Dance the Tolerance Shuffle

[UPDATE: It's curious that the gentleman who penned the following paragraph should now have removed his entry---especially since I did not link his piece. What? Could it be that he now finally recognizes the evil of the slaughter of the innocents? But if he claims that he was simply "thinking outloud" when he penned that piece, then why would he---ashamedly?---pull the post down (when I posted this originally, his entry was accessible via Google; now it is not). If I am thinking outloud, I am not definitively taking a stand. And I can update my post indicating more clearly that what I have written is a mental wrestling, rather than a definitive statement of what I believe. And if "nobody" reads your blog, Sir, then why bother Final Solutioning a post that's been quoted?]

Recently, I came across this at a blog: What if [Christians] try to pass anti-abortion laws to prevent me from having an abortion even when I believe that abortion is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against abortion then they shouldn’t have one. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-abortion laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs. [Emphasis in orginal]

I hear a similar rationale from another person: What if they try to pass anti-apartheid laws to prevent me from protecting my fellow whites, even when I believe that apartheid is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against apartheid, then they don't have to believe in it. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-apartheid laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

This chap totally agrees: What if they try to pass anti-racism laws to prevent me from saving my Volk, even when I believe that Aryan race-hygiene is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against racial purification, then they don't have to join the SS. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-racism laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

Hold on, a 4th party uses yet again the same argument: What if they try to pass anti-slavery laws to prevent me from owning slaves, even when I believe that owning slaves is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against slavery, then they don't have to own any slaves. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-slavery laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

Nothing new under the sun:

"Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow
nor regard the gray hairs of the aged.
But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless."
(Wisdom of Solomon, 2:10-11)