tolerance in order to fight racism, sexism, homophobia, and maybe climate change denial, vaccine hesitancy, etc.
Whether or not that was a good idea remains to be seen.
This makes zero sense.
I thought it was easy to understand. Maybe you just believe in intolerance of racism, sexism, homophobia, and maybe climate change denial, vaccine hesitancy, etc.?
It would probably depend on what exactly is meant by intolerance. I would strongly support speaking out against someone espousing racism, sexism, and homophobia. I wouldn't support causing them physical harm or death. Does tolerance mean people espousing those things are free from pushback for their beliefs? Should the US not be fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia?
What are your examples of "intolerance" in those areas, tiny pianist? Strong disagreement? Sorry that doesn't cut the mustard, snowflake.
trannies have been shooting up Christian children for sport.